Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

michaelmozina · Jul 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry. You made the assertion.  It is up to you to prove it. You cannot shift the burden of proof.  I may run out of font size options, since there are only finitely many choices.  But the onus remains on you.   I don't have to prove that magnetic connection is a real phenomena.  I have not said that it occurs.  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.  You on the other hand have made the positive assertion that magnetic reconnection does indeed violate Maxwell's equations.  You have said it several times, and never with proof.  Now I ask you to prove it.Put up or shut up. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><font size="7" color="#ff0000">Yawn. </font></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 · Jul 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yawn. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p><font face="Calibri" size="3">I think I may safely assume that your yawn is not indicative of an intention to retreat from dodging straightforward questions and posting nonsense, and that you intend to neither prove nor retract your statement that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell’s equations.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><strong><span style="font-family:Algerian">Whereas </span></strong><font face="Calibri">Michael Mozina has without foundation stated that the majority of astrophysicists have little or no knowledge of classical electrodynamics, despite the ubiquity of formal training in that discipline given to and expected of all professional physicists</font></font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><strong><span style="font-family:Algerian">Whereas </span></strong><font face="Calibri">Michael Mozina has espoused the hypothesis that the sun is powered, not by fusion, but rather by an external electrical current and has not addressed the prediction that such a current would result in a magnetic field millions of times greater than what is observed at the surface of the Earth, providing evidence of a disregard for Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism</font></font></p><font size="3"><strong><span style="font-family:Algerian">Whereas </span></strong><font face="Calibri">Michael Mozina has clearly and unequivocally stated that magnetic reconnection would violate Maxwell’s equations but has refused to exhibit such a violation<strong></strong></font></font> <p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><strong><span style="font-family:Algerian">Whereas</span><span><font face="Calibri">  </font></span></strong><font face="Calibri">Michael Mozina has repeatedly refused to provide substantiation for his claims, but rather makes vague references to irrelevant or discredited papers by Donald Scott or Ari Brynjolfsson and has never even attempted to demonstrate how the questionable content of those papers might conceivably support his own assertions regarding magnetic reconnection, nor has he in any other way provided any hint of a violation of Maxwell's equations by magnetic reconnection,</font></font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><strong><span style="font-family:Algerian">Whereas </span><span><font face="Calibri"> </font></span></strong><font face="Calibri">Michael Mozina has consistently avoided the onus of supporting his own assertions and has made the logical flaw of demanding that others instead support various straw man concepts that he has invented on their behalf,</font></font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><strong><span style="font-family:Algerian">It is therefore determined </span><font face="Calibri">, </font></strong><font face="Calibri">in my not so humble but certainly correct opinion, that Michael Mozina either cannot or will not support his views of the Electrical Universe using accepted principles of classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics, which he has stated are valid physical theories, and that therefore his assertions have no credibility.</font></font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><span style="font-family:Algerian"><strong>Be it Threfore resolved</strong> </span><font face="Calibri">that</font><span style="font-family:Algerian"> </span><font face="Calibri">unless and until Mr. Mozina chooses to act in the highest traditions of the scientific community and <span> </span>provide a valid and complete demonstration that magnetic reconnection does indeed violate at least one of the four equations of Maxwell, Mr. Mozina will be viewed as well and truly discredited, and his unsubstantiated assertions will be henceforth be deemed invalid and of no value.</font></font></p><font size="3"><span style="font-family:'ScriptMTBold'">DrRocket</span><font face="Calibri">.<span>  </span></font></font><span style="font-family:'ScriptMTBold'"></span><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vogon13 · Jul 27, 2008

<p>Here is the Reader's Digest condensed version of the above for those afflicted with attention deficit disorder:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Hey, Mike:</p><p>STFU!</p><p> </p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think I may safely assume that your yawn is not indicative of an intention to retreat from dodging straightforward questions and posting nonsense, and that you intend to neither prove nor retract your statement that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell’s equations.</DIV></p><p>I'm not ever going to "retreat" from my statement, unless and until you or anyone else produces a mathematical equation for "magnetic reconnection" that does not violate Maxwell's theories.  If all I do is "treak" my statement to read "To my knowledge, no equation for "magnetic reconnection" exists that does not violate Maxwell's equations", then you have no leg to stand on.  Fine.  Is that better now?  I won't retreat from my first point, but I will "change the wording for you" if it makes you happier.   You're nitpicking words to avoid the truth.  In truth, you have never produced an eequation for magnetic reconnection that did not violate Maxwell equations, nor has anyone else.  Got one?  Yes or no?  No dodging, no weaving, put one on the table or admit there isn't one to your knowledge either.</p><p>The rest of your post is meaningless garbage and there is no point in even wasitng my time.</p><p>Let me repeat my unanswereed questions to you again.  Do you have an equation for magnetic reconnection that does not violate his theory, yes or no?  Do you have a physical (real physics) model for "magnetic reconnection" that explains what is specifically unique about "magnetic reconnection" and separates  it from ordinary kinetic and electrical reconnection processes in plasma, yes or no?  Can you demonstrate that there is any physical or mathemaical basis for "magnetic reconnection"?  yes or no? </p><p>There is quite an irony in your position and your attitude.  You're getting all huffy and puffy at me about the fact that I can't personally demonstrate my statement as stated, yet not a single soul on earth (including your friend tusenfem) can demonstrate the validity of "magnetic reconnection theory.  You can't produce a formula for it that doesn't violate Maxwell's equaionts.  You can't demonstrate it ever happen.  Nasa attempted to use an uncontrolled pure observeation to attempt to "verify" magnetic reconection theory, and they ultimately falsifed both of their models and then ignored the outcome entirely.   You won't confront tusenfem about his claim or NASA about their claims, but you're worried about me over an exact use of words.   Talk about selective use of your attention and selective nitpicking.</p><p>FYI, Kristian Birkeland actually understood the principles of real emprical science.  He didnt' just point to the sky and claim "electricity did it ".  He "experimented" (he used control mechanisms) with his ideas in a lab and he showed the emprical connection between electron bombardment on spheres and the existence of aurora around the poles of spheres in a vacuum.  He verified his physical experiments by collecting in-situ measurements in some of the harshest environments on Earth.  That is real emprical science.</p><p>Unless there is a real honest to goodness control mechanism used in the "experiment", using a pure uncontrolled observation to "verify" or "falsify" a theory is necessarily going to be "iffy" at best, and it is not a form of emprical physics.  Unlike Birkeland, who could turn off his cathode ray and see the results on his experiments, NASA can't do that with "magnetic reconnection".  No one on Earth can turn on and off "magnetic reconnection" by storing and releasing enengy inside "magnetic fields".    All experiments of 'magnetic reconnection" used electrons to store energy.  They used this stored energy to generate motion (otherwise known as electrical current) inside plasma and then they called it evidence of "magnetic reconnection".  Once the current flow stopped, the process stopped.  It was not "ongoing" as was the case of Birkeland's work. That experiment did not demonstrteate that "magnetic reconnection" had an effect on sphere in a vacuum as Birkeland's experiments showed the electron bombandment does have an ongoing effect on spheres.   </p><p>If NASA intends to use an observational "test" to "verify" a theory, then it must also accept that theories can be falsified in this same exact manner, and they must admit that their theories of "magnetic reconnection" were falsifed and that no "pattern" that was observed actually matched any predictiion they made, and therefore their theories are falsified by these results.</p><p>It's almost surreal to me that you refuse to apply these same "prove it or retreat" methods to NASA's claim, or to tusenfem's claim, yet you refuse to deal with the "truth" of whether or not any equation of magnetic reconnection exists that does not violate Maxwell's theories.  For all you "know", I have been right and I continue to be right.   You're attitude is one of hostile self defense, and it is not based on pure scienfic curiousity. </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 · Jul 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is the Reader's Digest condensed version of the above for those afflicted with attention deficit disorder:  Hey, Mike:STFU!       <br /> Posted by vogon13</DIV></p><p>Unless and until someone can explain the physical and mathematical basis for "magnetic reconnection'', and emprically demonstrate that Alfven was wrong on this topic, that's never going to happen. </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 · Jul 27, 2008

<p>FYI, Alfven himself addressed these very same issues and he did not support the notion of "mangetic reconnection" no matter how many times his name is being associated with this idea.  The Nobel prize winning father of MHD theory did not support the theory of magnetic reconnection, in fact he was one of it's harshest critics.   </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

vogon13 · Jul 27, 2008

<p>Scored 2 points on one shot!</p><p> </p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 27, 2008

<p>http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000074000005000454000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Jul 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000074000005000454000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes  <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>What is your point ?  Is it that the notion of frozen magneteic field lines must be used with care and due appreciation for the special conditions under which it is, per Alfven and Falthammar in their book Cosmical Electrodynamics valid?  Is it that when those conditions are not in place that the notion is not valid, and that in times past the notion was sometimes used in appropriatelly?  Or is it that Falthammar is now explicitly referring the cutting of magnetic field lines, which we both know is questionable at best ?</p><h3>"Comments on the motion of magnetic field lines</h3><dl><dd>Carl-Gunne Fälthammar </dd><dd class="authAffiliate"><em><font size="-1">Division of Plasma Physics, Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden </font></em></dd></dl><p>(Received 24 August 2005; accepted 3 February 2006) </p><p>Belcher<sup> </sup>and Olbert recently showed that <strong>the concept of the motion<sup> </sup>of magnetic field lines can be helpful</strong> in teaching classical<sup> </sup>electromagnetism. Although<strong> this concept holds in many situations</strong>, it has<sup> </sup>important limitations..... <strong>But<sup> </sup>local nonvanishing values of E·B can "cut" magnetic field lines</strong><sup> </sup>and invalidate the frozen-in condition. ©2006 <em>American Association of Physics Teachers</em> "</p><p>Emphasis added.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is your point ?</DIV></p><p>Do you mean what is *their* point?  Did you read the papers, or are you going to simply "trust me" to give it to you accurately and "intepret" what they said for you? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it that the notion of frozen magneteic field lines must be used with care and due appreciation for the special conditions under which it is, per Alfven and Falthammar in their book Cosmical Electrodynamics valid?  </DIV></p><p>Well, yes, this is the most important aspect of what I'm trying to convey, but I've never seen a physical model for magentic reconnection, nor a mathematical one that didn't violate Maxwll's equations.  The only "strorage" of "energy" in any physical test of this idea was in the form of electrical energy, and it worked by generating current sheets in plasma, the one place Alfven explicitily rejected the whole idea of "magnetic recoonnection". You'd have to read his papers and books to understand the full objection. There was however no "care" given as to where these ideas are being used and applied.  You can't try to apply them with million mile per hour charged parthcles whizzing through *imperfect* conductors.  In short, they can't be applied to anything inside of interplanetary space since there is "current flow" that is constantly present.</p><p>Whatever the "cause" of the aurora, it's not a "one time" event, it's a continous exchange of energy that sometimes grows much stronger than at others, but the flow of energy is constant just as Birlkeland's flow of energy was constant so long as he left the cathode ray turned on.  Once he turned off the cathode ray, the light show was over.  He thus demonstrated the emprical physical link between aurora and the flow of electricity.  Nobody ever bothered to do that with "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it that when those conditions are not in place that the notion is not valid, </DIV></p><p>They would technicually be invalid anytime you treat plasma as a less then perfect conductor and in the real world (not the made up virtual world), plasma is never a "perfect" conductor of electrical current.  Technically the idea is therefore false in virtually every condition that involves the flow of electricity, particularly when applied to long term events like an aurora.  In other words it can only be applied when plasma is not conducting current, which is a condition thet does not exist anywhere in interplanetary space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and that in times past the notion was sometimes used in appropriatelly? </DIV></p><p>The concept might be useful in very isolated examples of very dense, very cool plasma where no current flow is present.  That condition does not exist in interplanetary space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Or is it that Falthammar is now explicitly referring the cutting of magnetic field lines, which we both know is questionable at best ?"</DIV></p><p>I get the feeling that Falhemmer is attempting to use verbiage constent with magnetic reconnection in that particular sentence.  Yes, we both know it's questionable to talk about "cutting" and or "splicing" magnetic field "lines", just like it's questionable to treat plasma as a perfect conductor.  I think that's the whole point of the paper.</p><p>You have never addressed my points.  No physical model of "magnetic reconnection" has been offered, and no mathematal model has been offered for magnetic reconnection which does not violate Masxell's equations,  While Birkeland did emprically demonstrate a link between "current flow" and the Earth's aurora, no one has ever demonstrated a physical link between magnetic reconnection and aurora.  The best you might hope to get out of varying the magnetic field in plasma  are induction currents and that too would have absolutely nothing whatseover to do with "magnetic reconnection" and everything to do with "current flow". Of course the constant nature of the energy exchange around the Earth's poles require that this process be continious and continiously directing energy through the polar regions of the planet.  Alfven's models explains all these behaviors *without* magnetic reconnection and he addressed his criticism of this specific theory in this specific circumstance in the paper I cited for you.  Please take the tme to read that paper so that you aren't accusing me of sticking words in his mouth tomorrow. </p><p>The other major criticsim of this theory actually comes from the so called "verification" of this theory.  NASA did in fact falsify both models and both models failed to make any useful predictions.  If you live by the sword, you should be prepared to die by it as well.  If accurately predicting a series of events is "verification" of a theory, then failing to accurately predict a series of events is falsification of the same theory. NASA's magnetic reconnection theories were both falsified by their observations. </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 · Jul 27, 2008

<p>We need to distinguish between a true emprical "experiment" which contains control mechanisms, and a "test" of a concept that is essentially "predict and observe" oriented which contains no control mechnisms.</p><p>Birkeland's experiments are a perfect example of true emprical science, and true emprical experimentation.  They included "control mechaisms". He could turn on and off his cathode ray, change the magnetic field around the sphere, change it's physical "texture", ect.  He could "control" a series of variables and observe the changes in his experiments as he changed the conditions of the experiment.  In that way he was able to emprically show that sustained bombardment of a planet by electrons could in fact generate auroral activity.  </p><p>A "test" without a control mechanism however is quite a horse of an entirely different color. There are no control mechanisms present and the only way to "verify" or "falsify" any thing with an uncontrolled "test" is to see how well "prediction" matches "observation" and to then grade the model based on it's ability to correctly predict the events in question.</p><p>In this case, both theories were falsified by the observations they made.  Neither of them ''predicted" a useful "pattern" which was later observed by satellites.  Both of the external starting points were covered since they use two different models, making it impossible to "miss" the first prediction so long as the event was externally driven.  The only 'pattern"" then which we might accurately "predict" is the second "guess" at where the current is headed.  Both models failed that test of concept.  Both models were falsified by these results just a surely as they would have been hailed as a great sucess had they actually correctly predicted the eequence of events.  </p><p>The big problem and the big question here is why these observations were hailed as any sort of "verification" of magnetic reconnection theory.  In reality, no "pattern" matched their "predictions" and no verification of magnetic reconnection took place based on these observational "tests".  Even if we can't technically falsify all forms of magnetic reconnection via uncontrolled observations, we should certainly be sure to distinguish accurately between a real "verification" and a "falsification", and that's actually my biggest criticism of this particular paper, interview and presentation, not lack of physical model and the lack of a valid mathematical model.</p><p>If a model can be "tested" by how well it accurately "predicts" a sequence of events, then by the same rules it can be falsified for failing to predict them correctly.  In this case both models failed to accurely "predict" any sort of "pattern", thus the atatement of verification via these observations becomes moot.  The only thing that we can reasonably conclude from these Themis observations is that both models *failed* to be verified by these results.  NASA's atatement to the contrary is blatently and absurdly false. </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 · Jul 27, 2008

<p>The blue texts are the statements from the press release that you addressed in your quotes.  included them for continuity purposes.</p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">"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.</font></em><br /><br /><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, he did not.  Birkeland "discovered" the culprit 100 years ago.  It's called "current flow.."  Unlike Dr Agnelopoulos, Birkeland created emprical experiments to verify his belief that elecrical currents powered the aurora.  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.</DIV><br /><br />When you take Dr. Angelopoulos' statement out of context, your statement make perfect sense.   However, a paragraph you conveniently left out hoping no one actually reads the press release states:<br /><br />"As they capture and store energy from the solar wind, the Earth’s magnetic field lines stretch far out into space. Magnetic reconnection releases the energy stored within these stretched magnetic field lines, <strong>flinging charged particles back toward the Earth’s atmosphere</strong>,” said David Sibeck, THEMIS project scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “They create halos of shimmering aurora circling the northern and southern poles.”<br /><br />[emphasis mine]<br /><br />As you can see in the phrase I emphasized, they clearly understand that it is charged particles interacting with Earth's atmosphere.<br /> <br />Obviously, Dr. Angelopoulos is not claiming to have discovered that current flow is what directly interacts with the atmosphere to cause the aurora.  Birkeland already explained that for us.  We all agree on this point.   Let me repeat that:<br /><br />Birkeland's theory was that current flow interacts with the earth's atmosphere.   Those theories have been confirmed many many times.  As a matter of fact, THEMIS has probably given the best confirmations for his theories.  Mainstream science agrees with those confirmations so much as to regard them on the level of something that is just automatically assumed without much need for reference.<br /><br />The "what" in Dr. Angelopoulos' statement is the trigger.  You can also find a hint in what he is describing the title of the press release.   Of course, YOU wouldn't include this because it would not fit into your twisted logic.  Here's the title of the press release for anyone who may not have time to read it:<br /><font size="2"><strong><br />THEMIS Satellites Discover What Triggers Eruptions of the Northern Lights</strong></font><br />   <br />There's no rewrite of history going on here.<br /><br /><font color="#0000ff"><em><br />These observations confirm for the first time that magnetic reconnection triggers the onset of substorms.</em></font><br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's the claim again. They claimed to have "confirmed this for the first time".  They falsified both models and then spun the failed results as as a "confirmation" of magnetic reconnection theory.  That's is absolutely false, and absolutely misleading. They falsified both of the magnetic receonection models that they "tested".</DIV> <br /><br />Both the paper and the article propose the first model where the trigger occurs nearer to the earth where a disruption of the electrical current would be most likely to occur followed by aurora.    The second model is where the trigger occurs farther down down the magnetotail where it is proposed a magnetic reconnect even is most likely to occur followed by aurora.  This is also indicted in the introduction of the teleconference.<br /><br />The trigger on the second model was confirmed.  What surprised them, and what you are focusing on, is that the current disruption they though would happen between the trigger and aurora actually occurs after the aurora.  They acknowledged this and admited it is  "suprising". <br /><br />This does not affect the fact that the trigger mechanism has been detected and confirmed which supports the trigger of the second model.<br /><br />The main goal of this whole project is to figure out the trigger to these substorms.  They believe quite strongly they have achieved this goal.<br /><br />You can try to twist it, break it, cut it, splice it anyway you want, but the data and the model will just reconnect (bad pun intended) supporting magnetic reconnection as the trigger.<br /><br />I think the above rebuttal covers the next two comments of your post concerning their statements about the models except where you claim "<strong>NASA should be ashamed of having this misinformation on their website.</strong>"<br /><br />I, clearly, think otherwise.  I think the readers of this thread can discern (quite easily I might add) who is providing misinformation and who should be ashamed.<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Never a word was mentioned about Birkeland work.</DIV><br /><br />Why would they?   I think it's common knowledge amongst the scientific community that currents follow magnetic field lines into the atmosphere and cause aurora.   <br /><br />This is akin to mentioning the theory of relativity and Einstein's work on gravity when discussing meteoroids falling to Earth.  I'm sure MeteorWayne doesn't need constant, pointless reminders in the papers he reads about <strong>how</strong> they fall or <strong>how</strong> their trajectories are changed by planets when the paper he is reading is more concerned with what is happening before, during and after they fall.  I'm sure MW clearly understands any perturbations in their trajectory from planets are due to gravity.<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not a word was mentioned about Alfven's critical viewpoints of "magnetic reconnection".</DIV><br /><br />I think I addressed this in a prior post, but after you posted this statement.  Briefly, why would one mention dissenting views on something mentioned in their paper?  Every theory, model, hypothesis, idea, concept, conjecture for which papers are written have dissenting views.  Should every single scientific paper go out of their way to present dissenting views?  This seems a bit ridiculous.<br />  <br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Shame on NASA.   <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Off with their heads!!!</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/2/8/42b90b62-b826-4e27-9881-a7c136fbb1dd.Medium.gif" alt="" /><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>

derekmcd · Jul 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.   They covered both of the other bases so there's nothing "miraculace" about getting the first one right in two guesses.  They claimed there was a "pattern" that was verified.  What "pattern"?No, actually did  did not acknowledge this point. They claimed to have predictied a "pattern".  They did not.And likewise I think you are intentionallly downplaying the significance of striking out on both of them.What "science"?  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?Yes, and that's the problem.  Birkeland didn't just point to the aurora and claim "electricity did it".  He took his idea to the lab and he showed how spheres in a vacuum behave when bombarded with electrons.  When did these guys ever do anything to emprically demosntrate this claim?  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.   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". How did the two probes eliminate standard electrical flow as being the cause of this event?  When did they duplicate Birkeland's aurora experiments using "magnetic reconnection" as the driving mechnanism?   Indentify mechanism that "stores" magnetic energy in light plasma.  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. Then how exactly does one go about falsifying this idea?  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!  If this is not a falsification for "magnetic reconnection" then how might anyone *ever* falsify this theory?  What "test" did "magnetic reconnection" ever pass with flying colors?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.  What's it going to take to kill this beast?  Alfven himself tried to slay it, but it just won't die no matter how many "tests" it fails.Then why is NASA claiming just the opposite? Why did they claim that they found a predicted "pattern""?  What patttern?Then I think it's pretty darn clear it can never be falsified by these sorts of pure observational "tests".  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".  What does it take to falsify a "point at the sky" theory exactly?...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.  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".  This is outrageous behavior.If one attempt to use a "point at the sky" method of "testing" a theory, one can't just ignore the outcome!  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!  You can't have your cake and eat it too.Actually I'd llike someone from NASA to answer this question, or someone who's name is on that paper.  I'd love to hear them defend this paper and this interview publicly.  I'd settle for a good answer from anyone, but I seriously doubt there is one.Both models *failed* their "test".  It is intellectually dishonest to claim you found a "pattern" that you expected when the "pattern" that was found did *not* match the "prediction".  That's not only intellectually dishonest, it borders on scientific fraud IMO.No, they just mentioned his name more than a dozen times and neglected to mention that he was critical of the whole concept.  You call that intellectually honest behavior?I'm getting tired so I'll stop here for now.  The bottom line here is no "pattern" was found that matched their "predictions".  To claim that they found predicted patterns is false.  They are making false claims on an official NASA website that are easily demontrated to be false.  How can that be acceptable behavior in your book?What exactly is it going to take to falsify any "point at the sky" (uncontrolled observation) theory?  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.  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.   From the NASA website:This "pattern" was never "predicted" by their models, so it cannot possible "confirm" their models!  This is pure rationalization, pure misinformation and an utterly false statement.  Never once did they actually "predict" the pattern they observed.   NASA should be ashamed of this behavior.   <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I think I've covered everything in this post in my prior posts as it appears as most of it is repetitive and/or rhetorical commentary.  If you think I've missed something that is actually relavent to any of the points I have made, please point it out and I'll address it.</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 · Jul 28, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The blue texts are the statements from the press release that you addressed in your quotes.  included them for continuity purposes."We discovered what makes the Northern Lights dance," said Dr. Vassilis Angelopoulos of the University of California, Los Angeles.</DIV></p><p>The only thing the he actually "discovered" is that both of the magnetic reconnection models failed to accurately predict the order of events in the energy transfer process that generates aurora.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Angelopoulos is the principal investigator for the THEMIS mission.</DIV></p><p>When the principal investigator is saying things that are obviously not true, I really start to wonder about rest of the "interpretations" we might hope to get from this THEMIS mission.  They falsified both models.  That's all that they actually "discovered".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When you take Dr. Angelopoulos' statement out of context, your statement make perfect sense.</DIV></p><p>Which is exactly why I listened to the entire audio interview and I read the materials he wrote before commenting on his statements.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, a paragraph you conveniently left out hoping no one actually reads the press release states:"As they capture and store energy from the solar wind, the Earth’s magnetic field lines stretch far out into space. </DIV></p><p>This notion of "stretch" is really misleading since "flow" would actually be a better term for the energy exchange process.  It's never ending.   Here by the way is a really good link to daily MHD simulation movies of this energy exchange process.</p>http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/home.html<p> It's not simply an induction driven "snap" like process.  They used a rubber band analogy during the interview whereas they should have used a "river" or current "flow" analogy.  The energy exchange is constant, it simply varies substantially from time to time both in terms of speed and density as the solar wind varies in speed and density. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic reconnection releases the energy stored within these stretched magnetic field lines, flinging charged particles back toward the Earth’s atmosphere,” said David Sibeck,</DIV></p><p>Here is a statement of faith, since it is certainly not a statement of fact.  How exactly does a magnetic field (made of very light plasma) "store" energy exactly?  This notion of magnetic fields "storing"" energy was repreated throughout the presentation, but then no one bothered to explain how energy is "stored" in magnetic field is that essentially composed of moving charged particles.  Care to explain that storage process in some detail and explain how this "magnetic reconnection" process might be any different than say "induction" which is a better understood physical process related to electromagnetism?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>THEMIS project scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. </DIV></p><p>This is quite a "who's who" of scientists.  Not one of them bothered to mention that Alfven was a critic of magnetic reconection theory or that Birkeland offered a competing model.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>“They create halos of shimmering aurora circling the northern and southern poles.”[emphasis mine]</DIV></p><p>Birkeland demonstrated that a "flowing" bombardment of a metallic magnetic sphere in a vacuum with "electrons" does indeed produce the patterns we observe in aurora.  He also showed that it required constant current flow to generate this event.   When did these folks do that with "magnetic reconnection" before making this bold and rather unbelievable (certainly unsupportable) statement? </p><p>A simple "flinging" or "snapping" effect would not result in a steady stream on energy that is necessary to power aurora for hours and days.  Like DrRocket's coil analogy, you might get some sort of temporary induction process inside the plasma from a collapse in the current flow from the sun and the "snap" in the magnetosphere that might result from the change in the field.  They did however fail to demonstrate that a collapsing magnetic field releases a unique form of energy called "magnetic reconnection" that is somehow indistinguishable from ordinary plasma interactions.  When was that ever done?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As you can see in the phrase I emphasized, they clearly understand that it is charged particles interacting with Earth's atmosphere. </DIV></p><p>Yes, but then they clearly don't understand the unique physical mechanism behind the energy release process of "magnetic reconnection".  They don't seem to understand what powers the solar wind.  What in the world could make you have faith that they understand this energy release process when it defied both of their "magnetic reconnection" models?  That charged particle process was due to sustained current flow in Birkeland's experiments and he could vary the current flow to make the field glow brighter and even go away (at least in visible light) by decresing the flow of electrons.  Never did these guys do such a thing with "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Obviously, Dr. Angelopoulos is not claiming to have discovered that current flow is what directly interacts with the atmosphere to cause the aurora.</DIV></p><p>No, he is claiming that he has "discovered" that "magnetic reconnection" accelerates charged particles and that the magnetic reconnection process causes the aurora. He cannot support either claim based on these observations. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland already explained that for us.</DIV></p><p>Yes but Birkeland used a continously flowing cathode ray as the energy source of his aurora, and he stored and used "electrical energy" to sustain this auroral process for as long as he wanted, not "magnetic reconnection".  This group never demonstrated any sort of physical or predictive link betwween auroral events and "magnetic reconnection", in fact they blew both of their own magnetic reconnection models out of the water.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We all agree on this point.   Let me repeat that:Birkeland's theory was that current flow interacts with the earth's atmosphere. </DIV></p><p>Fine.  Let's focus on what they did claim and let's take a cold hard honest look at what they actually "discovered".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Those theories have been confirmed many many times.  As a matter of fact, THEMIS has probably given the best confirmations for his theories.</DIV></p><p>They are attempting to "sterilize" an obviosly *electromagnetic* process and misrepresent it as a "magnetic reconnection" event.    They may have "confirmed" that kinetic electrical energy flows through the aurora, but they never demonstrated two of their claims that A) "magnetic reconnection" accelerates plasma and/or charged particles, or that B) that process is somehow related to auroral activity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Mainstream science agrees with those confirmations so much as to regard them on the level of something that is just automatically assumed without much need for reference.The "what" in Dr. Angelopoulos' statement is the trigger.  You can also find a hint in what he is describing the title of the press release.   Of course, YOU wouldn't include this because it would not fit into your twisted logic.</DIV></p><p>What?  I could have picked every statement he made apart, but I chose to focus on the most important statments he made which are incorrect.  They falsified both models they presented.  They provided zero in the way of supporting evidence that magnetic reconnection did anything to anything during these observations. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here's the title of the press release for anyone who may not have time to read it:THEMIS Satellites Discover What Triggers Eruptions of the Northern Lights   There's no rewrite of history going on here.</DIV></p><p>Yes there is.  The "trigger" of the Northern Lights is *electrical flow*.  It is in no way related to "magnetic reconnection" even if there were some kind of induction process going on due to changing *electro*magnetic fields.  There is no emprically establsihed link between "magnetic reconnection" and auroral activity.  When did they duplicate Birkeland's experiments using "magnetic reconnection" as the powers source?  How did they "store" their energy source and how did they sustain this process for hours on end?</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>What?  This is a demonstratably false statement.  They falsified both models.  All they know is that the "event" began in the tail, they certainly don't know the "cause" or the "trigger" as you are calling it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both the paper and the article propose the first model where the trigger occurs nearer to the earth where a disruption of the electrical current would be most likely to occur followed by aurora.    The second model is where the trigger occurs farther down down the magnetotail where it is proposed a magnetic reconnect even is most likely to occur followed by aurora. </DIV></p><p>And neither of those things occured in the order they predicted, even though they covered half of the possible combinations.    Case closed.  Magnetic reconnection "failed" to accurately predict the order of energy exchange event process and therefore these observations can in no way support the notion that "magnetic reconnection" is responsible for these events.  PERIOD.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is also indicted in the introduction of the teleconference.The trigger on the second model was confirmed.  </DIV></p><p>No.  It could only be "confirmed" by having correctly guessed the next sequence of events, otherwise it's just a "lucky guess", and not even a lucky guess in the final analsys.  They could  not have missed with both models on the first event since they covered both external bases with two different models.  It wasn't a lucky guess, they actually hedged their bets.  The only way to "confirm" this energy release proces is related to "magnetic reconnection" rather than some unrelated theory is to accurately predict the sequence of events and they didn't do that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What surprised them, and what you are focusing on, is that the current disruption they though would happen between the trigger and aurora actually occurs after the aurora.</DIV></p><p>The "trigger" is not determined by the fact that they saw an energy release process ocruring in back of the magnetotail. That is expected in EU theory too and it might be expected in any number of possible theories related to aurora.  That is not "confirmation" of anything related to "magnetic reconnection".  The only way that they could have confirmed their theory is to have accurately predicted something.  They did not.  They hedged their bets and took two theories and covered both possible external energy release points so there was no way for both of them to be incorrect both models as long as the Earth is not it's own energy source for aurora.  No externally driven theory "predicts" that to be true.  They could not have been wrong about which point released energy first since they covered both options and hedged their bets in such a way that the first "prediction" had to match one of the two models.   You have conveniently and repeatedly ignored their comments about discovering a "pattern" in these events which they never did. Why did you fail to address this point?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They acknowledged this and admited it is  "suprising". </DIV></p><p>It wasn't a "surprise", it was a outright falsification of the second model!   If you live by the pure observational sword (test), then you have to be willing to die by it too.  That "surprise" demonstated that both popular magnetic reconnection theories were useless at predicting events in space.  In fact they couldn't even decide on which model might be right before hand, and both of them were wrong, so the predictive power of this theory is 0 for 2 and has no predictive value and therefore no scientific value whatseover.  They "spun" the "suprise" and then claimed it was "evidence" to support "magnetic reconnection".  Come on.  That "surprise "falsified" the second theory.  End of story.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This does not affect the fact that the trigger mechanism has been detected and confirmed which supports the trigger of the second model.</DIV></p><p>The energy had to have originated *somewhere* and they covered both external options.  The charged particle entry point is perfectly congruent with Birkeland experiments and a relatively negatively charged heliosphere theory.  It is also contruent with the observation of  acceleration of solar wind particles and Birkeland's model that dumps huge amounts of electrons into the Earth's atmosphere.  How did they then decide that this entry location had anything whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection"?  That model also bit the dust in the only real "prediction" that was related to "magnetic reconnection".  What now? EU theory "predicts" a current flow can originate from the heliosphere and flow into the Earth's magnetotail. How do we decide whether Birkeland's original auroral model is correct or if "magnetic reconnection" was involved in this process?   What useful "prediction" did "magnetic reconnection" really make when they couldn't actually "miss" on the first guess on the entry point of the energy? </p><p>Note that Birkeland's model has several clear advantages already.  It explains the acceleration process of those million million mile per hour charged particles that continiously accelerate from the sun.  It explains the selective acceleration of HE+2 over HE+1 and explains why protons HE+2 and HE+1 are the most prevelelant ions in solar wind and in that specific order.  Note too that the electrons are already in motion in Birkeland's model so no "induction" or "magnetic reconnection" event is necessary to explain the influx of electrons in the magnetotail, and it won't run out of energy once that magnetic field has changed to it's new postiion.  Birkeland's model also explains the longevity of these events far better than an induction driven process or a magnetic reconnection driven process.   Birkeland's model wins the Occum's razor arguement hands down because it's been emrically demonstrated in controlled conditions, and it requires no new exotic forms of energy to work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The main goal of this whole project is to figure out the trigger to these substorms. </DIV></p><p>The only thing they actually "figured out" is the mechanics of the energy transfer process.  They did not "discover" that "magnetic reconnection" was involved in this energy transfer process since both models failed to accurately predict these events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They believe quite strongly they have achieved this goal.</DIV></p><p>Why?  Please explain "why" they believe they have achieved this?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can try to twist it, break it, cut it, splice it anyway you want, but the data and the model will just reconnect (bad pun intended) supporting magnetic reconnection as the trigger.</DIV></p><p>Well, Alfven wasn't able to kill of this particular Beast of the theory, so I certainly realize that I'm fighting an uphill battle on this subject.  I'm also quite sure that they are busy already working on "posdicted" new set of "predictions" for their next model of "magnetifc reconnection" theory so they can claim that it accurately "predicts" future events.  It's rare that we find such a blatent falsification for a theory being "spun" as some kind of "validation", or a clear movement of the goal posts.  This one is simply over the top in terms of flaws and misrepsentations of the data and the meaning of these observations.</p><p>They could not have "missed" on the first "prediction" of the magnetic reconnection models.  One of their two models had to match or be close enough to be considered a "correct prediction" unless the Earth itself is the power source of aurora and nobody believes that.  The only real "useful" "prediction" then of either model is how accurately it "predicts" the next sequence of events.   Both models were falsified by the "surprise" they are talking about.  The real "surprise" is that they then turned around and refered to this "surprise" as some kind of "evidence" of magnetic reconnection.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  If anything they demonstrated the magnetic reconnection is *not* involved in this event since they falsified both popular models. The fact they couldn't even pick on to work with in the first place shows that they really don't know how it works and they can't predict much of anything with this theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the above rebuttal covers the next two comments of your post concerning their statements about the models except where you claim "NASA should be ashamed of having this misinformation on their website."I, clearly, think otherwise.</DIV></p><p>I have never seen a worse paper on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" nor have I seen one so easily picked apart in such a visual way using their own graphs and models. Three simple graphs which they themselves provide, show us that both models were falsified by the results of their observations.  The rest of their presentation was pure spin, pure misrepresentation of the "evidence" and just plain bad science IMO.  I'm embarassed for them.  I've found flaws in papers and presentations before but this is like shooting fish in a barrel.  Both models bit the dust.  Both failed to provide useful predictions about energy flow.  They never established the "cause" or the "trigger" as you call it of these events.  They only "discovered" (actually observed) a series of events that "surprised" them because none of their magnetic reconnection models models panned out or correctly predicted the outcome. That's why they were "surprised".   What's really hard to believe is the number of misleading and obviously false statements that they made on the website about finding "patterns" that somehow support "magnetic reconnection". The only "pattern" of energy flow that they observed did not match with their pattern of predictions so in no possible way could this data be considered "evidence" in support of magnetic reconnection theory.  If anything, it damages the theory significantly. </p><p>Birkeland's model also predicts that electrons will enter the magnetotail and sometimes Earth could even be hit from the front in his model by a cathode beam depending on the direction of the cathode rays coming back from the sun.    In no way did these folks falsify Birkeland original aurora model which was powered by external electrical currents.  The teardrop shape of the sun's heliosphere also supports Birkeland's theory, as does the solar wind acceleration and the selective acceleration of light highly positively charged ions in the solar wind.  All of these energy "trigger" (observed) events are entirely consistent with EU theory so the first observation of energy transfer in the magnetotail cannot possibly rule out Birkelands basic EU theory in favor of "magnetic reconnection" theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the readers of this thread can discern (quite easily I might add) who is providing misinformation and who should be ashamed.</DIV></p><p>I'm not the one trying to "sell" a "surprise" as a "verification" based on a "pattern" that didn't match the "prediction" in a "test" without a control mechanism.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why would they?   I think it's common knowledge amongst the scientific community that currents follow magnetic field lines into the atmosphere and cause aurora. </DIV></p><p>It's also common knowledge that electrical currents heat plasma to million degree temperatures but the temperature and behaviors of of coronal loops mystify these guys.  It's also common knowledge that electrical discharges release gamma reya. x-rays, and pinch neutrons from plasma, and we observe such events in the solar atmosphere which "surprise" them too.  It's common knowledge that charge separation can selectively accelerate charge particles and sustain that acceleration over long periods of time, just like we observe in the solar wind, but the solar wind process mystifies them too.  It's common knowledge that auroral events can be "triggered" by electron flows, but they keept trying to call it "magnetic reconnection".  It's common knowledge that Alfven rejected the idea of "magnetic reconnection" yet they attempted to associated his name with this topic and not one of them bothered to mention that small point.   They falsified both models and then made wild claims that are extremely easy to pick apart and that are not supported by their own data!  I've honestly never seen a sloppier or more flaw riddled and embarassing paper and presention in my whole life. This was not just a bad presentation, it was a terrible one.  I can't believe you're actually defending it frankly.   </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>

Cygnus_2112 · Jul 28, 2008

<p>Why is he only posting on SDC and not respected forum within the astronomy?</p><p>Why if he is such the expert, where is his flight experiment to prove his views?</p><p> Or where are the other EU supporter experiments? </p><p> What are michaelmozina's qualifications to dispute the THEMIS findings?</p><p> </p>

UFmbutler · Jul 28, 2008

<p>I see I didn't miss much meaningful development in this argument...OK, so I requested a more clear explanation and evidence of magnetic reconnection, and I was directed to the following paper:  http://www.agu.org/journals/ja/ja0805/2007JA012770/ written by my former office-mate and contributed to by my supervisor and few other LANL people, so if there are any follow-up questions(good ones) I can go ask someone.  In the introduction section, it gives a good overview of the current view of magnetic reconnection, with several references to back up its claims.  For example, you asked earlier why Hall current signatures are indicative of magnetic reconnection...the paper provides two references to prove that, the most recent being http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2001JA900038.shtml (the first one was from the 70s).  In section 3 of the first paper referenced, starting in paragraph 8 they detail how they detected the primary reconnection signatures(Hall current, reversal of Bz).  It is interesting to note that in paragraph 25-29 they mention, among other things, that the reconnection event they detected did not coincide with a substorm event.  This doesn't contradict the findings that we are discussing, as explained here in paragraph 29:</p><p>"The observation that C3 (and probably C2) is exiting the reconnection outflow region, while remaining on closed field lines, indicate that the reconnection X-line does not reach the lobe field lines in this event. Reconnection of lobe field lines is expected to proceed much faster and release more energy than reconnection of plasma sheet field lines, which may explain why there is no substorm related to this event [<span class="ital">Baker et al.</span>, 1996]."</p><p>This study was based on a list of magnetic reconnection events identified by Borg(not the aliens) in 2006 using the CLUSTER group of satellites.  While the paper itself doesn't really deal with why magnetic reconnection is valid, it gives a good, clear overview of it and provides references that back up what they claim and some of what we've claimed on here.  I pointed out what I felt were the main points of the paper, but please read the whole thing and at least the abstracts of the references in it before you ask any questions.  I will continue to search for more papers, but this is a good one in that it was only published 2 months ago and thus contains the most recent interpretations of reconnection. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 28, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see I didn't miss much meaningful development in this argument...OK, so I requested a more clear explanation and evidence of magnetic reconnection, and I was directed to the following paper:  http://www.agu.org/journals/ja/ja0805/2007JA012770/ written by my former office-mate and contributed to by my supervisor and few other LANL people, so if there are any follow-up questions(good ones) I can go ask someone.</DIV></p><p>Could you provide me with a link to the abstract rather than the paper so that I can see what's it called and so that I can figure out how to get a copy of that 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>

UFmbutler · Jul 28, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Could you provide me with a link to the abstract rather than the paper so that I can see what's it called and so that I can figure out how to get a copy of that paper? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> If it would save you the trouble I could always email you copies of the articles, but heres the ADS entry for it http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRA..11307S30A  </p><p> Also as for a more mathematical treatment of the problem, see this paper by Drake et al. in 2006 published in Nature  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.443..553D</p><p>He describes a theory in which energetic electrons interact with "magnetic islands" associated with reconnection and explains the subsequent particle acceleration.  I admit to not fully understanding this theory(I'm more of a data person than a math/theory type), so it may or may not be convincing, but give it a look. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 28, 2008

<p>From the book "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven: </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES<br />What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume<br /><strong>only if no electric current crosses the surface</strong> . In the terminology of the magnetic field<br />description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume<br />only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface.<br /><strong>All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy<br />this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention .</strong> This does not mean<br />that all papers in which `magnetic merging' is used are of no interest, because there exist<br />some good papers (e .g., Hill, 1975) in which the term is merely a synonym for "current sheet<br />acceleration ."</DIV>  (emphasis mine)</p><p>The second paper seems to be describing a process of "magnetic reconnection" that occurs inside of a current sheet and it does not seem to satisfy the specific conditions that Alfven suggested were required in terms of magnetic reconnection theories.    Since this theory does not satisfy the conditions outlined by Alfven, why does this (or any current sheet variation of magnetic reconnection) theory deserve any attention?  How did they differentiate magnetic reconnection from ordinary electircal and kinetic reconnection processes in plasms inside of a current sheet?  Alfven described these events strictly in terms of "current sheet acceleration", not "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>

UFmbutler · Jul 28, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the book "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven:   (emphasis mine)The second paper seems to be desribing a process of magnetic reconnection that occurs inside of a current sheet and it does not seem to satisfy the specific conditions that Alfven suggested were required in terms of magnetic reconnection theories.    Since this theory does not satisfy the conditions outlined by Alfven, why does this (or any current sheet variation of magnetic reconnection) theory deserve any attention?  How did they differentiate magnetic reconnection from ordinary electircal and kinetic reonnection processes in plasms inside of a current sheet?  Alfven describe these events strictly in terms of "current sheet acceleration", not "magnetic reconnection". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> The idea of current sheets is supported by numerical hybrid/full particle simulations(see references in the paper you are speaking of), the results of which support the observations in what they believe are reconnection regions.  No disrespect intended for Alfven, but I don't believe you can say for certain that he would not be convinced to change his mind given that he did not have the technology and sophisticated modelling techniques we have now available to him when he was alive.  Almost all of the papers I have been reading on this subject at least mention the concept of a plasma sheet...I am more inclined to believe this modern research backed up by numerical simulations which are in turn backed up by observations than the, to be blunt, old criteria given by Alfven.  That said, he is a very reputable source and I don't blame you for using him as support for your argument, but you have to at least admit he might have been incorrect on that point. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 28, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The idea of current sheets is supported by numerical hybrid/full particle simulations(see references in the paper you are speaking of), the results of which support the observations in what they believe are reconnection regions.  No disrespect intended for Alfven, but I don't believe you can say for certain that he would not be convinced to change his mind given that he did not have the technology and sophisticated modelling techniques we have now available to him when he was alive. </DIV></p><p>Since he wrote about this particular topic and he would not have been surprised by ordinary currrent sheet acceleleration events, I highly doubt he would change his mind based on this data or this information.  In fact he wrote a whole paper on this specific topic which directly refutes this idea. </p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1976JGR....81.4019A&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c06165 </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Almost all of the papers I have been reading on this subject at least mention the concept of a plasma sheet...I am more inclined to believe this modern research backed up by numerical simulations which are in turn backed up by observations than the, to be blunt, old criteria given by Alfven.  That said, he is a very reputable source and I don't blame you for using him as support for your argument, but you have to at least admit he might have been incorrect on that point. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>While it is scientifically possible that the creator of MHD theory was inccorect on this topic, only an emprical test of the idea could possible demonstrate this point.  Current sheet acceleration is a function of charge attraction and particle attraction and kinetic energy transfers that Alfven fully understood and wrote about.  The claim on WIKI is that "magnetic reconnection" can occur in the *absense of a current sheet*, and Alfven denied that was possible, and he used standard physics to describe current sheet events.  A pure current sheet event is "predicted" by EU theories, including the ones that Alfven himself wrote about.  Could you explain what makes their "intepretation" of current sheet events any "better" than Alfven's opinions on this topic?  If this is a current sheet driven event, with kinetic energy flowing into the event from the movement of particles and charge attraction, what exactly is "magnetic" about the particle and electrical reconnection process inside of a current sheet?  How is it different from ordinary particle (kinetic) and electrical reconnection processes? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

UFmbutler · Jul 28, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If this is a current sheet driven event, with kinetic energy flowing into the event from the movement of particles and charge attraction, what exactly is "magnetic" about the particle and electrical reconnection process inside of a current sheet?  How is it different from ordinary particle (kinetic) and electrical reconnection processes? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> Here are some excerpts from Lin et al. 2005 in APJ that I feel summarize my view of reconnection as it occurs in a plasma sheet.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The catastrophe model of solar eruptions suggests that the major eruptive processes occurring in the solar atmosphere are triggered by the catastrophic loss of mechanical equilibrium in the magnetic configuration (e.g., Forbes 2000; Priest & Forbes 2002; Lin et al. 2003). As the catastrophe takes place, the closed magnetic field lines in the configuration are stretched so severely that they effectively open up, and a current sheet forms separating two magnetic fields of opposite polarity. With dissipation occurring in the current sheet, the stretched field lines reconnect and create new closed field lines below the current sheet</p><p> As indicated by Figure 1, the current sheet is dissipated by magnetic reconnection, so that the catastrophe is able to develop into a plausible eruption. Subsequently, reconnection dumps a large amount of energy into the lower atmosphere of the Sun, which accounts for the traditional flare ribbons and loops; meanwhile, magnetic reconnection also sends large amounts of the reconnected flux and plasma upward, accounting for the rapid expansion of the ejecta and the hot shell surrounding it (see, e.g., Lin et al. 2004).</p><p>...</p><p>The eruptive process manifested an energetic CME, with speeds of 1939 km s<sup>−1</sup> at the front edge and 1484 km s<sup>−1</sup> for the core, and a bright flare loop system covered by a cusp structure. This event was observed by various instruments from both space and the ground. Analyzing the observational data from these instruments yields the conclusion that the CME and the flare are connected by a stretched current sheet in which magnetic reconnection occurs and converts the magnetic energy into heat and kinetic energy. The morphological features of the disrupted magnetic field involved in this event fit those of the diagram shown in Figure 1 very well, which implies that this schematic depicts the common characteristics of the eruptive processes that give rise to both flare and CME. The magnetic configuration in reality may be much more complex than that shown, but the fundamental physical processes should be the same. </p><p></DIV></p><p> </p><p>The figure 1 they refer to is:  http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9913/fg1wp2.gif</p><p>EDIT: Note that they are referring to a process occurring within the sun, but it does describe the concept of reconnection occuring in a plasma sheet fairly well.  The parts about CMEs and flares are irrelevant to this argument and can be argued as being analogous to substorm events. </p><p> The Hall current article isn't really the main point we are trying to address here(that is, whether magnetic reconnection is real or not)...I merely posted it because you asked before why Hall current signatures are believed to be indicative of reconnection. </p><p>EDIT:  fixed image, originally was only a thumbnail </p><p> EDIT AGAIN:  If you read the end of the Nagai paper, they argue that "Magnetic reconnection should be examined beyond the MHD picture,  since the MHD constraint breaks down in the diffusion region."  Any comments on this idea?  If you disagree with their assertion, why? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 28, 2008

<p>FYI, I appreciate the effort you're putting into this process and I can tell from your first few  posts that this is gong to be a highly professional and very enlightening conversation and I really look forward to enjoying our conversations.</p><p>I have one more favor to ask you before we continue since we seem to be focused on events that occur inside of a current sheet and you seem to have connections with a lot of "insiders".  DrRocket and I seem to have a strong difference of opinion about mathematical models of magnetic reconnection and whether or not they violate Maxwell's equations.  Could you please post for us the specific mathematical model of 'magnetic reconnection" that these folks believe describes this process of magnetic reconnection and that presumably does not violate any of Maxwell's equations?   As I understand electrical theory, Maxwell's equations do not allow for gaining energy by cutting and splicing magnetic field lines and I have never seen a mathematical model of this process that uses Maxwell's equations and does not violate them in some manner.   Could you please provide us with a specific mathematical model of the version of magnetic reconnection you are trying to suggests are occuring inside of a current sheet?</p><p>Is there an agreed upon physical model of magnetic reconnection that is unique to "magnetic reconnection" which is somehow distinguishable from ordinary kinetic and eletctrical reconnection in plasma? </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Here are some excerpts from Lin et al. 2005 in APJ that I feel summarize my view of reconnection as it occurs in a plasma sheet.</DIV></p><p>The acceleration of particles inside of a current sheet was described by Alfven in terms of kinetic energy and charge attraction.  Inside of a curent sheet, I need some sort of mathematical description of what is unique about magnetic reconnection, because there will definitely be paritcle colliions inside of a reconnecting current sheet that are kinetic in nature, and there will be charge attraction between oppostitely charged particles which also occurs inside the current sheet.  I will need some way of uniquely identifiying the unique energy release signatures of "magnetic reconnection" that can be distintguished from more mundaine and ordinary kinetic and electrical energy transfers in plasma.  We both seem to agree that charge particles will accelerate inside of a current sheet, and we only seem to disagee about the "cause" of that "acceleration".   I need a mathematical model and preferably a physical model to work with since all of Birekland's aurora experiments involved continious current sheet acceleration.   </p><p>You'll need to be patient with me today and this whole week in fact.  I've clearly got some reading to do now, and I'm trying to wrap up some loose ends at work this week so that I can leave on a trip on Wednesday evening.  I'm enjoying this conversation a great deal and I'll try to be responsive, but my responses will be a bit slower in coming this week than is typical for me.   Bear with me a bit. </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 · Jul 28, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FYI, I appreciate the effort you're putting into this process and I can tell from your first few  posts that this is gong to be a highly professional and very enlightening conversation and I really look forward to enjoying our conversations.I have one more favor to ask you before we continue since we seem to be focused on events that occur inside of a current sheet and you seem to have connections with a lot of "insiders".  DrRocket and I seem to have a strong difference of opinion about mathematical models of magnetic reconnection and whether or not they violate Maxwell's equations.  Could you please post for us the specific mathematical model of 'magnetic reconnection" that these folks believe describes this process of magnetic reconnection and that presumably does not violate any of Maxwell's equations?   <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Before I do anything, could you clarify whether you desire something along the lines of the governing equations utilized in the numerical simulations dealing with reconnection, or a mathematical derivation from basic principles that shows reconnection can occur?  I'm not sure if the latter exists or if we are relying on numerical MHD simulations backed up by observation.  I sent an email to J. Borovsky(if you have the time look up some of his papers, he works extensively with magnetic reconnection models) since he doesn't appear to be in today asking for an explanation of why reconnection is believed to be physically valid, so hopefully he can help.  I'll update you as I get more information...as I am still just a grad student this is also a learning experience for me, I don't claim to be an expert on this topic or anything, I am just using the resources I have to hopefully help put this argument to rest, to some extent. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 28, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Before I do anything, could you clarify whether you desire something along the lines of the governing equations utilized in the numerical simulations dealing with reconnection, or a mathematical derivation from basic principles that shows reconnection can occur? </DIV></p><p>I am personally more interested in the latter explanation.  I do not understand how Maxwell's equations allow for magnetic reconnection since magnetic fields are treated a full continnum in his equations.  I have posted a relevant paper by Dr. Don Scott in on the previous page that is written from the perspective of electrical engineering.   All engineering classes I took treated the magnetic field as an indivisible continuum that cound not make and break individual magnetic field lines and thereby release energy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure if the latter exists or if we are relying on numerical MHD simulations backed up by observation.</DIV></p><p>If the latter does not exist, then there is no mathematical foundation for this theory, and there is no logical way to differentiate ordinary Maxwellian kinetic and electrical "reconnection" from the process you are trying to describe.  Birkeland demonstrated a physical emprical link between "current flow' and "aurora".   I have no doubt that current flow can cause particle to accelerate, so the only thing we seem to disgree about is what the cause of that acceleration might be.  Without a mathematical or physical model of what you are describing to work with, I'm not sure if we can even logically proceed.    Alfven described the accelerations process inside of a current sheet in terms of kinetic and electrical transfers of particle energy.  He specifically rejected the notion of magnetic reconnection inside of a current sheet.  If there is no mathematical foundation for this idea to be found in Maxwell's equations then I see no logical way to defend this theory since you are describing events inside of a current sheet where Maxwell's equations must *necessarily* apply, and magnetic fields are treated as full and complete (whole) continuum that cannot make and break individual field lines and thereby release energy.  Without a mathematical and preferably also a physical model to work with, there is no logical way I can think of to distinguish between magnetic reconnection and the kinetic and paritcle reconnection that Alfven described inside of a current sheet, and I see no way to falsify this idea in any way.</p><p>Birkeland generated a continuous flow of energy using cathode rays to continually bombard the sphere with electrons.  Electron flow seems to be required in "magnetic reconnection" theory, and "magnetic reconnection" theory seems to involved the flow of electrons.   I need some logical way to differentiate between a model as Birkeland simulated in his lab, and your concept of magnetic reconnection in order to figure out a logical way to proceed to differentiate between Birkeland's "current flow" model and a "magnetic reconnection" model.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I sent an email to J. Borovsky(if you have the time look up some of his papers, he works extensively with magnetic reconnection models) since he doesn't appear to be in today asking for an explanation of why reconnection is believed to be physically valid, so hopefully he can help.</DIV></p><p>I want to thank you again for your thoughtful responses, your professional attitude and all the work you've put into this conversation thus far.  I will definitely start reading those paper you suggested, but I think from what we have discussed thus far, I have no problem with accelation of charged particles inside of a current sheet, so most of these issues will seem to boil down to exactly how magnetic reconnection is different from ordinary kinetic and elecrical reconnection processes in plasma.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

vogon13

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

vogon13

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page