<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wrong. I'm not sure precisely to which if Alfven's papers you are making reference, but I have read some of his criticisms. </DIV></p><p>In other words, you never even read the paper I cited here several times now and they only criticisms you've actualy read were the ones I posted to this forum. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your "key points" have been addressed and debunked repeatedly. </DIV></p><p>No, you didn't. You never addressed the points that all these "magnetic reconnection" events took place *INSIDE OF A CURRENT SHEET*, the one place Alfven explicitly rejected this whole concept. Having read these magnetic reconnection papers, I see why. That PPL paper takes place *INSIDE OF A BENNET PINCH FILAMENT*! That's a KINETIC and ELECTRICAL reconnection event, but of course they simply *IGNORED* the electric field when when created their mathematical models, so there was only the magnetic field to pin these events on in their mathematical models. The whole thing was an *ELECTRICAL DISHARGE EVENT*. Turn off the current, the whole thing stops. Never did they actually generate movement of ions based on "magnetic reconnection", all they did was "pinch" the plasma into a tightly wound spiraling column of electrified moving plasma! These are all "current flow" driven events from start to finish and Alfven explained he physics of Bennet pinch *WIHTOUT* magnetic reconnection. The whole concept is flawed and always has been flawed because none of these models actually mathed predictions, and none of them work without "current flow". My "magnetic island" explanation is just as applicable to the PPL paper as the first one. There is a moving column of electrified plasma drivng all of these events. PERIOD.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>No, you keep handwaving at it like you just did. You didn't show any flaws in his work, Alfven's work or anyone elses work for that matter. A handwave is not a valid scientific arguement. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>That's not true. I've gone through these various papers and I've pointed out the specific flaws in them, including now the PPL paper that ultimately *IGNORED* the electric field and built themselves a Bennet pinch scenario that won't do anything without "current flow" inside the rotating filament. They never even mentioned E during the whole mathematical presentation! No wonder they think this was "magnetic" in origin since their equations included no option for the electric field to have any influence. THey stacked the deck from start to finishand used "current flow" to create a z-pinch in plasma, nothing more. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>That is pure denial on your part. iF YOU DON'T READ ALFVEN'S REBUTTAL, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING. It's pure denial on your part that I have not substanciated my objections. I can't even get you to read the one textbook that is actually relevant to this topic. </p><p>This is absolutely slly IMO. Not one of the papers on "magnetic reconnection" actually generated any current flow or released any energy by reconnecting magnetic field lines. It's not even possible to cut and splice individual magnetic field lines using Maxwell's equations. The particle acceleration of the one paper was based on a "z-pinch" filament that they call a "magnetic island", and the PPL paper created a z-pinch using electricity and never allowed for E to have any influence on the event. They stacked the deck and attributed z-pinch kinetic proceses to "magnetic reconnection". The THEMIS folks falsified both of their magnetic reconnection models and called it "evidence" to support "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>This whole conversation is a bit surreal. Birkeland showed the physical link between current flow and auroras. No one has ever emprically demonstrated that a "magnetic reconnection" causes particles to accelerate and in fact all the models that have so far been presented simply ignored E entirely and did not even allow for it to change during the event. They never eliminated the more mundain plasma processes that are known to accelerate charged paticles. </p><p>All of the observed events can also *easily* be explained by "current flow interactions" inside plasma, and no one time "magnetic reconnection" event would even allow for an aurora to light up for hours on end. The "current flow" inside interplanetary space is constantly accelerating charged particles and you've simply ignored all these signs of "current flow". Bah. This whole attitude of yours is typical. You won't educate yourself and you wont' read Alfven's rebuttals. You don't have a clue how he epxlaned these events and you won't listen to logic or reason.</p><p>The solar wind acceleration is no "mystery". The charge separation between the heliosphere and photosphere is the driving force of this process, the aurora, the coronal loops and even rings around planets. Birkeland showed us this over 100 years ago. He simulated all of these things *without* magnetic reconnection, and used only "current flow" to generate all these phenomenon around physical ojects in a vacuum. PERIOD. There is no need for "magnetic reconnection" to explain aurora, coronal loops, particle acceleration, heat or any of the phenomenon being associated with "magnetic reconnection". The term is both misleading since magnetic fields do not make and break connections since only particles and electricity do that, but it's intentionally being used to try to sterilize an *ELECTRICAL PROCESS* and try to pin the wrap on "magnetics". None of these paper describe events *OUTSIDE* of current sheet, nor will they generate current on their own. The PPL paper is particularly questionable since they admit it's a "discharge" of electrical current, but they didn't put E in any of their "models"! </p><p>No one needs "magnetic reconnection" to explain aurora. Birkeland certainly didn't need it, and Alfven didn't need it either. It is absolutely unnecessary and Occum's razor therefore applies to this idea too. There are so many problems with this "magnetic reconnection" process it's not funny, strarting wth the fact they never included E in any of their mathemtical models and ending with the fact they generated all of these events with "current flow" inside of a current carrying plasma, which Alfven specifically rejected as being misleading and unnecessary. You wouldn't know that of course becaues you never read the paper I cited. Ignorance is not bliss DrRocket. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The THEMIS folks falsified both of their magnetic reconnection models and called it "evidence" to support "magnetic reconnection". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Argumentum ad nauseum... lame. This argument might look wonderful on some EU forums, but I'm not going to let fly here. You can keep repeating it as much as you like, but I'm going to call you on it everytime.</p><p>You are, quite simply, wrong in your assessment. I've provided the papers, quotes, links and logic to support my position on this. You, of course, can choose to ignore what I have provided. I have no doubt you will, indeed, ignore it as it flies in the face of your argument.</p><p> </p><p>PS. Here is the link to the PDF I said I would provide to support the quotes I made on the 2nd to last post on page 35. </p><p>And my golf game still stinks.<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"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p> </p><p> I don't understand why this debate seems to center on electrical currents, magnetic reconnection and the such. I'm just a blacksmith but I will give this a try. It seems to me that there are very dependable models of how stars form and evolve to put an end to this discussion. A object with the mass of the sun would collapse into something the size of a white dwarf if not for the radiation pressure from fusion at it's core (and it will do just that once it runs out of fuel). Fusion explains the existence of elements heaver than helium. A fusion model explains the characteristics of all kinds of stars from brown dwarfs to super giants as well as the processes that cause variable stars, novas and supernovas...etc. How does EU explain the neutrinos detected by Kamiokande ll from supernova 1987A? Also we don't see stars condensing from clouds of neon, silicon, calcium and iron. </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't understand why this debate seems to center on electrical currents, magnetic reconnection and the such. I'm just a blacksmith but I will give this a try. It seems to me that there are very dependable models of how stars form and evolve to put an end to this discussion. A object with the mass of the sun would collapse into something the size of a white dwarf if not for the radiation pressure from fusion at it's core (and it will do just that once it runs out of fuel). Fusion explains the existence of elements heaver than helium. A fusion model explains the characteristics of all kinds of stars from brown dwarfs to super giants as well as the processes that cause variable stars, novas and supernovas...etc. How does EU explain the neutrinos detected by Kamiokande ll from supernova 1987A? Also we don't see stars condensing from clouds of neon, silicon, calcium and iron. <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Your argument is completely correct. It is based solidly on physics and it is very logical.</p><p>The very fact that it is logical and well-grounded in physics is the reason that it will not settle any argument regarding EU. The point of the EU proponents is that they have the answer and they know something that eludes a small army of rather well-educated astrophysicists. Their entire reason for existence is their knowledge of this secret, and a desire to be recognized as pioneering geniuses, rather than as crackpots. You will never be able to convince them through rational argument. But you may, by presenting that argument, prevent someone who is just beginning to learn science and to form their own opinions from falling into the trap layed by the EU types.</p><p>But don't count on swaying irrational people with a rational argument.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your argument is completely correct. It is based solidly on physics and it is very logical.The very fact that it is logical and well-grounded in physics is the reason that it will not settle any argument regarding EU. The point of the EU proponents is that they have the answer and they know something that eludes a small army of rather well-educated astrophysicists. Their entire reason for existence is their knowledge of this secret, and a desire to be recognized as pioneering geniuses, rather than as crackpots. You will never be able to convince them through rational argument. <strong> But you may, by presenting that argument, prevent someone who is just beginning to learn science and to form their own opinions from falling into the trap layed by the EU types.</strong>But don't count on swaying irrational people with a rational argument. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This is an attitude I am extremely grateful for. I was about 13 when i saw fox's moon hoax program and I was very close to believing it. A couple years later I found websites like badastronomy and the forums here at space.com, which while systematically putting down every pro-hoax argument also encouraed it's readers to not believe everything they hear or see at first glance. So thank you DrRocket.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your argument is completely correct. It is based solidly on physics and it is very logical.</p><p>Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>...and I was also going to ask "When a star goes supernova and blows itself out why doesn't it take out the whole darn string of lights?" but that might have sounded a bit ridiculous.</p><p>Thanks for the encouraging words!</p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't understand why this debate seems to center on electrical currents, magnetic reconnection and the such. I'm just a blacksmith but I will give this a try. It seems to me that there are very dependable models of how stars form and evolve to put an end to this discussion.</DIV> </p><p>They are ultimately unrelated theories. The orignal THEMIS paper that I began to critisize really isn't related to any specific solar model. Alfven's EU theories were not specficially related to any solar model, and in fact he pretty much presumed that the gas model solar theory was accurate. The question of whether "magnetic reconnection" is different from "current flow" is not really dependent upon the accuracy of the standard solar model. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A object with the mass of the sun would collapse into something the size of a white dwarf if not for the radiation pressure from fusion at it's core (and it will do just that once it runs out of fuel). Fusion explains the existence of elements heaver than helium. A fusion model explains the characteristics of all kinds of stars from brown dwarfs to super giants as well as the processes that cause variable stars, novas and supernovas...etc. How does EU explain the neutrinos detected by Kamiokande ll from supernova 1987A? Also we don't see stars condensing from clouds of neon, silicon, calcium and iron. <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Even if that were entirely accurate, it would not have any bearing on this discussion about magnetic reconnection. Alfven's theories were in fact totally and completely solar theory independent. They would work for a Birkeland solar model and also for a gas model theory of the sun.</p><p>As it relates to what a sun is made of, keep in mind that gas model theories *assume* that no separation of elements takes place, or at least t's so small that most of the elements are "mixed together". What we actually observe when we look at the sun are the outermost plasma layers made of the lightest elements in the sun, namely hydrogen and helium. These two outer layers of the sun are the hottest layers and therefore they emit the most photons. When you then count photons to determine solar composition, it *appears* as though hydrogen and helium are the most abundant elements.</p><p>There isn't any point of worrying about solar models in this discussion however because "magnetic reconnection" has absoulutely nothing whatsoever to do with the solar model selected. It would and should stand on it's own regardless of solar theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your argument is completely correct. It is based solidly on physics and it is very logical.</DIV></p><p>Exept for the fact that they are ultimately unrelated to each other. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The very fact that it is logical and well-grounded in physics is the reason that it will not settle any argument regarding EU. </DIV></p><p>Even if standard solar theory is valid, it has absolutely no bearing on EU theory or the validity of EU theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The point of the EU proponents is that they have the answer and they know something that eludes a small army of rather well-educated astrophysicists. </DIV></p><p>Alfven was also well educated and recieved a Nobel prize for his work. Birkeland was highly educated. Charles Bruce was highly educated. Anthony Peratt is highly educated too. EU theory is supported by "well educated" individuals. The observations which cannot be explained without EU theory are in fact the things that lend credence to EU theory. For instance Alfven could explain why the corona was hotter than the photosphere, why solar wind is accelerated, how coronal loops work, etc. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Their entire reason for existence is their knowledge of this secret,</DIV></p><p>What secret? I can explain these things to you in terms of simply physical process that relate back to "current flow". There is nothing "secret" about these things. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and a desire to be recognized as pioneering geniuses, rather than as crackpots. </DIV></p><p>Birkeland and Alfven, Bruce and a few others were the "pionering geniouses", and the don't give "crackpots" a Nobel Prize. The fact you resort to ad hominems in the absense of logical arguement, and without so much as an explanation for the obsrvations that support EU theory, only demonstrates the irrational nature of the mainstream's position. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will never be able to convince them through rational argument. </DIV></p><p>Which rational argument is that? You haven't been "rational" at all in this discussion. Everything you don't want to hear, you simply ignore. Did you even read that paper from Alfven I cited?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p> But you may, by presenting that argument, prevent someone who is just beginning to learn science and to form their own opinions from falling into the trap layed by the EU types.But don't count on swaying irrational people with a rational argument. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It's the fact you folks don't have any rational explaination for million degree coronal loops, solar wind acceleration, and the observations that clearly support EU theory that make your case irrational. You blindly handwave away an explanation that has been demonstrated to emprically work in a lab in favor of a pure mythos that cannot be duplicated in controlled conditions as Birkeland did with EU theory.</p><p>That PPPL paper was a classic example of everything that is wrong with this industry and the irrational nature of this industry. If you look between equations 15 and 16, you will see that they simply *assumed* that the electric field remained constant and removed the electric field from consideration, and then proceeded to attribute these observations to "magnetic reconnection", enen though they took place inside of a discharge in plasma. The mainstreams position on "magnetic reconnection" is not rational, logical or based on scientific experimentation. It is simply based on an "assumption" that electric fields play no important role in events in space. Nothing could be further from the truth.</p><p>That THEMIS paper is another examply of the irrational nature of the mainstream's position. They falsified both of their magnetic reconnection models and then proceeded to call it "evidence" to support magnetic reconnection. There is no rational basis for these claims. They are entirely devoid of scientific validity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is an attitude I am extremely grateful for. I was about 13 when i saw fox's moon hoax program and I was very close to believing it. A couple years later I found websites like badastronomy and the forums here at space.com, which while systematically putting down every pro-hoax argument also encouraed it's readers to not believe everything they hear or see at first glance. So thank you DrRocket. <br /> Posted by odysseus145</DIV></p><p>So exactly why do you believe everything you read about "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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Argumentum ad nauseum... lame. </DIV></p><p>It's "lame" to falsify both models that you claim are related to "magnetic reconection" and then try to pass it off as "evidence" in favor of your theory. If an EU proponent had tried to do something like this, they would have been laughed at. It's lame to use an uncontrolled obsrvations as a "test" of a theory to begin with, expecially this one. We can access this region of space, and we can in theory test this idea here on earth. There is absolutely no need to resort to a "point and make claim" argument in this instance, and there is no valid evidence of magnetic reconnection to be found in these observations. Both of their models bit the dust! </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This argument might look wonderful on some EU forums, but I'm not going to let fly here. </DIV></p><p>It's a valid arguement here too, not just on EU forums. EU proponents are a more receptive audience perhaps, but there is nothing about this arguement that doesn't fly. You cannot change history Derek. They falsified both models. They posted graphs showing the order of events predicted by both models and both models failed to accurately predict the order of events. No amount of "spin" is going to change that reality. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can keep repeating it as much as you like, but I'm going to call you on it everytime.You are, quite simply, wrong in your assessment. I've provided the papers, quotes, links and logic to support my position on this. </DIV></p><p>Thus far I have read three different papers on "magnetic reconnection" that clamed to have support for magnetic reconnection and all of them failled to do so. That PPPL paper simply "assumed" that no change in the electric field took place during an electrical discharge event no less, so they then attributed the observations to "magnetic reconnection". The THEMIS paper has so many holes in it, it's hard to know where to start. I started with the fact that their "predictions" were falsified by their own observations and you simply went into a denial routine.</p><p>The "classic signs" of magnetic reconnection are actually "classic signs" of electrical discharge processes. None of the three papers I've been through so far have in any way supported the notion of "magnetic reconnection". I've at least read several of the papers shown to me, whereas you folks never bothered to read Alfven's critique of this very same idea of "magnetic reconnection" and it's relationship to magnetospheric activity. I suppose if you simply ignore what I supply you with, and you never lift a finger to read the criticisms Alfven put forth, this might seem like a reasonable idea. If however one educates themselves and does not avoid the evidence, it's much tougher to justify this idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You, of course, can choose to ignore what I have provided. </DIV></p><p>Did you ignore Alfven's critique of this idea or did you actually read it? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no doubt you will, indeed, ignore it as it flies in the face of your argument. PS. Here is the link to the PDF I said I would provide to support the quotes I made on the 2nd to last post on page 35. And my golf game still stinks. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I'll be happy to go through yet another point at the sky presentation of the magnetic reconnection idea as soon as you've read Alfven's criticism of this theory. If you folks expect me to read 4 different papers on this topic in this one thread, the least you could do is read *one* that I cited. </p><p>Please tell me why Alfven rejected magnetic reconnection as it relates to magnetospheric activity and then I'll be happy to tackle yet a forth paper on this topic in less than a week. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>I love the part in the abstract by V. Angelopoulos where he simply *assumes* that "magnetic reconnection" is involved in these process, and the only remaining question then is which model is right. </p><p> He later finds evidence that neither model correctly predicted the order of events, essentially falsifying both of his magnetic reconnection models, and this failed set of predictions is then used to "verify" one of the two models. Sheesh. 
These papers are simply amazing in the way they "assume" the validity of the theory they are trying to suport in advance of observational support, and the lengths they take to ignore any problems they find in the theory.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
These papers are simply amazing in the way they "assume" the validity of the theory they are trying to suport in advance of observational support, and the lengths they take to ignore any problems they find in the theory.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>If that is true, then both of these papers refer to a "Benett pinch" in plasma, nothing more. I ask you to go back now and reread that PPPL paper again and specifically note the *ASSUMPTION* that was made between equations 15 and 16. This whole experiment takes place in a Bennet pinch and they "assmed" that the current flow remain constant. Why?</p><p>The "magnetic island" from the first paper is as I described it. It is a cross section of an electrified "plasma filament" like you might find inside of an ordinary plasma ball. The electrical actitivity that generates the plasma threads in a plasma ball are exactly the same threads that are created inside the PPPL experiments, albeit with a much higher current flow running through them. Plasma threads are "pinched" into a moving column of flowing particles by the magnet fields that surround them. The "pinch" effect they obsrved in the PPPL experiments is a direct result of the changes in the current flow (electric field) which then cause the filament to be "pinched" into a tighter spiral.</p><p>There's nothing mysterious about these events inside of a plasma discharge and none of it has anything to do with "magnetic reconnection". It's a simply plasma pinch inside of a current carrying plasma, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. Those classic "Hall Effects" are directly related to "current flow", not "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Neither of the papers you have provided have actually supported "magnetic reconnection", but rather they support the idea the current carrying filaments form inside plama during the discharge and some of these threads are "pinched" into emitting high energy particles. These are known and documented phenomenon of Bennet pinches that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection" and I have offered you a valid way of exlaining "magnetic islands" in terms of "current flow". </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...Birkeland and Alfven, Bruce and a few others were the "pionering geniouses", and the don't give "crackpots" a Nobel Prize. The fact you resort to ad hominems in the absense of logical arguement, and without so much as an explanation for the obsrvations that support EU theory, only demonstrates the irrational nature of the mainstream's position.. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Birkland and Alfven would probably not recognize much of what is proposed as EU theory in their names. If they did I expect that they would be horrified. Alflven is probably spinning in his grave at a rate that generates a phenomenal amount of current via unipolar induction.</p><p>The distortions of plasma physics by proponents of EU theory are simply absurd. Anthony Peratt is enough to make me consider resigning my long-standing membership in the IEEE -- I probably won't but I will never join the Plasma Society because of the nonsense coming out of that group, which appears to me to have been hijacked by EU wackos.</p><p>And yes they do give Nobel prizes to crackpots, but not for crackpot work. John Nash received the Nobel Prize as well, for work in game theory that is widely applied in economics. He probably should have received a Fields Medal as well, for work in theory of manifolds. He seems to have recovered recently, but for a significant portion of his life he was quite insane. Certifiable and certified. As that case illustrates, it is quite possible to do first rate work, but be crazy as a bedbug. Alfven did first rate work in plasma physics. That does not make hiim an authority on cosmology. </p><p>There are no observations that support EU theory. The mere fact that someone created in a laboratory something that "looks like" the rings of Saturn does mean that those rings were created by a process that involves plasma physics in a meaningful way. For starts, the rings are not an ionized gas, as has been amply demonstrated by direct observation via space probes. "Looks like" is not physics. Ditto for solar pictures that confuse cooler (cooler than really hot but not cool by everyday standards at atll) for evidence of solid matter near the surface of the sun -- Alflven himself (your unassailable hero) noted that the sun was nearly totally ionized, hardly the state of a solid. Proposing a magnetic mechanism for galactic rotation in which the force postulated to occur due to the proposed magnetic field is perpendicular to the rotational plane is hardly good observational evidence for EU either.</p><p>EU makes no quantitative predictions that are correct. EU seems to avoid mathematics and quantitative predictions like the plague. That is the antithesis of good science. Exhibiting a terrible case of "math anxiety" EU proponents gravitate towards over-simplified pictures like kids with comic books, with about the level of scientific credibility. "Looks like" is simply an abysmally poor justification for a scientific hypothesis.</p><p>The notion that the sun has a solid iron core just beneath the photosphere is patently ridiculous, and totally irrational. The temperatures that you see directly above that core are far in excess of the melting point of iron and the heat interior to a sphere of uniform temperature is also uniform (sorry but the proof of that while quite easy requires some of that dreaded mathematics), so that the existence of solid iron in a location below a region of patently high average temperature would not be possible. The sun cannot possibly be powered primarily or even in large part by an external current source without the creation of a magnetic field at the surface of the earth that is millions of times greater than what is observed (as I have shown you earlier by applying more mathematics in the form of Ampere's law). So you see, the empirical data from direct observations shows that much of EU theory is siimply ridiculous. It is in fact your position that is totally and completely irrational. Nutty. Cuckoo. Absurd. Crazy. Bonkers, Woo woo. Wacko.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If that is true, then both of these papers refer to a "Benett pinch" in plasma, nothing more. I ask you to go back now and reread that PPPL paper again and specifically note the *ASSUMPTION* that was made between equations 15 and 16. This whole experiment takes place in a Bennet pinch and they "assmed" that the current flow remain constant. Why?</DIV></p><p>Real physicists make assumptions that they deem valid based on MATH(sorry, didn't mean to scare you) and predictions based on tested theories. The fact that they assume it remains constant doesn't mean there is no current flow. You refer to "both" papers as if I only posted 2. ALL of them are talking about the same thing when they say reconnection. And it's not EU theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The "pinch" effect they obsrved in the PPPL experiments is a direct result of the changes in the current flow (electric field) </DIV></p><p>Is it really necessary to throw in the word electric everywehre you can? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Those classic "Hall Effects" are directly related to "current flow", not "magnetic reconnection".Neither of the papers you have provided have actually supported "magnetic reconnection", but rather they support the idea the current carrying filaments form inside plama during the discharge and some of these threads are "pinched" into emitting high energy particles. These are known and documented phenomenon of Bennet pinches that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection" and I have offered you a valid way of exlaining "magnetic islands" in terms of "current flow". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></DIV></p><p> I'm sorry but you haven't come close to offering a valid way of explaining them. You just talked around the issue in ways so vague and unsupported by facts that it wouldn't even be acceptable for an abstract. That's essentially what your entire argument is. A poorly written abstract. What should follow is justification of what you say, but all I see is the abstract repeated over and over again endlessly. Your claims are not backed up by observation. Your claims are not backed up by mathematical models. All you are doing is repeating your claim, seemingly thinking that if you say it enough, you'll convince us. You won't. Also, you used the word "neither" again as if I only posted 2 papers. And don't expect me to be impressed that you read 4 papers in a week(I'd argue that you didn't really read them...it seems as though you just skimmed through until you found a sentence that, taken out of context, can be twisted to support your claims). I read through all of the papers I posted over the course of 2-3 days to make sure they were relevant with no problem. Reading Alfven's paper, which I will do eventually, is not relevant to this discussion. I am not discussing Alfven's claims, you asked me for supporting evidence of reconnection. Why would I use a critic of the theory as one of my sources? You are just using it as an excuse to talk around the papers and not address their specific claims (be specific, as you would say). If your claims were correct, that result would be publishable. I know you won't even put the effort forth though even if it would be good for your career(assuming it is scientific in nature). The reason why EU theory papers are "never published" is because nobody wants to submit these views to refereed journals because they are terrified that their baseless claims will be exposed for what they are. </p><p>You use Alfven, Birkeland, et al. as the main "faces" of EU theory. Is it any coincidence that there is no prominent living proponent? I believe this is because a living person would correct you when you try to twist what they say to support the claims of EU theory. Alfven doesn't have that luxury. Birkeland isn't around to tell you that just because he demonstrated aurorae artificially in the lab it doesn't mean reconnection doesn't exist. Again, I have all the respect in the world for these great scientists. I just do not agree that they would agree with your claims(they may have in the early 20th century, but that is irrelevant) when presented with today's modern evidence. You are intentionally thrusting yourself into the past and refusing to hear any evidence that goes against what Alfven et al claimed. I imagine this is because you would feel as if you would be letting your "heroes" down by accepting what they rejected. However, I can tell you that scientists love to be corrected. It is called learning. The worst kind of person who claims to be a scientist is the kind that refuses to learn. Real scientists seek the truth; they don't rely on blind faith in their favorite theory as you do.</p><p> </p><p>Also, what happened to your vacation? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkland and Alfven would probably not recognize much of what is proposed as EU theory in their names. If they did I expect that they would be horrified. </DIV></p><p>Nah. Birkeland in particular would recognize everything we see in solar satellite images, particularly the coronal loop discharges in the solar atmosphere, the plasma jets and the solar wind process. All of these things were "predicted" by and simulated in his emprical experiments. He'd be horrified at your attitude at simply ignoring these "predictions" that were actually "verified" by satellite images.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alflven is probably spinning in his grave at a rate that generates a phenomenal amount of current via unipolar induction.</DIV></p><p>Quite the contrary. He "predicted" that galaxies also acted as unipolar inductors and that they were probably being bombarded by electrons. You'd know that if you bothered to read his later book.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The distortions of plasma physics by proponents of EU theory are simply absurd. </DIV></p><p>Like? At least be specific in your criticisms. I pinned my criticisms of that PPPL paper to the specific *ASSUMPTION* that made their claim invalid. They "assumed" that the electric field remain constant. That was the whole problem in a nutshell.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Anthony Peratt is enough to make me consider resigning my long-standing membership in the IEEE -- I probably won't but I will never join the Plasma Society because of the nonsense coming out of that group, which appears to me to have been hijacked by EU wackos.</DIV></p><p>Your pitiful use of ad hominems in absense of a specific objection demonstrates that you're not interested in having an honest discussion on this topic. EU theory is a natural extension of what the IEEE is all about. If it weren't for electrical engineers, astronomers might actually be able to sell the idea of magnetic reconnection, but anyone who actually understands electrical theory (like Alfven) tends to reject this idea.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And yes they do give Nobel prizes to crackpots, but not for crackpot work. </DIV></p><p>This is such a lame argument it's hardly worth commenting on. The mainstream is *STILL* relying upon his work and they cite his work to support their claims. To then suggest he's a "crackpot" only undermines the whole mainstream's use of MHD theory. Why continue to use his work today if he was a "crackpot"? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Alfven did first rate work in plasma physics. That does not make hiim an authority on cosmology.</DIV></p><p>Actually it does since plasma makes up more than 90 percent of the whole universe.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are no observations that support EU theory.</DIV> </p><p>Pure baloney. There are so many observations that support EU theory it isn't funny. First we have solar wind acceleration, then we observed coronal loops and even plasma jets, just as Birkeland predicted them. You guys are so fond of those "point and make claim" sort of "tests", but Birkeland took it to the emprical level *and* he made "predictions" that have been verified ever step of the way, starting with those "Birkeland currents" we see in the Earth's atmosphere. Everything we observe supports EU theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mere fact that someone created in a laboratory something that "looks like" the rings of Saturn does mean that those rings were created by a process that involves plasma physics in a meaningful way. For starts, the rings are not an ionized gas, as has been amply demonstrated by direct observation via space probes. "Looks like" is not physics. </DIV></p><p>But somehow a current flow in the tail of the magnetosphere "looks like" the one of their magnetic reconnection models? Give me a break! The double standard is off scale. Birkeland never claimed that all the ring material was ionized and he never setttled for "it looks like magnetic reconnection did it". He did real experiments, something the mainstream has simply forgotten entirely.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ditto for solar pictures that confuse cooler (cooler than really hot but not cool by everyday standards at atll) for evidence of solid matter near the surface of the sun </DIV></p><p>Yet you've never once tried to begin to explain the first LMSAL RD image on my website, let only that rigid features in Kosovichev's Doppler image. Why is that DrRocket? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>-- Alflven himself (your unassailable hero) noted that the sun was nearly totally ionized, hardly the state of a solid.</DIV></p><p>He also never had the benefit of modern satellite solar images, they ones you keep avoiding like the plague.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Proposing a magnetic mechanism for galactic rotation in which the force postulated to occur due to the proposed magnetic field is perpendicular to the rotational plane is hardly good observational evidence for EU either.EU makes no quantitative predictions that are correct. </DIV></p><p>Baloney. You just never bothered to read Alfven's later material or even Birkeland's material.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EU seems to avoid mathematics and quantitative predictions like the plague. </DIV></p><p>No, you personally just avoid reading Alfven's later work like that plague and you refuse to read Peratt's work as well. Ignoring their work won't make it go away. Even Birkeland made quantitative predictions which you never bothred to even read.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is the antithesis of good science. </DIV></p><p>The antithesis of good science is *assuming* things like PPPL did when they *ASSUMED* that the electric field remained constant and then claiming "magnetic reconnection did it". The antithesis of good science is claiming "magnetic reconnection" is responsible for auroral activity and never duplicating Birkeland's work with "magnetic reconnection". The antithesis of good science is using uncontrolled observations as "tests" of an idea rather than using the emprical scientific method like Birkeland and Alfven.</p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Exhibiting a terrible case of "math anxiety" EU proponents gravitate towards over-simplified pictures like kids with comic books, with about the level of scientific credibility. "Looks like" is simply an abysmally poor justification for a scientific hypothesis.</DIV></p><p>The fact you have some personal hangup about reading Birkeland's work and Alfven's later work and Bruce's work and Peratt's work is not evidence that EU theory has a math anxiety. You seem to be confusing your personal choices to refuse to educate yourself to the math behind EU theory with a lack of mathematical modeling. Nothing could be further from the truth. Peratt even built computer models from Alfven's theories. You're poor study habits are no excuse for making ridiculacely false claims about EU theory.</p><p>I'm not even going to get into the solar theory aspect of this debate in this thread since EU theory isn't even dependent upon a specific solar model and there is a specfic thread related to this topic that is better suited to that discussion. Many of these questions were addressed years ago in that thread. If you really want to have a discussion on solar theory, take it up in the right thread, and start by explaining the rigid features in that Doppler image by Kosovichev and that RD image from LMSAL. </p><p>The rest of your ad hominems simply demonstrate the irrational bias and pathetic response one gets from people who remain willfully and intentionally ignorant to EU theory and wouldn't know good science if it was staring them in the face because they never bothered to study it and they refuse to do so. Your personal ignorance of EU theory is painfully apparent in your statements and your attitude. You'll put faith in all sorts of goofy ideas like inflation and dark energy and things that have never been shown to have any effect on anything, yet you reject a perfectly well supported theory that enjoys far more emprical support than either of these things? Why? Because you refuse to open your mind and you refuse to study and learn. Yawn. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Real physicists make assumptions that they deem valid based on MATH(sorry, didn't mean to scare you) and predictions based on tested theories.</DIV></p><p>Math has nothing to do with that PPPL error. They simply ASSUMED that the electric field stayed constant, leaving only the magnetic field to do the work. The problem was the assumption, not the math, and the math didn't support their theory because their assumption was invalid. Emprical support (didn't mean to scare you) trumps math every single time. Chapman's theories looked great on paper, but reality refused to believe Chapman. Instead it confirmed the emprical tests and the mathematical models that Birkeland first proposed.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact that they assume it remains constant doesn't mean there is no current flow. </DIV></p><p>You missed the point. The fact they *ASSUME* that it remains constant doesn't mean it *DOES REMAIN CONSTANT*. What they attributed to "magnetic reconnection" was simply a change in the flow of current that was already in the the form of a Benett pinch in current carrying plasma. When I go to all the trouble to isolate the exact cause of the problem, the least you could do is address the issue head on. They did not KNOW that the electric field remained constant, and in fact it's highly unlikely it would remain constant based on the sawtooth nature of the observations. Their "assumptions" were not logical and led them to false conclusions.</p><p>The bottom line here is that all of these "magnetic reconnection" theories are predicated on the impossible. Maxwell's equations do not allow for the cutting and splicing of magnetic field lines. All the "tests" of this idea were either based on uncontrolled observations, or false assumptions about z-pinch processes in plasma. When I asked you for a specific physical explanation for a "magnetic island" you ignored the question even though I offered you a valid scientific way to explain a persistent magnetic "island" in plasma based on know physical processes.</p><p>I'm just amazed at the denial process going on here. I pointed the specific flaw in the PPPL paper for you, and I went to all the trouble to explain what a "magnetic island" was made of, and how it might be explained by a current flow process, yet you never even bothered to read or comment on Alfven's objection to magnetic reconnection theory being applied to magnetospheric activity. How typical. I'll bet that you, DrRocket and Derek haven't even read that paper from Alfven, even though it is directly related to this issue and it's written by the man who developed MHD theory and who won a Nobel Prize. Everyone seems to believe that they are more enlightened than Alfven without even bothering to read his material. Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but you guys wouldn't know that because you guys never bother to actually read or comment on anything that undermines your viewpoints. Holy Cow.</p><p>At least I know that I did actually start to read some of the materials you cited and I found and explained the problems with those papers. I did in fact read what you suggested and I explained my specfic objections to those papers. Did you even read Alfven's paper on this topic that I suggested? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Math has nothing to do with that PPPL error. They simply ASSUMED that the electric field stayed constant, leaving only the magnetic field to do the work. The problem was the assumption, not the math, and the math didn't support their theory because their assumption was invalid. Emprical support (didn't mean to scare you) trumps math every single time.</DIV></p><p>Yes, it does, but you don't have it. Show me what part of Birkeland's experiment shows how electrons get accelerated to suprathermal energies. Current flow does produce aurorae. That is the only empirical piece of evidence you have and while it is valid it doesn't support nearly as many of your argumetns as you'd like it to. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Chapman's theories looked great on paper, but reality refused to believe Chapman. </DIV></p><p>When have I ever supported Chapman's work? Models based on paper calculations are fairly irrelevant nowadays unless they are backed up by computer simulations and/or very solid observational evidence. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> When I go to all the trouble to isolate the exact cause of the problem, the least you could do is address the issue head on. </DIV></p><p>If you expect others to do this, the least you could do is do the same thing. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When I asked you for a specific physical explanation for a "magnetic island" you ignored the question even though I offered you a valid scientific way to explain a persistent magnetic "island" in plasma based on know physical processes.</DIV></p><p>You need to have your vision checked mozina. I addressed this question countless times. All the physical equations describing the process are in the paper. The acceleration mechanism is Fermi acceleration caused by the interaction of particles with the magnetic islands. But I know you won't read this paragraph so you can keep saying I am ignoring this question. You are clearly not reading the important parts of my posts so I could say anything I'd like here. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm just amazed at the denial process going on here. </DIV></p><p>As are all of us. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I pointed the specific flaw in the PPPL paper for you, and I went to all the trouble to explain what a "magnetic island" was made of, and how it might be explained by a current flow process, yet you never even bothered to read or comment on Alfven's objection to magnetic reconnection theory being applied to magnetospheric activity. How typical. </DIV></p><p>That is a fairly big non sequitir. First, your "trouble" amounted to making up a bogus concept not backed up by science or any physics(as you have presented it). As I said, you tried to explain your concept at an elementary level, and that is not acceptable in this argument. I'm NOT going to just accept your argument at face value. You have to back it up rigorously. And I'm sure you would, if you could. Now to the non-sequitir...what does us reading Alfven's paper have anything to do with anything? As I said, we are trying to prove magnetic reconnection, not disprove Alfven's claims. That is a completely different argument. As I said before(again, and you just glossed over it as you will this time too), even if I did read it my argument would be unchanged because I could still quote everything I have as evidence why I disagree with Alfven. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'll bet that you, DrRocket and Derek haven't even read that paper from Alfven</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>, Did you even read Alfven's paper on this topic that I suggested? </DIV></p><p>Repeating yourself ad nauseum from post to post isn't enough now I guess. Now you are doing it in the same post. Didn't you learn in high school writing that repeating your argument verbatim is a exceptionally poor writing technique? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>even though it is directly related to this issue and it's written by the man who developed MHD theory and who won a Nobel Prize. Everyone seems to believe that they are more enlightened than Alfven without even bothering to read his material. </DIV></p><p>And you seem to feel more enlightened than a small army of Nobel Prize winning astrophysicists who you believe study myths. How is this not hypocritical? We aren't even insulting Alfven. All I'm saying is his paper is not relevant to our side of the argument. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but you guys wouldn't know that because you guys never bother to actually read or comment on anything that undermines your viewpoints. Holy Cow.At least I know that I did actually start to read some of the materials you cited and I found and explained the problems with those papers. I did in fact read what you suggested and I explained my specfic objections to those papers.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> Now you'rejust trying to criticize us with the same arguments we are using against you. You did not EXPLAIN anything. You just picked a tiny part of the paper and said something silly that wasn't backed up by anything, not your words, not physics, not math, not observation, nothing. </p><p>Bottom line, electricity is not the forbidden topic of astronomy and is in fact addressed all the time. The reason YOUR version of electricity as it pertains to astrophysics is "forbidden" is because it is just plain WRONG. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The question of whether "magnetic reconnection" is different from "current flow" is not really dependent upon the accuracy of the standard solar model. Even if that were entirely accurate, it would not have any bearing on this discussion about magnetic reconnection.</DIV></p><p>I essentially agree with these statements. This is really a separate issue from solar theories. It is however related to my thread. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The topic of this discussion is Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy? Magnetic reconnection or current flow is not mention in the topic heading and does leave this discussion open to other unrelated theories.</DIV></p><p>Actually however, the whole concept of magnetic reconnection IMO is nothing more than a ruse, a red herring intended to deflect attention away from "current flow" and toward some sort of sterile "magnetic" solution. Maxwell's equations do not allow for magnetic field lines to "reconnect" to other field lines. These are simply kinetic and electrical transfers of energy, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. The mainstream is attempting to ignore the role of current flow in these events in an effort to make them all "magnetic" in origin. That's not possible according to Maxwell's equations. Only particles and electricity "reconnect". Magnetic field lines form as a complete and whole "continuum", without beginning and without end. They either exist (because of current flow) or the don't. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> There is allot more science other than magnetic reconnection that would need to be rewritten to make EU theory work. </DIV></p><p>That is certainly a true statement. Alfven's work and Birkeland's work are a good start however. Few individuals are even aware of their work, and fewer still seem to understand the electrical aspects of MHD theory. EU theory really only require an external bombardment of electrons on the galactic sheath. Pretty much everything else is documented physics. It is however predicted upon an assumption that cannot be determined from in situ measurements, and in that sense it is on par with every other "big picture" theory of the universe.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The solar model chosen is relevent to this discussion because if the sun could not exist as it would need to for your theory to work then current flow and magnetic reconnection would not be an issue. <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>In the sense that I am a "Birkeland purist" and Birkeland's terrella model of a sun would not function without 'electrical current", my favored solar model is in fact predicated upon the existence of "current flow" from the heliosphere to the photosphere and pretty much every EU theory predicts that this is the case. Not all EU theories are predicated upon a sun with "crust" however, so any solar related discussions should take place in another thread.</p><p>The only reason I've been focused on this topic is because of the irrational lengths that the mainstream is going to at the moment to "cover up" the "current flows' that are ultimately responsible for these events. By suggesting that magnetic fields can "reconnect" to accelerate ions, they are attempting to make the sun the generator or all current flow based on a concept that defies Maxwell's equations. Magnetic fields cannot "reconect", only particles and electricity can do that. The "forbidden topic" is trying to be replace with a metaphysical concept that Alfven rejected, and that has never been emprically demonstrated to exist in nature. </p><p>FYI, part of Alven's "current flow" was caused by "induction" (unipolar inductor) due to the fact the sun is spinning in a plasma. In that sense it too does generate some of it's own energy that ultimately flows back into the corona. Induction however is a well understood part of empical physics, whereas "magnetic reconnection' defies Maxwell's equations. </p><p>I even went to all the trouble to explain how some of these mathematical simulations of 'magnetic islands' can easily be replaced by "current flow" events in plasma, and in fact I'm the only one to physically define them in terms of physics and particles rather than just relying upon a mathematical model. </p><p>Mathematical models are not a valid substitute for emrpical experimentation with real control mechanisms. Pointing to distant events and trying to isolate the cause of that event is impossible based strictly on mathematical modeling. Somwhere along the line an emprical test of concept is required. </p><p>Keep in mind that the only physical experiment that reported to find evidence of magnetic reconnection is that PPPL experiment involving a powerful electrical discharge through plasma. They simply "assumed' that the electrical field remain constant when in fact they did not remain constant. They attempted to "sterilize" the equations to exclude all mention of the electric field so as to attibute all the events to "magnetic reconnection". Their whole arguement fell apart between equations 15 and 16 when they simply "assumed" that the current flow remained constant.</p><p>They observed a standard "z-pinch" in a rotating current flow of moving plasma. The particles and the electricity 'reconnected" in those sawtooth events, not the magnetic field lines. Magnetic field lines cannot "reconnect" like particles and 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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, it does, but you don't have it. </DIV></p><p>Yes, I do have it. It occured between equations 15 and 16 when they simply "assumed" that the current flow remained constant inside of a variable discharge in plasma. This whole event took place inside of an electrical discharge event inside of plasma and it would not have occured without the "current flow" that caused it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Show me what part of Birkeland's experiment shows how electrons get accelerated to suprathermal energies. </DIV></p><p>Any z-pinch process will do that. In fact Los Alamos has heated plasma to "billions" (not millions) of degrees during electrical disharge events in z-pinch experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Current flow does produce aurorae. </DIV></p><p>Yes, but it requires a "sustained" amount of 'current flow', not a one time "snap" of energy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is the only empirical piece of evidence you have and while it is valid it doesn't support nearly as many of your argumetns as you'd like it to.</DIV></p><p>Actually you only believe this is the case because you haven't really studied Birkeland's experiments. He was absolutely amazing and completely meticulous in his modification of various control mechanisms. His experiments do in fact form the very foundation of "EU theory". The guy invented it. Alfven and Bruce and Peratt and many other have added mathematical elegance to his theories, but the emprical nature of his experiments does in fact justify far more than anything that the mainstream has ever done with "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When have I ever supported Chapman's work? Models based on paper calculations are fairly irrelevant nowadays unless they are backed up by computer simulations and/or very solid observational evidence. If you expect others to do this, the least you could do is do the same thing.</DIV></p><p>We seem to be talking past here on one point in particular. The reason I mentioned Chapman is because his "mathematical models" were easier to understand and to teach students and they were "favored' by the mainstream over Birkeland's uglier mathematical models. In the end howevever Birkeland triumphed over the mainstream and Chapman because he did not rely upon mathematical models or computer simulations alone. He built real life emprical experiments to test various aspects of his ideas. The mainstream seems to be under the false impression that a computer model is sufficient. It is not. Chapman's ideas could have been modelled very precisely on a computer but they weren't "lab tested" and they didn't actually work as "predicted". We can't rely only upon mathematics and computer models. We also need to experiment with ideas whenever possible. and that has never happend in a "magnetic reconnection" experiment. No one ever "powered aurora" around a sphere in a plasma vacuum using "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You need to have your vision checked mozina. I addressed this question countless times. All the physical equations describing the process are in the paper. </DIV></p><p>But I asked you for a "physical model" not simply a mathematical equation. I'm asking you about the 'physics" behind the math. I explained the "magnetic island" as a "current thread" in moving plasma and I described it in terms of real particles and real physics. I'm asking you to define a "magnetic island" in terms of "physics" to see if we are actually talking about two different things. For all I know a "magnetic island" is another cute pseudonym for "plasma thread".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The acceleration mechanism is Fermi acceleration caused by the interaction of particles with the magnetic islands.</DIV></p><p>In terms of "physical particles", what exactly is a "magnetic island"? How does it persist *without* current flow to sustain it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But I know you won't read this paragraph so you can keep saying I am ignoring this question. You are clearly not reading the important parts of my posts so I could say anything I'd like here. As are all of us.</DIV></p><p>We're still not communicating here. I'm not asking you for any more "mathematical models" from you "magnetic island" paper. I'm asking you to describe the physical process that drives it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is a fairly big non sequitir. First, your "trouble" amounted to making up a bogus concept not backed up by science or any physics(as you have presented it). As I said, you tried to explain your concept at an elementary level, and that is not acceptable in this argument. I'm NOT going to just accept your argument at face value. You have to back it up rigorously.</DIV></p><p>Birkeland did that 100 years ago. He showed the emprical connection between "current flow" and aurora and spheres in a vacuum. If you expect me to believe in "magnetic reconneciton", you'll have to show me an experiment that was at least that rigorous in nature where control mechanisms were altered to observe their effects on the observations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> And I'm sure you would, if you could. Now to the non-sequitir...what does us reading Alfven's paper have anything to do with anything? </DIV></p><p>Um, because it's "professional courtesy" to respond to my arguments? I've certainly responded to your papers in some detail now. Don't you expect that I have expectations that you too will read the papers I cite and respond them them in an intelligent and well thought out manner? FYI Alfven wrote a whole paper on this very topic of "magnetic reconnection" and magnetospheric events. They gave the guy that Nobel prize. Don't you think it's worth a read?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The reason YOUR version of electricity as it pertains to astrophysics is "forbidden" is because it is just plain WRONG. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>My version of events in this case are no different from Birkeland's explanation or Alfven's explanation. Some of Birkeland's ideas have already been accepted by the mainstream and the mainstream is attempting to use MHD thoery to justify "magnetic reconnection", even though Alfven specifically rejected this idea in these very same circumstances. You should at least read the paper and respond to my arguments as you expect me to read your papers and respond to your(their) arguments, not because "Mozina said so", but because the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory said so. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...We're still not communicating here. I'm not asking you for any more "mathematical models" from you "magnetic island" paper. I'm asking you to describe the physical process that drives it. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The single saddest aspect of your astoundingly long list of pitiful posts is the fact that you do not recognize that mathematics is the language of physics. If you cannot describe a physical process in mathematical terms then you simply do not understand it. It is not "math magic" it is PHYSICS. Mathematics is the language of physics. EU babble simply does not register. </p><p>Unless and until your EU arguments can be described in clear mathematical terms that do not fly in the face of known physics EU will continue to be perceived as the laughing stock of the scientific community. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>I've made my case for magnetic reconnection. I am done with this pointless back-and-forth nonsense. Have you ever taken a physics course? Every part of physics aside from the fundamentals are either very difficult or impossible to demonstrate in the lab. Like it or not, physics is essentially applied mathematics. A model by itself doesn't prove anything, I agree. But that is not what i am presenting. I quoted two(there are more but it would be irrelevant to post all of them) papers that supported this model observationally. Alfven's paper is not relevant to MY side of the discussion. Stop and think for a second. Don't you think it's extremely hypocritical to keep throwing Alfven's Nobel Prize around in this discussion but at the same time you call basically everyone else who won the Nobel in the field of astrophysics/physics "metaphysicists" who study "myths"? Why is Alfven so much better than any other Nobel prize winner? If I thought Alfven's paper would be useful for me to read for this argument I would. But I am trying to prove magnetic reconnection, not disprove it. </p><p> Also, you never answered where you got those figures from that you claimed were from the Angelopoulos paper. There is a modified version of the first one but the other two are nowhere in here. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The single saddest aspect of your astoundingly long list of pitiful posts is the fact that you do not recognize that mathematics is the language of physics. </DIV></p><p>Must you always begin your posts with false statements and strawmen? It's sad to me that you do not recognize the value and importance of emprical testing beyond simple mathematical modeling. Mathematics alone cannot always determine the value of a physical theory. Chapman's mathematical model was preferred by the mainstream for many decades over Birkeland's ideas, but Birkeland eventually won the debate. He won the debate because his model was not based *only* on mathematical models or computer models, but rather it was based on what he learned during an emprical testing phase of his ideas.</p><p>Math alone is not enough and computer simulations are not a valid substitute for emprical testing. It's sad to me that you refuse to acknowledge this point I have been trying to make and instead you chose to twist my words and misrepresent my beliefs.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you cannot describe a physical process in mathematical terms then you simply do not understand it. </DIV></p><p>That is not true. I can understand that lightening is due to an electrical discharge without being able to describe it mathematically. Some knowledge, particularlarly conceptual knowledge, is not mathematical in nature. Not all forms of conceptual understanding require a mathemical understanding of the event. It's nice to know the mathematical processes involved, and Birkeland roughly outlined them as they relate to his experiments. Alfven "understood" the ideas from a mathematical perspective, but Birkeland's conceptual foundation, along with his basic mathematical model have always formed the foundation of EU theory. It's never lacked for mathematical models, but it has never relied *only* upon mathematical models. Mathematical models alone can be highly misleading and the mainstream has been mislead by strictly looking at mathematical models since Chapman. This problem of lack of respect for emprical science has plagued the mainstream for 100 years, starting the debate between Birkeland and Chapman's mathematical models.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not "math magic" it is PHYSICS. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and Alfven described the "physics" behind all these events. I just can't get you to read any of his later work and apply the "physics" to the these problems.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mathematics is the language of physics.</DIV></p><p>Emprical testing allows us to weed out bad mathematical models that do not actually relate to the physical processes involved. This is certainly true of magnetic reconnection theories since Maxwell's equations do not even support the notion of "reconnecting" indiividual magnetic field lines. Maxwell's equations and Alfven's equations are indeed the language of "physics". Magnetic reconnection is mathematical mythos run amuck, much like Chapman's theories. Anyone to butcher up a math problem like the PPPL paper and come up with a mathematical model of something that never happens in nature. Only emprical testing can determine a "good" and "useful" mathematical model and and useless and misleading one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> EU babble simply does not register. </DIV></p><p>It doesn't register to you perhaps because you refuse to read Alven's later book and Peratt's book and the textbooks that actually spell out the physics for you in mathematical language. That's self imposed ignorance however that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do wiith EU theory and it's mathematical foundation, starting with the work of Birkeland himself, continuing with Bruce and Alfven and later with Peratt and many others. I can only lead the horse to water DrRocket, I can't make it drink. You can't find the math because you won't open up the textbooks that would help you. That's not my fault, nor the fault of EU theory. That particular ignorance is entirely self imposed. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unless and until your EU arguments can be described in clear mathematical terms that do not fly in the face of known physics EU will continue to be perceived as the laughing stock of the scientific community. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>These mathamatical terms were spelled out by Birkeland himself. You'd know that if you actually sat down and read his work. He understood how to integrate derviatives better than you do, and he knew how to describe these current flow processes in mathematical terms over 100 years ago. Alfven certainly understood the math behind the physical processes. EU theory has never lacked for a mathematical foundation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've made my case for magnetic reconnection. </DIV></p><p>And to your credit, you have do a much better job presenting a case for "magnetic reconnection" than most folks I've seen try to make a case for this idea. It's a hopless cause however since Maxwell's equations do not allow for magnetic field lines to "reconnect". What's really "reconnecting" are plasma particles and electrical circuits. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am done with this pointless back-and-forth nonsense. </DIV></p><p>I have specifically tried to avoid any unnecessary back and forth questions. I specifically highlighted the problem with the PPPL paper for you down to the actual equation where the problem was introduced. I specifically asked you to clerify the physics behind a persistent "magentic island" so that I could be sure we aren't really talking about a current thread in plasma, and I presented you with a physical description of what I think your "magnetic island" is made of, and how it accelerates particles. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you ever taken a physics course? </DIV></p><p>Many.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Every part of physics aside from the fundamentals are either very difficult or impossible to demonstrate in the lab. </DIV></p><p>Well, that's absolutely not true IMO. Most parts of physics are pretty easy to emprically demonstrate. Birkeland was able to demonstrate the emprical nature of his "current flow' theories over 100 years ago, using technologies that were available to him in 1908. </p><p>Astronomers tend to put forth a lot of mathematical ideas (like Chapman) that they can't emprically demonstrate in a lab. However, I simply chalk that up to the fact they that they simply made up most of the math anyway, and it does not accurately describe events in the real world. Magnetic reconnection doesn't exist in nature and magnetic lines do not "reconnect" in nature. Only partciles do that. Birkeland emprically demonstrated his ""current flow" theories. The fact the mainstream is having a difficult time duplicating his work using "magnetic reconnection" as the power source is because magnetic reconnection is a myth, it's not a part of emprical physics. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Like it or not, physics is essentially applied mathematics.</DIV></p><p>That's not quite how it works, and maybe that is the root of the mainstream's misunderstandings. Math can be used to describe real physical processes, but the underlying physical processes are not "mathematical" process, That are controlled by the "particles", and the movements of these particles. Some math formulas accurately describe these movements. Some do not. Determining which mathematical models are helpful and which are misleading requires *emprical testing*. The emprical testing is something that the mainstream has forgotten and have always forgotten, starting with Chapman. EU theory has had a tough time gaining a foothold in mainstream astronomy because astronomers seem to believe that math alone is all that physics is about.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> A model by itself doesn't prove anything, I agree. But that is not what i am presenting. I quoted two(there are more but it would be irrelevant to post all of them) papers that supported this model observationally.</DIV></p><p>The magnetic reconnection theory can never be falsified by an uncontrolled observation or the THEMIS group would have buried it when they falsified both of their magnetic reconnection models. It can't be verified from an uncontrolled observation, only by an emprical test, along the lines of the PPPL experiment. Any emprical experiment however will need to specifcally eliminate the more mudaine and "normal" physical processes in plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Alfven's paper is not relevant to MY side of the discussion.</DIV></p><p>It is however directly related to the THEMIS paper, though I agree it's not directly related to your "magnetic island" idea which is why I asked you to physically describe the things that make up this "magnetic island". It is however directly related to the THEMIS paper I started to criticise and it's directly related to the topic of magnetic reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stop and think for a second. Don't you think it's extremely hypocritical to keep throwing Alfven's Nobel Prize around in this discussion but at the same time you call basically everyone else who won the Nobel in the field of astrophysics/physics "metaphysicists" who study "myths"? </DIV></p><p>Maybe is a little hypocritical if you only look at the math alone, but I'm not looking at just the math. Think about this for a second. Alfven "experimented" with plasma in controlled conditions and he created mathematical models that derived from real events. That's real physics in every emprical sense of the word. Some ideas like inflation and magnetic reconnection however are purely hypothetical in nature. There surely have been a lot of these same prizes awarded for theories that have not been emprically supported in controlled experimentation. Like Chapman's ideas, those concepts are much more prone to being "revisited" once new information becomes available.</p><p>Alfven and Birkeland had no trouble showing the emprical correlation between "current flow" and aurora and how it all relates back to physical processes in plasma that are driven by current flow. Why can't the mainstream do that with 'magnetic reconnection" and 96% of what they claim the universe is made of? Is it my fault they can't do what Birkeland could do? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why is Alfven so much better than any other Nobel prize winner? </DIV></p><p>Because he emprically experimented with his ideas in a lab using real control mechanisms. So did Birkeland. Birkeland's theories have stood the test of time because they didn't rely only upon math. Alfven's ideas will stand the test of time for the same reason. Chapman's ideas were "popular" over the spand of many individual careers, but alas all that faith for all those generations was ultimately misguided. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I thought Alfven's paper would be useful for me to read for this argument I would. But I am trying to prove magnetic reconnection, not disprove it. </DIV></p><p>You can't simply ignore the points that work against an idea if you're trying to judge it fairly. I can't simply deny the points you might make that I don't want to deal with because it isn't representative of my current belief system. Neutrality means you weigh everything, both the good and the bad and you make an "informed" decision. It doesn't mean you only look for a postive way to present your personal beliefs and then ignore everything that works against those beliefs.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, you never answered where you got those figures from that you claimed were from the Angelopoulos paper. There is a modified version of the first one but the other two are nowhere in here. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The graphs I posted are on the NASA website that relates right back to this paper, and the "surprise" that they "discovered' while somehow "verifying" the idea of magnetic reconenction from an uncontrolled observation. Sheesh This industry is in trouble IMO because it's doing exactly what you're doing. It's ignoring the data that falsifies their theories, and it's already "assumed" the validity of the theory they are trying to demonstrate. They refuse to falsify any idea, even with it fails to accurately predict anything. It doesn't matter how many uncontrolled 'tests"it fails, all that is considered is what "positive spin" they might put on a negative result, and no amount of negative findings will sway them from their views since they are only trying to prove it is true, not scientifically determine if the idea has legitimate scientific merit.</p><p>The THEMIS team ultimately falsified both magnetic reconnection models they began with. I'm sure they will not modify their "models" to now "predict" an accurate sequence of events, but this is called "goalpost shifting". Magnetic reconnection has failed every single "test" it has ever been put to but it just won't die. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And to your credit, you have do a much better job presenting a case for "magnetic reconnection" than most folks I've seen try to make a case for this idea. It's a hopless cause however since Maxwell's equations do not allow for magnetic field lines to "reconnect". ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are changing your phrasing ever so slightly, but in essence you have made this claim in the past. Unless you have changed your tune to only be addressing your own bogus definition of magnetic reconnection, the challenge remains at your feet to prove this statement. Andif you have changed your tune then you are addressing an invalid strawman. </p><p>By your failure to address this issue, you have been completely and toally discredited, by yourself no less. You have joined the ranks of the EU laughing stock.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 178
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
Question Educating Space to Toddlers to Pre-Adolescence?
- Started by NeoViking
- Replies: 11
-
Next Blue Origin space tourism flight will launch 'Space Gal' Emily Calandrelli
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram