Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The Hess and Schindler&nbsp; paper is fairly difficult to read, so what progress I have made is quite slow.&nbsp; I found this paper as well, and it seems a bit more clear.&nbsp; http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1990MmSAI..61..383P&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That paper is a bit more clear.&nbsp; Hess and Schindler gave it a more rigorous treatment, but I agree it is hard to get through.&nbsp; There are a lot of sentences that are poorly written due to it being written by native German speakers.&nbsp; I think both are good to read though.&nbsp; Not that it matters, mozina isn't going to read either anyways. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p>Schindler's talk did not really address reconnection specifically.&nbsp; He was discussing how bifurcated current sheets, which are very thin current sheets on the order of an ion's gyration radius(~800m), form.&nbsp; He said this sheet was where most reconnection is thought to occur.&nbsp; Naturally one of my questions was why does reconnection occur in these sheets but not other non-bifurcated(bifurcated refers to a double-peaked profile in the current density) sheets.&nbsp; He said that because they are so thin, and a combination of conservation of momentum and electric shielding effects, they experience a tearing instability(see section 7.2 here http://www.agu.org/journals/ja/ja0507/2004JA010779/).&nbsp; He did say that this neither helps nor hurts the argument for reconnection, but was nonetheless interesting.&nbsp; As I don't have the book, when Alfven made the argument that reconnection couldn't occur in a current sheet, did he mean a simple(Harris) current sheet, or did he take bifurcated(or even more complex current density profiles commonly seen in the expanding solar wind) sheets into account?&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;I've posted a lot of new information on this page so I understand it may take you a while to read it if you choose to.&nbsp; However, I do askthat you read the entire argument before you respond to anything.&nbsp; I'm tired of making a couple posts and you addressing points in the first one that are clarified in the second one. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That paper is a bit more clear.&nbsp; Hess and Schindler gave it a more rigorous treatment, but I agree it is hard to get through.&nbsp; There are a lot of sentences that are poorly written due to it being written by native German speakers.&nbsp; I think both are good to read though.&nbsp; Not that it matters, mozina isn't going to read either anyways. <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>One problem with Hess and Schindler is the multitude of references to papers that I don't have, including the "paper 1" in the same issue of the same journal that seems to lay some foundations.&nbsp; Their style is also difficult to follow and I don't think it has much to do with a language barrier.</p><p>Some folks are just hard to understand.</p><p>Long long ago in graduate school there were a couple of Chinese students, one who spoke pretty good English and one that no one understood.&nbsp; Finally someone asked the clearer of the two about the other, and why he spoke so well while his countryman was impossible to understand.&nbsp; The response was "He doesn't make sense in Chinese either."<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One problem with Hess and Schindler is the multitude of references to papers that I don't have, including the "paper 1" in the same issue of the same journal that seems to lay some foundations.&nbsp; Their style is also difficult to follow and I don't think it has much to do with a language barrier.Some folks are just hard to understand.Long long ago in graduate school there were a couple of Chinese students, one who spoke pretty good English and one that no one understood.&nbsp; Finally someone asked the clearer of the two about the other, and why he spoke so well while his countryman was impossible to understand.&nbsp; The response was "He doesn't make sense in Chinese either." <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Paper 1 is basically a more specific discussion of reconnection, whereas paper 2, the one you have, is a general proof.&nbsp; Here is paper 1 if you want it http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SYCRO92H &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I wish the subscription thing wasn't an issue so you could check out the other references...hopefully paper 1 will help make some sense of things.&nbsp; While paper 2 focused their derivation on Euler potentials and Vlasov equations, paper 1 avoids that and takes a different approach.&nbsp; I find it much easier to follow, but it is less rigorous mathematically.&nbsp; I think Schindler is one of the types of people who is much easier to understand when speaking of science than when he writes papers.&nbsp; Unfortunately I can't really speak to him at length due to his schedule being full, and I'm not going to waste his time asking for help proving some guy on the internet wrong.&nbsp; The bottom line is, there are a lot of papers out there that do just what michaelmozina claimed is impossible, and I'm curious(although I know all too well how he will repsond) what he'll have to say. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His talk is about current sheets, not reconnection.&nbsp; Though his work with reconnection has been extensive.&nbsp; If I see him somewhere outside of the talk I may ask him some questions, but I'm not going to waste everyone's time at the talk asking unrelated questions. </DIV></p><p>That's thoughtful of you.&nbsp; You might just invite him to join our discussion. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As for the rest of your argument, you're just talking around things again.&nbsp; You didn't even make a single comment about the fact that I DID read Alfven's papers yesterday(not the book, but expecting someone to read an entire book in a few days when they have a job is kind of unreasonable), or the paper that provides a mathematical basis of reconnection, deriving it from Euler potentials.&nbsp; You need to stop addressing these papers' arguments sentence by sentence.&nbsp; It is often the case that they say something that you could argue, then in a few sentences explain why that isn't true.</DIV></p><p>I explained in one sentence why that PPPL paper was not valid and you sort of ignored the whole point.&nbsp; This is nothing more than a z-pinched filament in plasma that ultimately ends up "pinching" itself in a collision process near the core of the spinning filament.&nbsp; They assumed the electrical current remain constant, but in reality, that current flow was disrupted by the pinch and the electrical field changed as a result.&nbsp; Nothing about this event involved "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It's pure particle physics and electromagnetic interaction between moving particles.&nbsp; There is nothing mysterious about this event, and they made a very bad "assumption". &nbsp;</p><p>The one sentence version was:&nbsp; Between equations 15 and 16 they "assumed" that the electric field remained constant, during a z-pinch process in plasma that was being driving by electrical current.&nbsp; There is no process of "magnetic reconnection" going on inside of a z-pinch filament.&nbsp; Its simply a "Bennet Pinch", nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.</p><p>DrRocket even noted that induction would be a valid way to transfer energy from a magnetic field (that actually itself composed of flowing charged particles) into kineitic energy in another circuit.&nbsp; There is absolutely no need to resort to "magnetic reconnection" either to explain the original obaservations in the THEMIS data, or even an "acceleration event" type of an idea based on induction.&nbsp; Neither of these ideas violates Maxwell's equations.</p><p>Plasma is known to release neutrons during z-pinch events, and indeed we find neutron capture signatures in coronal loop activity in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; Rhessi observes gamma rays from discharge events in the solar atmosphere and indeed we observe gamma radiation near the base of coronal loops in Rhessi images of the solar atmosphere.</p><p>That whole PPPL event took place inside of a "discharge event", from beginning to end.&nbsp; The driving motive force here is the kinetic energy of the flowing charged particles.&nbsp; The magnetic field winds itself around this flow channel and ultimately 'pinches" it into more tightly wound filament channels that look something like a twister in plasma.&nbsp; You can observe them in an ordinary $20 plasma ball from Walmart.</p><p>I suppose if you took a cross section of plasma from that plasma ball and you looked at it with only at the magnetic fields in that sheet, it would look like there were tiny little "magnetic islands" inside of a flowing current sheet.&nbsp; At the physical level, those "magnetic islands" would be composed of flowing charged particles inside a plasma thread. </p><p>FYI I actually liked the first paper you cited in that respect because I can rationally understand how they might "thiink" these are "magnetic islands", but when you look at the real physics, it's a flowing stream of current that is creating these magnetic islands.</p><p>It's been all downhill from there IMO, particularly the PPPL paper and especially the last THEMIS paper. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; Also, I'm not going to give you an "outline".&nbsp; This isn't third grade where we have to write book reports to prove we read something.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>I'd just like to know that you actually read the reference material I provided to you.&nbsp; I took the time to (reread) that PPPL paper, and your magnetic island paper, but I see no sign that you have addressed any of the points Alfven made about the idea of magnetic reconnection inside of interplanetary space.&nbsp; So far I see no evidence that any of you have read the first paper I cited.</p><p>To DrRocket's credit, he's read quite a bit of Alfven's early work, although he seem allergic to his later work in Cosmic Plasma theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I read his early papers from the 40s, and browsed over his later ones.&nbsp; I thought it was interesting that as time progressed you could notice him getting more and more angry/bitter with the community.</DIV></p><p>Good scientist acquire wisdom over time.&nbsp; You should be reading his later work too, not just a couple of papers.&nbsp; The one I cited for you was specifically on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" in the magnetosphere and it is directly related to this topic of conversation since I started this process by critiquing that last THEMIS presentation.</p><p>Alfven did not come across "bitter" in his writings, at least not that I can tell.&nbsp; He was carreful to point out the common pitfalls and common misconceptions that had been talked about in relation to MHD theory.&nbsp; It seems to me that nothing much has changed.&nbsp; The mainstream is still making the same mistakes, over and over and over again.&nbsp; I'm glad that he took the time to at least address these common fallacies about MHD theory so that I could understand how they 'evolved' and why they didn't make sense in MHD theory.</p><p>I do think Alfven was like Birkeland however in the sense that he was *way* ahead of his time.&nbsp; I think he found it difficult to communicate the full range of MHD theory (including the current flow part) although he seemed to find a protege' in Peratt.&nbsp; Peratt took his basic ideas and build computer models to see what they would find.&nbsp; Peratt has written extensively about the outcome and the many links to observed events in space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Nonetheless, reconnection is 1) proven to be a viable physical process from basic physics equations</DIV></p><p>Not exactly.&nbsp; DrRocket's "induction" is not "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Flowing current channels traveling in oposite directions "reconnect" electrically and kinetically, but not 'magnetically'.&nbsp; The magnetic field is simply following the flowing particles.&nbsp; When we look at a copper wire that contains flowing electrons, we observe changing magnetic fields throughout the day.&nbsp; The magnetic field is created by the flowiing electrons in the copper wire, and the strength of the magnetic field is related to the number of electrons flowing through the wire. The variation we observe is due to the variable number of electrons that pass through the wire, not because of "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Since plasma is not rigid like the copper wire, and positive ions can also "flow" and generate magnetic fields, we must extend our notion of "current flow" to include no only electrons, but any postively or negatively charged particle that is in motion relative to the bodies in our solar system.&nbsp; It's "current flow" that's doing all the work here folks, not "magnetic reconnection"".&nbsp; I'll even cop to the legitimacy of DrRockets arguement (which Alfven also accepted and wrote about) about the possiblity of induction processes that accelerate particles due to a changing magnetic field.&nbsp; What there is absolutely no need of is "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Maxwell's equations treat the magnetic field as as complete and whole continuum.&nbsp; All the particle physicsl processes inside of a current sheet have already been described by Alfven in MHD theory.&nbsp; There is no need to introduce any form of "magnetic reconnection" to explain particle accleration events inside of an existing current sheet.&nbsp; The whole of interplanetary space exists inside of a flowing continuum of moving charged particles, otherwise known as "current flow". &nbsp;</p><p>Those THEMIS observations may have had something to do with "induction", and they probably had a lot to do with "current flow", but they had absolutely nothing whatesoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 2) backed up by observation </DIV></p><p>What observation?&nbsp; I observed that both of their magnetic reconnection models failed to correctly predict the observed flow of particles.&nbsp; The only thing that was "backed up" by these observations is the fact that magnetic reconnection theory is utterly useless when it comes to making accurate "predictions" about the flow patterns of charged particles.&nbsp; That's hardly surprising since the whole theory is *outside* the bounds of MHD theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3) demonstrated in the lab(more people did similar but not identical things to the PPPL paper)</DIV></p><p>Did it happen inside or outside of a current sheet?&nbsp; All that was demonstrated in that lab was a z-pinch filament in plasma driven by an electrical discharge through plasma.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; The current flow was not consistent, therefore the electromagnetic field was variable.&nbsp; No big deal. Alfven's already explained the math *and the particle physics* behind that process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and I have provided the major agreed upon definitions.</DIV></p><p>The don't seem to agree on much if you ask me.&nbsp; They sure seem to hedge their bets a whole lot for a bunch of folks that seem absolutely convinced of the validity of their idea.&nbsp; There's no real physical model specified by any of ther references you have cited.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> My recent postings have been proving you wrong on numerous points(magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations, magnetic reconnection has no agreed upon definition, etc etc)...I give up.&nbsp;You clearly don't understand what reconnection is. </DIV></p><p>&nbsp; LOL&nbsp; Nobody "understands" what reconnection is, and that's the whole problem in a nutshell. Don't blame me personally for the sins of the whole industry.&nbsp; That was a funny comment!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I gave you papers that would educate you on what it is, but you ignore them. </DIV></p><p>I read them, and I pointed out the exact equation where the paper went to hell in a handbasket in the PPL paper.&nbsp; They *assumed* something they they never verified and that was not true and therefore the rest of the math is pointless.&nbsp; You didn't even read Alfven's paper on this topic, or at least you have never commented on it.&nbsp; I at least have responded to every key point in the first two paper you asked me to read. </p><p>I also gave you a physical way to "explain" a "magnetic island" and I pointed out that the Hall effect is not a "classic sign" of "magnetic reconnection", but rather a classic sign of "current flow".</p><p>When did you even comment on Alfven's paper about magnetic reocnnection in the magnetosphere?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you did, you would stop asking "why call it reconnection if no lines are cut and reconnected", because the answer to that is simple:&nbsp; that is not what reconnection is defined as. </DIV></p><p>It isn't physically defined and agreed upon, and that's the problem.&nbsp; It's outside the scope of plasma physics because it has not been physically explained.&nbsp; Everything inside of MHD theory is based on particle physics processes between various charged particles.&nbsp; There is nothing physically undefined in MHD theory.</p><p>Without a physical model to work with, and without a physical understanding of what is unique about "magnetic reconnection" as it relates to particle physics, it's absolutely and completely impossible to differentiate the idea from either "current flow events' (z-pinch) or "induction".&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In none of the definitions do they use those words.&nbsp; It is merely a simplified way of relating the concept to people unfamiliar with it.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>IMO it a useless word that is specifcally and intentionally misleading, it is unncessary and it is completely irrelevant to plasma physics.&nbsp; It's perfect example of accepted dogma and mythos, dressed up in mathematics, much like Chapman's ideas when they were popular. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, I should point out that the LANL GEO satellites have absolutely nothing to do with x-rays.&nbsp; The GEO series of instruments measure energetic particle data, ranging from 10s of keV to a few MeV.&nbsp; We use this data to identify substorms.&nbsp; The GOES satellites measure the three components of the magnetic field, from which you can determine an angle to get a measure of how "stretched" the magnetotail is.&nbsp; I only point this out because those are the two satellites I work with and I know for a fact I'm not looking at x-rays. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sxi/</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Those THEMIS observations may have had something to do with "induction", and they probably had a lot to do with "current flow", but they had absolutely nothing whatesoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". What observation?&nbsp; I observed that both of their magnetic reconnection models failed to correctly predict the observed flow of particles.&nbsp; The only thing that was "backed up" by these observations is the fact that magnetic reconnection theory is utterly useless when it comes to making accurate "predictions" about the flow patterns of charged particles.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p><p>Have you even read the THEMIS paper beyond the abstract or any of my posts addressing this silly claim of yours?&nbsp; Are you aware of what the THEMIS mission is?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sxi/ <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Those are NOAA satellites... not LANL.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Those are NOAA satellites... not LANL.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>When he said GOES, I simply thought of those SXI images I had seen a few years ago.&nbsp; I wasn't trying to make specific distintinons between individual satellites of the GOES system. &nbsp; I fail to see how any data from any part of the GOES satellites in any ways supports the idea 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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When he said GOES, I simply thought of those SXI images I had seen a few years ago.&nbsp; I wasn't trying to make specific distintinons between individual satellites of the GOES system. &nbsp; I fail to see how any data from any part of the GOES satellites in any ways supports the idea of "magnetic reconnection". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I could be wrong, but I imagine he's referring to either the ACE, POLAR, and/or CLUSTER satellites that have instruments from LANL onboard.</p><p>I agree.&nbsp; I don't see what the GOES satellite program has to do with his fields of study.&nbsp; Maybe he just meant GEOS short for geosynchronous.&nbsp; I can understand the confusion.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could be wrong, but I imagine he's referring to either the ACE, POLAR, and/or CLUSTER satellites that have instruments from LANL onboard.I agree.&nbsp; I don't see what the GOES satellite program has to do with his fields of study.&nbsp; Maybe he just meant GEOS short for geosynchronous.&nbsp; I can understand the confusion.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p><br />http://leadbelly.lanl.gov/lanl_ep_data/</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could be wrong, but I imagine he's referring to either the ACE, POLAR, and/or CLUSTER satellites that have instruments from LANL onboard.I agree.&nbsp; I don't see what the GOES satellite program has to do with his fields of study.&nbsp; Maybe he just meant GEOS short for geosynchronous.&nbsp; I can understand the confusion.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>The GOES data I'm using relates directly to the stretching of the magnetic field, which is in turn indirectly related to reconnection.&nbsp; I was obviously not referring to the solar xray imager. </p><p>I have no idea what GOES actually stands for or whose satellite the instrument is on.&nbsp; All I care about and know is that it surveys the magnetic field in the magnetotail region where a lot of reconnection takes palce.&nbsp; Also, CLUSTER and POLAR(I forget what ACE does, I think it's just a solar wind probe) have been used in reconnection studies.&nbsp; I don't use them directly but they all can be used in some way(some more than others) to find evidence of reconnection.&nbsp; So they are entirely related.&nbsp; GEO and GOES are two different things.&nbsp; GEO is a cluster of something on the order of 10 satellites at geosynchronous, and are at the leadbelly.lanl.gov site DrRocket posted.&nbsp; GOES is a system of two satellites that probes the magnetic field.&nbsp; The OMNI dataset also addresses the magnetic field, but that of the solar wind, not the magnetosphere.&nbsp; Hopefully this clears things up, but it isn't even relevant.&nbsp; I just named a few examples of satellites that are used now to support the case of reconnection that Alfven never had access to. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You should be reading his later work too, not just a couple of papers. </DIV></p><p>And in the sentence you referred to, I wrote that I did read his later work.&nbsp; I don't have access to his books right now so thats all I can do at the moment.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; DrRocket's "induction" is not "magnetic reconnection". </DIV></p><p>If you read my posts you would know that is not the definition I'm referring to.&nbsp; Read the Schindler/Hesse/Birn duo of papers. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; LOL&nbsp; Nobody "understands" what reconnection is, and that's the whole problem in a nutshell. Don't blame me personally for the sins of the whole industry.&nbsp; That was a funny comment!</DIV></p><p>So I guess you just totally ignored the paper that establishes the general theory of reconnection deriving it from Euler potentials. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I read them, and I pointed out the exact equation where the paper went to hell in a handbasket in the PPL paper. </DIV></p><p>You seem to just be focusing on that one paper.&nbsp; I personally think the second one, from the Russians I believe, where they demonstrated that they can accelerate electrons to suprathermal levels via reconnection is more significant.&nbsp; All of them took place in a tokamak reactor, but that doesn't mean they all did the same thing.&nbsp; Yesterday I saw some guy walking around in a PPPL shirt and I got a headache thinking of this conversation <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></p><p>&nbsp; Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You didn't even read Alfven's paper on this topic, or at least you have never commented on it. </DIV></p><p>I saw this coming a mile away.&nbsp; I read Alfven's paper and even gave you the mainstream's response to his arguments, where they quoted his paper directly.&nbsp; PLEASE read my posts if you are going to try to stay in this argument.&nbsp; It's getting frustrating. </p><p> <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could be wrong, but I imagine he's referring to either the ACE, POLAR, and/or CLUSTER satellites that have instruments from LANL onboard.I agree.&nbsp; I don't see what the GOES satellite program has to do with his fields of study.&nbsp; Maybe he just meant GEOS short for geosynchronous.&nbsp; I can understand the confusion.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I can understand the confusion as well.&nbsp; Many of the satellite systems have mutliple instruments on board, and often scientists specialize in understanding data from specific instruments on specifical satellites.&nbsp; My comments were very generic whereas his were obviously more specific. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The GOES data I'm using relates directly to the stretching of the magnetic field, which is in turn indirectly related to reconnection.</DIV></p><p>But see, this is a perfect example that demonstrates that individual "interpretations" can differ from the very start.&nbsp;&nbsp; You're watching the stretching of the magnetic fields which are in turn related to "current flow", not "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>If we could only measure the magnetic fields around a copper wire, we might "think" that the changes in the magnetic field are somehow accelerating particles inside the copper wire.&nbsp; In reality however the changes we observe in the magnetic field around the copper wire are related to the changes in the flow patters of electrons through the wire. &nbsp;</p><p>Unlike a solid, plasma particles move and flow and do not remain rigid.&nbsp; We must therefore extend our definition of "current flow" to include any type of charged particle (positive or negative) that is moving relative to the bodies in our solar system.&nbsp; The "stretching' of the magnetic field lines that you observe are related to the flow patterns of particles in the current streams, not to "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; The strength and variation of that magnetic field is related to the flow patterns of those charged particles, not to "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; I was obviously not referring to the solar xray imager. I have no idea what GOES actually stands for or whose satellite the instrument is on. </DIV></p><p>Obvously not, but those x-ray images happened to be the first thing I thought about when you meantioned that particular program. &nbsp; I certainly appreciate the fact that there are many satellites and many different pieces of equipment associated with the GOES program.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All I care about and know is that it surveys the magnetic field in the magnetotail region where a lot of reconnection takes palce. </DIV></p><p>Well, that "reconnection" process is simply kinetic and electrical in nature.&nbsp; It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; it's "particle reconnection" and "electrical reconnection" because "current flow" is clearly involved.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, CLUSTER and POLAR(I forget what ACE does, I think it's just a solar wind probe) have been used in reconnection studies.</DIV></p><p>None of these programs have brought back data consistent with magnetic reconnection theories IMO.&nbsp; In fact CLUSTER demonstrated rather conclusively that magnetic reconnection theories did *not* accurately predict the path of the movement of the flow of charged particles.&nbsp; &nbsp; ACE and solar wind oriented satelites demonstrate that the solar wind process selectiively favors the acceleration of lighter, more postively charged ions just as EU theory would "predict".&nbsp; It also demonstrates that solar wind continues to accelerate on it's journey towards the heliosphere just as EU theory predicts.&nbsp; I also remember reading a paper from one of these programs that talks about the 'strahl" around the poles which roughly translates into a underabundance of electrons near the poles which is also conistent with Alfven's unipolar induction model. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; I don't use them directly but they all can be used in some way(some more than others) to find evidence of reconnection. </DIV></p><p>There seems to be a very 'subjective' way to 'interpret' this data, because all I see in those data sets are *many* validations of Birkeland's original model and Alfven's more refined models reated to EU theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; I see absolutely nothing at all to support "reconnection', unless you're talking about "particle reconnection' or 'electrical reconnection' because magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum.&nbsp; They don't "reconnect" with anything.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So they are entirely related.&nbsp; GEO and GOES are two different things.&nbsp; GEO is a cluster of something on the order of 10 satellites at geosynchronous, and are at the leadbelly.lanl.gov site DrRocket posted.&nbsp; GOES is a system of two satellites that probes the magnetic field.&nbsp; The OMNI dataset also addresses the magnetic field, but that of the solar wind, not the magnetosphere.&nbsp; Hopefully this clears things up, but it isn't even relevant.&nbsp; I just named a few examples of satellites that are used now to support the case of reconnection that Alfven never had access to. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Every bit of data I have seen in these programs can be directly related back to Birkeland's "current flow' model of a solar system.&nbsp; They can be related directly back to Alfven's unipolar induction models. &nbsp; If I can see that connection, then surely somone like Alfven would also see that connection.&nbsp; I see nothing in these data sets that can't be explained by ordinary electrical processes in current sheets. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And in the sentence you referred to, I wrote that I did read his later work.&nbsp; I don't have access to his books right now so thats all I can do at the moment.</DIV></p><p>I'm more interested in whether or not you have read the specific paper Alfven wrote related to "magnetic reconnection" in relationship to magenetospheric activity.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma is pretty much the "defining book" of EU theory, along with Birkeland's original writings. If you want to really understand EU theory, these "text books" are required reading.&nbsp; Papers won't do their work justice, but fortunately both of them wrote whole books on this topic.&nbsp; Keep in mind that all of Alfven's basic ideas are layed out in "Cosmic Plasma" whereas the book that DrRocket purchased is more of a general introduction to MHD theory and particle physics.&nbsp; In his book Cosmic Plasma Alfven uses MHD prinicples to attempt to explain cosmiic phenomenon.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you want to understand EU theory, Cosmic Plasma is more specific to that topic, whereas his early work tends to specifically define the basics plasma physics principles behind MHD theory.&nbsp; Cosmic plasma also seems to have been written after some "misconceptions" were being written about and Alfven spends some times on the nature of these misconceptions and why they occur.&nbsp; Unfortunately most folks I've met that are into MHD theory seem to have never read that book.&nbsp; I find that fascinating frankly. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you read my posts you would know that is not the definition I'm referring to.&nbsp; Read the Schindler/Hesse/Birn duo of papers.</DIV></p><p>How about you read that one specific paper by Alfven on this particular topic and then I'll be happy to read and critique yet *another* paper on this topic. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So I guess you just totally ignored the paper that establishes the general theory of reconnection deriving it from Euler potentials.</DIV></p><p>Euler potential?&nbsp; Isn't that related to gravity?&nbsp; If gravity were the defining force of nature, then solar wind particles would not accelerate as they leave the surface of the photosphere, rather they would being to slow down over time.&nbsp; You're right, I haven't read that paper yet, but already I'm a bit skeptical of any sort of gravity oriented explanation for these events, especially since Birkeland provided us with a very logical way to explaln this acceleration process and this discharge proces.&nbsp; I will read that paper if you like, but first I expect you to read the first paper I cited by Alfven on this specific topic.&nbsp; Thus far no one has even mentioned any argument in that paper and no one has responded to a single point Alfven made in that paper.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to just be focusing on that one paper.&nbsp; I personally think the second one, from the Russians I believe, where they demonstrated that they can accelerate electrons to suprathermal levels via reconnection is more significant. </DIV></p><p>I'll bet when I read through that paper it involves a "current sheet" of some kind and that ultimately the electrical energy is doing all the work. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All of them took place in a tokamak reactor, but that doesn't mean they all did the same thing.</DIV></p><p>It means they all involved powerful dishcarge currrents in plasma that can easily create z-pinch processees and other induction driven processes in plasma.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Yesterday I saw some guy walking around in a PPPL shirt and I got a headache thinking of this conversation &nbsp; I saw this coming a mile away.&nbsp; I read Alfven's paper and even gave you the mainstream's response to his arguments, where they quoted his paper directly.&nbsp; PLEASE read my posts if you are going to try to stay in this argument.&nbsp; It's getting frustrating. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>If you responded to any of Alven's points, I musted have indeed missed them.&nbsp; Could you link me to the post you're talking about?</p><p>I admit I've been traveling a lot over the past couple of weeks and I haven't been able to respond to every single post, but I think I would have noticed if you had actualy responded to Alfven's points and arguements. &nbsp; If I missed something, my appologies, but unless I missed something important, you haven't responded to his key criticisms yet. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p>I did read the specific paper you are talking about.&nbsp; You quoted some of my statements from the post where I provide a paper response to his claims.&nbsp; I quoted the introduction where they directly address some of Alfven's claims.&nbsp; You may say that argument is incomplete and unsupported, and it is...until you read the paper. I'm sure even if I went through and commented on every single sentence in his paper you'd still think I never read it.&nbsp; It is unfair to ask me to write a in-depth review of his paper when you have not done the same with any of the papers I posted.&nbsp; The most important ones are the most recent ones.&nbsp; The ones that provide the theoretical foundation of it, and reveal that reconnection is not what you think the mainstream thinks it is.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Again, I'm not answering questions about a paper you haven't read yet.&nbsp; Please wait until you have the time to at least glance over it before you start asking questions. </p><p>Since your Euler potential question is more of a general question, they address that in section 2.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is well known that any divergence free vector field in three spatial dimensions can at least locally be expressed by Euler potentials (alpha) and (beta)[Stern, 1970; Birmingham, 1972]. ...&nbsp;</p><p>...</p><p>To use Euler potentials for representing magnetic fields, one must assure that such a description actually exists in the domain under consideration.&nbsp; The local existence of Euler potentials in the case of nonvanishing magnetic field was proven by Stern[1970].</DIV></p><p>They then justify that mathematically.&nbsp; The argument is way too long for me to spell it out for you, so the rest is up to you.&nbsp; I don't have Alfven's book or Birkeland's book and even if I ordered it I wouldn't get it for another week or two, and by then i'll be travelling back to Florida and taking care of moving etc.&nbsp; And then to read an entire book(assuming it is of standard textbook length) would require a fairly long amount of time given that I'll be starting graduate courses the week after next.&nbsp; So your demand that I read his book is a little unrealistic in the near future.&nbsp; Alfven's general critcisms are addressed in many papers.&nbsp; I am confident that even after reading his book, I'd just go back to said papers to refute the claims that have been proven incorrect.&nbsp; I think this is just a diversionary tactic to make me look bad, so you don't have to read through the papers that answer your main questions very(in the case of the Hesse and Schindler paper, excedingly) specifically.&nbsp; The "meat" of the argument is in the most recent papers I posted.&nbsp; The early ones are more debatable, and ideally I would have posted these most recent papers first, but soemtimes when you research a topic you find useless stuff first and then after many papers you finally find what you're looking for.&nbsp; That is the case here. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The Hess and Schindler&nbsp; paper is fairly difficult to read, so what progress I have made is quite slow.&nbsp; I found this paper as well, and it seems a bit more clear.&nbsp; http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1990MmSAI..61..383P&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That's a very interesting paper for a couple of reasons.&nbsp; In the very first sentence he makes it clear that all the phenomenon that he attributes to "magnetic reconnection" are precisely the same sets of observations that Birkeland was able to generate with his "current flow" theories.</p><p>The other interesting thing that I noticed was equation 1.4 where he introduces *induction* into the equations.&nbsp; So essentially what we have here is *current flow* and *induction* processes being mislabeled as "magnetic reconnection". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>The diagrams in that paper make it darn obvious that what they're talking about are "current flow streams" that kinetically, electrically and inductively interact with each other through a standard current carrying double layer.&nbsp; There is absolutely nothing about this process that involves "mangetic reconnection".&nbsp; This is pure particle interaction and pure induction.&nbsp; There is nothing "unique" about "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It is nothing more than oxymoronic slang term for "current sheet transactions in plasma".&nbsp; Alfven described all these processes in MHD theory *without* "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Even the equations they introduce themselves demonstrate that these are induction events at best case, current flow events in a more general sense and none of it works without "current flow" running through the double layer.&nbsp; WIKI's claim about magnetic reconection happening in the *absense* of a current sheet is therefore utterly unfounded, and calling a current sheet transaction "magnetic reconnection" is like calling the energy exchange processes in a copper wire "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; There is nothing "magnetically reconnecting" in these diagrams.&nbsp; The only things that are "reconnecting" are the "current streams" and the larger electrical circuits.&nbsp; Nothing about this process is "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It simply a "current flow" driven process where z-pinches form between large current carrying circuits in the double layer that separates them.&nbsp; Kinetic collisions occur in this separating double layer and the plasma in these regions undergoe severe amounts of turbulance that results in kinetic interactions between the flowing streams of charged particles.&nbsp; This whole process is nothing more than "electrical interaction" inside of a "current carrrying plasma."</p><p>All of it requires "constant and sustained current flow" just like Birkeland's experiments.&nbsp; </p><p>Astronomers are simply guilty of mislabeling "current flow transactions" as "magnetic reconnection" and there is nothing described by "magnetic reconnection" that isn't already described by "current flow" processes in Alfven's original MHD theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's a curernt flow process from start to finish, including the current sheet transactions that occur inside the double layer that is most highly stressed in this interaction.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The filaments that form inside that double layer will eventually get "pinched" by the magnetic field that surrounds them.&nbsp; The kinetic energy transfers that result from these pinches accelerates all sorts of charged particles as does the plasma thread.&nbsp; These are simply current flow events being relabeled as "magnetic reconnection". That's pointless, it's a misuse of scientific terms, and it's utterly redundant.&nbsp; These processes are clearly defined in MHD theory as "current flow" processes and "induction" processes already.&nbsp; There is absolutely no need or reason to relabel current flow transactions, and induction events as "magnetic reconnection" unless the mainstream is intentionally trying to avoid using the term "current flow".&nbsp; That's exactly what they're trying to do because "electricity" is the one taboo topic of astronomy. &nbsp; If they use the term "current flow" or electricity, everyone will know that those "nutcases" that support EU theory were right all along, and we can't have that. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>Having read a number of these magnetic reconnection papers that presumably represent the "best" evidence for "magnetic reconnection", I herby state that the very term "magnetic reconnection" is an oxymoron.&nbsp; Magnetic fields do not ever "reconnect", they only form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end.&nbsp;</p><p> Only particles and electircal circuits can "reconnect".&nbsp; Furthermore every model that has been presented of "magnetic reconnection" is essentially nothing more than a description of electrical and particle and induction interactions inside of current carrying plasma.&nbsp; It is therefore a useless, pointless, misleading name.&nbsp; It is scientifically bankrupt since it is not a unique energy release mechanism, and it should be ignored just as Alfven 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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp;&nbsp; Euler potential?&nbsp; Isn't that related to gravity?...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Er,... No.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... 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. ...<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Their precise words, between equations 15 and 16 were</p><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial" size="2"><p align="left"><font size="1">"...poloidal beta and internal inductance profile functions.</font></p><p align="left"><font size="1">For the simplest approximation, assume a constant current</font></p><p align="left"><font size="1">density and a parabolic pressure profile in the plasma. Then</font></p><p><font size="1">X&rsquo; and p&rsquo; are linear in r and..."</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="1">&nbsp;Please show how a constant E field follows from this assumption and Maxwell's equations.</font></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p></font></font><font face="Arial" size="6"><font face="Arial" size="6"><p align="left"><font face="Arial" size="2"></font></p></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>WIKI's claim about magnetic reconection happening in the *absense* of a current sheet is therefore utterly unfounded</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Since when has wikipedia EVER been a reliable source? &nbsp; Also, electricity is not taboo.&nbsp; If you look at the literature, there are many papers(see Schindler, Hess, Birn aka paper 1, or Birn and Schindler 1986) that address the role of the electric field in reconnection.&nbsp; You seem to have changed your tune from "magnetic reconnection is a myth and violates Maxwell's equations" to "well, they just labelled it wrong".&nbsp; The physics behind reconnection are entirely valid.&nbsp; The fact is you cannot explain the physics without discussing the changing topology of the magnetic field.&nbsp; Current flow is certainly a part of the process(which is very obvious considering the magnetic field is changing and we are discussing the acceleration of&nbsp; the flow of electrons, which, by definition is current).&nbsp; However it is not the whole picture. &nbsp; </p><p>You wanted a definition of reconnection that is agreed upon by the community;&nbsp; you now have it.</p><p>You wanted proof that it does not violate Maxwell's equations; you have that too now.</p><p>You blow off the other experiments that produce reconnection in a current sheet because Alfven said it cannot occur there.&nbsp; You are missing the point.&nbsp; It is believed that reconnection primarily occurs in current sheets by the mainstream, so of course experiments are going to involve a current sheet.&nbsp; Alfven did not have access to a thorough definition of reconnection.&nbsp; I agree that you cannot cut or splice field lines to produce energy.&nbsp; None of the modern reconnection theories make that claim.&nbsp; The "General Magnetic Reconnection" definition wasn't established until the mid 1980s.&nbsp; Once they had that, they proved it could occur mathematically.&nbsp; Once they had this foundation, they went on to observations and simulations.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Their precise words, between equations 15 and 16 were"...poloidal beta and internal inductance profile functions.For the simplest approximation, assume a constant currentdensity and a parabolic pressure profile in the plasma. ThenX&rsquo; and p&rsquo; are linear in r and..."&nbsp;&nbsp;Please show how a constant E field follows from this assumption and Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Exactly.&nbsp; Note they said for the simplest approximation.&nbsp; They are not saying that is actually what is happening.&nbsp; In reality, the current density profile is parabolic(approximately) like the pressure profile.&nbsp; In bifurcated sheets, it has a double peaked profile, and in the solar wind there have been triple or more peaked profiles observed.&nbsp; However, since they are making an approximation, this doesn't matter.&nbsp; If they arrive with results that are close to reality, then they are correct...that is the idea of an approximation.&nbsp; Another example: many simulations of current sheets treat the event in only one dimension.&nbsp; Is this what actually happens? Of course not.&nbsp; Does that mean it isn't useful? Of course not.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Also, I looked at the first sentence of the paper you claimed said they were tlaking about current flow or whatever it is exactly that you said(I can't see the post right now), and it says nothing of the sort.&nbsp; If you are talking about the paper 2, it says "Magnetic reconnection is widely believed to be important ffor the global transport of plasma."&nbsp; If you were referring to paper 1, it says "Magnetic reconnection is widely considered to be an important transport process occurring in both space and laboratory plasmas."&nbsp; It would take an extreme leap to get from that to something that supports current flow.&nbsp; I truly hate your argument style.&nbsp; You pick out a single sentence and base your entire argument on it.&nbsp; You do this with our posts too.&nbsp; You have to take the whole thing into consideration.&nbsp; The sentences you quote often don't even say what you think they do.&nbsp; If I'm wrong, show me how, don't just brush it off and say "Alfven said so". &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I did read the specific paper you are talking about.&nbsp; You quoted some of my statements from the post where I provide a paper response to his claims.&nbsp; I quoted the introduction where they directly address some of Alfven's claims.&nbsp; You may say that argument is incomplete and unsupported, and it is...until you read the paper. I'm sure even if I went through and commented on every single sentence in his paper you'd still think I never read it.&nbsp; It is unfair to ask me to write a in-depth review of his paper when you have not done the same with any of the papers I posted.&nbsp; The most important ones are the most recent ones.&nbsp; The ones that provide the theoretical foundation of it, and reveal that reconnection is not what you think the mainstream thinks it is. </DIV></p><p>Actually, I think you folks have demonstrated that it is exactly what I think it is.&nbsp; It's an oxymoronic term intended to mislabel and misdirect the real cause of these interactions, namely "current flow" and "induction". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't have Alfven's book or Birkeland's book and even if I ordered it I wouldn't get it for another week or two, and by then i'll be travelling back to Florida and taking care of moving etc.&nbsp; And then to read an entire book(assuming it is of standard textbook length) would require a fairly long amount of time given that I'll be starting graduate courses the week after next.&nbsp; So your demand that I read his book is a little unrealistic in the near future. </DIV></p><p>Well, first of all, I'm not "demanding" anything of you.&nbsp; I was simply trying to direct you towards the best "textbooks" on EU theory that I can think of, at least in a price range that some folks might find acceptable.&nbsp; IMO Peratt's book is actually an easier to read explanation of MHD theory and it's practical applications to cosmology theory, but it's out of print and out of most people's budget.&nbsp; I've only been an EU advocate since April 16th, 2005 myself.&nbsp; About the one thing I can say is that there is a lot of good information on EU theory and a lot of misinformation about EU theory and the "best" information I have found thus far is found in the work of Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven and Peratt. &nbsp; I wasn't trying to suggest you *had* to read it, only that you should read it if you really want to understand EU theory from a real scientific perspcective as explained by real scientists.&nbsp; I'm a programmer by trade. </p><p>FYI, I found Birkeland's work to be more "convincing" than anyone elses work because he imprically verified all of this work, at least to the best of his human abilities given the technology of the day.&nbsp; I'd put him right up there with Maxwell and Einstein personally.&nbsp; Alfven's work won him Nobal prize too, and in my book he's right up there with the rest of them. Birkeland seems to be more like me in terms of wanting to physically understand the principles of what's going on and why it's going on.&nbsp; Alfven tends to be more "mathematical" and "circuit oriented" in his apporach to expanations, but he siginificantly built upon Birkeland's early ideas. &nbsp;</p><p>Dr. Charles Bruce seems to recoginize the significance of high energy solar events and their relationship to electrical discharges in plasma from the perspective of electrical engineering.&nbsp; His work is more mathematical in nature, but he too came to many of the same conclusions as Alfven and Birkeland.</p><p>I have some links to Bruce's work on my website and I have posted a link to Birkeland's early books and experiments.&nbsp; These are free and I would start there.&nbsp; Alfven's books are typically in excess of 100.00 and Peratt's book would probably set you back over 500 if you could get a copy.&nbsp; They are all worthwile investments in education however, even/especially Peratt's book.&nbsp;&nbsp; I would however recommend you start with Birkeland's work since it's free and it's based on emprical testing.&nbsp; It sets the ground rules by with all other EU theories (and there are many of them) should be measured.&nbsp; Birkeland could do math with the best of them and he understood the importance of both *active experimentation* and "in situ" testing.&nbsp; All three things, math, experimentation and "testing" have their place in emprical science, but it is only emprical scince if all three parts have been done. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven's general critcisms are addressed in many papers.&nbsp; I am confident that even after reading his book, I'd just go back to said papers to refute the claims that have been proven incorrect. </DIV></p><p>I don't believe that is likely, particularly if you remain scientifically open minded during your search for emprical truth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think this is just a diversionary tactic to make me look bad, so you don't have to read through the papers that answer your main questions very(in the case of the Hesse and Schindler paper, excedingly) specifically. </DIV></p><p>I too am finding their paper to be, er, well, 'confusing" to say the least, whereas DrRocket's paper seems to be somewhat more "clear" in it's approach to what is presumably the same model. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The "meat" of the argument is in the most recent papers I posted.&nbsp; The early ones are more debatable, and ideally I would have posted these most recent papers first, but soemtimes when you research a topic you find useless stuff first and then after many papers you finally find what you're looking for.&nbsp; That is the case here. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Keep in mind that I think you've done a pretty good job at trying to defend the indefensable, but thus far everything I've read suggest to me that the term "magnetic reconnection" is nothing by an oxymoron that has no place in MHD theory just as Alfven suggested.&nbsp; As far as I can tell, all these papers describe standard MHD theory events related to "current flow" and/or "induction" and have nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Magnetic field lines don't even "reconnect" in the first place, so the term itself is a misleading oxymoron. </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>