<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.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.</DIV></p><p>Priest does do a better job at making his paper more...accessible. However, Priest's paper deals with some different things, such as fast reconnection and that sort of thing. Schindler's paper is more concerned with proof of the general concept of reconnection, showing that it doesn't violate any laws. To fully understand reconnection from a physics perspective, it's important to understand what they are trying to argue, at least. The equations themselves are perhaps more useful when creating a simulation, but it is worth reading and getting a basic grasp of the idea mathematically. From what I can gather from the paper, a term such as "magnetic merging" may be more appropriate, but science has shown that antiquated terms(see planetary nebulae) stick around even if they aren't entirely clear. The semantics are irrelevant though, the definition is what matters. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Since when has wikipedia EVER been a reliable source?</DIV></p><p>Evidently never.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Also, electricity is not taboo. </DIV></p><p>Yes it is, or they would just call these transactions by their rightful name, specifically "currernt flow' and "induction". These events do not describe anything other than known and identified parts of MHD theory mislabeled with an oxymoronic term that has no place in MHD theory or Maxwell's equations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>My point all along has been that only "particles and electrical circuits" can "reconnect" and magnetic fields cannot. Every one of these models is based upon particle collisions and curcuit changes inside of current sheets. Nothing about these events involves "magnetic reconnection", only "particle reconnection" and "electrical reconnection". Why not call these events by their rightful name instead of using a term that is itself a silly oxymoron?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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".</DIV></p><p>The notion that magnetic field lines "reconnect" is in fact a violation of Maxwell's equations as far as anyone has ever shown. Maxwell's equations treat the magnetic field as a whole and complete continuum, without beginning, without ending, and without reconnecting.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The physics behind reconnection are entirely valid.</DIV></p><p>The physics described in these papers is not in any way related to "magnetic reconnection", only "current flow" and "induction". There is no form of energy release described in these papers that is unique to "magnetic reconnection". It is an oxymoronic term that is utterly without value or merit. It should be ignored as Alfven suggested because these events are already explained in MHD theory as "current flow" and "induction".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact is you cannot explain the physics without discussing the changing topology of the magnetic field.</DIV></p><p>A change in the topology of the magnetic field is directly related to a change in the flow of the particles that create the fields in the first place. Induction is a possible outcome of some types of topology changes, but induction has been accounted for in MHD theory and induction is the proper term for these types of energy exchanges.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Current flow is certainly a part of the process</DIV></p><p>It's not only a "part" of the process, is obviously the motive force behind the interaction. If we turn off the particle flow, the transaction stops. If we turn on the particle flow, the transaction returns. The whole thing is driven by particle flow from beginning to end. Induction may also play a role of course, but the primary force behind these interactions is electrical current. Those tokamack experiments won't do squat without "electricity", that's for darn sure.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(which is very obvious considering the magnetic field is changing and we are discussing the acceleration of the flow of electrons, which, by definition is current). </DIV></p><p>Induction is a known mechanism that can in fact cause charged particles to be accelerated. Modifying the electromagnetic field won't cause "magnetic reconnection", just "induction" at worst case.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However it is not the whole picture. You wanted a definition of reconnection that is agreed upon by the community; you now have it.</DIV></p><p>What we "have" then is nothing more than ordinary "current flow' and "induction' events in plasma. There is no form of magnetic reconnection happening in these current sheet transactions, just "current flow" and "induction" according to the model and even according to the mathematical models you have provided. There is no point in labeling "curent flow" and "induction" as "magnetic reconnection". The term itself is an oxymoron and therefore darn confusing to everyone, inculding those folks that seem to believe in it. Somehow they've convinced themselves that "current flow" and "induction" should be called "magnetic reconnection", but it's not. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You wanted proof that it does not violate Maxwell's equations; you have that too now.</DIV></p><p>No, actually I don't. What I have now are equations related to "induction" and "current flow" that do not violate Maxwell's equations. I don't see any of them that suggest that magnetic fields "reconnect".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You blow off the other experiments that produce reconnection in a current sheet because Alfven said it cannot occur there. </DIV></p><p>No, I haven't "blown it off", but we are seeing a repeating pattern emerge. All of these so called "magnetic reconnection" events involves "current flow" and/or "induction", but these are already documented phenomenon in MHD theory that have nothing whatsoever to do with ""magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are missing the point. It is believed that reconnection primarily occurs in current sheets by the mainstream, so of course experiments are going to involve a current sheet. Alfven did not have access to a thorough definition of reconnection. </DIV></p><p>Ya, actually he'd seen these sorts of presentations already and he realized exactly what I'm realizing. It's a euphamistic term for "current flow" and/or "induction". It's an oxymoronic term of no value whatsoever.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree that you cannot cut or splice field lines to produce energy. </DIV></p><p>Then the term itself cannot be anything other than an oxymoron.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>None of the modern reconnection theories make that claim.</DIV></p><p>What they claims is that "current flow" and "induction" should be relabelled "magnetic reconnection". Sorry, but Alfven did reject that very specific claim for obvious reasons. MHD and plasma physics already describe these events in terms of "current flow" and "induction" and those are their rightful scientific names.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The "General Magnetic Reconnection" definition wasn't established until the mid 1980s. Once they had that, they proved it could occur mathematically. Once they had this foundation, they went on to observations and simulations. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>All they have presented thus far are "current flow" and "induction" events, not "magnetic reconnection" events. </p><p>This conversation is going down pretty much as I figured from Alfven's explanations about the problems with magnetic reconnection theory. It's an oxymoronic and useless term. There is nothing unique about the energy release mechanisms described by these so called "magnetic reconnection" models. The only ones that do not violate Maxwell's equations are equations that properly relate to "induction" and "current flow" and have nothing whatseoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". As Alfven said, these theories are all alike, they are of no value and the term should be ingored because these are simply "curent flow" and "induction" events, and they already have a proper scientific term for ciurrent flow and induction. </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>
So would I be correct in saying that you agree that if all these papers replaced the words "magnetic reconnection" with "current flow" or some variation, they would be entirely correct? If that is the case, I don't think any further argument is necessary on this front. The reason I've taken such an interest in this argument is you have accused me of believing in myths and metaphysics, so naturally I'm going to do all I can to defend myself. However, if all this boils down to semantics, I think it's time to put it to rest. I do not necessarily agree that current flow is a more descriptive term, but eventually I will read Alfven's book and then I will be able to make such a decision. I will leave the rest of EU as it pertains to stellar structure and galactic dynamics alone, because to argue against those I would have to begin with the fundamentals of astrophysics and I don't have the time for that. I will never agree with the entirety of EU theory as it is presented, but I know reconnection, whether you interpret their definition as current flow or otherwise, is physically valid. Whatever you want to call it, it happens, and it accelerates electrons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are, as usual, missing much of the physics. Of course you don't get magnetic fields without current flow. Everybody knows this and you have been told this many times. But you don't get current flow without a motive force either, and that motive force comes from an electromagnetic field. So you have a bit of a chicken and egg problem. You seem to always side with the chicken. But there is also a case for the egg.</p><p>In physics it is useful to be able to view a problem from different points of view. Those points of view may be equivalent, but often one is more enlightening than another, or sometimes you need to see the problem from several different perspectives in order to understand various aspects of the problem. It is not JUST current flow and it is not JUST magnetic fields, it is all of the above -- as you have been told and told and told and told.</p><p>Your dogmatism is often wrong and never enlightening. You need to learn some real physics and stop quoting bits and pieces of Alfven out of context.</p><p>It doesn't matter if you call it induction, magnetic reconnection or OSCAR. It is important to understand that what is going on is a release of energy from the magnetic field to plasma particles. Of course there is current involved. There are also electric and magnetic fields involved. There is above all a need to be able to explain the phenomena using MATHEMATICS.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That's essentially what I was trying to get at...I agree completely. The main point is that, while in some ways the two arguments are equivalent(emphasis on "some") the reconnection picture has proven to be far more useful in simulations and models and theory in general. We are at a point where we are close to having a method to predict substorms, an event that has always been considered too chaotic to predict, all because of reconnection theory. It is not perfect, but we are getting closer and closer. The magnetosphere is an extremely complicated place, and you can't explain everything by current flow alone. Like I've said before, if you can, please do so. The government would very much appreciate it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So would I be correct in saying that you agree that if all these papers replaced the words "magnetic reconnection" with "current flow" or some variation, they would be entirely correct?</DIV></p><p>What I am saying is that it is scientifcally incorrect to label known documented particle physics processes that are already described in MHD theory as "magnetic reconnection". it's like calling a lightening bolt a "magnetic reconnection" event. It's an electrical discharge event and maybe an electromagnetic induction event, but it is certainly not a "magnetic reconnection" event because magnetic fields don't "reconnect" in the first place. Magnetic field lines do not ever "reconnect", so the name itself is an oxymoron and a poor choice of terminology.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If that is the case, I don't think any further argument is necessary on this front. The reason I've taken such an interest in this argument is you have accused me of believing in myths and metaphysics,</DIV></p><p>It is a myth that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique form of energy release. It is no better than calling any electrical circuit reconnection process as a "magnetic reconnection" event. There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection"". IT doesn't occur in nature, unlike induction and current flow which does occur in nature.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>so naturally I'm going to do all I can to defend myself. </DIV></p><p>There is no logical or scientific way to defend "magnetic reconnection" theory. The processes these papers describe are not "magnetic reconnnection" events. They are induction events and circuit reconnection events, but they are defintely not examples of "magnetic reconnection". MAgnetic fields do not ever disconnect or "reconnect" in the first place!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, if all this boils down to semantics, I think it's time to put it to rest. </DIV></p><p>Um, when the mainstream stops mislabeling an electrical and particle reconnection event as "magnetic reconnection" *then* it will be time to "put it to rest". As it stands, it's a great example of how the mainstream is attempting to rewrite history and ignore the role of electricity in space. The whole point of this thread is to demonstrate the bias in the field of astronomy and this is about as "classic" of an example as I can think of. Birkeland showed us emprically that 'current flow" can generate the events they now attribute to "magnetic reconnection" and ultimately the physical and mathematical models used in "magnetic reconnection" have nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection" and everything to do with "current flow' and "induction". Aurora are not caused by "magnetic reconnection" and in fact nothing is caused by "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic fields never "reconnect" in the first place.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do not necessarily agree that current flow is a more descriptive term, but eventually I will read Alfven's book and then I will be able to make such a decision.</DIV></p><p>That is the most that I could or would ask of you.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I will leave the rest of EU as it pertains to stellar structure and galactic dynamics alone, because to argue against those I would have to begin with the fundamentals of astrophysics and I don't have the time for that. </DIV></p><p>Keep in mind that while I consider myself a "Birkeland purist" when it comes to solar models, Alfven's theories are not predicated upon the validity of Birkeland's solar model or the hydrogen solar model. If anything, Alfven himself leaned toward a gas model solar theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will never agree with the entirety of EU theory as it is presented, but I know reconnection, whether you interpret their definition as current flow or otherwise, is physically valid. Whatever you want to call it, it happens, and it accelerates electrons. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Induction can accelerate electrons. Current flows (Birkeland's cathode ray) can also accelerate charged particles. Magnetiic reconnection cannot accelerate anything because magnetic fields never "reconnect" in the first place and no definition of magnetic reconnection given thus far derives any energy from "magnetic reconnection". These are nothing by standard particle physicsal interactions in a current sheet and these were described by MHD theory aready and have nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". Even the term is an oxymoron. There's our first clue.... </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, as usual, missing much of the physics.</DIV></p><p>Ya right. I'm evidently not missing anything since these math formulas you keep harping on are all related to current flow and induction and have nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". The term is an oxymoron and the math isn't related to the term "magnetic reconnection", only to current flow and induction.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Of course you don't get magnetic fields without current flow. Everybody knows this and you have been told this many times. </DIV></p><p>So why not call it "electromagnetic reconnection" or "electromagnetic induction" or something that makes sense based on Maxwell's equations and the equations that are being used to support these ideas? Why make up an oxymoron for a name in an attempt to describe something that has nothing at all to do with "magnetic reconnection"? This is irrational use of words in the first place and the math doesn't support the choice of labels. The processes described in that last paper are "electric circuit reconnections".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But you don't get current flow without a motive force either, and that motive force comes from an electromagnetic field. </DIV></p><p>Yes and no. The motive force inside a solid conductor is charge attraction and electron flow. The only thing different about plasma is that it too can move and flow and it becomes part of the "current flow" and part of the motive force. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So you have a bit of a chicken and egg problem. </DIV></p><p>No we don't. We have "charge attraction", followed by "electron flow" which causes the formation of a magnetic field to form (as a full continuum) around the current flow. There is a cause an effect order of events in circuit reconnection.</p><p>What you really aren't "copping to" here is the fact that the mathematical models ou have presented are related to "current flow" and "induction" and have nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection", a name that is itself an oxymoron since magnetic fields never disconnect or reconnect or do anything other than form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. </p><p>Emprical science requires a precise use of scientific terms. Magnetic reconnection theory is nonsense. It's a perfect example of sloppy and imprecise use of scientific terms and sloppy science. There is no such thing as 'magnetic reconnection", just "current flow'" and "induction". Your own mathematical models, the ones that you yourself presented, demonstrate this is true. You keep whining about me not relying up math but your own math shot magnetic reconnection in the foot! That math all relates to and describes standard current sheet interaction that are already explained by MHD theory. They are caused by 'current flow" and/or induction, nothing more. You keep claiming that physics is all about the math, but when we look at the math and the physics presented, it's not even remotely related to 'magnetic reconnection", but rather "current flow" and "induction". Who now is using math to support their arguement, you or me? </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>
<br /><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">This thread is, predictably, going nowhere fast.<span> </span>However, left unchecked Mozina’s ideas have the potential to do damage to young folks eager to learn science who might come across this EU baloney and mistake it for rational thought or perhaps even science.<span> </span>Having now seen Mozina’s arguments spread over what is now in excess of <span> </span>40 pages I think I understand where he is coming from and how his warped perspectives have been formed.<span> </span>So, in my opinion, and for the benefit of peopne new to science or just to this thread:</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">1.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri"><span> </span>There is clear and profound lack of understanding of mathematics, on the part of Mr. Mozina.<span> </span>Any and all mathematical arguments are rejected out of hand through simple lack of comprehension.<span> </span>Maxwell’s equations., the basis of electrodynamics and much of plasma physics have been presented to Mr. Mozina on numerous occasions and have been completely ignored.<span> </span>He simply does not understand what they are. <span> </span>He has claimed that magnetic reconnection violates those equations, yet has not been able to so much as identify a single equation that they violate.<span> </span></font></font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">2.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Mathematics is the language of physics.<span> </span>All serious physics is presented in that language.<span> </span>Mozina, being completely illiterate with respect to that language is forced to rely on pictorial representations, basically cartoons. <span> </span>He consistently ignores references provided to him by UFmbutler and others that require knowledge of mathematics and physics to understand.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">3.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Illiteracy in the language of physics has forced Mozina to neglect serious physics expositions and simply look at the pictures.<span> </span>This leads to a distorted view of what the real principles of physics are.<span> </span>For instance a topological change in a vector field (as in magnetic reconnection) becomes “cutting and splicing”.<span> </span>Frozen magnetic fields lines (field lines with dB/dt =0) become “frozen plasma.”<span> </span>Dark spots in the sun become evidence for a solid iron core despite the fact that simple heat flux analysis, using the knowledge of high temperatures above the core to which Mozina frequently refers, show this to be impossible.<span> </span>Baekeland’s experiments with simple plasmas in the laboratory forming rings become proof that the rings of Saturn were formed “electrically”.<span> </span>Just looking at the pictures may work if you are reading Playboy, but it is pitiful science.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">4.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Illiteracy in science forces one to rely on testimonials rather than permitting one to think independently.<span> </span>Thus the 100 year-old work of Birkeland, which was significant in its time, becomes gospel because of its pictorial nature, and revisions to our knowledge of physics that rely on subsequent discoveries, which require mathematics to understand, are discounted.<span> </span>Remember that Birkeland’s book was of a 1902-1903 expedition and that the electron was only discovered in 1887.<span> </span>Similarly the excellent work of Alfven in plasmas at earthly and laboratory scales becomes gospel at cosmic scales.<span> </span>The work for which Alfven received his Nobel Prize was performed in the first half of the 20<sup>th</sup> century.<span> </span>He died in 1995, nearly 87 years old.<span> </span>His major work was performed well before the general availability of computers and <span> </span>the sophisticated computer models that permit the solution of Maxwell’s equations in complex geometries.<span> </span>He did not have the advantage of the deep insight that comes from the ability to find such solutions. <span> </span>I believe that Alfven would be horrified at some the statements made by Mr. Mozina. </font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">5.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Mr. Mozina has formed his perspective on the basis of only that portion of the work of Birkeland and Alfven that can be understood without recourse to the mathematics presented in their works.<span> </span>Thus his foundation is only descriptive phrases gleaned from work that was generally completed over 50 years ago.<span> </span>This is notwithstanding the publication of Cosmic Plasma<span> </span>in 1981 – remember that even PCs were not readily available then .<span> </span>Alfven was not an expert in general relativity and his criticisms of the Big Bang have little weight. </font><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#800080">http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Cosmology%20In%20The%20Plasma%20Universe%20-%20An%20Intoductory%20Exposition%20-%20Hannes%20Alfven.pdf</font><font face="Calibri" size="3"> <span> </span>He was an outstanding plasma physicist, but not a theoretician in the modern sense of the word. <span> </span>Some of his statements in later years have the tenor of an aging and bitter scientist who has not kept up with progress in the field.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">6.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Lacking the basic mathematical skills necessary to understand physics, and apparently also lacking education in physics, Mozina has consistently avoided addressing any and all arguments presented in a quantitative or mathematical form. His one attempt, a statement that a particular assumption in a PPPL <span> </span>paper <span> </span>remains unsubstantiated despite a challenge to provide the necessary logic. <span> </span>He simply charges that astrophysicists rely on mathematics and do not understand the role of experiment – “empirical science” in his vernacular.<span> </span>Nothing could be farther from the truth.<span> </span>But Mozina rejects empirical evidence from COBE and WMAP experiments on the basis that they were not performed in an earth-bound laboratory.<span> </span>This is simply ludicrous.<span> </span>These experiments were carefully designed, exquisitely instrumented and represent the very best in experimental astrophysics.<span> </span>They provide quantitative data that requires mathematical analysis and a background in basic physical theory to understand.<span> </span>They provide excellent graphical representations of that data, but no cartoons.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">7.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Mozina’s scientific illiteracy extends to rejection of mathematical models in general and acceptance of only that which is demonstrated in an earth-bound laboratory – “empirical science”.<span> </span>Or does he?<span> </span>Mozina accepts all things Alfven.<span> </span>But here (from Mozina’s list of papers by Alfven) </font><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#800080">http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Jet%20Stream%20In%20Space.pdf</font><font face="Calibri" size="3"> for instance, Alfven uses a mathematical model to infer a mechanism, based on ordinary gravity in this case, for the formation of “jet streams” that may play a role in the formation meteor streams, asteroid belts and planets.<span> </span>This would appear to be good science to most, but it clearly has not been demonstrated in the laboratory.<span> </span>So perhaps mathematical models are acceptable if Alfven used them and if a non-mathematical description is available to make the result accessible to the mathematically illiterate.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">8.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">The overall “Electrical Universe” genre would probably be completely foreign to both Birkeland and Alfven.<span> </span></font></font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt1in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">a.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">The notion that the primary source of power for the sun comes not from fusion but rather from an external electric current is simply ridiculous.<span> </span>A simple and conservative calculation shows that the magnitude of such a current would create a magnetic field at the surface of the earth that is many millions of times greater than what is observed.<span> </span>This argument, requiring knowledge of Ampere’s law and simple mathematics is simply lost on Mozina because he understands neither the physics nor the mathematics. </font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt1in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">b.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">The notion that the sun has a solid iron core just beneath the photosphere not only flies in the face of Alfven’s statements that “In the interior of stars the gas is almost completely ionized.” (Cosmical Electrofdynamics pg 134), but also defies the logic of radiative heat transfer.<span> </span>The photosphere is thousands of degrees (about 5800 K on average) in temperature and there are coronal loops that are on the order of a million degrees.<span> </span>And it is well known that the heat flux interior to a sphere of uniform temperature is constant (this requires some mathematics and so this fact is ignored by Mozina).<span> </span>Yet the melting point of iron or steel is well under 2000K. <span> </span>So unless tied to the extension cord that powers the sun there is also a refrigeration compressor and<span> </span>Freon-filled cooling coils, there is no chance of solid iron below the photosphere.<span> </span>Dark spots in solar photographs are most certainly not glimpses of a solid iron core – cartoon logic just doesn’t apply.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt1in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">c.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Mozina continually attacks the mainstream for using the notions of frozen-in magnetic field lines and magnetic reconnection.<span> </span>It is true that the frozen field assumptions must be used only in appropriate situations, and that has not always been the case.<span> </span>Yet to completely reject the notion is to also reject Alfven’s views for Alfven invented the concept, although he later gave strong cautions against inappropriate use of <span> </span>the <span> </span>idea http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double%20Layers%20In%20Astrophysics.pdf.<span> </span>His cautions against magnetic reconnection deserve respect, but they too were made in an era that pre-dates more recent experiments, theoretical understanding, and computer models. <span> </span></font></font><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#800080">http://mrx.pppl.gov</font><font size="3"><font face="Calibri"><span> </span>He specifically endorsed the use of frozen fields in solar physics:” The concept of frozen-in lines of force may be useful in solar physics, where we have to do with high- and medium-density plasmas (cf, 5.1.4), but may be grossly misleading if applied to the magnetosphere of the earth.” (Cosmical Electrodynamics pg. 191)<span> </span>But while Alfven’s cautions deserve respect, he did not have the advantage of current knowledge and the availability of sophisticated computer models.</font></font><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><br /><br /></span></p><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">9.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Mozina often responds to demands for discussion in terms of real physics by providing vague references to papers by Donald Scott and Ari Brynjolfsson.<span> </span>Scott’s paper is a diatribe against a strawman characterization of what the “mainstream” believes.<span> </span>He does use Maxwell’s equations, but in a trivial manner, and only to re-state knowledge that is in fact well-known and accepted by mainstream physicists.<span> </span>For instance he makes a major point of the fact that field lines for the B fields are closed loops since divB = 0, a fact known to every sophomore physicist and electrical engineer. <span> </span>Scott is simply an academic lightweight with an agenda – he has written a book on the EU theories. <span> </span>Brynjolfsson’s papers center on what he claims is a totally new mechanism for red shift due to interaction with plasmas.<span> </span>His papers have been around for several years while he has tried unsuccessfully to have them published in peer-reviewed journals.<span> </span>They suffer from many problems.<span> </span>Probably the most serious is ascribing properties of a magnetic wave, a flux of photons, to the behavior of a single photon.<span> </span>This mistake is fundamental to his subsequent derivations and invalidates all of it.<span> </span><span> </span>There is no experimental data to support Brynjolfsson’s assertions, so it fails Mozina’s flawed view of empirical science yet he accepts it only because it supports the wacko EU theories and attacks the much-hated “mainstream”.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">10.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'"> </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Mozina has on numerous occasions claimed to understand general relativity “as Einstein taught it” and on that basis rejects the Big Bang in its entirety.<span> </span>However, he has conclusively demonstrated a total lack of understanding of even basic vector analysis.<span> </span>One must conclude that he lacks the knowledge of tensor analysis and theory of differentiable manifolds necessary for an understanding of general relativity. <span> </span>He has consistently misstated Einstein’s clear stance on expansion of the universe after the discoveries of Hubble.<span> </span>Mozina has, amazingly, taken both sides of the issue simultaneously, but in the end rejects expansion when it suits his purpose. <span> </span>In short he misrepresents his knowledge of general relativity rather profoundly.<span> </span>This is one clear example of his attempt to cover up a profound lack of knowledge of physics and mathematics with pure bravado.<span> </span>But it is a bravado born of ignorance. </font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Summary:<span> </span>The so-called science represented in Mr. Mozina’s version of the Electric Universe has been thoroughly discredited by modern science, both theoretically and observationally.<span> </span>He understands neither mathematics nor physics while consistently misrepresenting his own competency, and attacking the competency and knowledge of the mainstream with false accusations. His arguments seem to be based not on physics, but rather on semantics. <span> </span>Lack of competency in mathematics and physics and reliance on pictures has resulted in an extraordinarily distorted perception of the physical world. He refuses to recognize the validity of logical deductions from well established physics, including classical electrodynamics and general relativity.<span> </span>His baseline theories are patently ridiculous, as they have been demonstrated to violate the most basic of physical laws.<span> </span>His characterization of the mainstream is utterly fallacious. <span> </span></font></font></p><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font><strong><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">In short, he doesn’t know what in the hell he is talking about.</font></font></strong><strong><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font></strong> <p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Postscript.<span> </span>There will undoubtedly be a line-by-line and terribly verbose rebuttal by Mr. Mozina.<span> </span>I have no intention of replying yet again to his nonsense.<span> </span>His technique of replying to individual sentences while misconstruing the original thought is deceptive and intellectually dishonest.<span> </span>This technique has led to some extraordinarily long, rambling and largely irrelevant rebuttals to shorter posts.<span> </span>The response to this one may set new records for the length of a non-sequitar.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
You might want to look up the meaning of oxymoron. Magnetic Reconnection is not an oxymoronic phrase. Your improper, repeated overuse of the word is a clear sign of desparation at an argument in lieu of any real arguments. <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'><br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That post is so dead on that it almost deserves its own thread. You've summarized the argument for reconnection far better than I could hope to. As much as I wanted to, I refrained from getting the "mainstream" directly involved(i.e. Schindler, Birn, Borovsky, Asnes, etc, all the LANL reconnection people) because it would be a complete waste of their time. I've learned a ton about reconnection by doing this research. When I first came into the thread I only had a vague understanding of it, but now I can conclusively say that EU's version is inadequate. </p><p>I'm sure a titanic reply is in the works by mozina...hope it doesn't crash the servers. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might want to look up the meaning of oxymoron. Magnetic Reconnection is not an oxymoronic phrase. You're improper, repeated overuse of the word is a clear sign of desparation at an argument in lieu of any real arguments. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron</p><p>The term "magnetic reconnection" is certainly an oxymoron. Magnetic field lines form as a whole continuum, without beginning, without ending, and without reconnecting. The term "reconnection" contradicts the first term. It contradicts the very nature of magnetic fields and magnetic field lines. Magnetic field lines don't "reconnect" in Maxwell's equations. There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic field lines never "reconnect" to other field lines, they simply exist or they do not. Maxwell's equations in no way support any notion of magnetic field "reconnection", so even using that term in association with magnetism is a pointless, confusing and conflicting use to terms. </p><p> </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'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OxymoronThe term "magnetic reconnection" is certainly an oxymoron. Magnetic field lines form as a whole continuum, without beginning, without ending, and without reconnecting. The term "reconnection" contradicts the first term. It contradicts the very nature of magnetic fields and magnetic field lines. Magnetic field lines don't "reconnect" in Maxwell's equations. There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic field lines never "reconnect" to other field lines, they simply exist or they do not. Maxwell's equations in no way support any notion of magnetic field "reconnection", so even using that term in association with magnetism is a pointless, confusing and conflicting use to terms. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Actually Maxwell's equations don't talk directly to the subject of magnetic field lines, which merely represent the direction of the magnetic field. Maxwell's equations describe the magnetic field itself, which is a vector field, or in mathematical terms a section of the tangent bundle. The term "continuum" is usually reserved to describe a structure such as the real line or a higher-dimensional Euclidean space, or sometiimes with regard to cardinality, such as " the cardinality of the continuum" which simply means the cardinality of the real line.</p><p>Your notion that magnetic field lines have no beginning and no ending is roughly correct, but rather vague, What is true is that div(B)=0, and this basically says that magnetic field lines form closed loops, topological circles. But that is slightly vague since the field lines are really slices of surfaces. Changes in the topology of those surfaces are certainly permitted by Maxwell's equations, and that is sometimes called reconnection. Time-varying fields result in time-varying field lines.</p><p>You could really improve your understanding of these matters if you learned enough mathematics to be able to actually understand Maxwell's equations. It would also help you understand the use of the terms common to physics. But without that understanding, you are cursed with the lack of understanding of the scientifically illiterate.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This thread is, predictably, going nowhere fast. However, left unchecked Mozina’s ideas have the potential to do damage to young folks eager to learn science who might come across this EU baloney and mistake it for rational thought or perhaps even science.</DIV></p><p>
Ya right. You're losing this dabate badly so you switch tactics and go personal, the oldest trick in the debate book. That seems to be your specialty DrRocket.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Having now seen Mozina’s arguments spread over what is now in excess of 40 pages I think I understand where he is coming from and how his warped perspectives have been formed. So, in my opinion, and for the benefit of peopne new to science or just to this thread:</DIV></p><p>You don't understand anything about me, or EU theory because you refuse to even study EU theory. I doubt you've even read much of Birkeland's work and you've certainly never read Cosmic Plasma so what do you really know about EU theory? The answer? Nothing at all.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1. There is clear and profound lack of understanding of mathematics, on the part of Mr. Mozina. Any and all mathematical arguments are rejected out of hand through simple lack of comprehension. </DIV></p><p>This is a highly irrational statement since I just used your own mathemical models to demonstrate that the math relates to *induction* and *current flow*, not to "magnetic reconnection'". I also picked out the exact equation where the PPPL paper went south. You're the one utterly ignoring the implications of the math that you yourself presented in this thread. The math doesn't support any notion of "magnetic reconnection" and not one line of math relates to "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maxwell’s equations., the basis of electrodynamics and much of plasma physics have been presented to Mr. Mozina on numerous occasions and have been completely ignored.</DIV></p><p>This is simply a false statement. I've read and used the refernces you have provided and I've debunked each and every one of them, including the last one you provided that uses *induction* and *current flow* to generate the energy release, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". They might as well have called the process "Magnetic Bob".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> He simply does not understand what they are. He has claimed that magnetic reconnection violates those equations, yet has not been able to so much as identify a single equation that they violate. </DIV></p><p>And you have never provided a mathematical or physicsl model of "magnetic reconnection", just "induction" and "curent flow". If and when you can show me any mathematical equation for "magnetic reconnection" this is unique and different from "induction" and "current flow", then maybe you'll have something to complain about. As it is, my statement stands. Maxwell's equations do not allow for magnetic field lines to "reconnect". Only particles and circuits do that. Interestingly enough, your models are based on induction and current flow and it won't work without these things. That means that "magnetic reconnection" is not a unique form of energy release in any way. It's an induction process cause by "current flow" in plasma according to the mathematical equations that you provided. You seem to undestand something about math DrRocket, but you seem to simply ignore the implications of the very same math.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. Mathematics is the language of physics. All serious physics is presented in that language.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and Birkeland and Alfven and Bruce and Peratt all spoke that language and provided DrRocket with all sorts of math that he simply won't read. Ignorance is not bliss.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Mozina, being completely illiterate with respect to that language is forced to rely on pictorial representations, basically cartoons. </DIV></p><p>Er, no. I used the math that you provided to demonstrate that the math relates only to "induction" and "curernt flow" and has nothing to do with any new form of energy release. I cited the exact equation (16) where PPPL introduced their error. You're just ignoring what you don't want to hear and acting as though you have some sort of mathemical high ground. Nothing could be further from the truth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He consistently ignores references provided to him by UFmbutler and others that require knowledge of mathematics and physics to understand.</DIV></p><p>What?!? I pointed you to the exact equation in the PPPL paper where the error took place. I showed you that your math doesn't related to "magnetic reconnection", just induction and I cited the line number for that one too! Your just in denial now.</p><p>You're just mad because your show is busted. I have demontrated that magnetic reconnection is nothing more than induction and current flow. I have demonstrated that the real motive force behind your mathematical models of this idea are actually "current flow" and "induction". The moment I pointed that out, you got all huffy and puffy and went all personal. You're *soooooooo* predictable. You repeat that behavior more than anyone I know.</p><p>Let me remind you once again of something you seem to be ignoring. I am not personally responsible for providing you with all the mathemical foundations of EU theory. I have provided you with ample mathematical reference material that you simply refuse to read. That's called self imposed ignorance. It's no my fault you remain ignorant of the mathematical foundations of EU theory. You're doing that to yourself and you only have yourself to blame. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3. Illiteracy in the language of physics has forced Mozina to neglect serious physics expositions and simply look at the pictures. </DIV></p><p>That's utterly ridiculous. I used *mathematics* to debunk your claims of "magentic reconnection". I identified the line numbers where mistakes were made in the PPPL paper, and where induction was introduced into the equations of the last paper. My argument isn't based on "pictures" DrRocket, it's based on the mathematical models that you provided! You're in hard core denial now.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This leads to a distorted view of what the real principles of physics are. </DIV></p><p>The real physics turns out to be nothing more than kinetic energy in the current flow channels combined with induction processes. That's the real "physics" behind the process. The only "distortion" happening here is the mislabeling of particle and circuit reconnection as "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>I'm now thuroughly bored of this post. You're show is busted. Your math does not support your claim. The mathematical models you provided have nothing at all to do with "reconnecting" magnetic fields, and everything to do with reconecting electrical circuits, induction and particle collision. That is a fact. That is a fact that is established not by "pictures" but by the mathematical models that you folks provided. You're just mad at the messenger DrRocket and you're attempting to rationalize you failure to demonstrate that magnetic reconnenction is a unique form of energy release, as something that is related to my mathematic skills. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is your own math that I used to demonstrate to you that your mathematical models describe a current flow and induction process and have nothing whatsoever to do with a unique form of energy release called "magnetic reconnection". The math is what killed your argument DrRocket, not "pretty pictures". </p><p> </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>
Ya right. You're losing this dabate badly so you switch tactics and go personal, the oldest trick in the debate book. That seems to be your specialty DrRocket.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Having now seen Mozina’s arguments spread over what is now in excess of 40 pages I think I understand where he is coming from and how his warped perspectives have been formed. So, in my opinion, and for the benefit of peopne new to science or just to this thread:</DIV></p><p>You don't understand anything about me, or EU theory because you refuse to even study EU theory. I doubt you've even read much of Birkeland's work and you've certainly never read Cosmic Plasma so what do you really know about EU theory? The answer? Nothing at all.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1. There is clear and profound lack of understanding of mathematics, on the part of Mr. Mozina. Any and all mathematical arguments are rejected out of hand through simple lack of comprehension. </DIV></p><p>This is a highly irrational statement since I just used your own mathemical models to demonstrate that the math relates to *induction* and *current flow*, not to "magnetic reconnection'". I also picked out the exact equation where the PPPL paper went south. You're the one utterly ignoring the implications of the math that you yourself presented in this thread. The math doesn't support any notion of "magnetic reconnection" and not one line of math relates to "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maxwell’s equations., the basis of electrodynamics and much of plasma physics have been presented to Mr. Mozina on numerous occasions and have been completely ignored.</DIV></p><p>This is simply a false statement. I've read and used the refernces you have provided and I've debunked each and every one of them, including the last one you provided that uses *induction* and *current flow* to generate the energy release, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". They might as well have called the process "Magnetic Bob".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> He simply does not understand what they are. He has claimed that magnetic reconnection violates those equations, yet has not been able to so much as identify a single equation that they violate. </DIV></p><p>And you have never provided a mathematical or physicsl model of "magnetic reconnection", just "induction" and "curent flow". If and when you can show me any mathematical equation for "magnetic reconnection" this is unique and different from "induction" and "current flow", then maybe you'll have something to complain about. As it is, my statement stands. Maxwell's equations do not allow for magnetic field lines to "reconnect". Only particles and circuits do that. Interestingly enough, your models are based on induction and current flow and it won't work without these things. That means that "magnetic reconnection" is not a unique form of energy release in any way. It's an induction process cause by "current flow" in plasma according to the mathematical equations that you provided. You seem to undestand something about math DrRocket, but you seem to simply ignore the implications of the very same math.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. Mathematics is the language of physics. All serious physics is presented in that language.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and Birkeland and Alfven and Bruce and Peratt all spoke that language and provided DrRocket with all sorts of math that he simply won't read. Ignorance is not bliss.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Mozina, being completely illiterate with respect to that language is forced to rely on pictorial representations, basically cartoons. </DIV></p><p>Er, no. I used the math that you provided to demonstrate that the math relates only to "induction" and "curernt flow" and has nothing to do with any new form of energy release. I cited the exact equation (16) where PPPL introduced their error. You're just ignoring what you don't want to hear and acting as though you have some sort of mathemical high ground. Nothing could be further from the truth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He consistently ignores references provided to him by UFmbutler and others that require knowledge of mathematics and physics to understand.</DIV></p><p>What?!? I pointed you to the exact equation in the PPPL paper where the error took place. I showed you that your math doesn't related to "magnetic reconnection", just induction and I cited the line number for that one too! Your just in denial now.</p><p>You're just mad because your show is busted. I have demontrated that magnetic reconnection is nothing more than induction and current flow. I have demonstrated that the real motive force behind your mathematical models of this idea are actually "current flow" and "induction". The moment I pointed that out, you got all huffy and puffy and went all personal. You're *soooooooo* predictable. You repeat that behavior more than anyone I know.</p><p>Let me remind you once again of something you seem to be ignoring. I am not personally responsible for providing you with all the mathemical foundations of EU theory. I have provided you with ample mathematical reference material that you simply refuse to read. That's called self imposed ignorance. It's no my fault you remain ignorant of the mathematical foundations of EU theory. You're doing that to yourself and you only have yourself to blame. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3. Illiteracy in the language of physics has forced Mozina to neglect serious physics expositions and simply look at the pictures. </DIV></p><p>That's utterly ridiculous. I used *mathematics* to debunk your claims of "magentic reconnection". I identified the line numbers where mistakes were made in the PPPL paper, and where induction was introduced into the equations of the last paper. My argument isn't based on "pictures" DrRocket, it's based on the mathematical models that you provided! You're in hard core denial now.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This leads to a distorted view of what the real principles of physics are. </DIV></p><p>The real physics turns out to be nothing more than kinetic energy in the current flow channels combined with induction processes. That's the real "physics" behind the process. The only "distortion" happening here is the mislabeling of particle and circuit reconnection as "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>I'm now thuroughly bored of this post. You're show is busted. Your math does not support your claim. The mathematical models you provided have nothing at all to do with "reconnecting" magnetic fields, and everything to do with reconecting electrical circuits, induction and particle collision. That is a fact. That is a fact that is established not by "pictures" but by the mathematical models that you folks provided. You're just mad at the messenger DrRocket and you're attempting to rationalize you failure to demonstrate that magnetic reconnenction is a unique form of energy release, as something that is related to my mathematic skills. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is your own math that I used to demonstrate to you that your mathematical models describe a current flow and induction process and have nothing whatsoever to do with a unique form of energy release called "magnetic reconnection". The math is what killed your argument DrRocket, not "pretty pictures". </p><p> </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'>Actually Maxwell's equations don't talk directly to the subject of magnetic field lines, which merely represent the direction of the magnetic field. Maxwell's equations describe the magnetic field itself, which is a vector field, or in mathematical terms a section of the tangent bundle. The term "continuum" is usually reserved to describe a structure such as the real line or a higher-dimensional Euclidean space, or sometiimes with regard to cardinality, such as " the cardinality of the continuum" which simply means the cardinality of the real line.Your notion that magnetic field lines have no beginning and no ending is roughly correct, but rather vague,</DIV></p><p>It's not "vague" at all. It's a fact. It's a fact of Maxwell's equations that you can't "reconnect" magnetic field lines because they never "disconnect" in the first place. The term "magnetic reconnection" is an oxymoron. It's irrational use of the english language and it cannot be justified from Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations do not allow for magnetic lines to "reconnect", disconnect or anything of the sort. Circuits "reconnect". You models are based on circuit reconnection and induction DrRocket. Period. There is no form of "magnetic reconnection" occuring in these mathematical models. They all describe the "circuit reconnection" that occurs between two preexisting "current flow channels". They describe an induction process as well, and "induction" is not "magnetic reconnection". Utlimately the motive force behind these events is "current flow" and changes to "current flow". These things are already defined in MHD theory and they have nothing at all to do with "magnetic reconnection", but rather they are examples of "circuit reconnection" and/or induction, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. You own math shot your whole arugment in the foot.</p><p>I'm scientifically literate enough to know that "induction" and "circuit reconnection" is not "magnetic reconnection" DrRocket and I've show you the exact lines of math where induction was introduced into these equations. Induction is not "magnetic reconnection". The only reason that the topology of the magnetic field lines changes in these models is because the electrical circuit that powers these events changes it's electrical configuration. The current flows in a different direction when the circuits "reconnect". The induction process is already documented in MHD theory. There is no form of "magnetic reconnection" happening in your mathematical models, just "circuit reconnection" and "induction". </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>Once again, you are correct. Magnetic field lines cannot disconnect or be spliced back together. That doesn't happen. No definition that I've presented to you says anything of the sort. There are two accepted definitions: change of the field topology, or the frozen field line concept. Neither involves disconnecting. It does not matter what you call it, BUT reconnection does describe a unique event. You could call it magnetic "bob" if you want, but it would still be the process known as reconnection. Our show is certainly not busted. We explained why your objection to the PPPL assumption doesn't matter, and that while Priest's paper uses induction equations, that doesn't mean they are saying induction is the only driving mechanism. If you could understand the Schindler paper, you'd know that he began with Euler potentials, not induction. You are harping on very specific statements that were either alreayd addressed or are taken out of context. </p><p>You have changed your stance entirely over the course of the last 10 or however many pages I've been involved in in this thread. You began by saying that there is no mathematical foundation for reconnection. You were wrong, but you don't acknowledge it. You said reconnection violates Maxwell's equations since you didn't have(and seem to still not have) a grasp on the true definition of reconnection. You were corrected and shown that the true definition doesn't violate Maxwell's equations. Again, you don't acknowledge this. You said there were no reproductions of reconnection in the lab. You were shown these, and just decided to focus on a single equation and say that invalidates the entire experiment. Their approximation of constant current density doesn't matter. </p><p>Instead of acknowledging when you're wrong, you have decided to act as if you've been arguing semantics the whole time. If you look through your posts you start out talking about the actual physics, but now all you've been doing is talking baout how the term reconnection is an "oxymoron". Nobody cares about the name. It's the process that is important. You are also trying to discredit us by pointing out that we haven't read the entire body of work of Alfven or Birkeland. That is entirely irrelevant. I could point the same thing out about you and all Nobel prize winning astrophysicists. You haven't read all of their work yet you claim it is all mythology. Alfven's work is worth reading I'm sure, but the fact that we haven't read Cosmic Plasma does not discredit us. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> MM: If you look through your posts <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />Who the heck would be insane enough to do that???? 41 freakin pages of posts that have proven...</p><p> </p><p>Michael doesn't understand current (haha) physics. He's living in the early 20th century. Anything that his been learned since his idols last spoke can be twisted to be not true. Nevermind any developments in the last half century.</p><p>Perhaps he should go back further and revisit flat earth concepts. They are equally as valid as an iron surface beneath the photosphere of the sun, and the current flow that is the power for the sun, which would really screw up our compasses here on terra firma!!</p><p>His warped concept of GR is laughable. </p><p>As is most of the preceeding 41 pages....</p><p>Still, like Whack-a-Mole, you have to keep beating it down lest neophytes be seduced by his {unable to find a proper word without being excessively insulting} worthless pseudo-physics.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...I've show you the exact lines of math where induction was introduced into these equations. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /> No you haven't, You have in fact ignored my request that you demonstrate how your conclusion is supported by electrodymanics, specifically Maxwell's equations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Once again, you are correct. Magnetic field lines cannot disconnect or be spliced back together. That doesn't happen.</DIV></p><p>Then by defintion, the term ''magnetic reconnection" is a pointless oxymoron.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> No definition that I've presented to you says anything of the sort.</DIV></p><p>Er, you mean besides the term itself?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are two accepted definitions: change of the field topology,</DIV></p><p>The change in the field topology is called "circuit reconnection". The "current" that is flowing in these filament channels "reconnects" and electrons seek a shorter path of less resistance through the plasma. The electrical circuits 'reconnect" like a "short circuit" in two copper wires if we layed one of them on top of another. The only significant difference between a "short circuit" in plasmas is that plasma is not rigid so the flow channels (thin filaments) move over time and the distance between the "wires" changes over time. The motive force here is "curent flow". The topology of the magnetic field lines simply follow and wind around the curent flow.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>or the frozen field line concept. </DIV></p><p>I think Alfven regretted ever trying to use that analogy even in dense cold, non current carrying plasma. Since then astronomers have consistently tried to apply that concept like a sledge hammer to every observation in plasma, even plasmas that are known to be carrying large currents and that are very light. It's like the mainstream took the first semester of Alfven's class and then never bothered to take the second semester on the topic of current carrying plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Neither involves disconnecting. </DIV></p><p>So what is the rational basis for selecting the term "reconnection"? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does not matter what you call it,</DIV></p><p>It does matter a great deal. Science is a precise language and it requires the precise use of language. The physical and mathematical models that you all have presented here are essentially nothing more than 'current flow" and "induction". These things are already defined in MHD theory. There is no need to use new scientific terms to identify old and well understood physical processes that are known features of plasma physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>BUT reconnection does describe a unique event. </DIV></p><p>That's the whole problem, it doesn't describe a unique event. These papers describe "circuit reconnections" and "induction processes", that are related to particle interactions inside of moving plasma filaments. The energy exchange processes that you have mathematically and physically described are called "circuit reconnection" and "induction". Alfven defined both of these things in MHD theory. It is unnecessary to create a new term to describe what is already defined in MHD theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You could call it magnetic "bob" if you want, but it would still be the process known as reconnection. </DIV></p><p>But it is ultimate "electrical circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection", not "magnetic reconnection"! That's whole whole point! Magnetic fields never "reconnect" in Maxwell's equations. Only circuits and particles can "reconnect". There is in fact a particle and electrical "reconnection" process that is being presented in these mathematicl models that involves "induction" and "circuit reconnection", but there is absolute no need to give it a different name. It's already defined in MHD theory in terms of "circuits" and "induction". Circuit reconnection and induction might have been a useful label. The term "Magnetic Reconnection" was utterly ridiculous and an oxymoron by definition. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Our show is certainly not busted. </DIV></p><p>Of course it is. DrRocket has been trying to claim the mathematical high ground in these discussions. When we looked at the mathematical definitions however, they only describe "circuit reconnection" and "induction" and at no time did they describe a unique energy relese mechanism related to "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We explained why your objection to the PPPL assumption doesn't matter,</DIV></p><p>It doesn't "matter" to you that they created a z-pinch in current carrying plasma and slammed prarticles together and called it "magnetic reconnection"? Science requires a precise use of language. A z-pinch process is not a "magnetic reconnection" process it is a current carrying process. It is already defined and explained in MHD theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and that while Priest's paper uses induction equations, that doesn't mean they are saying induction is the only driving mechanism. </DIV></p><p> Now that was a really juicy rationalization IMO. You're really reaching on that one. The mathematical langauge in this paper relates to a scientifically understood energy release process known as "induction". The author even noted this point in the paper. He then turned right around and called it "magnetic reconnection". There's your sign.</p><p>This is s "circuit" reconnection process that is described in these formulas. This is an "induction" driven process according to these equations. What it is defintely not is a "magnetic reconnection" driven process, because magnetic fields never disconnect or reconnect and do anything other than exist or not exist. The motive force defined in these models comes from the current flows and the induction created by changes to the current flow patterns. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you could understand the Schindler paper, you'd know that he began with Euler potentials, not induction. </DIV></p><p>See, now this looks like you want to have your cake and eat it too. First you claim these are all related to the same idea and then you switch gears and hand me a whack-a-mole arguement and a new model.</p><p>How about you pick out the exactly line of math in that paper where you believe that "magnetic reconnection" occurs that is uniquely different from "induction" and "circuit" reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are harping on very specific statements that were either alreayd addressed or are taken out of context. You have changed your stance entirely over the course of the last 10 or however many pages I've been involved in in this thread. You began by saying that there is no mathematical foundation for reconnection.</DIV></p><p>I still stand by my claim that there is no mathematical foundation for "magnetic reconnection". The only mathematical foundation you have provided thus far is for '"induction" and "circuit" reconnection. I have not seen any mathematical example of "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You were wrong, but you don't acknowledge it. </DIV></p><p>No, you are wrong and you won't acknolwedge it. These equations describe circuit reconnection and induction and are unrelated to "magnetic reconnection". Slapping the label of "magnetic reconnection" on induction and current flow is not a mathematical demonstration of "magnetic reconnection", just induction and curernt flow.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You said reconnection violates Maxwell's equations since you didn't have(and seem to still not have) a grasp on the true definition of reconnection.</DIV></p><p>Man, you're funny sometimes. You yourself are not trying to justify that the fact that there are mutliple models of the idea, and yet you are also claiming that there is some "true" deifinition of the idea? How does that work exactly? </p><p>The only definition of the idea you have provided mathematically is only a "true definition" of circuit recoonection and induction. These did not violate Maxwell's equations that I could see, nor did they describe a unique form of energy release unrelated to induction and electrical circuit reconfiguration.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You were corrected and shown that the true definition doesn't violate Maxwell's equations. </DIV></p><p>No, I was shown to be correct that magnetic reconnection is not a unique type of energy release and that "magnetic reconnection is an oxymoron. </p><p>These mathematical models describe induction and circuit reconnection, and these equations have nothing whatsoever do to with "magnetic reconnection". They just made up an oxymoronic term to describe "circuit reconnection" and "induction". It's a ploy to fool the public. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Again, you don't acknowledge this. </DIV></p><p>You haven't acknowledged yet that these formulas do not describe "magnetic reconnection", they only describe induction and electrical circuit reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You said there were no reproductions of reconnection in the lab. You were shown these, and just decided to focus on a single equation and say that invalidates the entire experiment. </DIV></p><p>I focused on the specific equation where their error was introduced? What's wrong, wasn't I specific enough for you?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Their approximation of constant current density doesn't matter.</DIV></p><p>It absolutely does matter. If we *assume* a constant current density, but it's not contant, we introduce significant problems into the "interpretations". The notion that they can "assume" that the current density remained constant during a z-pinch process was suspect. There are signs that this is not the case in there own data. Particle collisions were necessarily occuring and heating regions in the plasma. The idea then that the particle flow was constant is unsupportable by the very evidence they are citing. The heat generated in these z-pinch processes are directly related to particle collsions in the z-pinch event. The current flow could not have been constant since some of the particle's kinetic energy was converted into heat during the collision process. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Instead of acknowledging when you're wrong, you have decided to act as if you've been arguing semantics the whole time.</DIV></p><p>First you will have to demonstrate that I am wrong. I started by stating that particles and electrical circuits "reconnect", but magnetic fields do not. I stated that "magnetic reconnection" was not a unique form of energy echange in plasma and that it should be ignored as Alfven suggested. I have been shown to be correct, and you folks provided the mathematical models that demonstrate that I am right. "Magnetic reconnection" is an oxymoron. It is not a unique form of energy exchange in plasma. It's a dumb name used to describe a current flow and induction driven process. There is still no mathematical justification for "magnetic reconnection", just a matheical description of "current flow" and "induction".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you look through your posts you start out talking about the actual physics, but now all you've been doing is talking baout how the term reconnection is an "oxymoron". Nobody cares about the name. </DIV></p><p>Not caring about the name is sloppy science IMO. Science requires a precise use of terms. If I create a mathematical model that uses induction and circuit reconnection in plasma, it is pointless for me to call it "SomeNewSillyNameIJustMadeUp".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's the process that is important. </DIV></p><p>Its the physics that are important. These physical processes are described in MHD theory as typical circuit reconnections and induction processes. These processes have already been defined in MHD theory. There is no point in making up new names to describe known processes related to MHD theory. If I slapped my name to that same math and called it "MichaelsMagicNewEnergyReleaseMechanism", would that be ok by you?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are also trying to discredit us by pointing out that we haven't read the entire body of work of Alfven or Birkeland. </DIV></p><p>Actually I'm simply noting that there are bound to be differences between your understand of EU theory and mine because I have read the materials and you folks have not. It's simply a factual statement aimed more at DrRocket than at you. I was really only trying to explain to DrRocket that his ignorance of the mathematical foundations of EU theory is entirely self imposed and that I'm not his "MathMomma". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is entirely irrelevant. </DIV></p><p>How could it possibly be "entirely irrelevant" that I understand EU theory as describe by it's creators and you do not yet have this same understanding? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could point the same thing out about you and all Nobel prize winning astrophysicists. You haven't read all of their work yet you claim it is all mythology. Alfven's work is worth reading I'm sure, but the fact that we haven't read Cosmic Plasma does not discredit us. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>If you want to understand EU theory there is only one place to start, and that's with Kristian Birkeland's work. He invented the theory of "flying electrons and ions". He also emprically demonstrated that his current flow theories had value and "predictive" ability. If one is a big math geek as DrRocket seems to be, then Alfven's work is the next logical step. Dr. Charles Bruce also produced some good work on this front too. </p><p>My criticisms however were defintely not directed at you personally. I got direct with DrRocket, but you would be wise not to take my criticisms of his behaviors personally. These comments were not aimed at you in the first place. You're a "newbie" to this thread. DrRocket and I have been debating EU theory now for many months if not years. He's got no excuse. He could easily have read Cosmic Plasma by now. </p><p>I want to keep things clear between you and I. I have no "beef" with your debate style. Our discussion has pretty much been by the book. My criticisms in this thread were aimed at DrRocket and *only* toward DrRocket. Let's make sure you and I are clear on that point and that we don't let our relationship be influenced by external factors. I respect the fact that you have presented serious material on the topic of magnetic reconnection. I have tried to treat it seriously to and to identify the specific problems I had with these papers, or questions I had about these papers. I've got no beef with your debate style or your approach, whereas I don't like being personally attacked. Thus far that's not been a problem between us, and I don't want that to be an issue between us. Let me be clear that this speciific criticims was not aimed at you and was primarily intended for the individual that I was responding to. I would of course want you to continue to education yourself on EU theory over time, but Rome wasn't built in a day, and you haven't been involved in this discusion long enough to even begin getting your feet wet on this topic. DrRocket however has been playing devil's advocate toward the whole topic of EU theory for a very long time now and his behaviors are inexcusable IMO. </p><p>You've only been attempting to present a case for magnetic reconnection, you haven't tried to "bash" the whole concept of EU theory. These are very different issues. I respect your style and your matieral enough to read it and to respond to the points I feel are valid cricisms. I think you and I should try to stick to the topic of interest that brought you here and just sort of ignore DrRocket's whole long winded rants. </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>
Now that was a really juicy rationalization IMO. You're really reaching on that one. The mathematical langauge in this paper relates to a scientifically understood energy release process known as "induction". The author even noted this point in the paper. He then turned right around and called it "magnetic reconnection". There's your sign.</p><p>This is s "circuit" reconnection process that is described in these formulas. This is an "induction" driven process according to these equations. What it is defintely not is a "magnetic reconnection" driven process, because magnetic fields never disconnect or reconnect and do anything other than exist or not exist. The motive force defined in these models comes from the current flows and the induction created by changes to the current flow patterns. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you could understand the Schindler paper, you'd know that he began with Euler potentials, not induction. </DIV></p><p>See, now this looks like you want to have your cake and eat it too. First you claim these are all related to the same idea and then you switch gears and hand me a whack-a-mole arguement and a new model.</p><p>How about you pick out the exactly line of math in that paper where you believe that "magnetic reconnection" occurs that is uniquely different from "induction" and "circuit" reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are harping on very specific statements that were either alreayd addressed or are taken out of context. You have changed your stance entirely over the course of the last 10 or however many pages I've been involved in in this thread. You began by saying that there is no mathematical foundation for reconnection.</DIV></p><p>I still stand by my claim that there is no mathematical foundation for "magnetic reconnection". The only mathematical foundation you have provided thus far is for '"induction" and "circuit" reconnection. I have not seen any mathematical example of "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You were wrong, but you don't acknowledge it. </DIV></p><p>No, you are wrong and you won't acknolwedge it. These equations describe circuit reconnection and induction and are unrelated to "magnetic reconnection". Slapping the label of "magnetic reconnection" on induction and current flow is not a mathematical demonstration of "magnetic reconnection", just induction and curernt flow.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You said reconnection violates Maxwell's equations since you didn't have(and seem to still not have) a grasp on the true definition of reconnection.</DIV></p><p>Man, you're funny sometimes. You yourself are not trying to justify that the fact that there are mutliple models of the idea, and yet you are also claiming that there is some "true" deifinition of the idea? How does that work exactly? </p><p>The only definition of the idea you have provided mathematically is only a "true definition" of circuit recoonection and induction. These did not violate Maxwell's equations that I could see, nor did they describe a unique form of energy release unrelated to induction and electrical circuit reconfiguration.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You were corrected and shown that the true definition doesn't violate Maxwell's equations. </DIV></p><p>No, I was shown to be correct that magnetic reconnection is not a unique type of energy release and that "magnetic reconnection is an oxymoron. </p><p>These mathematical models describe induction and circuit reconnection, and these equations have nothing whatsoever do to with "magnetic reconnection". They just made up an oxymoronic term to describe "circuit reconnection" and "induction". It's a ploy to fool the public. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Again, you don't acknowledge this. </DIV></p><p>You haven't acknowledged yet that these formulas do not describe "magnetic reconnection", they only describe induction and electrical circuit reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You said there were no reproductions of reconnection in the lab. You were shown these, and just decided to focus on a single equation and say that invalidates the entire experiment. </DIV></p><p>I focused on the specific equation where their error was introduced? What's wrong, wasn't I specific enough for you?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Their approximation of constant current density doesn't matter.</DIV></p><p>It absolutely does matter. If we *assume* a constant current density, but it's not contant, we introduce significant problems into the "interpretations". The notion that they can "assume" that the current density remained constant during a z-pinch process was suspect. There are signs that this is not the case in there own data. Particle collisions were necessarily occuring and heating regions in the plasma. The idea then that the particle flow was constant is unsupportable by the very evidence they are citing. The heat generated in these z-pinch processes are directly related to particle collsions in the z-pinch event. The current flow could not have been constant since some of the particle's kinetic energy was converted into heat during the collision process. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Instead of acknowledging when you're wrong, you have decided to act as if you've been arguing semantics the whole time.</DIV></p><p>First you will have to demonstrate that I am wrong. I started by stating that particles and electrical circuits "reconnect", but magnetic fields do not. I stated that "magnetic reconnection" was not a unique form of energy echange in plasma and that it should be ignored as Alfven suggested. I have been shown to be correct, and you folks provided the mathematical models that demonstrate that I am right. "Magnetic reconnection" is an oxymoron. It is not a unique form of energy exchange in plasma. It's a dumb name used to describe a current flow and induction driven process. There is still no mathematical justification for "magnetic reconnection", just a matheical description of "current flow" and "induction".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you look through your posts you start out talking about the actual physics, but now all you've been doing is talking baout how the term reconnection is an "oxymoron". Nobody cares about the name. </DIV></p><p>Not caring about the name is sloppy science IMO. Science requires a precise use of terms. If I create a mathematical model that uses induction and circuit reconnection in plasma, it is pointless for me to call it "SomeNewSillyNameIJustMadeUp".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's the process that is important. </DIV></p><p>Its the physics that are important. These physical processes are described in MHD theory as typical circuit reconnections and induction processes. These processes have already been defined in MHD theory. There is no point in making up new names to describe known processes related to MHD theory. If I slapped my name to that same math and called it "MichaelsMagicNewEnergyReleaseMechanism", would that be ok by you?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are also trying to discredit us by pointing out that we haven't read the entire body of work of Alfven or Birkeland. </DIV></p><p>Actually I'm simply noting that there are bound to be differences between your understand of EU theory and mine because I have read the materials and you folks have not. It's simply a factual statement aimed more at DrRocket than at you. I was really only trying to explain to DrRocket that his ignorance of the mathematical foundations of EU theory is entirely self imposed and that I'm not his "MathMomma". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is entirely irrelevant. </DIV></p><p>How could it possibly be "entirely irrelevant" that I understand EU theory as describe by it's creators and you do not yet have this same understanding? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could point the same thing out about you and all Nobel prize winning astrophysicists. You haven't read all of their work yet you claim it is all mythology. Alfven's work is worth reading I'm sure, but the fact that we haven't read Cosmic Plasma does not discredit us. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>If you want to understand EU theory there is only one place to start, and that's with Kristian Birkeland's work. He invented the theory of "flying electrons and ions". He also emprically demonstrated that his current flow theories had value and "predictive" ability. If one is a big math geek as DrRocket seems to be, then Alfven's work is the next logical step. Dr. Charles Bruce also produced some good work on this front too. </p><p>My criticisms however were defintely not directed at you personally. I got direct with DrRocket, but you would be wise not to take my criticisms of his behaviors personally. These comments were not aimed at you in the first place. You're a "newbie" to this thread. DrRocket and I have been debating EU theory now for many months if not years. He's got no excuse. He could easily have read Cosmic Plasma by now. </p><p>I want to keep things clear between you and I. I have no "beef" with your debate style. Our discussion has pretty much been by the book. My criticisms in this thread were aimed at DrRocket and *only* toward DrRocket. Let's make sure you and I are clear on that point and that we don't let our relationship be influenced by external factors. I respect the fact that you have presented serious material on the topic of magnetic reconnection. I have tried to treat it seriously to and to identify the specific problems I had with these papers, or questions I had about these papers. I've got no beef with your debate style or your approach, whereas I don't like being personally attacked. Thus far that's not been a problem between us, and I don't want that to be an issue between us. Let me be clear that this speciific criticims was not aimed at you and was primarily intended for the individual that I was responding to. I would of course want you to continue to education yourself on EU theory over time, but Rome wasn't built in a day, and you haven't been involved in this discusion long enough to even begin getting your feet wet on this topic. DrRocket however has been playing devil's advocate toward the whole topic of EU theory for a very long time now and his behaviors are inexcusable IMO. </p><p>You've only been attempting to present a case for magnetic reconnection, you haven't tried to "bash" the whole concept of EU theory. These are very different issues. I respect your style and your matieral enough to read it and to respond to the points I feel are valid cricisms. I think you and I should try to stick to the topic of interest that brought you here and just sort of ignore DrRocket's whole long winded rants. </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'>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Look, Michael. I don't even really read your posts anymore. Since you have rejected the last 50-70 years of scientific progress, combined with your deliberate distortion of GR, there's no point in reading your posts. Now, as usual, you have begun a series of a half dozen posts where you will reply to yourself. Never once addressing the issues raised by others. </p><p>I cut you a lot of slack when (41 pages ago) I began reading your posts. You have proven to be an entrenched woo-woo, supporting a worthless word salad point completely ungrounded in the physics of the 20th century, much less the 21st century.</p><p>Sorry, my friend, you have become completely unglued, and so drowned in your own 41 pages of posts (without much point, other than supporting a position without ANY current data), that even reading it is pointless.</p><p>I will now recommend that your threads be destined for "the Unexplained" since they have just as much support from reality. Iron Sun? Megacoulomb current that have no effect on the earth's magnetic field. I'd suggest you jest, but even that is not a valid position.</p><p>Despite all your protestations, BS is still BS. Michael, I tried really hard to be tolerant, but your posts have convinced me that when worthless posts are made, they are worthless. I am truely sorry, since I supported you for a long time.</p><p>I was hoping for better, but you have proven me wrong.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Who the heck would be insane enough to do that???? 41 freakin pages of posts that have proven... Michael doesn't understand current (haha) physics. He's living in the early 20th century. </DIV></p><p>Tell me Wayne, have you ever read Birkelands work or Alfven's book Cosmic plasma are you basing your beliefs on something from the 19th or 18th or 16th centuries? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Anything that his been learned since his idols last spoke can be twisted to be not true.</DIV></p><p>Learned? What did we "learn" exactly from the PPPL experiment Wayne? Did it require *electricity* to make it work? Did they *assume* that the electric field remains constant *during a z-pinch discharge* through plasma? How exactly did we "learn" that magnetic reconnection was involved in that process? To my knowledge this is the only "experiment" of the idea ever presented.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nevermind any developments in the last half century.</DIV></p><p>In Alfven's case we're only talking about 13 years. In all that time there has never been any legiimate "development" on the topic of "magnetic reconnection". The papers presented recently suggest the whole thing is nothing but "induction" and "circuit reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps he should go back further and revisit flat earth concepts.</DIV></p><p>That's kind of funny since I think your current beliefs will have about as much value as a flat earth theory in another couple of decades. It took the mainstream 60+ years to realize that Birkeland was right and Chapman was wrong. It will probably take them another couple of decades for them to figure out that "electrical discharges* are responsible for CME's too. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are equally as valid as an iron surface beneath the photosphere of the sun, and the current flow that is the power for the sun, which would really screw up our compasses here on terra firma!!</DIV></p><p>How so? Auorals never mess with compasses, right?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His warped concept of GR is laughable.</DIV></p><p>You mean GR without metaphysical entities like inflation and dark energy?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As is most of the preceeding 41 pages....Still, like Whack-a-Mole, you have to keep beating it down lest neophytes be seduced by his {unable to find a proper word without being excessively insulting} worthless pseudo-physics. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>If is worthless pseudo-physics for the mainstream to call circuit reconnection and induction "magnetic reconnection". It's an oxymoron from the start and it's already explained in MHD theory as simple "current flow" and "induction". </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>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Anything that his been learned since his idols last spoke can be twisted to be not true.</DIV></p><p>Learned? What did we "learn" exactly from the PPPL experiment Wayne? Did it require *electricity* to make it work? Did they *assume* that the electric field remains constant *during a z-pinch discharge* through plasma? How exactly did we "learn" that magnetic reconnection was involved in that process? To my knowledge this is the only "experiment" of the idea ever presented.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nevermind any developments in the last half century.</DIV></p><p>In Alfven's case we're only talking about 13 years. In all that time there has never been any legiimate "development" on the topic of "magnetic reconnection". The papers presented recently suggest the whole thing is nothing but "induction" and "circuit reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps he should go back further and revisit flat earth concepts.</DIV></p><p>That's kind of funny since I think your current beliefs will have about as much value as a flat earth theory in another couple of decades. It took the mainstream 60+ years to realize that Birkeland was right and Chapman was wrong. It will probably take them another couple of decades for them to figure out that "electrical discharges* are responsible for CME's too. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are equally as valid as an iron surface beneath the photosphere of the sun, and the current flow that is the power for the sun, which would really screw up our compasses here on terra firma!!</DIV></p><p>How so? Auorals never mess with compasses, right?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His warped concept of GR is laughable.</DIV></p><p>You mean GR without metaphysical entities like inflation and dark energy?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As is most of the preceeding 41 pages....Still, like Whack-a-Mole, you have to keep beating it down lest neophytes be seduced by his {unable to find a proper word without being excessively insulting} worthless pseudo-physics. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>If is worthless pseudo-physics for the mainstream to call circuit reconnection and induction "magnetic reconnection". It's an oxymoron from the start and it's already explained in MHD theory as simple "current flow" and "induction". </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'>Look, Michael. I don't even really read your posts anymore. </DIV></p><p>Then why respond to me at all? Have you even followed the last few pages on the topic of magnetic reconnection?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since you have rejected the last 50-70 years of scientific progress, </DIV></p><p>This is simply not true. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>combined with your deliberate distortion of GR, </DIV></p><p>I simply refuse to let you stuff inflation and dark energy into an otherwise elegant theory about gravity. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>there's no point in reading your posts.</DIV></p><p>Does you opinion have to be true for everyone?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, as usual, you have begun a series of a half dozen posts where you will reply to yourself. Never once addressing the issues raised by others.</DIV></p><p>Which key issue have I not addressed?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I cut you a lot of slack when (41 pages ago) I began reading your posts. You have proven to be an entrenched woo-woo, supporting a worthless word salad point completely ungrounded in the physics of the 20th century, much less the 21st century.</DIV></p><p>Alfven wrote his book in the 20th century and died in 1995. The worst you could accuse me personally of ignoring is the work that has been published since 1995. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry, my friend, you have become completely unglued,</DIV></p><p>Unglued? How so?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and so drowned in your own 41 pages of posts (without much point, other than supporting a position without ANY current data),</DIV></p><p>I just used "current data" from a recent paper to show that "magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than circuit reconnection and induction. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that even reading it is pointless.I will now recommend that your threads be destined for "the Unexplained" since they have just as much support from reality. </DIV></p><p>I sure hope other folks aren't as closed minded as you seem be at the moment. I've provided physicsal experiments to justify Birkeland's "current flow" theories whereas there isn't any emprical test of "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Iron Sun?</DIV></p><p>What about it? I haven't even talked about it much in many months. Why do you and DrRocket keep bringing it up in this thread?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Megacoulomb current that have no effect on the earth's magnetic field.</DIV></p><p>I didn't suggest it has "no effect" did I? Is that from my statement or just a little strawman you whipped up?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd suggest you jest, but even that is not a valid position.Despite all your protestations, BS is still BS. Michael, I tried really hard to be tolerant, but your posts have convinced me that when worthless posts are made, they are worthless. I am truely sorry, since I supported you for a long time.I was hoping for better, but you have proven me wrong. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I'm sorry you feel that way Wayne, I really do. I've enjoyed some of our conversations and I've even conceded a few points to you along the way. I respect you in some ways, but I don't much feel any respect from you. That's a pity IMO. I would presume from your statements that you really haven't even bothered to read the whole discussion on magnetic reconnection, but I did my best to respond to every paper, even while traviling quite extensively. I've shown from the math that these equations only relate to "induction' and "circuit reconnection". I don't even know how I possibly could have made a stronger argument frankly. It's too bad you won't bother reading my posts on this topic and pointing out the actual error I made. It might make for an interesting discussion. </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's too bad you won't bother reading my posts on this topic and pointing out the actual error I made. It might make for an interesting discussion. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />And that's the point. No it wouldn't. You choose to ignore all the advances made in measurment and theory since 1925.</p><p>That really leaves no points for discussion.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And that's the point. No it wouldn't. You choose to ignore all the advances made in measurment and theory since 1925.That really leaves no points for discussion. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>You know Wayne, over the past few years I've gotten to know you, at least a little bit, and that response is just not like you. Normally your posts are extremly clear, detailed and focused on specific issues. If you think I have missed something important that has happened over the last 13 years on the topic of "magnetic reconnection", please enlighten me. I've admitted to making some mistakes during our conversations in the past. I will do so again if you can demonstrate your point on the topic of magnetic reconnection. As it stands I think you're being unfair, probably because you haven't really been following the thread that closely recently. </p><p>I realize that my "skepticism" toward mainstream ideas is often frustrating, but I'm not trying to be difficult, just scinetifically accurate. I am certainly trying to keep an open mind here, but just stating that I've missed something without explicitiy pointing out what that something might be isn't very helpful. Normally your posts are quite helpful and quite to the point. That response certainly isn't typical of your posts, nor do I think it's very fair. I've been responsive to the papers that have been cited in this thread and I have responded to the key issues in these papers that I find objectionable. If you think I missed anything, please explain. I will certainly listen to you. </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>You cannot just pick a line from a proof and say "THERE! That's where reconnection happens". That is not how math or physics works. It is not whack-a-mole. Priest is proving different aspects of reconnection than Schindler is. For example, Schindler addresses the proofs of finite-B reconection and addresses the issue of flux conservation, whereas Priest is commenting on specific types of reconnection such as fast reconnection. Schindler's paper is much more of a general proof. </p><p>It is not relevant for me to understand the entirety of EU "theory" because we are not discussing the entirety of EU "theory". I understand that although Alfven introduced the frozen field line concept, he later became concerned about its usefulness and application. I understand he didn't think reconnection could occur in a current sheet like we believe now. I understand that Birkeland reproduced aurorae in the lab and that the work of Peratt and Bruce et al. supported the idea as well. However, I can only comment on what I am qualified to comment on. As I have not thoroughly researched Alfven or the others to the extent you have, it makes sense for you to be the presentor of the EU side of things, which you have been doing, and for me to comment on what I know, that is, the "mainstream" side of things. You have been presenting objections, and I respond in turn with a paper or something of that sort. </p><p>As I've said before, the rest of EU theory is unimportant to me. Once I take graduate courses on stellar structure and stellar atmospheres this fall maybe I can join in on that debate, but at the moment I could only offer an undergraduate educated opinion on those topics. I worked for 2 years with leaders in the field of magnetospheric physics, so that is why I felt qualified to get involved in this one. As for DrRocket, all I've seen him do is add meaningful points and rebuttals and papers and helped clarify some of my points that are occasionally a bit vague. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OxymoronThe term "magnetic reconnection" is certainly an oxymoron. Magnetic field lines form as a whole continuum, without beginning, without ending, and without reconnecting. The term "reconnection" contradicts the first term. It contradicts the very nature of magnetic fields and magnetic field lines. Magnetic field lines don't "reconnect" in Maxwell's equations. There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic field lines never "reconnect" to other field lines, they simply exist or they do not. Maxwell's equations in no way support any notion of magnetic field "reconnection", so even using that term in association with magnetism is a pointless, confusing and conflicting use to terms. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Much like you do with many posts, you find one word, thought, phrase or sentence, take it out of context or fail to understand the full context and run with it.</p><p>You refer to magnetic reconnection as a pointless oxymoron. "Pointless oxymoron" is, itself, a contradiction. Oxymorons are not pointless contradictions. Oxymorons are words or phrases deliberately tied together to make a point whether it be for a rhetorical argument, poetic statement or to be just plain humorous.</p><p>Magnetic reconnection is not an oxymoron. It's nothing more than a 'coined' term. A few examples:</p><p>Big Bang - Horrible, misleading description coined by Hoyle to essentially make fun of the rival to his steady state theory.</p><p>Black Hole - It's neither black, nor is it a hole. Coined by one of the brightest people of the 20th century.</p><p>Galaxy - why refer to them all as galaxies when the name Milky Way is derived from the Greek work galaxias meaning milky?</p><p>Inflation - Totally irrelavent name for the description of the theory. </p><p>Solar wind - Not sure wind is the best description.</p><p>Planetary Nebula - Coined by Hershel because they looked like gas giants.</p><p>Dark Energy - If we ever do figure out what the heck it is, we'll probably still call it dark energy. Same with dark matter.</p><p>Color charge - From Quantum Chromodynamics. Color??? Ah well.. easy for the brain to wrap around it.</p><p>Neutron Star - It's not really a neutron, nor is it really a star. We're not really sure what it is made of and it is a remnant of a star.</p><p>Magnetosphere - Should we call it the Magnetoscaleneellipsoid?</p><p>Plasma - Because it carries particles like blood plasma? Why not just call it what it really is: Ionized gas.</p><p>Quasar - Other than appearing point-like, as a star would be, quasars have nothing in common with stars, but the name stuck. And we can detect more than radio sources from them, too.</p><p> </p><p>I could add more, but you get the picture. They are just terms that have fallen into wide spread use whether they are useful descriptions or not. Magnetic Reconnection is no different.</p><p>An Oxymoron is when you refer the LambdaCDM model as a "mythical science" (I don't believe you ever said that, precisely... just making a point). "Mythical" and "science" are two contradicting terms intentionally strung together to make a rhetorical argument. </p><p>Magnetic reconnection is not purposefully strung together for any specific reason other than a nearly 60 year old description of a phenomena that was not entirely understood at the time.</p><p>I find this to be a rather descent quick definition of magnetic reconnection from "<u>Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0521481791</u><em>"</em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">"Reconnection is a essentially a topological restructuring of a magnetic field caused by a change in connectivity of its field lines." </font></em></p><p><font size="0"><u><strong>Free excerpt here.</strong></u></font></p><p> </p><p>PS. And why would you reference Wiki concerning Oxymorons when you recently agreed that it was not a useful resource? </p><p> </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
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