Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. 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. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /> <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>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You cannot just pick a line from a proof and say "THERE! That's where reconnection happens". </DIV></p><p>If you can't do that, then there is no mathematical justification for "magnetic reconnection" since everything in those lines of math relate to either: A) curcuit reconnection, or B) induction. and C) is irrelevant to either A) or B) and processes A) and B) are well understood processes of MHD theory that have absolutely nothing whatsoever do with C). C is irrevant. I can just as easily call the whole thing anything I'd like, Including ""Michaels Magical Energy Source", but that is pseudo-physics as Wayne would put it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is not how math or physics works. </DIV></p><p>It is how "science" works. The math and physics you have provided only related to "circuit reconnection" and "induction". It does not matter how many surperflous labels we make up, we can describe the process wiithout any new labels. This is ultimately a mislableing of "circuit reconnection". The induction part is simply a function of the current flow and the strength of the current flow. It's important how the math and physics work and in this case they all work exactly as explained in MHD theory *without* any new terms.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not whack-a-mole. Priest is proving different aspects of reconnection than Schindler is. </DIV></p><p>
Hair split much?</p><p>I'm eager to see you explain the various "aspects" for us then and how Schindler's defintion is both the same as Priests yet also "a different aspact". This should be fun. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>How is the 'finite-B" brand any different than the other in terms of it required A) current flow and B) induction? Is there any new energy release mechanism in the finite-B version that isn't based on induction or current flow or circuit reconnection?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not relevant for me to understand the entirety of EU "theory" because we are not discussing the entirety of EU "theory". </DIV></p><p>Well, yes and no. You are exactly right that we are discussing only one specific aspect where EU theory and mainstream theory come into conflict and you don't need to understand all of EU theory to understand how they come into conflict. You also have not been picking on EU theory as a whole, so no, you definitely don't need to know EU theory for you and I to proceed in our conversation.</p><p>On the other hand, understanding EU theory is a worthwhile thing, irrespective of our other differences. I've studied many cosmology theories over the last 30 years and I've yet to find a "better" one. Subjectivity tends play a role in how individuals define what is "better". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand that although Alfven introduced the frozen field line concept, he later became concerned about its usefulness and application. </DIV></p><p>It was sort of like an "idealized" and "handy" way of describing *some* (certainly no all) events in *some* (certainly not all) types of plasma. It really only applied to heavy, densely packed plasma like you might find in the core of sun in standard theory. It had no application in "current carrying" plasma and no plasma is a "perfect" conductor, so it's usefulness is highly limited and the application of the idea has to be "reasonable" given the conditions of the plasma.</p><p>It was a bad idea in the final analysis only because of the confusion it caused. It seemed to some as though you could treat plasma as being "frozen" when in reality it's in constant motion. They are "flying electrons and ions", not "frozen particles".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand he didn't think reconnection could occur in a current sheet like we believe now. </DIV></p><p>I agree with him too, especially after this discussion and the math that has been presented to attempt to justify this theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. 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. </DIV></p><p>And that is all quite fine by me. I fully understand that you have priorities in life at the moment. *If* you decide to start playing the EU devils advocate like our friend DrRocket, *then* I'll have higher expectations on your level of EU education. For now I suggest you focus on getting yourself through college and you and I stick to the one topic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I look forward to seeing either of you present a mathematical explanation for magnetic reconnection. I willingly grant you that the math you have provided does not violate Maxwell's equations, but it also has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection", just "circuit reconnection" and "induction". DrRocket seems to believe he controls the high mathematical ground of this debate, but it looks to me that Alfven controls that territory and we're all still learning and growing in our understanding of plasma physics. </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>
Hair split much?</p><p>I'm eager to see you explain the various "aspects" for us then and how Schindler's defintion is both the same as Priests yet also "a different aspact". This should be fun. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>How is the 'finite-B" brand any different than the other in terms of it required A) current flow and B) induction? Is there any new energy release mechanism in the finite-B version that isn't based on induction or current flow or circuit reconnection?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not relevant for me to understand the entirety of EU "theory" because we are not discussing the entirety of EU "theory". </DIV></p><p>Well, yes and no. You are exactly right that we are discussing only one specific aspect where EU theory and mainstream theory come into conflict and you don't need to understand all of EU theory to understand how they come into conflict. You also have not been picking on EU theory as a whole, so no, you definitely don't need to know EU theory for you and I to proceed in our conversation.</p><p>On the other hand, understanding EU theory is a worthwhile thing, irrespective of our other differences. I've studied many cosmology theories over the last 30 years and I've yet to find a "better" one. Subjectivity tends play a role in how individuals define what is "better". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand that although Alfven introduced the frozen field line concept, he later became concerned about its usefulness and application. </DIV></p><p>It was sort of like an "idealized" and "handy" way of describing *some* (certainly no all) events in *some* (certainly not all) types of plasma. It really only applied to heavy, densely packed plasma like you might find in the core of sun in standard theory. It had no application in "current carrying" plasma and no plasma is a "perfect" conductor, so it's usefulness is highly limited and the application of the idea has to be "reasonable" given the conditions of the plasma.</p><p>It was a bad idea in the final analysis only because of the confusion it caused. It seemed to some as though you could treat plasma as being "frozen" when in reality it's in constant motion. They are "flying electrons and ions", not "frozen particles".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand he didn't think reconnection could occur in a current sheet like we believe now. </DIV></p><p>I agree with him too, especially after this discussion and the math that has been presented to attempt to justify this theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. 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. </DIV></p><p>And that is all quite fine by me. I fully understand that you have priorities in life at the moment. *If* you decide to start playing the EU devils advocate like our friend DrRocket, *then* I'll have higher expectations on your level of EU education. For now I suggest you focus on getting yourself through college and you and I stick to the one topic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I look forward to seeing either of you present a mathematical explanation for magnetic reconnection. I willingly grant you that the math you have provided does not violate Maxwell's equations, but it also has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection", just "circuit reconnection" and "induction". DrRocket seems to believe he controls the high mathematical ground of this debate, but it looks to me that Alfven controls that territory and we're all still learning and growing in our understanding of plasma physics. </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'>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.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.Magnetic reconnection is not an oxymoron. It's nothing more than a 'coined' term. A few examples:Big Bang - Horrible, misleading description coined by Hoyle to essentially make fun of the rival to his steady state theory.Black Hole - It's neither black, nor is it a hole. Coined by one of the brightest people of the 20th century.Galaxy - why refer to them all as galaxies when the name Milky Way is derived from the Greek work galaxias meaning milky?Inflation - Totally irrelavent name for the description of the theory. Solar wind - Not sure wind is the best description.Planetary Nebula - Coined by Hershel because they looked like gas giants.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.Color charge - From Quantum Chromodynamics. Color??? Ah well.. easy for the brain to wrap around it.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.Magnetosphere - Should we call it the Magnetoscaleneellipsoid?Plasma - Because it carries particles like blood plasma? Why not just call it what it really is: Ionized gas.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. 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.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. 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.I find this to be a rather descent quick definition of magnetic reconnection from "Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0521481791""Reconnection is a essentially a topological restructuring of a magnetic field caused by a change in connectivity of its field lines." Free excerpt here. PS. And why would you reference Wiki concerning Oxymorons when you recently agreed that it was not a useful resource? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>LOL! I stand corrected. </p><p>You're right, it's not funny or humorous, so it can't possibly be an oxymoron, just a stupid choice of words. </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><p>You're right, it's not funny or humorous, so it can't possibly be an oxymoron, just a stupid choice of words. </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>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction_in_terms</p><p>It's a little ironic that it's a fallacy by it's very definition, as well as the fact it is a superflous label that is unrelated to the mathematical processes it is based upon. The fact it wasn't intentional (therefore not an oxymoron) only makes it more ironic. </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> <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>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea</p><p>We all seem to agree that magnetic field lines do not "disconect" or "reconnect", so the very term "magnetic reconnection" is a self refuting description.</p><p>We also know that we could just as easily (and more scientifically accurately) label this same process "electrical circuit reconnection". The only reason the latter label was not chosen by the mainstream, is due to the bias of the mainsteam itself. Alfven wrote continiously about "circuits" in current carrying plsama. The "circuits' he described in MHD theory could and do in fact "reconnect" all the time. It's an inherent feature of plasma, part of it's 'nature". Plasma is composed of particles that "flow" and move and "reconnect" all the time. Circuits "reconnect' through plasma. Magnetic field lines do not ever "reconnect". Magnetic reconnection is literally a mistatement of scientific fact based on the math formulas presented. It is in fact "circuit reconnection" and "induction", nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. The magnetic fields do not "reconnect", nor has any mathematic equation presented been based upon any such principle. Induction is not "magnetic reconnection". Kinetic energy contained in flowing particles of current are not "magnetic reconnection". These processes are well understood aspects of MHD theory involving "circuit reconnection" and "induction". </p><p>I can't think of a "better' example of the bias we observe today in the astronomy community. By mislabeling a current flow driven process as "magnetic reconnection", they are attempting to try to keep the electronic Genie from getting out of the bottle by giving him a name that is itself a logical contradiction by defintion.</p><p>It seems to me that Alfven was right all along, and this use of the term "magnetic reconnection" is both unnecessary and misleeading and deserves no attention. The only reason it's getting any attention is because of papers like that Themis paper, and yet they falsified their own predictions and models! I can't think of a single better example of where this bias against EU theory is rearing it's ugly head. Why isn't NASA talking about "electrical circuit reconnection" rather than "magnetic reconnection"? Why did both of their magnetic reconnection models fail to accurately predict the observed sequence of events? I like NASA. Maybe I even love NASA and what it represents to science and what it has achieved over the years. They should have higher standards IMO. This type of misinformation is beneath them. None of these papers, mathematical models and physical descriptions have anything at all to do with "magnetic reconnection", just "electrical circuit reconnection" and "induction". Science requires a precise use of language. Terms are important. The term magnetic reconnection is a contradiction in terms and it has no mathematical foundation based on Maxwell's equations. The only equations we have to work with do not describe nor require "magnetic reconnection" to function. What they all do seem to require is "current flow", just as Birkeland "predicted". </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'> 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.</DIV></p><p>I recall that you are not suppose to accuse anyone of insanity on this site but if MM actually believes he is 'winning' this debate, it is clear that he does not have any sort or grasp of reality!</p><p>So he has problems understanding math, physics and reality....<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </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.</DIV></p><p>I recall that you are not suppose to accuse anyone of insanity on this site but if MM actually believes he is 'winning' this debate, it is clear that he does not have any sort or grasp of reality!</p><p>So he has problems understanding math, physics and reality....<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I recall that you are not suppose to accuse anyone of insanity on this site but if MM actually believes he is 'winning' this debate, it is clear that he does not have any sort or grasp of reality!So he has problems understanding math, physics and reality.... <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>In other words you know you aren't suppossed to act like a child, but you can't help youself.</p><p>In "reality", magnetic field lines do not "reconnect", "disconnect" or do anything of the sort. In "reality', there is no mathematical justification for "magnetic nreonnection", only for "induction" and "circuit reconnection". In reality you haven't got a valid argument so you're engaging in pointless and childish behavior. </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'>In other words you know you aren't suppossed to act like a child, but you can't help youself.In "reality", magnetic field lines do not "reconnect", "disconnect" or do anything of the sort. In "reality', there is no mathematical justification for "magnetic nreonnection", only for "induction" and "circuit reconnection". In reality you haven't got a valid argument so you're engaging in pointless and childish behavior. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>In reality "reconnection" is simply a term being used by physicists to describe a particular phenomenon. It is a term being used in a specific technical sense, as are many terms in science and mathematics. The fact that this term does not agree with your uninformed impression as to what it should mean does make the term improper in a scientific context.</p><p>You seem to want to use the term circuit. Circuit theory is a lumped parameter approximation to certain aspects of electromagnetic field theory. It has a very specific meaning in both physics and electrical engineering. It applies only when discrete electrical elements are involved and when the physical dimensions of the circuit are small with respect to the wavelengths of the electromagnetic fields involved, i.e. at low frequencies. It is an approximation of dubious value in the context of a plasma. So if anyone is misusing terminology it is you. There are no wires in a plasma either, so circuit reconnection has no more intrinsic meaning than magnetic reconnection; in fact less.</p><p>The term induction can be used in connection with Faraday's law, one of Maxwell's equations. But most commonly the term is applied in the context of a lumped parameter circuit model. One can also talk about the connection between time varying magnetic fields and electric fields in other contexts. One of those contexts is called magnetic reconnection. Insomuch as the conditions under which magnetic reconnection is discussed involved distributed parameter systems described by partial differential equations rather than the ordinary differential equations (sorry to scare you with MATHEMATICS) the terminology of magnetic reconnection and the tie to Maxwell's partial differential equations is probably more appropriate. The important issues involve physics, so your continual redirection to matters of semantics is rather foolish.</p><p>Circuit theory is a useful tool in certain known circumstances. It is derivable from Maxwell's equations and that derivation is shown to all electrical engineers and physicists during their education. It provides useful analogies in the hands of someone who understands it. Alfven understood circuit theory. So do I. Apparently you do not.</p><p>Your scientific illiteracy is showing. Again.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Mod Hat On</p><p>Everyone please tone down sniping at each other. Thank you.</p><p>/Mod Hat Off </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In reality "reconnection" is simply a term being used by physicists to describe a particular phenomenon. </DIV></p><p>That phenonenon is related to "circuit reconnection" and "induction". The term "magnetic reconnection" is a pointless, self conflicted name for an already well understood aspect of plasma physics called "circuit reconnection."</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is a term being used in a specific technical sense, as are many terms in science and mathematics.</DIV></p><p>There has been no mathematical model presented for 'magnetic reconnection', just a mathematical model that describes "circuit reconnection" and "induction". Science requires a precise use of terms and nothing described by the math you have provided is related to, nor requires, any form of "magnetic reconnection". You might as well call it by it's proper name DrRocket, it's called "circuit reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact that this term does not agree with your uninformed impression as to what it should mean does make the term improper in a scientific context.</DIV></p><p>I am "informed" enough to know that "induction" and "circuit reconnection" are not "magnetic reconnection". You simply relabeled "circuit reconenction" and "induction" "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to want to use the term circuit.</DIV></p><p>That is it's *PROPER SCIENTIFIC NAME* in MHD theory! In science, language and the correct use of language is highly important.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Circuit theory is a lumped parameter approximation to certain aspects of electromagnetic field theory. It has a very specific meaning in both physics and electrical engineering. It applies only when discrete electrical elements are involved and when the physical dimensions of the circuit are small with respect to the wavelengths of the electromagnetic fields involved, i.e. at low frequencies. It is an approximation of dubious value in the context of a plasma.</DIV></p><p>What? That must be why Alfven used the term "circuit" *constantly* in MHD theory, right? He obviously didn't have a clue what he was talking about then, eh DrRocket? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So if anyone is misusing terminology it is you. </DIV></p><p>That is absurd! Induction is the proper name for induction. Circuit is the proper name for a circuit. Your mathematical models were based on "induction" and circuit reconnection. PERIOD. The terminology "magnetic reconnection" is ridiculous, because magnetic lines don't "reconnect" in nature, not ever. They are without beginning and without end. They can't reconnect! The whole description is based on two known MHD processes, circuit reconnection and induction.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are no wires in a plasma either,</DIV></p><p>I'm beginning to wonder if you know much if anything about plasma DrRocket. Plasma forms current carrying filaments that effectively act like "wires" to transport current from one area to another.. You can see them form in an ordinary plasma ball. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>so circuit reconnection has no more intrinsic meaning than magnetic reconnection; in fact less.</DIV></p><p>This has to be your single worst rationalization of all time DrRocket. The "intrinsic meaning" of magnetic fields is a field without beginning and without end. It can't "reconnect", so the intrinsic meaning of magnetism is contradicted by the term "reconnection". Talk about imprecise language! Circuits however are *known* to reconnect, disconnect and do the very thing you are describing in your math. There is no form of "magnetic reconnection" described in that math. All that is described is a circuit reonnection in plasma that induces an electric current in plasma. </p><p>The term "circuit reconnection" would have been a correct use of scientific terms. The term "magnetic reconnetion" is a scientific contradiction by it's very definition. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The term induction can be used in connection with Faraday's law, one of Maxwell's equations. But most commonly the term is applied in the context of a lumped parameter circuit model. </DIV></p><p>And that's all we have here, two circuits that "reconnect" that creates an induction process in plasma. So? It's not an example of "magnetic Bob", " "Magnetic Fred". or "Magnetic Reconnection". It's really just a simple circuit reconnection in the final analysis and the induction process is simply a function of the change in the circuit topology.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your scientific illiteracy is showing. Again. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It is scientifically illiterate to refer to "circuit reconnection" and "induction" as "magnetic reconnection". Magnetic fields do not and cannot "reconnect". The very phrase is a contradition in terms. It has no place in science, no place in MHD theory and no usefulness whatsoever. We could have slapped any label of the whole set of mathematical equations. The term "circuit reconnection" would have been scientifically accurate. The term "magnetic reconnection" was not. The electical circuits in the plasma are simply "reconnecting", changing their shape and generating induction currents. This is a standard and well explained phenomenon known as "circuit reconnection". Period.</p><p>This is probably the single best example I can think of to demonstrate the irrational bias ageinst EU theory in the mainstream. There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection". Only particles and circuits "reconnect". Magnetic field lines form as a whole continuum, without beginning and without end. They can't "reconnect". </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)</p><p>In the end, your whole arguement was shown to be a non-sequitur. The math describes "circuit reconnection" and "induction" and you are claiming that the cause was "magnetic reconnection". There is no correlation between your math and "magnetic reconnection". Nothing about the energy transfer process being described by that math is in any way related to "magnetic reconnection". It describes ordinary circuit reconnections in plasma and ordinary induction processes in plasma. You might as well have called the whole math formula: "DrRocket's magic new energy source". </p><p>I've painstakingly been through the papers you folks provided. In the end it was the math that ultimately killed your argument. The math describes a simple circuit reconnection process that generates an induction event in plasma. Period. No magnetic lines "reconnected" anytime during the entire process just like Alfven said over 30 years ago.</p><p>Evidently the mainsteam needs to read a bit more about MHD theory. They seem to not know the difference between "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>You really need to stop embarrasing yourself on the topic of MHD and EU theory and sit down and read "Cosmic Plasma". The title of chapter 3 is called "Circuits". Throughout the book he draws electrical circuits, just like any ordinary electrical circuit and then he explains how these circuits apply to plasma. When you say things like "Circuits don't belong in MHD theory", I start to wonder what you're going to think of these conversations once you've actually read Cosmic Plsama. I know you won't be pleased. </p><p>You yourself provided the mathematical model that brought the curtain down on 'magnetic reconnection'. It's simply a pointless and unnecssary relabeling of ordinary interactions in plasma caused by current flow and/or induction, just as Alfven said. If math is the be-all-end-all of physics as you claim then you no longer have a mathematical or physical leg to stand on. None of the lines of math used in these presentation is even remotely related to "magnetic reconnection", just "current flow" and "induction". Magnetic lines never "reconnect". Only circuits and particles "reconnect". Your math demonstrates this point rather conclusively DrRocket. Wake up and smell the mathematical coffee. </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>Essentially this has turned into a debate on semantics. I could argue all day about why planetary nebulae should not be called that, or any of the other poor names someone listed earlier. Whether they chose a poor name for the process or not, the process still occurs. If reconnection is the same thing as circuit reconnection, then if the reconnection models "failed to predict the sequence of events" as you keep saying, then, if they are one and the same, doesn't that show that circuit reconnection can't predict the events either? Now, I imagine you might say that they make invalid assumptions, but you said it yourself that the math foundation of the theory is nothing more than circuit reconnection and induction. Now, the point of the THEMIS paper was not to predict events, I am just following your line of thought for the sake of argument/clarification. I could call gravity "ground reconnection" if I wanted to, but the bottom line is, if I performed some experiments, my results would still be the same as they would have if I had called it by its "proper" name. It is the process, not the name, that is important. </p><p>So the question is: if magnetic reconnection as it is described by the mainstream is circuit reconnection combined with induction, which you argue are valid physical processes detailed by Alfven in his book, then why did the predictions fail? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Essentially this has turned into a debate on semantics. </DIV></p><p>Actually it's a debate about "physics" and the proper use of scientific language.</p><p>The "physics" behind this process is "circuit reconnection' and "induction" and has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetic reconnection. Magnetic field lines cannot and do not "reconnect". Only electricity and particles can "reconnect". These mathematical models are based on electrical circuit reconnection and induction. Calling it "Magnetic reconnection" is an improper use of scientific terms. Induction is not "magnetic reconnection". "Current flow redirection" is not magnetic reconnection. "Electrical circuit reconfiguration" is not "magnetic reconnection". It's not just about semantics, there is a confusion introduced by that particular label about the underlying physical processes going on. </p><p>Magnetic lines do not ever "reconnect". only particles and circuits can do that. From a physics perspective, *particles* and *circuits* are reconnecting, not magnetic field lines. The term magnetic reconnection is a horribly conflicted label from the very start because magnetic field lines never "reconnect" in nature. It's a contradiction in terms and it has no place in real physics. The magnetic field topology is changing because the "electrical circuits reconfigured themelves" and the flow patterns of particles changes over time. The magnetic field is just winding itself around the current flow and pinching it into tighly wound spircaling tornado like filaments. You can see these same filaments form in an ordinary plasma ball.</p><p>The motive force behind all these events is the kinetic energy in the current flow channels and the energy procuded from the larger circuits. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> if magnetic reconnection as it is described by the mainstream is circuit reconnection combined with induction, which you argue are valid physical processes detailed by Alfven in his book, then why did the predictions fail? <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>They failed because the bulk of the energy flow came from the heliosphere and flowed into the magnetotail and around the outside of the magnetopshere and into the aurora. The current flow was never generated locally in the first place. The energy came from the circuit flow changes, not from a localized "magnetic reconenction" process. As I recall their magnetic reconnection model "predicts" an energy release in the form of two "jet like" directional discharges of current. It was probably that directional oriented proess that caused them to botch the predictions. Energy isn't released in directional jets, it just "flows in" from the heliosphere.</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 it's a debate about "physics" and the proper use of scientific language.The "physics" behind this process is "circuit reconnection' and "induction" and has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetic reconnection. Magnetic field lines cannot and do not "reconnect". </DIV></p><p>Yes, but we've established that already. Nothing but the name itself claims lines disconnect/reconnect. If the math the theory is based on is induction/circuit/particle reconnection as you say it is, then how does it predict things such as jets which would not be predicted by a circuit model? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I recall their magnetic reconnection model "predicts" an energy release in the form of two "jet like" directional discharges of current. It was probably that directional oriented proess that caused them to botch the predictions. Energy isn't released in directional jets, it just "flows in" from the heliosphere. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>They identified the substorm onset as, quoting from the paper,</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The ground signatures of substorms consist of a rapid auroral intensification, a breakup of auroral forms into smaller filaments, a poleward expansion and a westward surge of the most intense auroral arcs.</DIV></p><p>This signature is what they would have been trying to predict, if they intended to predict anything. Substorms are divided into three phases: growth, onset, and recovery. Since the growth phase is very gradual, it is a little ambiguous to identify the storms based on this phase. They focused on the onset, which is the most easily identifiable part of the substorm. All of those things in the quote can be identified by using the AE index combined with irregular pulsations in the data(Pi2s). The paper identified a few storms using this technique, and then looked back at the conditions in the magnetotail prior to the onset. They found a relationship between what they believed to be reconnection, which would call circuit reconnection or whatever you want, and a following substorm onset. There was no prediction involved, only a search for a pattern. They found that reconnection, or as you'd say, circuit/particle reconnection, preceded substorm onset by a couple minutes. </p><p>I find your blanket statement of "energy isn't released in directional jets" questionable since energy is often seen in directional jets in a variety of physical circumstances. They used "intense dipolarization" as their interpretation of when reconnection occurs. This was observed by their satellites, they didn't just make it up. Whether it is reconnection or circuit reconnection shouldn't matter if they are the same model, as you claim. The fact is this signature preceded substorm onset in the cases they observed. The time it took from this signature to substorm onset is commensurate with the speed of the energetic particles in the magnetosphere(about 500 km/sec) to get to the probe location from the magnetotail. This would indicate that the source population of the substorm is likely the magnetotail. </p><p>The point I'm trying to make here, along with trying to clarify what exactly the THEMIS paper was all about because that still seems to be unclear, is that IF magnetic reconnection can be and is explained by circuit reconnection models, as you say it is based on the math, then they are essentially the same thing. This is what you have been arguing. If this were truly the case, then the fact that magnetic reconnection models can't predict substorm onset reliably yet means that circuit reconnection/induction models can't either. If you take this sentence out of context it seems like a leap, but you say they are the same thing, so it's really not. I don't necessarily agree that they are the same, but if they were, my argument would apply, and it makes me curious as to what your actual problem with reconnection is, aside from the name. Is it just that they seemingly don't give direct credit to Alfven(which they do all the time) or other EU theorists by calling it something they wouldn't? This is not a "snipe" attempt, to be clear, in reference to the mod post. I am genuinely confused as to what exactly you are trying to argue now. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, but we've established that already. Nothing but the name itself claims lines disconnect/reconnect. </DIV></p><p>But then it is a scientifically imprecise term, self conflicting and misleading. It's a simple circuit reconnection process in plasma. There is no "magnetic reconnection" occuring in these current sheet transactions. You have two circuits that ultimately "reconnect'. What's the point of calling "circuit reconnection", "magnetic reconnection"? Induction is simply a function of the topology changes in the changing circuits. The current flow is rerouted and therefore the topology of the magnetic field follows suit. There's nothing even remotely like "magnetic reconnection" happening in these events. These are standard electrical interactions in plasma. Calling it "magnetic reconnection" is even worse than calling "magnetic bob", because the term "magnetic bob" isn't self confllcted like "magnetic reconnection". There really isn't even any point in "hiding" the fact that this is a simply circuit reconnection. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the math the theory is based on is induction/circuit/particle reconnection as you say it is, then how does it predict things such as jets which would not be predicted by a circuit model?</DIV></p><p>It predicts "jets" in different ways. You might get "jets' from the tornado like filaments that form in plasma. It's not altogether clear that "jets' were involved in the THEMIS data, and in fact that could have been the very "prediction" that made their models invalid.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They identified the substorm onset as, quoting from the paper,</DIV></p><p>They just know it started in the tail. That is because the electrons flow from the heliosphere into the tail of the magnetosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This signature is what they would have been trying to predict, </DIV></p><p>The only 'signature' they are observing is a change in the circuits. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>if they intended to predict anything. </DIV></p><p>They predicted a sequence of events. Ignoring the part that it failed isn't helpful. Why did it fail? Was any enery really released in the way they describe? I don't know. I'm sure that the circuits changed their configuration based on their observations, but that's all I can be sure of.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Substorms are divided into three phases: growth, onset, and recovery. Since the growth phase is very gradual, it is a little ambiguous to identify the storms based on this phase. They focused on the onset, which is the most easily identifiable part of the substorm. All of those things in the quote can be identified by using the AE index combined with irregular pulsations in the data(Pi2s). The paper identified a few storms using this technique, and then looked back at the conditions in the magnetotail prior to the onset. They found a relationship between what they believed to be reconnection, which would call circuit reconnection or whatever you want, and a following substorm onset. </DIV></p><p>I would also "predict" a change in the magnetic field topology based on circuit reconnection. So what? These are *electrical* processes in plasma. They have nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection" even based on your own mathematical models. If there were any directional releases of charged particles, they didn't get far before being redirected into the larger circuits that flow into the aurora. Alfven's model accurately predicts the sequence of events, whereas these magnetic reconnection models bit the dust. The aurora is a "circuit". It is composed of flowing, moving charged particles. The solar wind is whipping by at over a million miles per hour. The whole thing is one big "electrical" process from beginning to end. The photosphere is relatively positively charged and it electrically interacts with the heliosphere which is in turn being bombarded by charged particles in the interstellar winds.</p><p>That is why solar wind particles accelerate as they leave the photosphere. That is why HE+2 is selectively favored over HE+! by 30 to 1. That is why coronal loops "discharge" through the photosphere, and that is why aurora light up around the Earth's poles. We live inside of an electric universe. These current channels "reconnect" from time to time, but magnetic field lines never "reconnect. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There was no prediction involved, only a search for a pattern. </DIV></p><p>The pattern that they predicted was not the flow pattern they observed. Why?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They found that reconnection, or as you'd say, circuit/particle reconnection, preceded substorm onset by a couple minutes. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and? I'm not quite sure that Birkeland would have "predicted" that based on his experiments (probably he could have). I'm certain that Alfven predicted that too. So what? Electrons only flow so fast and the magnetotail is pretty long. It would take awhile for the incoming electrons to flow up the outside of magnetophere and into the night side of the Earth to generate the Aurora. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I find your blanket statement of "energy isn't released in directional jets" questionable since energy is often seen in directional jets in a variety of physical circumstances. </DIV></p><p>Birkeland created directional jets in his lab using nothing but "current flow". We dont' need "magnetic reconnection" to explain "jets" in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They used "intense dipolarization" as their interpretation of when reconnection occurs. This was observed by their satellites, they didn't just make it up. </DIV></p><p>How in the world would it be any different if ciircuit flow changes were involved?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Whether it is reconnection or circuit reconnection shouldn't matter if they are the same model, as you claim. </DIV></p><p>I don't know that a simple flow of particles into the magnetotail is *necessarily* going to produce jets. Maybe it will, maybe not. If your model *predicts* that, then you must demonstrate it. I'm not sure it's even a requirement of simply current flow theory, so maybe that is a "useful prediction". Unfortunately it didn't help anyone explain the current flow patterns wherea Alfven's "circuit" model does. In my book that puts Alfven way ahead of the mainstream.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact is this signature preceded substorm onset in the cases they observed.</DIV></p><p>This "signature" you're looking at cannot be distinguished from ordinary electrical processes in plasma. Z-pinch filaments *are jets*. Electricity can certainly explain "jets" without any need for magnetic field lines to "Reconnect", so the prediction of "jets" would not necessarily imply "magnetic reconnection" was involved in any way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The time it took from this signature to substorm onset is commensurate with the speed of the energetic particles in the magnetosphere(about 500 km/sec) to get to the probe location from the magnetotail. This would indicate that the source population of the substorm is likely the magnetotail.</DIV></p><p>In other words, the electrons came in through the tail. Yes, EU theory predicts that too. That inflow of electrons is what accelates the protons, and helium ions toward the heliosphere. Alfven describes the whole interaction in terms "circuits" and uses the term "unipolar inductor" to descibe induction and it's effect on the whole circuit.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The point I'm trying to make here, along with trying to clarify what exactly the THEMIS paper was all about because that still seems to be unclear, is that IF magnetic reconnection can be and is explained by circuit reconnection models, as you say it is based on the math, then they are essentially the same thing. </DIV></p><p>No, they are not the same thing. One explanation "circuit reconnection" implies that particles and electrical circuits are "reconnecting' in the plasma. The other definition is claiming that some kind of "magnetic reconnection" is occuring in the plasma. There is no "magnetic reconnection" going on inside the plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is what you have been arguing. If this were truly the case, then the fact that magnetic reconnection models can't predict substorm onset reliably yet means that circuit reconnection/induction models can't either. </DIV></p><p>No, that's not what it means at all. It means that we have to look at the whole flow of energy in the circuit to understand where the electrons travel and how they get into the polar regions in the first place. This is why Alfven built extensive and complicated "circuit models' of the aurora to describe that energy flow process. His model does predict that the negative particles will be routed through the magnetospheric double layers, into the aurora, following a highly specific pattern. You can read his work on this topic anytime you wish. It's there in the public domain. His book Cosmic Plasma also describes the bigger "circuits" and how they are all wired together. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you take this sentence out of context it seems like a leap, but you say they are the same thing, so it's really not. I don't necessarily agree that they are the same, but if they were, my argument would apply, and it makes me curious as to what your actual problem with reconnection is, aside from the name. Is it just that they seemingly don't give direct credit to Alfven(which they do all the time) or other EU theorists by calling it something they wouldn't? This is not a "snipe" attempt, to be clear, in reference to the mod post. I am genuinely confused as to what exactly you are trying to argue now. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Now wait a moment. There is a physical and electrical process happening in these events that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection" and everything to do with "current flow' and "induction". At no pont do any magnetic fields ever "reconnect". This is a circuit reconnection process. This is perhaps an induction proces ,though personally I think it's going to be minor effect in all but CME type events. The whole thing however is driven by consistent and sustained "current flow', not by ''magnetic reconnection". To mislabel an electrical reconnection process "magnetic reconnection" is to stand Maxwell's equations on their head, and to ignore them outright. Magneitic fields can't "reconnect" in the first place so the very term is a self contradiction. These are not "magnetic reconnection" events. These are current flow events. Turn off the current and they all stop working. Of course Birkeland's "current flow" model described and simulated this process over 100 years ago in controlled conditions. When he turned of the power, the party was over. The only reason his experiments work, and the only thing your equations require is "current flow". </p><p>Science requires the precise use of language. These are simple circuit reconnect events that are already explained by Alfven and by EU theory. There is no point in mislabeling this event as "magnetifc reconnection" unless one is trying to claim they "discovered" something that Birkeland actually "predicted" over 100 years ago. </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>It seems to me that this debate was over the moment you all agreed that magnetic fields do not "reconnect". If they don't reconnect, then the next logical question is "What does reconnect in Maxwell's equations?" The obvious answer is "electrical current" of course. These models are in fact based upon the reconnection process of two electrical circuits. There is no mystery here and clearly it's "current flow" and "induction" that is producing all the motive kinetic energy from these equations. Everyone would probabably willingly admit all this if it were not for the fact that you happen to be on the wrong side of this debate.</p><p>The term "magnetic reconnection" is in conflict with important scientific terms and principles. Magnetic fields do not "reconnect". That is a very important scientific truth. Every student of electrical engineering is taught that magnetic fields have no beginning and no ending. It's a fundamental principle of electrical engineering. To then mislabel "circuit' reconnection as "magnetic reconnection" is to throw out the entire set of Maxwell's equations and to throw out electical engineering entirely. This term "magnetic reconnection" is pointless. It's self conflicted nonsense and it deserves no attention as Alfven first suggested. This is simple "circuit reconnection' followed by induction. </p><p>"Circuit reconnection" is perfectly congruent with Maxwell's equations, electrical engineering principles, particle physics *and* the math you actually provided. "Mangetic reconnection" is not. Case closed. </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 seems to me that this debate was over the moment you all agreed that magnetic fields do not "reconnect". If they don't reconnect, then the next logical question is "What does reconnect in Maxwell's equations?" The obvious answer is "electrical current" of course. These models are in fact based upon the reconnection process of two electrical circuits. There is no mystery here and clearly it's "current flow" and "induction" that is producing all the motive kinetic energy from these equations. Everyone would probabably willingly admit all this if it were not for the fact that you happen to be on the wrong side of this debate.The term "magnetic reconnection" is in conflict with important scientific terms and principles. Magnetic fields do not "reconnect". That is a very important scientific truth. Every student of electrical engineering is taught that magnetic fields have no beginning and no ending. It's a fundamental principle of electrical engineering. To then mislabel "circuit' reconnection as "magnetic reconnection" is to throw out the entire set of Maxwell's equations and to throw out electical engineering entirely. This term "magnetic reconnection" is pointless. It's self conflicted nonsense and it deserves no attention as Alfven first suggested. This is simple "circuit reconnection' followed by induction. "Circuit reconnection" is perfectly congruent with Maxwell's equations, electrical engineering principles, particle physics *and* the math you actually provided. "Mangetic reconnection" is not. Case closed. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Just where in your argument have you made a scientific or technical point ? You are cordially invited to actually use Maxwell's equations to prove your point, which appears to be entirely semantic.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I've shown from the math that these equations only relate to "induction' and "circuit reconnection". </p><p> This is ultimately a mislableing of "circuit reconnection". </p><p>I willingly grant you that the math you have provided does not violate Maxwell's equations, but it also has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection", just "circuit reconnection" and "induction".</p><p> It is in fact "circuit reconnection" and "induction", nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. </p><p>None of these papers, mathematical models and physical descriptions have anything at all to do with "magnetic reconnection", just "electrical circuit reconnection" and "induction". </p><p>Nothing about the energy transfer process being described by that math is in any way related to "magnetic reconnection". It describes ordinary circuit reconnections in plasma and ordinary induction processes in plasma. </p><p>None of the lines of math used in these presentation is even remotely related to "magnetic reconnection", just "current flow" and "induction". </p><p>That phenonenon is related to "circuit reconnection" and "induction". The term "magnetic reconnection" is a pointless, self conflicted name for an already well understood aspect of plasma physics called "circuit reconnection." </p><p>The term "circuit reconnection" would have been a correct use of scientific terms. The term "magnetic reconnetion" is a scientific contradiction by it's very definition.</p><p></DIV></p><p>OK, I think we've established that you think that the process we describe as magnetic reconnection is one and the same as circuit reconnection and induction. Now, compare those statements to these:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Alfven's model accurately predicts the sequence of events, whereas these magnetic reconnection models bit the dust.</p><p>No, they are not the same thing. </p><p>To mislabel an electrical reconnection process "magnetic reconnection" is to stand Maxwell's equations on their head, and to ignore them outright. </DIV></p><p>Notice any contradiction? You claim they are the exact same process yet then on the same page of the thread say they are not the same thing and that the process described as magnetic reconnection "stands Maxwell's equations on their head". All you are arguing about is the name now, and that's just silly. If they renamed it to circuit reconnection, it would still be exactly the same process that magnetic reconnection describes. Magnetic reconnection DOES NOT MEAN FIELD LINES SPLICE AND RECONNECT. We've defined what the mainstream means by magnetic reconnection, and you concluded it's nothing but circuit reconnection. If that is the case, the ONLY objection you can have is with the name, if you agree that circuit reconnection is commensurate with the laws of physics. You are criticizing a non-existant definition of reconnection. You said yourself in no uncertain terms that the math given as the FOUNDATION of magnetic reconnection is the SAME as circuit reconnection. So how can the processes be any different? </p><p>If Alfven's circuit models could be used to predict substorms, then why didn't he use them to do so? I have not read his book but I guarantee he did not do this. People have been trying to do this for countless years using a variety of different approaches and none of them have worked. All you're arguing about now is the fact that you think that by calling it magnetic reconnection the mainstream isn't giving any credit to Alfven et al. Even if he were being slighted in some way, which he isn't, this is utterly irrelevant. The physics is all that matters, and except for the name, the process is entirely valid. </p><p>The "mainstream" represented by DrRocket et al. has certainly not "lost" the debate in any way. You started out with objections to the physics involved and claimed the process called magnetic reconnection had no mathematical basis. Over the course of the thread you've completely changed stances to only having a problem with the name. So essentially you agree with the process, and disagree with the name. </p><p>If you don't b elieve you've said this, read the excerpts I've quoted. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just where in your argument have you made a scientific or technical point ? You are cordially invited to actually use Maxwell's equations to prove your point, which appears to be entirely semantic. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I just did that for you DrRocket. Where were you? I just demonstrated that not one single line of the math that you provided to support "magnetic reconnection" actually requires or describes any form of "magnetic reconnection". All it describes is "circuit reconnection" and "induction". If and when you can show me that Maxwell's equations allow for magnetic fields to "reconnect", you let me know. Until then it's pretty darn clear that this "label" we are assigning to this process is simple "circuit reconnection", not "magnetic reconnection". </p><p> This particular theory has to be the single most glaring example of the irrational nature of the bias toward EU theory in the industry of astronomy today. It seems that the mainsteam will do whatever it takes to keep "electricity' out of the discussion. Instead of using the correct scientific terms, they blatently mislabel the process of "circuit reconnection" as "magnetic reconnection". They do this in spite of the fact that magnetic fields never "reconnect" in the first place, and only circuits "reconnect" in electrical theory. </p><p> God forbid the mainstream should actually mention or publish anything about "circuits" or "electricity". We can't have that! Instead they made up a pointless, useless term that is ultimately a logical contradiction in terms. Magnetic reconnection has no valid mathematical foundation, and magnetic fields never "reconnect" in nature. </p><p>The only mathematical formulas you have presented involved "circuit reconnection' and "induction". Period. There is no form of magnetic reconnection that was either required or described by those mathematical formulas. Unlike so many other theories in astronomy, it's impossible to "fudge the numbers" of electromagnetism because we can emrpically "test' everything we claim in lab as it relates to electromantism. Particles and circuits "reconnect"". Magnetic fields do not. Its just that simple and your own mathematical models blew your whole argument out of the water there DrRocket. Your beloved math didn't describe "magnetic reconnection", just "circuit reconnection" and good old "induction". </p><p>This is defintely a fantastic example of anti-EU industry sentiments and peer pressure run amuck. There is no other logical explanation for the mainstream to call a simple "circuit reconnection", "magnetic reconnection". The only reason they do that is to keep from uttering the forbidden words....."electrical current". Sheesh. This industry is so transparent! </p><p>FYI, your denial routine is also transparent DrRocket. You just don't want to admit that magnetic reconnection is a myth and I was right all along. There is no unique energy transfer mechanism called "magnetic reconnection". It's just "circuit reconnection" and old fashion "induction". Period. You claim that math is king, but when your hat gets handed to you based on the math, you refuse to acknowledge it. Tsk Tsk. DrRocket.</p><p>I remind you again that the onus of responsibility falls to you to demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique and different form of energy release. I don't have to demonstrate anything. You just demontrated that it is *not* a unique form of energy release. It's just circuits and induction and standard things that already defined very well in MHD theory. There is no need for any new terms to describe "circuit reconnection" and "induction". They have perfectly good names (ones that are not self conflicting, and contruent with electrical theory) already. There is no need to rename "circuit reconnection" and/or induction anything else. Their names do them just already and represent a lot of what we already know about electromatism. Slapping another label of them is pointless. Slapping the label 'magnetic reconnection" is absurd because magnetic fields never "reconnect" and the math doesn't support the claim of magnetic reconnection in the first place.</p><p>The term "magnetic reconnection" is pseudo-physics as Wayne would so elequently put it. The real "physics" involves "circuits" and "induction". Magnetic reconnection and magnetic bob are irrational labels that have nothing whatsoever to do with the processes that the mathematical models describe. </p><p>As I said from the start, electricity and particles "reconnect". Magnetic fields never reconnect. The form a a full field, without beginning, and without end. They can't "reconnect". There is no way for them to "reconnect" in Maxwell's equations. Circuits certainly can and do "reconnect". Particles can collide in plasma. Magnetic fields never "reconnect" so the term is logical contradiction from the start. It's literally built around a logical fallacy called a "contradiction". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In classical logic, a <strong>contradiction</strong> consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other. </DIV><br /><br />Magnetic field have no beginning or ending. They can't "reconnect". It is therefore irrational to even use the term "reconnection" in combination with the term "magnetic". They are incompatible propositions. Either magnetic fields "reconnect" or they don't and they never do. Sticking those two terms in the same phrase is a logical contradiction in terms.</p><p>It may not be an oxymoron (though every time I use the term you can be sure that's what I really mean), but it certainly is a logical contradiction. Magnetic field lines don't "reconnect". </p><p>Logically you haven't got a leg to stand on. From a math and physics perspective, your arguement is toast. No magnetic field lines ever "reconnected" in your equations. Circuits reconnected in your math and induction was desribed by your math. Magnetic reconnection did not ever happen in any of those equations, or in the sum total of all those equations. The only thing you could logically label that mathematical model is "circuit reconnection". Magnetic reconnection is a myth.</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'> No magnetic field lines ever "reconnected" in your equations.</DIV></p><p>They didn't in our definitions, either. Again you are arguing against a definition of magnetic reconnection that noone believes or supports. Magnetic reconnection AS YOU DEFINE IT is certainly a myth. The true definition of it is certainly not a myth. Please stop telling us we are saying things we clearly aren't. I know you are talking specifically to DrRocket, but you are coming off as extremely insulting to the entire mainstream community, implying we believe some backwards definition of magnetic reconnection when it was demonstrated very clearly that no model claims field lines disconnect or reconnect. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, I think we've established that you think that the process we describe as magnetic reconnection is one and the same as circuit reconnection and induction. Now, compare those statements to these:Notice any contradiction? </DIV></p><p>There is no actual contradiction because Alfven explained *all of the circuits of the magnetosphere* not just (only) two of them in a basic current sheet transaction. He explained how the currents "flowed" through and into the magnetosphere, and he was not trying to "create" the entire current flow in the tail from induction. He (and Birkeland) assumed as I assume that the energy transfer process is continious and occassionally variable. A "surge" in the aurora is due to a surge in the amount of current running through the circuit. It's not as through he attempted to explain a whole magnetosphere based on one single transaction point, or one simple circuit. You'd have to read his whole book to see how he ultimately imbeds circuits within circuits withing circuits, but I can assure you that more than two are involved in this process.</p><p>The is no logical contradiction. I simply noted that the model you provided describes "circuit reconnection" and "induction", nothing more. While none of them violated Maxwell's equations, none of them required or desribed any form of "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Alfven's model of a magnetosphere is actually quite complicated. You will have to know a little bit about EU theory to understand it. Alfven's your best choice of material on this topic. He desribes and explains the various circuits and how they wall work together. It's not necessarily a "simple" model, but it's well defined and well explained by Alfven. There are certainly more than just two circuits to consider, and he does not presume that all the current flow is generated by induction in the tail. Rather he assumes as Birkeland assumed that the heliosphere is bombarded with electrons and that the flow of energy through the sun is constant. The overall current flow is "variable" and these variations show up in the aurora.</p><p>I think you're under the impression that Alfven used exactly this same explanation to explain the "current flow" in magnetospheric activity. That isn't the case. </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>/Mod Hat On</p><p>Attention please: </p><p>You've all bickered about the proper term to utilize, and both sides make some worthy points, but enough is enough. </p><p>"Magnetic Reconnection." This is the term used by researchers within the fields of High Energy Physics, Astrophysics, and Magnetohydrodynamics, so you'll just have to understand it's a misleading term, but go from there. That's what the poster (sorry, don't remember who - Dereck?) noted when they pointed out numerous misleading terminology currently in use - which few if any complain about. "Black Hole," "Neutron Star," etc. So it goes here. (Michael, I am not taking sides here, merely bowing to the realities. Doc, I am not per se agreeing or disagreeing with you, just trying to end this deadlock)</p><p>Otherwise, you're all going to take a fairly worthy thread within a hard science forum, and turn it into something from a bad day at "Free Space" at the old Uplink. That ain't going to happen, trust me, as I will lock this thread in a heartbeat if endless bickering continues.</p><p>I am generally not a hard-ass about these sorts of things, but this has been a bad day, and I am in no mood to spend hours watching a train wreck in progress over a semantical nuance. </p><p>Of course, the standard disclaimer, "if you disagree with this Moderator decision or this action, please feel free to utilize the 'Contact Us' link at the bottom of this page."</p><p>Thank you.</p><p>/Mod Hat Off </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you're under the impression that Alfven used exactly this same explanation to explain the "current flow" in magnetospheric activity. That isn't the case. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That is because you are giving this impression by saying Alfven did just that, created a model based on circuit reconnection and the like that is identical to what we have presented as magnetic reconnection. I understand that EU is complicated, but so is reconnection, and you are not taking the real definition into consideration. You are only commenting on a completely wrong definition that nobody supports or believes. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>/Mod Hat OnAttention please: You've all bickered about the proper term to utilize, and both sides make some worthy points, but enough is enough. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>The "proper term" doesn't matter. All I've been trying to do(I swear I've said this at least 10 times) is get mozina to stop addressing his own definition of reconnection(the cutting and splicing of field lines), because none of us are saying that or supporting that definition. I even quoted a paper that specifically addressed how that is NOT the case. I don't mean to point fingers but there is only one person arguing semantics...I am trying to get beyond that and go back to addressing the actual process. But that cannot happen if we are talking about two entirely different definitions of magnetic reconnection. It should be painfully clear now what the mainstream's definition of reconnection is. And it is NOT the cutting and splicing of field lines or the reconnection of field lines. I understand you aren't taking sides and should remain neutral, but surely you can understand some of my frustration. From now on I will not respond to any of Mozina's posts that deal entirely with semantics(basically the like of what has been posted the past 2-3 pages). </p><p>vvv That's exactly what I'm talking about. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They didn't in our definitions, either. Again you are arguing against a definition of magnetic reconnection that noone believes or supports.</DIV></p><p>Ultimately you believe in "circuit reconnection" and "induction". That is demonstrated in the equations you provided. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Magnetic reconnection AS YOU DEFINE IT is certainly a myth. </DIV></p><p>No, because I never defined it, nor do I believe in it. It is a myth that magentic fields reconnect, and it is a myth that any equations presented describe "magnetic reconnection". They describe "circuit reconnection" and "induction". Slapping another irrelevant label on this process is pointless. Adding the term "reconnection' to "magnetic" is what created the myth. You can't blame me for the use of terms because I didn't create them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The true definition of it is certainly not a myth. </DIV></p><p>It is a myth that the "true definition" that you have provided either require or describe "magnetic reconnection". The only thing that "reconnected' were the two circuits you started with. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please stop telling us we are saying things we clearly aren't.</DIV></p><p>Please stop calling circuit reconnection "magnetic reconnection" and I'll be happy to let it go. As it stands now, every time I hear the phrase "magnetic reconnection" it sounds like someone running their fingersnails down a chalkboard. These mathematical equations do not describe any such thing! This is a simple change in circuit configuration, not magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know you are talking specifically to DrRocket, but you are coming off as extremely insulting to the entire mainstream community, implying we believe some backwards definition of magnetic reconnection when it was demonstrated very clearly that no model claims field lines disconnect or reconnect. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>You do believe something "backwards". Circuits reconnect. Magnetic fields do not. How can I convey that problem and not come off as "insulting" to the mainstream? I'd really love to figure out a way to bridge our differences, and it's not my fault that you have things backwards. Since we're basing all these theories on Maxwell's equations, there are only really two things that could "reconnect" because only two things are described in his equations. Magnetic fields have no beginning and no end. Magnetic fields cannot "reconnect". That would violate the tenets of equations. that require that the magnetic fields be a full and whole continuum at all times. That leaves us with only one logical possibility to explain "reconnection" and that is "circuits". Circuits can indeed "reconnect". It is therefore proper to call this process "circuit reconnection", but it is not rational or logical to call it "magnetic reconnection" because that never happens in nature or in Maxwell's equations. </p><p>I can't even think of another way to make this more obvious. It seems to me like the mathematical evidence was more than enough to make my point. Those lines of math relate only to "induction" (not magnetic reconnection) and "circuit reconnection" (also not magnetic reconnection). No forms of "magnetic reconnection" are described by these formulas. You haven't got a mathematical or physical leg to stand on and your term is conflicted from the start. I don't know how I could make a stronger case than the one I've made. The PPPL "experiment" required current flow to sustain the reaction. The reaction was due to a changes in the electric field, not due to "magnetic reconnection". Just turn off the power and unplug the equipment and I guarantee you there will be no "magnetic reconnection" observed in that experiment. I identied the error in their "interpretation" and I identiied the line of math where the error was introduced(16). I also showed where your mathematical model introduced "induction (1.4). </p><p>As the saying goes, you can only lead a horse to water, you can't make them drink. In this case the water is an electrical circuit and you will have to decide if you're going to drink. </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> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 178
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
Question Educating Space to Toddlers to Pre-Adolescence?
- Started by NeoViking
- Replies: 11
-
Europe's Hera asteroid probe heads for Mars after engine burn
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram