<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.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. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You keep repeating this so everytime I see it, I will just cut n paste my rebuttal from a few pages ago:</p><p> </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><p> </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>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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 determine the value of a physical theory. ..Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />The apparent fact that you are completely ignorant of and utterly incompetent in mathematics does not change the fact that mathematics is the language of physics. If you cannot speak the language then you cannot make your case. Apparently you cannot and you most certainly have not.</p><p>If you are to be taken seriously you must state your case in the appropriate language. In physics that means that you must use mathematics. The use of mathematics allows a precision in the formulation of physical laws that your approach simply lacks. In short your notion of science is incredibly sloppy, not mention just plain factually wrong.</p><p>Go learn some physics. Any amount will be a gigantic improvement. And while you are at learn the mathematics that goes with it. A little vector analysis would do you a lot of good. Without it you are limited to descriptions of physics suitable only for little kids.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>This is not entirely related to magnetic reconnection, nor does it really fit into your other thread, so since this is the active one I'll ask it here. You put so much value on empirical testing, yet many of the claims EU theory makes are not empirically testable. How are you going to empirically demonstrate the ideas regarding stellar structure, or galactic dynamics? You'd have to use those "uncontrolled observations" that you seem to hate so much. Satellite imagery, as you use to support your claims regarding the sun's surface, are no different from data from the THEMIS satellites. You are doing the same thing that you criticize the mainstream of doing. In reality, there is nothing invalid about forming theories based on models supported by "uncontrolled observations". Sometimes they end up being wrong, but only when someone steps up and proves them wrong. For example, proving that reconnection violates Maxwell's equations would do one of two things: either they would "fix" the equations like they did with the displacement current modification, or the mainstream would abandon reconnection in its current form. Nobody has done this however and I don't believe they can. On the other hand, nobody has directly proved EU theory wrong as you define "proving wrong", that is, they did not demonstrate a lot of things empirically in a lab,(though one can argue that the existence of reconnection proves at least part of it wrong), but this is because an alternative theory was devised that was found to have more supporting evidence from models and observations. This is true in all aspects of the theory, including reconnection, stellar structure and galactic dynamics. </p><p>So, what is with the apparent double standard? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... Have you ever taken a physics course? ...Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>A better question might be "have you ever passed a physics course?" Earlier Michael noted that he is a dropout from the electrical engineering curriculum. I think a little better grounding in physics and an good physics or EE class in electromagnetism would have done him a world of good. He might then have overcome his aversion to the use of Maxwell's equations, which have been presented to him in this thread on several occasions, but which he has never directly applied.</p><p>His lack of education in this area combined with a profession in computer programming has led to the misconception that computer graphics, as seen in computer games, is the equivalent of a computer model in physics. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but if one has no grounding in either physics or mathematics and if one does not engage in rigorous logical thinking then one apparently can become confused on this point. There is a hell of a big difference between solving a partial differential equation using numerical techniques and drawing cartoons with a graphics package. </p><p>It is pretty clear that he is accusing people of violating equations (Maxwell's) of which he has not even an elementary understanding. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The apparent fact that you are completely ignorant of and utterly incompetent in mathematics does not change the fact that mathematics is the language of physics.</DIV></p><p>The fact you won't bother reading Peratt or Alven's later work is not evidence about anything related to my personal math skills. Your desire to personally attack the messenger is rather pathetic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you cannot speak the language then you cannot make your case. </DIV></p><p>I can speak the language just fine. In fact I pointed out the equation in the PPPL paper where their error was introduced. Get over it. This is a ridulace tactic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently you cannot and you most certainly have not.If you are to be taken seriously you must state your case in the appropriate language. In physics that means that you must use mathematics. The use of mathematics allows a precision in the formulation of physical laws that your approach simply lacks.</DIV></p><p>This is a completely false statement. Birkeland himself produced these mathematical models. Alfven and Peratt took it to the next level including computer modeling. The fact you refuse to educate yourself DrRocket is not evidence that EU theory lacks a mathematical foundation. You're confusing self imposed ignorance with a percieved problem in EU theory. Alfven layed out all the math in Cosmic Plasma anytime you're interested in educating yourself.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In short your notion of science is incredibly sloppy, not mention just plain factually wrong.</DIV></p><p>It is incredibly sloppy science to "assume" that the elecric field remains constant during an electrical discharge and then claiming "magnetic reconnection" did it. It is incredibly sloppy science to falsify both magnetic recoonection models and then try to pass it off as a "verfication" of the same idea. It's also factually wrong to do these things.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Go learn some physics.</DIV></p><p>What physics? There isn't even an agreed upon physical model for "magnetic reconnection" and magnetic fields not "reconnect" in Maxwell's equations? Describe for us oh great physics guru the unique and exact energy release mechanism behind 'magnetic reconnection' that is demonstratably unique and different from ordinary electrical and particle reconnections in plasma? You're whistlng Dixie DrRocket. There is no "physics" behind "magnetic reconnection", just a bunch of ridulously oversimplied math formulas and a lot of bush league assumptions that don't even make logical sense. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Any amount will be a gigantic improvement. And while you are at learn the mathematics that goes with it. A little vector analysis would do you a lot of good. Without it you are limited to descriptions of physics suitable only for little kids. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>More childish personal attacks DrRocket? How predictable you've become lately.</p><p>Let's all watch now as DrRocket fails to come up with a real physical model of "magnetic reconnection" that can be distinguished form ordinary MDH interactions in plasma. What is the actual physical process that releases energy in a "magnetic reconnection" event, and show me how you derived this model from Maxwell's equations. When you can do these things and duplicate Birkeland's work using "magnetic reconnection" as the power source, then talk to me about "physics". Right now all you're talking about is mathematical mythos, based on misconceptions about plasma physics. You'll note that I'm the one defending the Nobel Prize winning scientists, while you're peddling something that has not a single shred of emprical support, and you won't even bother to read Alfven's later work. Who's practicing "sloppy" physics DrRocket, you or Alfven? </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'>It is incredibly sloppy science to falsify both magnetic recoonection models and then try to pass it off as a "verfication" of the same idea. <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><p> </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>
double post <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>triple post???</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><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...Let's all watch now as DrRocket fails to come up with a real physical model of "magnetic reconnection" that can be distinguished form ordinary MDH interactions in plasma. What is the actual physical process that releases energy in a "magnetic reconnection" event, and show me how you derived this model from Maxwell's equations. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As I have pointed out to you on numerous occassions the physicists version of magnetic reconnection is quite simply release of energy from a magnetic field due to a (continuous) change in the topology of the magnetic field. The only one "cutting and splicing" is you. Release of energy from a magnetic field due to a change in topology is exactly the principle on which automobile ignition systems, older ones, operate. The collapse of a magnetic field (a change in the topology over time) induces and electromotive force which causes a spark.</p><p>The mathematics (sorry to scare you) is simply Faraday's law</p><p><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/9/9/3991a7c07cd27388bf58539585eb07b3.png" alt=" mathcal{E} = - {{dPhi_B} over dt}" />. </p><p>which follows from the Maxwell equation </p><p><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/b/b/bbb9935b60f547572b99de9968bc3674.png" alt="
abla imes mathbf{E}( mathbf{r}, t) = -frac{partial mathbf{B}( mathbf{r}, t)} {partial t}" /> </p><p>through a straightforward application of Stokes's Theorem.</p><p> </p><p>You might need to learn some (gasp!) physics in the form of electromagnetism and some mathematics ( double gasp!) in form of vector analysis to follow the logic. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
abla imes mathbf{E}( mathbf{r}, t) = -frac{partial mathbf{B}( mathbf{r}, t)} {partial t}" /> </p><p>through a straightforward application of Stokes's Theorem.</p><p> </p><p>You might need to learn some (gasp!) physics in the form of electromagnetism and some mathematics ( double gasp!) in form of vector analysis to follow the logic. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... 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,... <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Actually people who do understand electromagnetics can give an adequate explanation of lightning using mathematics. It is rather skin to what happens when the voltage in a capacitor exceed the breakdown strength of the dialectric. Then throw in some plasma physics (Alfven would understand even if you don't) and you can describe the process rather accurately using mathematics.</p><p>Whether you like it or not, mathematics is indeed the language of physics. Not being able to speak it makes one scientifically illiterate. Sorry, but that is the way it is.</p><p>'Conceptual knowledge" of physics in large part relies on an understanding of the underlying mathematical theory. "Conceptual knowledge" without that foundation is simply a delusion of understanding and is not understanding at all. It is fine until you get out of grade school, but is quite insufficient for a meaningful scientific discussion. Your scientific illiteracy is showing. But it is not too late to learn -- try it, you might like it.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact you won't bother reading Peratt or Alven's later work is not evidence about anything related to my personal math skills. ..Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>1. I have, as you well know, purchased Alfven's book <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics </em>written closer to the time of the work for which he received his Nobel Prize than was the later book. I have read several of his papers. What is your contention? Is it that only that work nearer his death is applicable ? Why is his earlier work, for he won the prize that you are so fond of citing, not applicable ? Your charge is ridiculous.</p><p>2. I have looked at enough of Peratt's nonsense to form my own conclusions. One is that his status as an electrical engineer is embarrassing to me.</p><p>3. What possible connection could there be between what I have read and your demonstrated aversion to all things mathematical ? Your aversion to mathematics is amply demonstrated in this thread in which you have failed utterly to respond to any question involving any mathematical symbolism whatever. It is reinforced by your complete misinterpretation of what "mainstream physicists" have to say or what they know -- as though you are an authority on what astrophysicists know.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is not entirely related to magnetic reconnection, nor does it really fit into your other thread, so since this is the active one I'll ask it here. You put so much value on empirical testing, yet many of the claims EU theory makes are not empirically testable. </DIV></p><p>Only claims related to things outside of the range of the Voyager spacecraft are not emprically testable. All the basics however have been tested and/or verified by in situ measurements from space. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How are you going to empirically demonstrate the ideas regarding stellar structure, or galactic dynamics? </DIV></p><p>Those are actually two different issues. The stellar structure theories that I have defended have already been "emprically tested" by Birkeland himself over 100 years ago. Galactic dyanamics is obviously a horse of a different color since we can't go there and test anything related to galactic dyamics nor can we take in situ measurements inside a whole galaxy, at least not in the foreseeable future.</p><p>Birkeland however was able to demonstrate coronal loop activity, auroral activity and planetary ring effects using "current flow" as the basic energy source. He actually simulated coronal loops simply by changing the polarity of the surface of the sphere to positive rather than negative. He explained how he varied the magnetic field inside the sphere and the current flowing into the sphere to create various surface discharge effects. He changed the surface features of the sphere and showed how the discharges grouped themselves around the "bumps" on the sphere. Many of the basic tenets of Birkeland's stellar theory can be tested in a lab and have been tested in a lab. Some of these tests could or might apply to a gas model solar theory as well, particularly the coronal discharge processes. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You'd have to use those "uncontrolled observations" that you seem to hate so much. Satellite imagery, as you use to support your claims regarding the sun's surface, are no different from data from the THEMIS satellites.</DIV></p><p>While I can and do use satellite imagery to support Birkeland's solar model, aspects of this theory have been emprically demonstrated in a lab in controlled experimentation. Nobody has ever duplicated Birkeland's work using "magnetic reconnection" as the energy source of aurora around spheres in a plasma vacuum. Why not? Shouldn't these theories like all theories, be emprically demonstrated just as Birkeland's "current flow" theories were demonstrated? Why does "magnetic reconnection" get some kind of free pass as it relates to emprical testing in a lab around spheres in a vacuum? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You are doing the same thing that you criticize the mainstream of doing.</DIV></p><p>No, not really. I'm using these observations to support or falsify key "predictions" of Birkeland's model, but I'm not trying to rely *ONLY* on uncontrolled observation as a "proof of concept" type of "test". I must still "verify" that Birkeland's current flow predictions match actual observation, but I can't demonstrate the validity of his ideas *only* based on uncontrolled observations of things in space. There's a key difference that relates directly back to Birkeland's early lab tests with spheres in a plasma vacuum. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In reality, there is nothing invalid about forming theories based on models supported by "uncontrolled observations". </DIV></p><p>I beg to differ. I can observe distant acceleration, but I cannot be sure of the cause of this acceleration event by pure observation alone. For instance if I claimed that "magnetic reconnection" or "inflation" is the cause of that acceleration, I must emprically demonstrate that these things exist in nature and have the effect that I claim they have on ordinary matter. Birkeland didn't just look at the lights from the aurora and make up math formulas to describe his current flow theories. Instead, he took the next step in empirical science and he built a series of experiments to verify the verasity of his beliefs, and to demonstrate that "current flow" had the desired effect on nature in a controlled experiment. The only way that anyone might demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" can accelerate charged particles is to demonstrate it in a lab. The closest thing to an emprical test of concept was the work done at PPPL, but their "assumption" about the electric field remaining constant was the flaw in their "interpretation" of what's going in inside of an electrical discharge inside of plasma. I see now why Alfven rejected these kinds of ideas outright at this point because they are absolutely unnecessary. Current flow will accelerate charged particles *without* magnetic reconnection. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sometimes they end up being wrong, but only when someone steps up and proves them wrong. </DIV></p><p>The thing is, they've never been proven to be right, and in science, the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim. Even when the predictions of the magnetic reconnection models failed to match observation, this key failure is somehow being "spun" as some kind of a "verification" of one of the two theories. How does one ever kill off a theory that doesn't match predictions, and that is constantly being modified to "postdict" and new series of "predictions"? It really is lke a whack-a-mole process to falsify an infinite number of theories about "magnetic reconnection". Someone needs to prove them right. I am not oblgated to disprove an infinite set of possible variations on "magnetic reconnection" theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For example, proving that reconnection violates Maxwell's equations would do one of two things: either they would "fix" the equations like they did with the displacement current modification, or the mainstream would abandon reconnection in its current form. Nobody has done this however and I don't believe they can. </DIV></p><p>If you are correct about the fact that nobody has ever derived a magnetic reconnection theory that is based on Maxwell's equations, then it's not possible to falsify something that doesn't exist, and indeed, nobody can do it. Then again, it's up to the mainstream to demonstrate that Maxwell's equations can be used to support their magnetic reconnection theory, and to test that theory in a lab. I've yet to see that ever done, at least not in physical and mathematical detail. Both the physical model and the mathematical model would probably be required in order to verify that "magnetic reconnection" isn't just "induction" or "current flow z-pinch" type of events or some ordinary plasma process. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On the other hand, nobody has directly proved EU theory wrong as you define "proving wrong", that is, they did not demonstrate a lot of things empirically in a lab,(though one can argue that the existence of reconnection proves at least part of it wrong), but this is because an alternative theory was devised that was found to have more supporting evidence from models and observations. This is true in all aspects of the theory, including reconnection, stellar structure and galactic dynamics. So, what is with the apparent double standard? <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The double standard is that you failed to show me any emprical experiments that linked magnetic reconnection to aurora around spheres in a vacuum. I accept that EU theory must be emprically demonstrated just as all theories must be emprically demonstrated. Birkeland emrpically demonstrated a cause and effect relationship between "current flow" and "aurora" around spheres in a vacuum. That's never been done with "magnetic reconnection". More interestingly however is that you personally believe (and others do too) that "magnetic reconnection" has somehow been demonstrated and that it enjoys "more supporting evidence" than a current flow theory. Nothing could be further from the truth IMO, which shows that this is a very subjective call on your part (and mine of course). What you're calling "verfication", I would actually call "falsification" of the very same theory. Their predicted flow pattern did not match observation. In my book that's a "failure", not a "verfication".</p><p>IMO the only double standard is coming from the mainstream. They failed to duplicated Birkeland's work with spheres using "magnetic reconnection" as the energy source. The only emprical experiments done on this theory involved curent flow as the energy source of the pinch effect in plasma. There's no mystery as to how z-pinch events occur in plasma and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection".</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'>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. </DIV></p><p>No, the challenge remains for magnetic reconnection proponents to show how they derive energy from magnetic reconnection using Maxwell's equations. According to you guys, it's never been done. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Andif you have changed your tune then you are addressing an invalid strawman.</DIV></p><p>No, it's not. The very term "magnetic reconnection" is a misleading label because magnetic fields never "reconnect" in the first place.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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 /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Birkeland was the first scientfic proponent of EU theory is he is no "laughing stock" even by the mainstream's perspective. Alfven was perhaps it's mathematical "guru" and was give a Nobel Prize for his efforts. If these are the "laughing stocks" of EU theory, then at least I know I'm in great company. 
</p><p>I can always tell I'm winning the scientific side of the debate when attacks become personal rather than focused on science. </p><p>FYI, in 100 years your brand of cosmology is going to have about as much scientific credibility as flat earth theories or Earth centric epicycle theories. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that your postion is going to remain "popular" forever. </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><p>I can always tell I'm winning the scientific side of the debate when attacks become personal rather than focused on science. </p><p>FYI, in 100 years your brand of cosmology is going to have about as much scientific credibility as flat earth theories or Earth centric epicycle theories. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that your postion is going to remain "popular" forever. </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'>Release of energy from a magnetic field due to a change in topology is exactly the principle on which automobile ignition systems, older ones, operate. The collapse of a magnetic field (a change in the topology over time) induces and electromotive force which causes a spark.</DIV></p><p>I'm going to address this specific issue in this reply. If this is true, then the mainstream is guilty of misusing the English languange and mislabeling the well known process of "induction" as something other than "induction". Is this an induction process or some new form of energy release? I want to hear your response to this specific question before we go any further. </p><p>I also want to know why the mainstream is using imprecise scientific language when describing an ordinary induction event as "magnetic reconnection"? </p><p>Magnetic fields do not "reconnect" in induction events and induction events like your coil analogy require "current flow" to make them operate. If this is nothing more than an induction event caused by "current flow", why then are they calling it "magnetic reconnection"? </p><p>What about that claim on WIKI about magnetic reconnection happening *without* a current sheet? True or false? If true, please explain. </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>Contrary to your weird rationalization, my mathematical prowess, or lack thereof, has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of EU theory. If you willfully refuse to educate yourself and read the mathematical materials that you seek, it is irrational to waste your time belittling me for my personal lack of mathematical prowess when I have provided you with numberous materials that are completely focused on mathematical modeling? Birkeland could integrate equations better than you. So could Alfven. Nobody handed you or me a Nobel prize, so why in the world would you settle for my explantions, or complaning about my math skills, when I have consistently provided you with the links to the work that you claim to want to read and see?</p><p>There is no one to one correlation between my personal level of mathematical expertize and the validity of EU theory. When are you going to read Cosmic Plasma or Peratt's book to get the mathematical formulas you're claiming to want so badly? </p><p>Your personal attacks on me are irrational, irrelevant and baseless. </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'm going to address this specific issue in this reply. If this is true, then the mainstream is guilty of misusing the English languange and mislabeling the well known process of "induction" as something other than "induction". Is this an induction process or some new form of energy release? ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>It is all electrodynamics and all of electrodynamics follows from Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force equation as I have told you and told you and told you. When the energy in the magnetic field changes it has to go somewhere. It goes to accelerating charged particles.</p><p>When the process causes acceleration of electrons in a conductor you call it induction. When the change in the magnetic field topology is a bit more subtle you can call it magnetic reconnection. You can call it OSCAR for all I care. The name is not important, and no the mainstream is not guilty of any offense of language. They simply applied a handy and descriptive term. The process is a bit more subtle than what goes on in electrical machines that are designed by humans. so a new term is useful. The driver is not so clear as in an automobile ignition system, but the idea is the same. It might not be understandable by someone who understands neither mathematics nor Maxwell's equations. It does describe a phenomena that is predicted by the same Maxwell's equations that you continually ignore.</p><p>There is no cutting and splicing involved. I doubt there is even any electrical tape used at all.</p><p>Did a light finally go on in your head ? I have given this example to you at least twice before. Your response has been to deny that there is energy stored in the magnetic field and to rant about "math magic".</p><p>You are the one who has claimed on numerous occasions that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations. And you have consistently refused to support that claim. You cannot rely on cartoons to either define magnetic reconnection or to prove or disprove physical theories. Mathematics is the language of physics. Use it. Cartoons are for children.</p><p>Here is the equation for volumetric energy density in an electromagnetic field</p><dl><dd><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/c/d/fcdeb2741691149630b115d48294666b.png" alt=" U = frac{varepsilon_0}{2} mathbf{E}^2 + frac{1}{2mu_0} mathbf{B}^2 " /></dd><dd></dd><dd></dd></dl><p>When you change the topology of the field, you change the energy density, and hence the local energy content of the field. That energy has to go somewhere, and since we are dealing with electromagnetic fields and charged particles it goes to accelerate those particles. This is nothing new. Magnetic field lines are simply indicators of the direction of the B field that are usually drawn so that the density of the lines represents the local magnitude of that field. As you have been told and told and told, they are simply a device used to help visualize a vector field, which is a slice of a 6-dimensional manifold called a vector bundle (and we are just talking about the magnetic component here). To represent the field accurately you would need a 6-dimensional piece of paper. Lacking such paper, physicists and engineers draw field lines. You can't cut them, you can't splice them, you can't cook them or eat them. This is not new, I have explained this to you before.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1. I have, as you well know, purchased Alfven's book Cosmical Electrodynamics written closer to the time of the work for which he received his Nobel Prize than was the later book. I have read several of his papers. What is your contention? Is it that only that work nearer his death is applicable ?</DIV></p><p>No, it is that his later work is specifically intended to lay out the logical and mathematical foundations of EU theory as it relates to cosmic plasma. If you expect to understand EU theory, Cosmic Plasma is a "must read", particularly for anyone interested in the mathematical and electrical circuit foundations of EU theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why is his earlier work, for he won the prize that you are so fond of citing, not applicable ? </DIV></p><p>It is "applicable" in the sense it describes the mathematical and physical properties of plasma, but it's not being applied to the topic of astronomy per se, just plasma in general. Cosmic Plasma on the other hand is specfically related to MHD theory and how it can be applied to objects in space. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your charge is ridiculous.</DIV></p><p>Your strawman is ridiculous. Your ignorance is also rediculous since Cosmic Plasma is available to you anytime you wish to read it. I'm sure you could have ordered a book from the library and recieved it by now if you were actually interested in learning about EU theory. I doubt you've even read much of Birkeland's work thus far, and you've been playing the role of devils advocate against EU theory now for months. When are you going to actually study this topic in earnest instead of yacking about it in cyberspace with some guy you don't even respect? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. I have looked at enough of Peratt's nonsense to form my own conclusions. One is that his status as an electrical engineer is embarrassing to me.</DIV></p><p>Translation: I don't like EU theory, Peratt supports EU theory. I therfore won't read his work and I'll attack the individual like I always do to convince myself that I'm right and that I don't need to educate myself. This is otherwise known as self imposed ignorance. I think in another 10 to 20 years you're going to find this whole conversation rather embarrassing to yourself.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3. What possible connection could there be between what I have read and your demonstrated aversion to all things mathematical ? </DIV></p><p>A better question is what connection is there between my personal math skills, or lack thereof and the legitimacy of EU theory? There isn't one. It only exists in your mind.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your aversion to mathematics is amply demonstrated in this thread in which you have failed utterly to respond to any question involving any mathematical symbolism whatever. </DIV></p><p>That's a pure mistatement of fact. I cited the precise equation where PPPL introduced their error. When did you ever do that with Ari's work or anything I have cited for that matter? You complain about me yet you won't even read the paper I cite or respond fully to the points they make. It's not just "Michael" who doubts "magnetic reconnection" has any foundation in electrical engineering. Electrical engineers like Don Scott also say the same thing. Then again, Dr Scott is no doubt an embarassment to you too?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is reinforced by your complete misinterpretation of what "mainstream physicists" have to say or what they know -- as though you are an authority on what astrophysicists know. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It's pretty clear to me that astrophysicists don't know much if anything about the universe we live in. Birkeland knew more about our universe over 100 years ago than most astrophysicists today because he did science the old fashion way. He experimented with his physical theories and verified them in the lab. Astrophysicists today are just like Chapman. They put their blind faith in abstract mathematical models that look elegant on paper and have absolutely no bearing on reality. Birkeland knew how to explain auroras and solar wind acceleration, plasma jets and planetary rings over 100 years ago and he showed that his theories would stand the test of time in emprical testing. Lots of scientific ideas come and go and popularity arguements are meaningless as it relates to science. Birkeland's current flow model is fully tested in real emprical experiments. He's done what NASA, PPPL and every proponent of "magnetic reconnection" theory cannot do, specifically create controlled experiments that show an emprical link between his theories and physical events on spheres in a vacuum. He's at least 100+ years ahead of the mainstream and they only wey they will ever catch up is to adopt his current flow theories for their own, and abandon the useless predictions and useless theory of "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'>It is all electrodynamics and all of electrodynamics follows from Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force equation as I have told you and told you and told you. </DIV></p><p>You did not answer my question. Is this an induction process, yes or no?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When the energy in the magnetic field changes it has to go somewhere. </DIV></p><p>In your coil analogy, the "current flow" generates the magnetic field and the "spark" is ultimately a current driven event from start to finish. How are you suggesting the magnetic field is storing energy if not in the kinetic energy of the particle flow through the plasma? </p><p>You need to specifically answer these questions before we go any further. I accused the mainstream of mislabeling "current flow" as "magnetic reconnection". You are accusing them of mislabling "induction" as "magnetic reconnection". In either case the mainstream is willfully misusing important scientific languange and needlessly confusing the real cause of these events. Induction is a well understood principle of physics that I have no problem with. Magnetic reconnection is a myth that has no emprical support. </p><p>Is this an induction process, yes or no? If yes, then the mainstream is willfully misuing the precise language of science. </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's current flow model is fully tested in real emprical experiments. He's done what NASA, PPPL and every proponent of "magnetic reconnection" theory cannot do, specifically create controlled experiments that show an emprical link between his theories and physical events on spheres in a vacuum. He's at least 100+ years ahead of the mainstream and they only wey they will ever catch up is to adopt his current flow theories for their own, and abandon the useless predictions and useless theory of "magnetic reconnection". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>And in what laboratory did he verify his theory that interstellar space is filled with highly diffuse iron atoms ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You did not answer my question. Is this an induction process, yes or no?In your coil analogy, the "current flow" generates the magnetic field and the "spark" is ultimately a current driven event from start to finish. How are you suggesting the magnetic field is storing energy if not in the kinetic energy of the particle flow through the plasma? You need to specifically answer these questions before we go any further. I accused the mainstream of mislabeling "current flow" as "magnetic reconnection". You are accusing them of mislabling "induction" as "magnetic reconnection". In either case the mainstream is willfully misusing important scientific languange and needlessly confusing the real cause of these events. Induction is a well understood principle of physics that I have no problem with. Magnetic reconnection is a myth that has no emprical support. Is this an induction process, yes or no? If yes, then the mainstream is willfully misuing the precise language of science. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You asked a question. It does not have a simple yes or no answer because of the rather leading and argumentative way in which you phrased the question. You apparently do no really want an answer or to understand the issue. I provided a rather complete discussion and answer to the question. If you are not sufficiently well educated or just plain smart enough to recognize an answer when you see it and are dragged through it in excruciating detail then I siimply cannot help you. But you do need help. Try reading some physics. Or (gasp) try reading some mathematics.</p><p>The mainstream is hardly misusing the precise language of science. That precise language is in fact mathematics. I provided an answer to you in that precise language, at language in which you are apparently completely illiterate. You prove it with every post.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And in what laboratory did he verify his theory that interstellar space is filled with highly diffuse iron atoms ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>When did he posit that specific idea as part of his 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'>... You need to specifically answer these questions before we go any further. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Since you cannot understand the answer when it is presented to you, does this mean that you are going to stop posting this EU nonsense ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You asked a question. It does not have a simple yes or no answer because of the rather leading and argumentative way in which you phrased the question. </DIV></p><p>It's a simple question with a simple yes or no answer. Is this an induction process, yes or no? If so, why is it called magnetic reconnection instead of "induction". Magnetic fields do not "reconnect" in the induction process. Why call this "magnetic reconnection" at all, if field lines are not "reconecting"? You realize I could cite a dozen or so presentations of "magnetic reconnection" that do claim that magnetic field lines "reconnect"? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You apparently do no really want an answer or to understand the issue.</DIV></p><p>I'd like a straight answer so that I do understand your position. If you believe this is induction, why not just call it induction. If it is different from induction, what is physically different about it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I provided a rather complete discussion and answer to the question. </DIV></p><p>No, you sort of tap danced around my question. It's a simple question with a simple yes or no answer.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you are not sufficiently well educated or just plain smart enough</DIV></p><p>Yawn...... You're like a one trick pony who's only "trick" is personal attack. Got a real scientific answer or are you going to dance around the question again and blame me for your tap dance routine? Is this an induction process, yes or no? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When did he posit that specific idea as part of his theory? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> 1908. I don't know the month.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 1908. I don't know the month. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>How about a quote? </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
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
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram