Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

UFmbutler · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You know, I've specfically resisted using a lot of inflamtory language in my scientific rebuttal of the information you have personally presented thus far.  If you have a specific scientific criticism on my solar theory, put on the table, otherwise it's pretty much the same model that Birkeland used to explain solar activity. The sun's atmosphere is certainly "electric".  Please post your solar theory comments in the solar theory thread that I created on this topic.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I feel my words regarding the idea of an "electric star" as you briefly described and as I (painfully) read about here http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf are inflammatory, but for a good reason.  How this can be considered science is beyond me.  Like you said, I'll leave that for another thread, but knowing you espouse things such as this make me question the foundation of your arguments regarding reconnection.  </p><p>This quote from that article, if you want to call it that, I linked to is relevant in my opinion:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While enormous time and resources have been poured into the effort to understand stars based on a single outdated idea, those familiar with plasma discharge phenomena have been paying close attention to the observed phenomena on the Sun and finding simple electrical explanations.</DIV></p><p>In my opinion, this is exactly what the EU advocates are guilty of.  The fact that they call an ongoing field of research outdated bothers me.  How can you define that as outdated, but not call EU outdated since it has been many years/decades since anyone reputable has produced significant scientific results?   </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given that my specialty is the theory of star formation and that is what my PhD work will concern, after glancing over that website my only reaction is "WHAT???"  I can understand not accepting magnetic reconnection entirely...it is a theory that is still undergoing refinement.  However...ugh it is giving me a headache thinking of where to start with this electric star garbage.  If I told my supervisor I have changed my ways and now believe that the sun is not powered by fusion, I'd be thrown out of the PhD program in a second.  I do not plan to address this star nonsense because I'd have to explain star formation beginning at the fundamentals(only through a misunderstanding of the fundamentals could you come to the conclusion that stars are not powered by fusion), which would take ages.  <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I certainly hope that you recognized the sarcasm in my post, and have not gotten the impression that I believe that nonsense.  I wanted you to know what you were dealing with, and perhaps see why your logical arguments are not noticeably affecting Michael's position.</p><p>I certainly do not recommend bringing this up with your advisor.  Although, if you do, I would appreciate a video of that moment.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kg · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now come on Michael, you are holding back.  He is new to the thread.  You also ought to tell him (so he doesn't have to search back through nearly 30 pages) that, in your model, the sun is powered, not by fusion, but by these extermanly driven currents that flow through the solar system, which among other things cause the photosphere, which you believe to be largely neon, to glow.  Let him understand your big picture.  Remember that he is an astrophysics student -- discovery of the giant extension cord connected to the sun would be a major find, and certainly cap off a dissertation nicely.  http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Neon, calcium, iron?  Ok I've got to ask.  Where did all these heavy elements come from without nuclear fusion?  Have they simply existed since the beginning of the universe?</p><p>However I did see a guy make a pickle glow by plugging it into an extension cord. Now that's maverick thinking and careful observation.  (no, it really works!)</p>

michaelmozina · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Neon, calcium, iron?  Ok I've got to ask.  Where did all these heavy elements come from without nuclear fusion?  Have they simply existed since the beginning of the universe?</DIV></p><p>As far as I know, yes, they've always existed in roughly the same percentages for eternity as far as I know.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However I did see a guy make a pickle glow by plugging it into an extension cord. Now that's maverick thinking and careful observation.  (no, it really works!) <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></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>

MeteorWayne · Jul 30, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as I know, yes, they've always existed in roughly the same percentages for eternity as far as I know.

<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Now you've gone off the deep end... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

UFmbutler · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I certainly hope that you recognized the sarcasm in my post, and have not gotten the impression that I believe that nonsense.  I wanted you to know what you were dealing with, and perhaps see why your logical arguments are not noticeably affecting Michael's position.I certainly do not recommend bringing this up with your advisor.  Although, if you do, I would appreciate a video of that moment.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>No I know you don't believe it, I was just quoting your post as reference to what I was talking about.  One of the sources he provides on his own website, although it deals with the whole iron star business, is still relevant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Solar astronomers don't 'assume' that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium. We deduce it from several different lines of evidence," he said.</DIV></p><p>Likewise, magnetospheric scientists don't assume magnetic reconnection is the mechanism behind acceleration of electrons in the magnetosphere.  They deduce it from several different lines of evidence, namely observations, models, and empirical experiments. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The papers I posted with the experiments have nothing to do with magnetic islands.  They were conducted as early as 12 years before the theory of magnetic islands was proposed. </DIV></p><p>Which paper are we talking about now?  You've prosted a lot of papers over the last couple of days and the PPL paper you just posted today.   (I've actually read it before).   You were personally supporting a different brand of "magnetic reconnection" theory that relied upon "magnetic islands".  I was explaining how that phenomenon could easily be a "current flow" formation.  I was not repsonding to the PPL paper.  Their paper begins with a false premise that you have been suggesting that I somehow misrepresented or fabricated on my own:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic reconnection involves the breaking and topological rearrangement of magnetic field lines, and is an important relaxation process in plasma physics.</DIV></p><p>Where is their mathematical model of how that's done with Maxwell's equations?  Which model are you supporting again?  Here's their theory: </p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A sawtooth oscillation is characterized by a periodic collapse<br />or crash of the central plasma pressure.7-10 Although<br />there are several theoretical models for the sawtooth, Kadomtsev’s<br />model,” developed 20 years ago, has attained the<br />widest acceptance. According to this model, an m = n = 1<br />resistive internal mode is unstable for qo<l (m and n are the<br />poloidal and toroidal mode numbers and q. is the safety<br />factora at the magnetic axis), and grows until a full magnetic<br />reconnection process flattens the pressure and current profiles,<br />causing the central q to increase to unity.</DIV><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They addressed the question whether reconnection is capable of accelerating electrons to suprathermal energies. </DIV></p><p>No they didn't.  They accelerated electrons with *electromagnetic fields* and z-pinch processes in plasma.  At no point was 'magnetic reconnection" involved in this proces because at no point did they eliminate the other, much more common and much more well documented phenomenon from consideration during their ""experimentation". They "stored" energy inside of "electrons" that generated "current flows" for small period of time inside of a plasma sheet.  Of course the moment that the current stopped flowing in the experiment the plasma acceleration ended.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They created a reconnection event using a tokamak reactor and proved that reconnection is capable.  I suppose you are arguing that they didn't create magnetic reconnection in their experiments, but I really don't understand how that argument holds any water.</DIV></p><p>How *exactly* (be specific) did they "create magnetic reconnection" in that experiment?  Define the actual physics that took place on how that relates to your earlier "magnetic island" theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Using magnetic fields they were able to accelerate electrons to suprathermal energies.</DIV></p><p>Correction: Using *electro*magnetic field they were able to accelerate electrons. The storage and release of energy came from electron flow, not just "magnetic fields" as though they are separate from "current flow".  There is current flow in that experiment from the moment they powered it up.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> How is this not empirical evidence of the role magnetic fields/reconnection plays in accelerating electrons? </DIV></p><p>It wasn't powered by "magnetic reconnection", but rather *electricity* that moved the particles.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are referring to the dumbed-down presentation they gave to the public.  I read through that and have no comment except that it is often difficult to translate real science to the public.</DIV></p><p>Somehow they managed to "translate" a complete "failure" of a "prediction pattern" into a "verification" that "magnetic fields store energy" and release them during a process of "magnetic reconnection".   Neither model accurately predicted the sequence of events, so how does the verify "magnetic reconnection" was involved in an uncontrolled observation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have the actual paper the press conference wa sbased on in front of me and I have read through it many times.  I see no problem with what they are saying.  All they say in the paper is that reconnection events were noted on the order of minutes before a substorm occurred. </DIV></p><p>All they observed was "current flow" entering the ail of the magnetosphere.  Since the series of events did not match their predictions, how exactly did they demonstrated "magnetic reconnection" was involved.  I can't just claim that "invisible elephants" creates "current flow" and then use the Hall effect I observed in the current flow as a "verification" of invisible elephants.   When did they demonstrate a physical link between current flow and "magnetic reconnection"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They didn't falsify anything. Please read through the paper and don't use a press conference as your source.  </DIV></p><p>Of course they did.  Neither of their two models accurately predicted the observed sequence of events.  Look at their graphs!  Neither model was in any way useful at "predicting" the observations.  Both of them failed to accurately predict the events.  How can that be a "verification" of the theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you look at even the abstract of the paper, all they say is "These results demonstrate that substorms are LIKELY(capitilization mine) initiated by tail reconnection." </DIV></p><p>It has absolutely nothing to do with "magnetic" reconnection, and everything to do with "current flow" that comes into the tail.  It is not "likely" that "magnetic reconnection" was involved in this event because both models were falsified by the observations.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The paper does not use those words.  </DIV></p><p>Many papers do.  That's the problem with all of these metaphysical theories.  Nobody is quite sure about the physics of how they work.  There isn't a real "consensus" on how it actually works. Nobody can "predict" anything useful with these theories and if you ask 10 people to explain it, you get 10 different answers.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have not done so in a convincing manner using mathematical models or observational results.</DIV></p><p>Birkeland has already "convincingly" demnstrated that "current flow" was involved and I do not have to demonstrate to "magnetic reconnection" is false, only that their results didn't match their "predictions".  I can't falsify ever possible"flavor" of this theory, someone has to actually do that as Birkeland did that with "current flow".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All you have said is that Birkeland demonstrated that current flow can produce aurorae, which nobody is disputing. </DIV></p><p>No, we are disputing whether or not "magnetic reconnection" is actually a code name term for "current flow" or whether "magnetic reconnection" is a unique way of accelerating charged particles to created "current flow".   </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He did not prove that magnetic reconnection isn't responsible for the acceleration of the electrons involved in real aurorae. </DIV></p><p>He certainly demonstrated that neither of the two models accurely "predicted" the observed series of events!  What else can you call it?  Oh ya, they called it a "verification".

  When a falsification is presented as a "verification" we know there is a problem.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nor did I, unless you consider disagreeing with them as criticism.  Any scientist, regardless of their prestige and reputation, is open for criticism.  You even said yourself that just because journals such as Nature are prestigious does not mean we have to agree with everything they publish.</DIV></p><p>Well, keep in mind that I never accused you of anything, and as you said, I am welcome to criticize their work.  That's what science is all about. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The difference between you and the scientific community is you are not producing any new results to counter the current arguments.</DIV></p><p>First off, I don't have to produce anything.  EVerything that I believe in was emprically demonstrated by Birkeland already and he did it with *controlled* experimentation, not simple uncontrolled "tests".  I don't have to show "new results", they must demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" is somehow associated with "particle acceleration".  Once the particles are accelerated it's technicually "current flow", so it's only a matter of demonstrating a unique form of acceleration called "magnetic reconnection" that is different from other, documented methods of accelerating plasma.  You can't do that, and they can't do that from an uncontrolled observation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will never convince anybody that your theory is correct until you provide a valid modern working model of your idea. </DIV></p><p>I do not need to reinvent the wheel.  An *old* working model has already been produced that demonstrates that "current flow" is related to aurora.  A modern working duplication of Birkeland's work is unnecsssary.  You should (and actually do) believe it works because you can see it works in emperical experimentation.  Even your acclerated particle theory is ultimately a "current flow" theory.  It's only a question of what generated the motion of the particles.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can't just keep referring to Alfven and Birkeland's work. </DIV></p><p>I can't help but refer to their work since their work in integral to both their theories and your theories.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am quite sure someone has at least tried to put Alfven's ideas into a modern computer model...if they had succeeded, you would be able to quote me the paper they wrote about it.</DIV></p><p>I doubt you've even read the first paper I cited on this topic, but he wrote about the Earth's magnetosphere quite extensively in his body of work and he described it all as "current flow".  Anthony Peratt put his work into a computer model and they showed how it relates to cosmic plasma.  It's already been done.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  The point being, nobody is going to believe you if you can't produce modern, convincing arguments based on good science. </DIV></p><p>"Good science" is required. "Modern" is not.  Birkeland's work is convincing because it's emprical physics and it's based on real life "tests" that contain real life "control mechanisms".  The notions of needing something "modern" is purely subjective.  "Good science" is timeless and Birkeland's work has stood the test of time and you too are relying upon the validity of his work in the final analysis.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have the overwhelming task of disproving countless papers and science results that support magnetic reconnection theory. </DIV></p><p>No, I don't.  Proponents of "magnetic reconnection" are obligated to provide a working model of their idea just as Birkeland did with "current flow". There are not even two papers that seem to agree on what "magnetic reconnection" really is. You've already demonstrated that point for us with the PPL paper and the earlier one you cited.  They are based on different ideas.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It can be done, but so far you haven't given solid arguments against any of the ideas presented. </DIV></p><p>I haven't even seen you touch that paper on this topic from Alfven.  Care to do that and then tell me that I didn't rpesent "solid" arguements to rebutt these very ideas?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You say magnetic islands can be explained by plasma threads in a sheet etc.  OK, prove it as they did. </DIV></p><p>How did they "prove" anything?  All they did was "make up" a "magnetic island" and they never physically actually explained it.  I simply offered you a physical model of a "magnetic island" that is based on physics and current flow.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Refute their specific claims. </DIV></p><p>I already did that with the paper from Alfven that you never read.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have come to the conclusion that there is a massive, overwhelming amount of evidence saying you are wrong in claiming that reconnection doesn't exist.  Scientists must believe the argument with the most compelling evidence.   <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Which brings you in direct conflict with the father and Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory and you haven't even bothered to read his work or the specific paper he wrote that dealt with this very issue in the exact conditions we're talking about. </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 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They deduce it from several different lines of evidence, namely observations, models, and empirical experiments. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>No they don't.  The THEMIS data blew away their models!  They failed to accurately predict the events in question.  They don't work.   Birkeland deduced these things are related to "current flow" from several lines of evidence including in-situ measurements, mathematical modelling and most importantly *emprical experimetation".  Show me duplication of Birkeland's work on aurora around sphere that was powered 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>

michaelmozina · Jul 30, 2008

How was the PPL experiment "powered"?  What did they use to get these particles in motion and to create the "magnetic feilds"? <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 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now you've gone off the deep end... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Well, I can't emprically demonstrate an "age" of the universe and Alfven's BB theory did not require that expansion in space necessarily resulted in a singular body of mass at any point in the past.  I can't empirically justify any specific age of the unvierse without resorting to forces that have never been empricallly shown to exist in nature, so I have no legitimate scientific way of calculating the age of the universe.  It's not that I want to jump off the deep end Wayne, and I understand your concerns, I just can't justify a specific age of the uniiverse from EU theory alone. </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 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No they don't.  The THEMIS data blew away their models!  They failed to accurately predict the events in question.  They don't work.   <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>If you repeat this failed logic enough, you might get some poor sap to fall for it, but that's not going to happen here. </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 30, 2008

<p>Model 1<br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/4/6/d4962fb0-12c2-420b-96a9-21e71e56365a.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p><br />Model 2<br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/2/16d70b9f-a915-4b9e-82ad-f7222ef1aec4.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>Actual order of events. </p><p> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/2/cc0ad2fb-d2c1-4dbd-82f9-174a505940d8.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p><br /><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you repeat this failed logic enough, you might get some poor sap to fall for it, but that's not going to happen here.  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Ya, some poor sap might actually read the paper, look at the graphs and notice that their predicted models both failed to accurately predict the sequence of events.   Ooops?  If that isn't a falsification of the idea, then how does one ever falsify a theory built upon a pure observation and no control mechanims? </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 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How did they "prove" anything?  All they did was "make up" a "magnetic island" and they never physically actually explained it. </DIV></p><p>For the love of God, yes they did.  They gave specific equations detailing the energy gain process and all the acceleration mechanisms inherent in their idea.  They performed simulations based on the idea.  How could they do that(produce a model that predicts results that are then confirmed observationally) without a valid set of governing equations? </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where is their mathematical model of how that's done with Maxwell's equations?  Which model are you supporting again?</DIV></p><p>It is not the purpose of scientific publications to walk you through a derivation of their ideas.  There are some things rightfully assumed to be common knowledge.  Find me a single equation they use in that paper that violates Maxwell's equations.  I only quoted two papers that directly address magnetic islands, but you are applying it to every single paper I post.  It is just a possible explanation of the observed results.  And it works.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> No they didn't.</DIV></p><p>Did you look at the other papers?  They created reconnection events and observed that the electrons were accelerated to suprathermal levels.  Now you are just accusing these scientists of blatantly lying in their papers.  The events they simulated in the reactor are physically identical to what is believed to be a reconnection event.   </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  Of course the moment that the current stopped flowing in the experiment the plasma acceleration ended.How *exactly* (be specific) did they "create magnetic reconnection" in that experiment?  Define the actual physics that took place on how that relates to your earlier "magnetic island" theory?</DIV></p><p>Read the paper and they tell you.  No really, they do.  I should not and WILL not summarize a paper you could just as easily read for yourself.  You are only asking to try to discredit me because you know I won't waste my time doing it.  I am not the expert.  They are.  It also has nothing to do with magnetic islands directly.  It is just proving the idea that magnetic reconnection CAN accelerate electrons, not HOW. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Somehow they managed to "translate" a complete "failure" of a "prediction pattern" into a "verification" that "magnetic fields store energy" and release them during a process of "magnetic reconnection".   Neither model accurately predicted the sequence of events, so how does the verify "magnetic reconnection" was involved in an uncontrolled observation?All they observed was "current flow" entering the ail of the magnetosphere.</p><p>...</p><p>  When did they demonstrate a physical link between current flow and "magnetic reconnection"?Of course they did.  Neither of their two models accurately predicted the observed sequence of events.  Look at their graphs! </p><p> </DIV></p><p>And where did this current flow come from?  Just out of nowhere?  Also could you please inform us where you got those images?  They are not in the Science article they published.   </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since the series of events did not match their predictions, how exactly did they demonstrated "magnetic reconnection" was involved.  I can't just claim that "invisible elephants" creates "current flow" and then use the Hall effect I observed in the current flow as a "verification" of invisible elephants.</DIV></p><p>Arguing this point about elephants is futile because you claim the events they recorded are not reconnection events.  The whole active scientific community is against you on this regard.   </p><p>  Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It has absolutely nothing to do with "magnetic" reconnection, and everything to do with "current flow" that comes into the tail.  It is not "likely" that "magnetic reconnection" was involved in this event because both models were falsified by the observations. </DIV></p><p>Create for us, if you will, a model that can predict a substorm using EU theory.  If you were capable of this, you could easily find a job here as this is the primary reason the department I work in exists.  Their paper simply states that there is most likely a connection between reconnection and substorms.  Tehy make no claims as to the accuracy of being able to predict other than that they believe a reconnection event will precede a substorm.  They don't claim to be able to predict the exact amount of time between the two events. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Many papers do.  That's the problem with all of these metaphysical theories.  Nobody is quite sure about the physics of how they work.  There isn't a real "consensus" on how it actually works. Nobody can "predict" anything useful with these theories and if you ask 10 people to explain it, you get 10 different answers.</DIV></p><p>And EU theory can predict substorms?  Show us.  I would wager that if you asked 10 proponents of EU theory to describe what they believe they would say differnet things.  That is just a result of scientists forming differing opinions based on facts, which they then test and that is how they have jobs.  I've been wondering lately what Alfven or Birkeland would have to say about this argument if they had access to the information we have now.  I get the feeling there may be a moderate twisting of their work to your advantage. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland has already "convincingly" demnstrated that "current flow" was involved and I do not have to demonstrate to "magnetic reconnection" is false, only that their results didn't match their "predictions".  </DIV></p><p>YES, BUT he did not demonstrate how the current flow was produced or accelerated. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't falsify ever possible"flavor" of this theory, someone has to actually do that as Birkeland did that with "current flow".</DIV></p><p>If Birkeland can falsify a theory with his experiment, why do these other empirical demonstrations not count?   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First off, I don't have to produce anything. </DIV></p><p>With that attitude you will never get the respect or trust of the science community.  They are constantly producing evidence backing up what they say.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't have to show "new results", they must demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" is somehow associated with "particle acceleration".</DIV></p><p>If you want anyone to believe you, you or some proponent of EU theory has to step up and show that acceleration to suprathermal levels is a viable model without magnetic reconnection, and subsequently back it up with observations of the signatures such a model would predict. </p><p>  Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> An *old* working model has already been produced that demonstrates that "current flow" is related to aurora.  A modern working duplication of Birkeland's work is unnecsssary.</DIV></p><p>I am not requesting a duplication, I feel that you are making claims that Birkeland's work did not address.  And yes, I have read over what he did.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I doubt you've even read the first paper I cited on this topic, but he wrote about the Earth's magnetosphere quite extensively in his body of work and he described it all as "current flow".  Anthony Peratt put his work into a computer model and they showed how it relates to cosmic plasma.  It's already been done.</DIV></p><p>And I doubt you've truly read in an unbiased manner any work i've posted.  My intention in posting is this thread is not to poke holes in Alfven's theory, but to show you why I and the modern science community believes magnetic reconnection exists. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Good science" is required. "Modern" is not. </DIV></p><p>When we speak of models, you cannot claim that old(even 20 years ago) models are equally or more valid to modern simulations.  Supercomputing power has increased at a ridiculous pace(see the Roadrunner computer at LANL), and is so much more sophisticated now than people such as Chapman could have ever imagined.  So when it comes to modeling, age does matter. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland's work has stood the test of time and you too are relying upon the validity of his work in the final analysis.</DIV></p><p> It has stood the test of time, but not in the sense as your interpret it.  If it had, magnetic reconnection would not exist as the accepted theory.  Bottom line, his theory, if you want to claim he espoused this current view of "EU" theory as people have interpreted it, has been replaced by a theory with better evidence. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I don't.  Proponents of "magnetic reconnection" are obligated to provide a working model of their idea just as Birkeland did with "current flow". </DIV></p><p>This statement confirms you haven't read in detail any paper I posted.  If you are using "working model" as a code word for "lab experiment" then you have an unrealistic and flawed view of a working model.  A working model is simply any model, whether it be mathematical, physical, or computational, that can reproduce real life results.  There are models that do that.  And guess what, they use reconnection. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are not even two papers that seem to agree on what "magnetic reconnection" really is. You've already demonstrated that point for us with the PPL paper and the earlier one you cited.  They are based on different ideas.</DIV></p><p>If you are referring to the island paper, then of course they are based on two different things.  One addresses whether reconnection is a valid mechanism to accelerate electrons, the other develops a theory describing how it happens.  They both deal with the same event though(reconnection).  That is like saying a paper on the formation of a star and another on the composition of a star are completely unrelated and claim two different things.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I haven't even seen you touch that paper on this topic from Alfven. </DIV></p><p>Been watching through my window now have we? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Care to do that and then tell me that I didn't rpesent "solid" arguements to rebutt these very ideas?</DIV></p><p>I am not arguing that Alfven did not make valid points.  I am claiming you are misrepresenting them. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  I simply offered you a physical model of a "magnetic island" that is based on physics and current flow.</DIV></p><p>No, no you didn't.  What you did was make up a concept that was not backed up by anything.  The paper I provided(Drake 2006) however does back up its model.  You can't call a concept you just came up with a model without testing it.  And no, Birkeland did not do this.  Again, his experiment where he produced aurorae with a cathode ray were more to do with the end result, it did not address the mechanism by which his electrons were accelerated. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I already did that with the paper from Alfven that you never read.Which brings you in direct conflict with the father and Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory and you haven't even bothered to read his work or the specific paper he wrote that dealt with this very issue in the exact conditions we're talking about. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You claim you recognize Alfven is not infallible but a statement like this reeks of hero worship.  Like I said before, I provided you with everything you asked for.  You did not request that I try to disprove Alfven's theory, you wanted evidence of reconnection.  I gave you it many times over.  You are choosing to ignore it, so I think we can declare this thread as dead.  I have wasted far too much of my time with this argument(not in reading the papers, that was productive use of my time, but in trying to explain it to someone who is refusing to listen).  On the surface your arguments appear to be reasonable, but they are merely what should be the beginning of your argument.  What should follow is a thought-out explanation of what you believe.  When challenged for more explanation, you just tend to not include that particular sentence in your quote-filled reply or just talk around it.  This has been an entirely one-sided debate and I am done with it.  I'm not going to even bother with your other thread...it is even more "out there" and I am personally insulted that you find astrophysicists to be so foolish and uneducated.  Like I said, we are not just making assumptions...we have good reasons to believe what we do.  The science community can't waste its time trying to disprove every "theory"(just calling it a theory doesn't make it one) out there that doesn't give solid scientific evidence.  If you don't like how the science community works, then feel free to stay out of it.  The way it works in reality is the minority opinion has to give compelling evidence to the majority to change their mind.  You can't just sit in the corner throwing a tantrum, you have to get out and publish and get recognition and only then will youe ver be able to change the accepted foundation of science. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 30, 2008

<p>I'm walking out the door to start a well deserved mini-vaction so I don't have time to address each item in your last repsonse.  I'll pick the most critical issues.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the love of God, yes they did.  They gave specific equations detailing the energy gain process and all the acceleration mechanisms inherent in their idea. </DIV></p><p>Please physically (not mathematically) define a "magnetic island' for me in terms of real physical things and real physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They performed simulations based on the idea.</DIV></p><p>A simulation is not an emprical test.  A computer can create a virtual world that does not act like the real one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is not the purpose of scientific publications to walk you through a derivation of their ideas.  There are some things rightfully assumed to be common knowledge.</DIV></p><p>It is common knowledge that magnetic fields always form as a full and complete continuum and they don't make and break lines like electrical circuits. Without a physical and mathematical model there is no way to 'test" the idea to eliminate more mundain electrical and particle "reconnections" in plasma from the "special" kind you're claiming is responsible for these observations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Find me a single equation they use in that paper that violates Maxwell's equations. </DIV></p><p>Which model are you talking about now, magnetic islands or the saw tooth theory?  Be specific because this is like a whack-a-mole process where different options are being put on the table.  Some of them don't violate anything, but make assumptions about "magnetic islands" that are not explained in terms of real physical processes.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I only quoted two papers that directly address magnetic islands, but you are applying it to every single paper I post. </DIV></p><p>You have to pick a single theory for me to scrutinize and comment on.  There are three different papers being debated here now and you haven't touched any of my references even once.  I am at least making a good faith effort to address your points, whereas you've skipped all of Don Scotts criticism and all of Hannes Alfven's criticisms entirely.</p><p>As far as "me against the world", that's a bunch of baloney. Dr Don Scott doesn't believe in it either, and many scientists think the idea is ridiculous.  As long as you simply ignore their criticisms entirely, I can understand why you thnink it's me vs. the world, but it's certainly not Michael vs. the world.  It's "experts" vs. "experts" and I'm just a guy trying to figure out who's right. </p><p>As far as hero worship comment is concerned, the mainstream gave the guy a Nobel prize for his work in plasma physics and MHD theory, not me.  I simply give him the benefit of the doubt unless until someone physically demonstrates that he was wrong.  That's never happened.  You never even touched the paper by Hannes Alfven that I cited where he addressed this exact issue, in these exact circumstances, in his own words, and you've never responded to his criticisms. What can I say?  It's easy to debate someone if you simple ignore their points entirely as you are doing.  You seem to expect me to read every paper you provide, yet you've not read or at least not commented on either Dr. Scott's criticisms or Hannes Alfven's criticisms.   You can't even seem to stick to a "single" brand of "magnetic reconnection", so it's like trying to play whack-a-mole.  This is exactly why emprical science puts the onus of responsibility on the one making the claim, and it doesn't try to prove negatives.</p><p>I'm going to take some time off now and relax a bit and enjoy the next few days.  In the mean time, feel free to actually read that paper on magnetic reconnection from Alfven and let me know why I should trust your experts over the guy that wrote MHD theory.  It's not a hero worship question, it's a physics question, with a real physical answer.</p><p>Birkeland showed that all these auroral events can easily be explained with "current flow" models.  </p><p>In the end your model depends on his work with "current flow" since that is what you are presumably creating with "magnetic reconnection".  That's not hero worship either, that's pure science and you require his work as well.</p><p>This all comes back to the "chicken or the egg".  Which came first, the curent flow or the "magnetic reconnection".  The suns sprews million mile per hour charged particles and always has.  Current flow has always been present in interplanetary space.  There is no need for "magnetic reconnection" to explain that THEMIS data.  It's a "current flow" event from the start. </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 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You never even touched the paper by Hannes Alfven that I cited where he addressed this exact issue, in these exact circumstances, in his own words, and you've never responded to his criticisms. What can I say?  It's easy to debate someone if you simple ignore their points entirely as you are doing.  You seem to expect me to read every paper you provide, yet you've not read or at least not commented on either Dr. Scott's criticisms or Hannes Alfven's criticisms.   You can't even seem to stick to a "single" brand of "magnetic reconnection", so it's like trying to play whack-a-mole.</DIV></p><p>I hope everyone else reading this can see through this insult to my intelligence.  All the papers are referring to the same thing when they say magnetic reconnection.  They are merely addressing different aspects of the theory.  I am not addressing Alfven's paper because it is not relevant in regards to this topic(of course he is a great scientist, thats hwy he has the Nobel prize...but he did NOT get it for developing EU theory.  Other people developed that for him based on his work).   </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is exactly why emprical science puts the onus of responsibility on the one making the claim, and it doesn't try to prove negatives.</DIV></p><p>OK, I won't believe essentially everything published in any astrophysical scientific journal because the majority of things published today are not demonstrable empirically.  This does NOT mean they are not valid.   </p><p> </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The suns sprews million mile per hour charged particles and always has.  Current flow has always been present in interplanetary space. </DIV></p><p>Here we go again...NOBODY is disputing this fact.  You are hoping nobody is reading my posts and will believe the implied words you are putting into my mouth. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><br /> </p><p> There is no need for "magnetic reconnection" to explain that THEMIS data.  It's a "current flow" event from the start. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Prove it, and i'll believe you.  You can't, and you won't.  The least we can do is go by the evidence which is precisely what i'm doing.  I've tried to handle this civilly but it is becoming clear to me, as every space.com forums veteran seems to already know, that you are no different from people such as UFO conspiracy theory advocates who claim the opposition is wrong because they won't waste their time proving them wrong.   </p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> .This all comes back to the "chicken or the egg".  Which came first, the curent flow or the "magnetic reconnection". </DIV></p><p> </p><p>Statements such as this make it clear you are not reading my posts OR the papers I post.  I wiill eventually read hte paper you want me to but it is NOT relevant to this argument.  We are arguing about reconnection.  Alfven's paper does not address the observations and models of today.  That is simply impossible.  He was dead long before these models were created.  This is not whack-a-mole.  This is using modern papers addressing COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ASPECTS of the SAME problem, that being magnetic reconnection.  MAgnetic islands does not explain reconnection, it explains how reconnection accelerates particles.  It begins with the assumption that reconnection is occurring.  The experiments tried to verify the capabilities of reconnection as it pertains to accelerations of particles.  The Asnes paper deals with a unique set of observations that they then connect to reconnection.  The Wind satellite paper I first posted deals with unique observations which they then connect to reconnection.  The Borovsky papers all deal with implications of reconnection theory.  The THEMIS paper refers to the observation that reconnection events occurred prior to substorms they observed.  Are you noticing a pattern?  THEY ALL refer to the same concept of reconnection from different approaches.   This is how science works.  They are not talking about different forms of reconnection.  You obviously are COMPLETELY missing the entire point of these papers.  Instead of trying to understand what you're saying, you just subtley try to insult my intelligence.  I understand what you are saying.  I don't need to read Alfven's paper to understand the idea of current flow.  I will for my own purposes but like I said it is ENTIRELY irrelevant to this argument.  I did what you wanted and you entirely ignored everything that you couldn't twist and misinterpret.  You are trying to imply that someone who is paid to work in this field doesn't understand what he is doing.  I think the government is a better judge of such things than you.  You are lucky I'm even giving you the time of day...any established colleague I have would dismiss you as a fool.  I did not, and I engaged you in a discussion and you have provided nothing of substance to back up your claims.  </p><p>I don't expect that anybody read much of our discussion since it is full of overly-long posts like this one, but if someone is out there, please reassure me that i'm not crazy, I am not an idiot and I have provided a solid cbody of evidence for my beliefs.  I am used to people challenging my views...I am not used to people challenging them but then ignoring everything I say.  I addressed everything mr. mozina posted with a rebuttal paper or theory, so how he accuses me of not taking his view into consideration is beyond me.   </p><p> </p><p>Also, you never explained why the images you claimed were in the THEMIS paper are, in fact, nowhere in the paper.  There is a variation of one of the images you showed, but that image in its entirety is nowhere in the article published in Science.  Care to explain? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I don't expect that anybody read much of our discussion since it is full of overly-long posts like this one, but if someone is out there, please reassure me that i'm not crazy, I am not an idiot and I have provided a solid cbody of evidence for my beliefs.  I am used to people challenging my views...I am not used to people challenging them but then ignoring everything I say. ... <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>1,  You are not crazy.</p><p>2.  Your are not an idiot.  Far from it, and it think I can recognize idiots.  </p><p>3.  You are having precisely the same problem that everyone else who has tried to point out the implications of rational physics has had in dealing with Mr. Mozina.  You have clearly noticed by now that the discussion is not rational , i.e. cast in terms of the facts or the implications of theories as well established as classical electrodynamics and general relativity.  Michael professes to understand both and hold them in high esteem.  So far he has conclusively proven to me that he has no idea what to do with Maxwell's equations (I have posted them for him several times and shown him implicatioins of those equations to no effect what ever) and he has equally proven that he has not the slightest concept what either special or general relativity are all about -- for instance he fails to see that general relativity is an important tool in cosmology, but that there are several possible formulations of cosmology all within the framework of general relativity.</p><p>Of course he ignores everything that you say.  If he didn't he would have to abandon the EU reputations that he has very publicly espoused and he would have to admit that his ideas have been completely discredited.  He has never directly addressed any post that was phrased in terms of basic physics, particularly if it contains the slightest hint of mathematics (what he calls "math magic").  You are dealing with someone with no concept whatever of basic physics and the biggest case of math anxiety that I have ever seen.</p><p>If you believe that the sun is giant neon sign, with a solid iron core just under the photosphere; if you believe that galaxies consiste of charged bodies held in orbit by an electromagnetic field (radial outward from the center of the galaxies so that the Lorentz force is penpendicular to plane of rotation no less); or if you believe that the stars and the sun are primarily powered by an external electric current rather than by fusion then you may get some agreement with Mr. Mozina.  But if you come around to that point of view then I may need to revisit items 1 and 2.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Neon, calcium, iron?  Ok I've got to ask.  Where did all these heavy elements come from without nuclear fusion?  Have they simply existed since the beginning of the universe?However I did see a guy make a pickle glow by plugging it into an extension cord. Now that's maverick thinking and careful observation.  (no, it really works!) <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>WOW!!! Now we have real empirical evidence, just what Michael requires.  It is now clear.  The sun is cucumber!!! It has been demonstrated in a laboratory under controlled conditions.  That is PROOF.</p><p>Dill ?</p><p>Somewhat more seriously, this demonstrates the problem with conclusions based on what something "looks like" in an elementary laboratory demonstration,  Demonstrations are not necessarily controlled experiments, and "looks like" is neither a measurement nor valid basis for a conclusion.</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now you've gone off the deep end... <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Now ?  In New Jersey this becomes apparent now ?  This seems to demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity.  Out here in the West, that event transpired some time ago. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 31, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now ?  In New Jersey this becomes apparent now ?  This seems to demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity.  Out here in the West, that event transpired some time ago.  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Actually, I'm sure I made the same statement some 30 pages ago. But I am not going to wade through to find it. I think it's time to admit this thread is dead and stop arguing with an immovable irrational object. Then mm will spend 10 or 20 more posts to himself, that we can read with bemusement.</p><p>Of course if you enjoy reinforcing that large welt on your head from beating it into the wall, by all means go on. </p><p>I think we all saw the pointlessness of it 30 or more pages ago. You have a strong constitution DrRocket!! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

kg · Jul 31, 2008

<p>Somewhat more seriously, this demonstrates the problem with conclusions based on what something "looks like" in an elementary laboratory demonstration,  Demonstrations are not necessarily controlled experiments, and "looks like" is neither a measurement nor valid basis for a conclusion.  <br />Posted by DrRocket[/QUOTE]<br /><br />What? You mean it wasn't really a prototype cold fusion reactor like he told me?  Good thing I didn't have any money on me to invest in the thing!</p><p>But honestly, would it even be possible to have a ball of iron some 1.3 million km (is this number right?) in diameter like the sun would have to be?  What about a star like Antares?  Wouldn't it would crush itself into a black hole?  The whole magnetic electro-dynamic field part sounds like the most plausible part of the theory to me. </p>

michaelmozina · Jul 31, 2008

<p>Not one of you bothered to even read Alfven's criticism of "magnetic reconnection" as it relates to magnetosphere theory.  Not one of you commented on any of the key points I made or Dr Scott made.  Not one of you read Alfven's explaination of magnetosphereic activity in terms of "current flow".   No one physically described a "mangetic island" in terms of real physical objects and real physics, not just mathematical modeling of a vague theory. </p><p>We *know* with emprical certainty that "current flow" is connected to aurora. The only real issue then is whether current flow simply entered the tail (or current sheet), or it was created in a "magnetic reconnection" event.</p><p>Interplanetary space is absolutely *filled* with current flows galore as those million mile per hour particles are being accelerated toward the heliosphere.  All of the physical experiments you have mentioned and cited to date have physically taken place *INSIDE OF AN EXISTING CURRENT SHEET*, and did the not accelerate ions *WITHOUT CURRENT FLOW PRIOR TO THE SUPPOSED EVENT*.  All of them were powered by "curent flow" to make the experiment work, and the moment the current flow was turned off, all thse "magnetic reconnection" events ended. </p><p>Bah!  As long as you guys never read the papers I cite, and as long as you avoid all the key points I made, the conversation is going nowhere. </p><p>Rhessi observed gamma rays in Earth's atmosphere we have isolated them to "current flow discharge events" in the Earth's atmosphere.  This event also accelerates charged particles to high speeds.    You folks point that same exact instrument at the sun, you observe gamma rays and particle acceleration from the solar atmosphere and call it "magnetic reconnection".     Bah!  This whole conversation demonstrates the irrational nature of mainstream beliefs.  They defy Alfven's teachings.  They defy physical definition (like all the metaphysical theories of astronomy) and they only take place in current sheets.  The moment the current flow is turned off, the "magnetic reconnection" event terminates immediately.  We observe neutron capture signatures from the solar atmosphere and we know with physical certainty that this occurs in z-pinch reactions driven by curent flow.  Since there is no physical definition of a "magnetic island", there is way to differentiate between an ordinary z-pinch and a "magnetic reconnection" event.</p><p>The whole concept of magnetic reconnection stinks to high heaven because magnetic field lines do not make and break connections and release energy from this process.  It's an intentional mistlabeling of a current flow event as "magnetic reconnection".  This whole conversation demonstrates that "electricity" is the forbidden topic of astronomy and "magnetic reconnection" is the new buzz word to explain all electrical events without using the terms "current flow" or electricity. </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 31, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not one of you bothered to even read Alfven's criticism of "magnetic reconnection" as it relates to magnetosphere theory.  Not one of you commented on any of the key points I made or Dr Scott made.  Not one of you read Alfven's explaination of magnetosphereic activity in terms of "current flow".  ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Wrong.  I'm not sure precisely to which if Alfven's papers you are making reference, but I have read some of his criticisms.  Your "key points" have been addressed and debunked repeatedly.  I have addressed Scott's paper, largely a case of setting up and knocking over trivial straw men, on several occasions.  Scott doesn't have a point. </p><p>If anyone is not listening it is most certainly you.  If anyone is ignoring key points and rigorous physical arguments it is again most certainly you.  If anyone has put forth unsubstantiated and in fact refutable and refuted nonsense it is you.  If anyone has refused to look at the literature, or even basic physics such as Maxwell's equations, it is you.  If anyone has proferred  theories that fly in the face of Maxwell's equations and the mechanics of both Einstein and Newton it is you.  If anyone is closed-minded it is has been most clearly demonstrated in this thread that it is you.</p><p>I would like to read something.  A physics textbook.  Any physics textbook.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

UFmbutler · Jul 31, 2008

Thank God i'm too sick today to make another argument...I'd have a field day with mozinas post.  Seriously, did you just go through and copy paste paragraphs from old posts and add a few Bah!s?  Myself or someone else has already addressed every single thing you posted.  I know what Alfven's beliefs were.  Reading his entire body of work won't convince me otherwise, because I'd have the mountain of evidence against his claimis that I've read.  I only scratched the surface of this mountain in this thread.  Go back and read all of my posts.  AT LEAST read hte abstracts of all the papers I posted(I did read the abstract of Alfven's paper, more than you've obviously done to most of mine).  Like I said, at first I tried to not brush you off as a fool like anyone else in the field would have...now I am because you are not even capable of carrying on a conversation.  If I felt like it I would go back through all my posts and quote where I addressed all of your "claims" you made in your last post, many many times.  I'd wager that I addressed them as many times as you posted them...until this one.  You claimed once that the fundamentals of astrophysics are fundamentally flawed..well, in my researched and educated opinion, it is the fundamentals of Alfven's MHD theory as you have twisted them that are fundamentally flawed.  Yes he won a Nobel Prize.  I can name a ton of astronomers that have gotten the same prize for researching what you refer to as "myth".  You are closer to an astrologer than a physicist.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 31, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Model 1 Model 2 Actual order of events. Ya, some poor sap might actually read the paper, look at the graphs and notice that their predicted models both failed to accurately predict the sequence of events.   Ooops?  If that isn't a falsification of the idea, then how does one ever falsify a theory built upon a pure observation and no control mechanims? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Let's re-examine the events as described in the paper that has been accepted for publication... again.</p><p>Actually, let's take a few quotes from the paper accepted for publication on 29 Feb 08 outlining the mission parameters.  (I'll supply a link later after I return from golf... remind me if I forget [edit:  here is the link I said I'd provide to support the quotes below and my golf game is still wanting]).</p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"The Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission is the fifth NASA Medium-class Explorer (MIDEX), launched on February 17, 2007 to determine the trigger and large scale evolution of substorms." </em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"Presently, all possible causal sequences involving auroral break, Rx onset, CD onset and external triggers are viable hypotheses (kennel 1992).  In particular, CD and Rx might be causally linked, or may proceed independently of each other.  As an impartial and experienced researcher summarizes:</em></font></p><p>[Rx = magnetic reconnection and CD = current distruption] </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"Observations are gruadually leading to a coherent picture of the interrelations among these various onset phenomena, but their cause remains a controversial question.  The abrupt nature of substorm onset suggests a mengeetospheric instability, but doubt remains as to its nature and place of origin.  Mesaurements increasingly suggest the region of 7-10 R (earth radii <-- my input as I can't recreate the text) near midnight as the likely point of origin" (fairfield et al. 1992).</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>A number of substorm onset paradigms exists, but two of them can help epitomize the main idea and reveal the primary observational reuiqrements.  These are the "current disruption" and the "Near-Earth Neutral Line" (NENL) paradigms.</em></font></p><p>(any typos are mine).</p><p>If I coulld be so bold as to summarize this... They didn't know!!!  Essentially, they were guessing based on limited data.  Hell... they even got the distance wrong in what they suggested above.  That's why the mission was established.  These are not predictions as you might relate them to a scientific theory.   They simply provided what they considered were to two most likely scenarios.  There's no false dichotomy here as you present it.  </p><p>You are blatently over emphasizing the meaning of these two models.  The main goal of this mission is as stated in the first quote I presented.  THE TRIGGER!!!  Anything after the trigger is just frosting on the cake. </p><p>Now, on to what the data collected supports.  If I may summarize this as well:</p><p>The data collected recently is highly indicative that a change in the topology of the magnetic field that resulted in an acceleration of current flow 96 seconds prior to auroral intensification.   This change in topology coupled with the detected acceleration at a location one-third the distance to the moon in the Earth's magnetotail is suggestive of a magnetic reconnection event as the trigger for the onset of the substorm.</p><p>Where, on God's Green Earth, do you see that magnetic reconnection was falsified? </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 31, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank God i'm too sick today to make another argument...I'd have a field day with mozinas post.  Seriously, did you just go through and copy paste paragraphs from old posts and add a few Bah!s?  Myself or someone else has already addressed every single thing you posted.  I know what Alfven's beliefs were.  Reading his entire body of work won't convince me otherwise, because I'd have the mountain of evidence against his claimis that I've read.  I only scratched the surface of this mountain in this thread.  Go back and read all of my posts.  AT LEAST read hte abstracts of all the papers I posted(I did read the abstract of Alfven's paper, more than you've obviously done to most of mine).  Like I said, at first I tried to not brush you off as a fool like anyone else in the field would have...now I am because you are not even capable of carrying on a conversation.  If I felt like it I would go back through all my posts and quote where I addressed all of your "claims" you made in your last post, many many times.  I'd wager that I addressed them as many times as you posted them...until this one.  You claimed once that the fundamentals of astrophysics are fundamentally flawed..well, in my researched and educated opinion, it is the fundamentals of Alfven's MHD theory as you have twisted them that are fundamentally flawed.  Yes he won a Nobel Prize.  I can name a ton of astronomers that have gotten the same prize for researching what you refer to as "myth".  You are closer to an astrologer than a physicist.  <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Indeed, the appeals to authority do get tiresome.  I believe in the Theory of Relativity, not because Einstien won a Nobel Prize, but rather due to the fact that the Theory of Relativity is based in sound physics.  Einstein got quite a few things wrongs... no one is infallable. </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>

Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

UFmbutler

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kg

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

kg

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page