<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Arguments over credentials are simply ridiculous. The debate is over science, not credentials. </DIV></p><p>On this point we actually agree. Truth is not related to credentials, nor can we guage the validity of anyone's scientific argument based on their credentials. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Odd. I've never seen magical elves mentioned in any scientific papers that I have ever read. Could you explain why you constantly refer to them.Of course, this is a rhetorical question. It's really a silly analogy that has no bearing on the topic at hand. I think it really shows a weakness in your argument every time you use it. It seems like everytime you don't understand something that doesn't fall within your vision of what physics are, you fall back on this argument. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Monopoles are just as weak of an argument Derek, in fact more so. There are not any references at all to monopoles (or elves) in Maxwell's equations. In fact Gauss's law of magnetism insists that all magnetic fields are always and only *dipole* fields, without beginning and without end. There is no such thing as a "monopole" magnetic field. That's the point. You can't just "conjour up" a monopole on a whim and try to stuff it into Maxwell's equations! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And yet when we started this conversation you had not read a single one of Alfven's books. Even to this day you still haven't read his later book on plasma cosmology theory. What kind of education is that consider the universe is mostly made of plasma and Alfven literally wrote the book on MHD theory and plasma cosmology theory? When the cirruculum skips the work of the Nobel Prize winning scientists, I start to wonder.Er, except when I point out where Preist invokes monopoles in his equations you give him a great be free pass and start rationalizing his use of monopoles in his presentation. You seem to simply *ignore* the parts that you don't like. I literally showed you that I was right and that at least one definition of "magnetic reconnection" violates Maxwell's equations, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism that treats all magnetic fields as *DIPOLE* fields. Even when I demonstrate my points in the equations themselves, you simply ignore them entirely. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Have you read the books on reconnection? It is clear that you have not since you STILL don't know what reconnection is. The curriculum certainly does not skip over Alfven's work. Have you noticed that a large number of physical parameters in plasma physics have his name in them? Mainstream work is constantly referring to his work. Also, you act as if Alfven is the only "worthy" Nobel prize winning scientist. I read his papers and I do not agree he would agree with your version of the "electric universe". He did say field lines cannot be cut and spliced back together in plasma and this is true, but we have covered that that is not the definition of magnetic reconnection at least 10 times. </p><p>You are either not reading our posts any more or you are just covering your ears and shouting nonsense at us. The monopoles were not "evoked"(INVOKED), they were mentioned. Consider that often people make the analogy of waves propagating as ripples would in water. The waves they are talking about are certainly not water or have anything to do with water, but it still describes the physics. I am convinced that even if Priest never mentioned the term "monopole"(and thats ALL he did), you would still conjure something that "prevents" you from "converting" Priest's paper. If you keep refusing to listen to what people are saying and keep insisting your uninformed, illogical interpretation of that equation is correct, the moderators will most likely threaten to close the thread again. I am convinced now that this is what you want. You have realized that when you actually try to do a real derivation(which to your credit, you at least tried) with your version of the theory and hit a roadblock and want a way out. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you start rambling about elves(which is an utterly stupid analogy by the way...elves do not exist in theoretical physics and have no equations describing how physics would behave if they existed...monopoles do) and showing us how closed-minded you truly are. </p><p> You call us narrow-minded but instead of reading our posts and taking them into consideration, you take sentences out of context and become a broken record. This is why EU theory will never be considered relevant or important to the mainstream. When it comes to real discussion you use the same tired tactics that conspiracy theorists and other crackpots use: claim you have all the answers but refuse to "give" us them since we are "they", part of "the system", and we couldn't possibly understand. While you do this you attack our credentials and try to portray us as fools(you claim to understand the universe far better than any astrophysicist)...obviously, based on that girl's brown-nosing post, your argument style works on some. But I think...no, I KNOW, you won't get any attention from the mainstream if you continue as such. All you are concerned with is critiques. You think if you can prove Priest's paper wrong, it will prove your theory correct. Even if you could do that, which it is clear that you can't, that's not the way it works. </p><p>There are no papers dealing with EU theory because when given a rigorous scientific treatment, it simply does not work. Electricity is not a forbidden topic in astronomy, and to say that shows that you have been ignoring, intentionally or unintentionally, the vast amount of published work concerning electricity. YOUR version of electricity as it pertains to astronomy IS the forbidden topic because it does not work. After how many failed attempts at papers proving what you believe in will you give up and realize you might be wrong? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll assume that by equating monopoles to invisible elves, you are still stuck on the particle aspect of monopoles. </DIV></p><p>No, I'm stuck on Gauss's law and the fact that all magnetic fields are dipole fields. You keep ignoring this point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Obviously, you haven't done any quality research.</DIV></p><p>Ya, actually I have. I've even shown you where Priest violated Maxwell's equations by introducing monopoles, a concept that directly violates the laws of physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If your intention is to write a paper for publication, it would behoove you to do your own research to try to understand the meaning behind his use of the "term" (not particle) monopole. </DIV></p><p>There are no monopole "fields" in nature Derek. I can't make excuses for Priest's behavior on this point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are not going to make any progress until you get rid of this notion that Priest "invoked" the need for a monopole particle. </DIV></p><p>I think "monopole field" would have probably be closer to the idea than a "particle". If I used the term "particle", my bad. Monopoles do not exist in nature however, and no magnetic field contains "monopoles" </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Don't you think you are being a bit hypocritical concerning Gauss' law for magnetism? Throughout this entire thread you argue against math being a description of reality in certain (if not many) cases. </DIV></p><p>When did it attempt to suggest that any "laws" of physics were wrong? Laws of physics that can be shown to be valid in controlled experimentation are not something I take lightly. In fact that is why I'm drawn to EU theory in the first place because it's core tenets can be demonstrated in emprical experimentation. I think it's highly dubious of you folks to simply be ignoring known laws of physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, when the tables are turned on you, you are insistent that the math is "law" and can not be touched.</DIV></p><p>No, I said that laws of nature trump math alone and laws that can be shown to be true in controlled experimentation have value. I see no evidence that monopoles exist in nature or that magnetic fields are anything other than dipole fields. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If monopoles are ever found to be a reality, the formula simply gets adjusted and will be just as valid in describing the reality that we exist in as it ever did.</DIV></p><p>When then happens, you let me know. Until that time, there is no point in refering to monopoles because they don't exist in nature or in Maxwell's equations, hence my elf comparison.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But, alas... the only one talking about magnetic monopole 'particles' is you. I can't imagine electrical engineers using monopoles either. Why would they? </DIV></p><p>They would not. They know that magnetic fields are dipole fields. They also know that magnetic fields don't "reconnect", "disconnect" or do anything other then form dipole fields without beginning or end.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Monopoles (as in particles) are generally found being described in quantum physics and astrophysics.</DIV></p><p>They aren't *found* anywhere. They are indeed described by astronomers, but then there is never any consistency in the way they are described. Guth for instance described them as not existing in any real quantity due to "inflation". Priest is trying to suggest they exist in ordinary plasma interactions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do think electrical engineers deal with point charges in the electrical field which is analogous to magnetic monopoles.</DIV></p><p>No, a "point charge" is not a magnetic monopole. Your're reaching.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's really just a description of quantized charges.</DIV></p><p>So it's just an electron or a proton or a charged particle of some kind? Why didn't he just say that?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Considering Priest is not referring to the same thing you are, this whole argument is a non-sequitur. </DIV></p><p>The fact he even used monopoles in his equations is a non-sequitur. They don't exist in Maxwell's equations or in plasma. Electrons and protons however do exist in nature and they do in fact "reconnect".</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, I'll address it anyway. I don't believe Guth made such a claim. </DIV></p><p>Um, where have you been? For 25 years Guth has used that argument to support his concept of inflation. The two "bid deals" he used to support inflation was a lack of monopoles in nature and a homogenous distribution of matter. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe inflation allows for magnetic monopoles to have been create prior to inflation. After inflation, though, the density of magnetic monopoles are at such a level that they may be undetectable. </DIV></p><p>Yet they have some effect on ordinary plasma interactions (except in the lab of course)?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Statistically speaking, they exist under inflation, but Guth is essentially saying good luck finding them. </DIV></p><p>Where's Priest is using them to describe ordinary plasma interactions inside our solar system?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could be wrong, but that how I interpret and understand it.</DIV></p><p>You're wrong. 
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Huh? My attitude is disturbing? Not sure how you figure that. I've heard the term "whistling dixie" but I don't really know what it means.</DIV></p><p>It means you're fighting a losing battle. You've argued Priest's use of monopoles in two different ways. First you suggest he didn't really mean to use monopoles, and you also seem to think monopoles may exist. One argument here is unncessary. If he didn't use the term monopole (which he did) or at least didn't mean to suggest that monopoles exist, then there is no reason for you to argue that monopoles may exist. If he did attempt to use them in his math (which he did), then it becomes beholden on you to show they do exist. One of your approaches here is pointless. Either he used them (which he did) or they don't exist in nature, but there's no point in arguing the problem both ways. It actually makes you look a bit desparate because you can't seem to make up your mind from my perspective. You seem to not be sure if you should be defending the existence of monopoles or "rationalizing" what Preist really meant by the term.</p><p>The bottom line here Derek is that all magnetic fields are dipole fields without beginning and without end. Monopoles do not exist. They violate the laws of physics. Using them in math formulas takes us outside the realm of physics and into the realm of fantasy. </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'>Huh? My attitude is disturbing? Not sure how you figure that. I've heard the term "whistling dixie" but I don't really know what it means.</DIV></p><p>It means you're fighting a losing battle. You've argued Priest's use of monopoles in two different ways. First you suggest he didn't really mean to use monopoles, and you also seem to think monopoles may exist. One argument here is unncessary. If he didn't use the term monopole (which he did) or at least didn't mean to suggest that monopoles exist, then there is no reason for you to argue that monopoles may exist. If he did attempt to use them in his math (which he did), then it becomes beholden on you to show they do exist. One of your approaches here is pointless. Either he used them (which he did) or they don't exist in nature, but there's no point in arguing the problem both ways. It actually makes you look a bit desparate because you can't seem to make up your mind from my perspective. You seem to not be sure if you should be defending the existence of monopoles or "rationalizing" what Preist really meant by the term.</p><p>The bottom line here Derek is that all magnetic fields are dipole fields without beginning and without end. Monopoles do not exist. They violate the laws of physics. Using them in math formulas takes us outside the realm of physics and into the realm of fantasy. </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'>Have you read the books on reconnection?</DIV></p><p>Um, no. I explained to you that I have a lot going on at work right now, and I don't get paid to sit around all day and read endless volumes of material on any particular topic. I have read the mathematical presentations you have provided however to support the idea, and monopoles sort of killed Priest's presentation. Did you ever read any of Alfven's books?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is clear that you have not since you STILL don't know what reconnection is.</DIV></p><p>I do know what "reconnection" is as it relates to plasmag. It is a particle physics process that involves "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection". It has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic fields form without beginning and without ending and they don't disconnect or reconnect. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The curriculum certainly does not skip over Alfven's work. </DIV></p><p>I have literally asked dozens of astronomers I've met if they have read any of Alfven's books. To my knowledge only DrRocket has ever read even one of them, and only his oldest book and only *after* I complained about the fact he had not read any of the perpetent material. Which of Alfven's books are required reading in your cirriculum? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you noticed that a large number of physical parameters in plasma physics have his name in them? </DIV></p><p>Ya, I also see them try to attach his name to that magnetic reconnection theory too even though he vehimently denied magnetic reconnection occured in plasma, and Alfven was one of it's biggest critics. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mainstream work is constantly referring to his work. </DIV></p><p>Yet the mainstram publications refuse to print anything that is remotely related to his cosmology theories. Why?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, you act as if Alfven is the only "worthy" Nobel prize winning scientist.</DIV></p><p>No, but he did write the book on MHD theory and he was awarded a Nobel Prize for his efforts. He also mathematically quantified plasma cosmology/EU theory. If you want to understand MHD theory and/or plasma cosmology theory, it only makes sense that one would start with his work and understand these plasma theories as he described it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I read his papers and I do not agree he would agree with your version of the "electric universe".</DIV></p><p>That's only because you've obviously never read "Cosmic Plasma". If you had done so, you would not make that claim. He's the one that turned me on to monopolar induction and the pitfalls of magnetic reconnection theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> He did say field lines cannot be cut and spliced back together in plasma and this is true, but we have covered that that is not the definition of magnetic reconnection at least 10 times. </DIV></p><p>The why call it "magnetic reconnection" if it is simple circuit reconnection and induction? Why would the mainstream consciously choose that label when the term itself violates the tenets of Maxwell's equations? Talk about confusing labels. I'm trying to argue for consistency in labeling accross all fields of science.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are either not reading our posts any more or you are just covering your ears and shouting nonsense at us. </DIV></p><p>Your position seems irrational from my perspective. If magnetic fields are not 'disconnecting" and "reconnecting", why call it "magnetic reconnection" at all? Why not just call it circuit reconnection like it's called in MHD theory and in electrical theory? Why call it something it is not?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The monopoles were not "evoked"(INVOKED), they were mentioned. </DIV></p><p>They were "mentioned" and USED in equations that were supposed to be based on Maxwell's equations. You can't do that! Guass's law of magnetism expressly forbids it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Consider that often people make the analogy of waves propagating as ripples would in water. The waves they are talking about are certainly not water or have anything to do with water, but it still describes the physics. </DIV></p><p>If you tried to use monopoles to show how they influenced the waves, the I'd have exactly the same complaint I have with Preist's preseentation. The physics of what's going on has nothing to do with "monopoles" because they don't exist in nature and they have no effect on the physics in question.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am convinced that even if Priest never mentioned the term "monopole"(and thats ALL he did), you would still conjure something that "prevents" you from "converting" Priest's paper. </DIV></p><p>Actually I would have loved to convert his paper. It has really great diagrams that would have really made this a slam dunk process, and he mathematical presentation seemed very good until I reached the equation in question where the reconnection process was presumably occuring. The setup part was going fine. When I got to the "magic math", the whole thing went to hell in a handbasket. I was really disappointed and stunned that he introduced the notion of "monopoles". Even at first glance I realized it violated Gauss's law and it prevented me from "intellectually honestly" trying to claim my conversion of his math was based on real physics, since his own presentation was not. The more I looked at that line and tried to make sense of it, the more I realized I was wasting my time. Believe me, I was bumbed. I think I actually had a shot at converting his presentation till we got to that line.</p><p>The fact he invoked monopoles in his math was quite a significan.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you keep refusing to listen to what people are saying and keep insisting your uninformed, illogical interpretation of that equation is correct,</DIV></p><p>Woah. I am making very informed choices here based on KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS. Monopoles are expressly forbidden in Gauss's law, and Preist used that very term in his presentation. I am no misrepresenting this circuit reconnection and particle reconnection process. IMO you are misrepresenting a circuit reconnection process as "magnetic reconnection" and we all know magnetic fields don't "disconnect" and reconnect. I have expressly stated that I cannot make heads of tails of his equations because they defy the laws of physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the moderators will most likely threaten to close the thread again. </DIV></p><p>I have a lot of faith in this crew of moderators to do the "right thing". As long as we stay on topic (why is electricity the forbidden topic of astronomy?), I see no reason for them to do that. Obviously this issue is at the heart of that debate. IMO the term "magnetic reconnection" is explicitly intended to hide the fact that electricical circuits "reconnect" in space. It's intended to be confusing and it works. You're defending the idea for instance, but you seem to have no realization that you are actually defending EU theory and "circuit reconnection" in the final analysis. </p><p>As long as we remain civil and professional, I see no reason to close this thread or any thread and obvously they feel that way because this thread has been active for many many months. I've enjoyed the entire thread, including this part of discussion. I think others have found it to be informative as well. I see no point in closing an interesting and informatiive thread.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am convinced now that this is what you want.</DIV></p><p>I assure you that you are dead wrong on that point. I would be quite "bumbed" in fact if they were to close this thread. I've put a lot of time and effort into this thread.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have realized that when you actually try to do a real derivation(which to your credit, you at least tried) with your version of the theory and hit a roadblock and want a way out. </DIV></p><p>It wasn't just a road block from my perspective, it was a "brick wall". It's not like I wanted him to use monopoles in his presentation. I wasn't happy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But instead of admitting you were wrong, </DIV></p><p>Wrong about what? He used the term "monopole" didn't he? How is that my fault? At best case it was absolutely terribly sloppy terminology which should have been picked up in peer review and at worst case he's way outside the realm of physics. How is that my fault?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you start rambling about elves(which is an utterly stupid analogy by the way...elves do not exist in theoretical physics and have no equations describing how physics would behave if they existed...monopoles do)</DIV></p><p>The fact you stick equation on your word "monopole" is irrelevent. They don't exist. There is no emprical evidence that they will ever be found to exist in nature. All magnetic fields are dipole fields. There are no monopolar magnetic fields. They don't exist in nature. The fact you slap some math to the idea doesn't make it any better.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and showing us how closed-minded you truly are. </DIV></p><p>I am simply trying to open your mind up to the fact that Maxwell's equations do not include monopoles so invoking them in Maxwell's equations is irrational, just as it would be irrational were I to invoke elves in my converted set of equations. There would be no justification for me to use elves in my mathematical preseentation any more than there is justification for using monopoles in Priest's presentation. In fact, elves don't violate the tenets of Maxwell's equations that treat magnetic fields as dipoles, whereas monopoles are a clear violation of the spirit of the laws that govern Maxwell's equations. Opening one's mind means that we both listen and respond to each other.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You call us narrow-minded but instead of reading our posts and taking them into consideration, you take sentences out of context and become a broken record. </DIV></p><p>Actually, I can't help the fact that Priest threw a monkey wrench into my mathematical conversion. I can't just "let it go" because I can't logically convert monopoles to E or j. I can and will read Hesse, Schidler and Birn's presentation to see what I might be able to salvage from what I"ve already written. I can't help the fact that you wont acknowledge that Priest made a serious error in his presentation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is why EU theory will never be considered relevant or important to the mainstream.</DIV></p><p>People use to believe that Earth was the center of the universe, and I'm sure that there were "mainstreamers" that lived and died an never accepted a heliocentric view of the univese. I can't change that. EU theory however will replace most of what we now call "astronomy", particularly inside this solar system where everthing is "testable' and even real "experimentation" is possible. It's really just a matter of time IMO, not a matter of "if". Mainstreamers preferred Chapman's theories over Birkeland's theories for 70 years, to no avail. In the end Birkieland's ideas won the dabate because they were based on emrpical experimentation, not math alone. It may take another 70 years before EU theory replaces mainstream theory as the dominant theory of astronomy, but it is defintely going to happen and probably in my lifetime. Our technology is making it impossible to remain ignorant of the universe forever.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When it comes to real discussion you use the same tired tactics that conspiracy theorists and other crackpots use: claim you have all the answers but refuse to "give" us them since we are "they", part of "the system", and we couldn't possibly understand.</DIV></p><p>What? What are you talking about? I pointed out the exact equation where Priest evoked monopoles and I showed you exactly why *law* of physics this violated. I think you're confusing genuine scientific criticism with something entirely unrelated to the problem at hand. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While you do this you attack our credentials and try to portray us as fools(you claim to understand the universe far better than any astrophysicist)...obviously, based on that girl's brown-nosing post, your argument style works on some. </DIV></p><p>First of all, I have never attacked anyone's "credentials" in cyberspace. Creditials have nothing to do with being right or being wrong and anyone can be wrong about a given topic, even one they fancy themselves as correct about. Anyone can be wrong about something, regardless of their intelligence and regardless of their level of education. Colesakick's comment about human ego and the effect it's having on this conversation is however quite valid IMO. It's easy for an amateur like me to "change my opinion" about something because my livelihood and my professional reputation are not at stake. Not everyone in your industry has that luxury, and ego and reputation do have an influence. As it relates to colesakick's post, I was simply gratified to see that I'm not the only way to see the problems with mainstream theory and that someone actually agrees with me. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But I think...no, I KNOW, you won't get any attention from the mainstream if you continue as such. </DIV></p><p>I'm a realist. I don't expect that I'm personally going to change the world, and Birkeland beat me to "figuring it out" by over 100 years, so there's no ego attachment on my part to even being right in the final analysis, including the solar presentation by the way. The only reason that EU theory is going to "get attention" is because we live inside of an electric universe, and even the mainstream cannot deny it forever. I'm just hoping to move the process along a wee bit faster and do my part in the name of science and scientific progress.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All you are concerned with is critiques. </DIV></p><p>No, I'm concerned with facts. Factually speaking, monopoles have never been shown to exist.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You think if you can prove Priest's paper wrong, it will prove your theory correct. </DIV></p><p>Actually, my presentation was predicated upon Priest's definition of magnetic reconnection being correct and being based on Maxwell's equations. I was quite bumbed when I read the monople comment. I'd already put in quite a bit of time. The only way I can show I'm right mathematically is to succussfully translate B into E based on actual equations that everyone can follow. Nobody can follow monopoles. That is why I'm currently more interested in the presentation by Hesse, Schindler and Birn at this point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even if you could do that, which it is clear that you can't, that's not the way it works. There are no papers dealing with EU theory because when given a rigorous scientific treatment, it simply does not work. </DIV></p><p>If you had read through Birkeland's experiments with terellas in a sphere, you would know that it *does work*, and it works in a lab in controlled experimentation and rigorous scientific scrutity. Nobody has ever made auroras around spheres in a vacuum using "magnetic reconnection" as the energy source. You have things exactly backwards.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Electricity is not a forbidden topic in astronomy,and to say that shows that you have been ignoring, intentionally or unintentionally, the vast amount of published work concerning electricity.</DIV></p><p>Then kindly show me one paper from Science magazine or from the APJ published in the last 5 years that is supportive of EU theory and Alfven's views about the universe.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>YOUR version of electricity as it pertains to astronomy IS the forbidden topic because it does not work. </DIV></p><p>My version of astronomy is the only one that is actually "lab tested". Again, you have this backwards. Birkeland showed that it worked in emprical experimention. Alfven explained things from a "big picture" perspective. It does work becuase it's based strictly on physics and emprical testing whenever and whereaver possible.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After how many failed attempts at papers proving what you believe in will you give up and realize you might be wrong? <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Wrong about which topic exactly? When you can show me that you can duplicate Birkeland's work with "magnetic reconnection" as the power source, I'll be happy to admit I might be wrong. When might you be willing to admit that Birkeland might have been right all along? </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'>Oh god, now there's two of them? New guy, you bring up Michael's credentials...OK, he published a few papers. It is more than I have done(though, in my defense I am at a much earlier stage in my career and my work has been used for many successful proposals already before it has been published), but in the scope of things, it isn't that much and it certainly doesn't mean we should assume he is correct at face value without needing justification. Maybe if Alfven was on these boards saying all this, then you'd have a point. </DIV></p><p>I agree with you and DrRocket that credentials are not any valid indicator of "truthiness". On the other hand I've already quoted Alfven's criticism of magnetic reconnection theory and handed you folks papers from him on this topic. It's clear that he was just as big of a critic of magnetic reconnection theory as I am. If anyone has the credentials to sway you, it should be Alfven, not me. It he was alive today, I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you that magnetic reconnection is a misrepresentation of circuit and particle "reconnection". I'm equally certainly he would have skoffed at and rebuked Priest's introduction of monopoles into Maxwell's equations because Aflven was an electrical engineer by trade. He always treated magnetic fields as a full dipole field without beginnng, without ending, and without reconnecting. </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 have completely ignored yevaud's request and are now back to saying the "mislabeling" of reconnection is your main issue. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your position seems irrational from my perspective. If magnetic fields are not 'disconnecting" and "reconnecting", why call it "magnetic reconnection" at all? Why not just call it circuit reconnection like it's called in MHD theory and in electrical theory? Why call it something it is not?</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The why call it "magnetic reconnection" if it is simple circuit reconnection and induction? Why would the mainstream consciously choose that label when the term itself violates the tenets of Maxwell's equations? Talk about confusing labels. I'm trying to argue for consistency in labeling accross all fields of science.</DIV></p><p>These arguments are NOTHING but semantics. If this is true, SHOW US. Birkeland's experiments were fine. Birkeland's experiments worked. But to say they disprove magnetic reconnection is an extreme stretch. Reconnection's role in aurorae is still not well understood. The THEMIS paper was saying there MIGHT be a link between the two events, based on a correlation they observed. Perhaps reconnection isn't the source of aurorae. That is irrelevant when considering the underlying physics of the event itself. The fact that Birkeland produced aurorae in his experiments is great, but irrelevant. We have moved the discussion from the THEMIS paper, where they suggested reconnection may be responsible for aurorae, to the discussion of reconnection itself. The process of reconnection is not related to aurorae whatsoever. Aurorae may be a result of this process, but that is not known for certain at this time. </p><p>My point in bringing up the book on reconnection was that you don't understand the fundamentals of reconnection. All the information you are so confused about is out there. If you don't have time to read it right now, fine, but you can't be surprised that when you try to continue the argument/discussion, we respond by saying that you are using a completely wrong definition of reconnection. This is because you haven't read the book. If you address the form of reconnection we are all talking about besides you, things would be fine. </p><p>If your "version of astronomy" is lab tested, then please do tell me how you recreated a galaxy, or star, in a lab environment? How can you possibly verify the sun has a solid surface in the lab? How can you prove your ideas about how galaxies behave in the lab? </p><p>While most of what you say is technically correct, such as when you say monopoles don't exist to our knowledge at this time, it is not relevant. The fact that magnetic field lines don't disconnect and get spliced back together is true but entirely irrelevant. Nobody is making these claims but yourself. Nobody is saying monopoles exist so for the love of god stop repeating your argument over and over. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have completely ignored yevaud's request and are now back to saying the "mislabeling" of reconnection is your main issue.</DIV></p><p>Actually I tried to do the "right thing" here. I tried to show the mathematical correlation between "circuit reconnection" and what Priest was calling "magnetic reconnection". The point of my paper is that it is critically important that all branches of science be on the same page as it relates to basic electrical and particle interactions in plasma. Alfven chose to treat all moving and electrically active plasma from a "particle" (IOW electrical) perspective. In such cases he used E and j to represent events inside the plasma. I don't profess to be the mathematical expert that Alfven was, but I did think it might be within my skillset to convert Priest's presentation to E and j and show that there is a one to one correlation between what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and what Alfven called "circuit reconnection". I then intended to link this back to Alfven's background in electrical engineering and show how his version of MHD theory is consistent with electrical theory. </p><p>I was absolutely horrified to get part way through this paper only to find "monopoles" staring me in the face. I can't convert "monopoles" to E or j because monopoles do not exist in nature or in plasma physics interactions according to Alfven. No mathematical conversion is possible without some kind of giant rationalization on my part for why Priest misused important scientific terms. It tainted my whole presentation.</p><p>It's critical to me that whatever mathematical presentation of "magnetic reconnection" I start with, it cannot break the laws of physics to achieve it's goals. As long as that is not the case with Schindler, Birn and Hesse's paper, it may even be possible for me to salvage the theory part of my paper even if I have to start over again mathematically. I'm willing to give it a look, but I'm not willing to try to turn "monopoles" into physics. I can't honestly justify his use of that term no matter how I look at it, and I refuse to inherit Priest's sins and forever have to defend his use of monopoles. It would defeat the whole purpose of my going through this mathematical excersize.</p><p>Now of course I'm sure Alfven could convert anything to E and j, whereas my mathematical skill set is far more limited. On the other hand, there is no doubt that this can be done since that is the way that MHD theory is descrbed by Alfven. I am however curious to read Birn, Hesse and Schindler's paper, but it will probably be later in the week.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> These arguments are NOTHING but semantics.</DIV></p><p>No, it's more than just an argument about "semantics'. There are important scientific principles at stake here. While circuits and particles "reconnect" in MHD theory as Alfven described it, magnetic fields do not. That is true of electrical engineering as well and Alfven was an electrical engineer. He understood electrical current and how to represent it "properly" based on the known laws of physics. His use of term was highly intentional, and completely consistent with electrical theory. </p><p>*IF* (we'll leave this open for debate somewhere else) I can demonstrate that an agreed upon version of "magnetic reconnection" can be converted to E and j and be shown to correlate to Alfven's "circuit reconnection" desciptions of MHD theory, and to the electrical engineerng perspective of "circuit reconnection", then I can show that it is important that this theory be given it's proper scientific name, "circuit reconnection". In that instance, no "translations" would be required between electrical engineers, students of Alfven's MHD theories, and astronomers. If astronomers use improper scientific terms to represent Maxwell's equations, it can only lead to unnecessary confusion.</p><p>There are two key issues here, both of which are independent from one another. Is it possible to link "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection", by simplifying Birn and crews paper to E and j? The second question is "can I personally do it"? Whether the second question is yes or no, has no impact on the answer to the first question. The fact that I may not have the math skills to show that correlation does not mean that it can't be done.</p><p>If I'm right, then there is more than just an argument of semantics at stake, there is a scientific principle at stake.</p><p>The fact that you don't willingly agreed with me that "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection" are one and the same thing demonstrates that there is more than just a problem with semantics here. There's a more fundamental problem going on. You seem to see these things as being separate from and different from ordinary circuit reconnection and induction. In your mind somewhere, you don't make any connection between defending "magnetic reconnection" and defending plasma cosmology theory as Alfven described it. You somehow see plasma physics differently than Alfven. There is a more fundamantal issue of understanding that is ultimately at stake here. You seem to believe that some new type of "reconnection" process is occuring in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If this is true, SHOW US.</DIV></p><p>I'm still working on it, but I won't be using Priest's paper as the basis for that demonstration.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland's experiments were fine. Birkeland's experiments worked. But to say they disprove magnetic reconnection is an extreme stretch. </DIV></p><p>The demonstate that "circuit reconnection" works. He could turn on and off the ciruits and show their effect on the experiment. He could change the magnetic field inside the sphere and show how that affected the flow of charged particles. What he demonstrated is that "circuit reconnection" works. What has never been done is for anyone to emprically demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection works". They don't "disprove" that there is a unique way to use "magnetic reconnection" rather than "circuit reconnection" to make this all work, but then it should be up to the mainstream to explain why any new forms of "reconnection' are required with "circuit reconnection" clearly does the trick. Occums' razor arguments alone should make you cringe!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Reconnection's role in aurorae is still not well understood. </DIV></p><p>Birkeland understood the role of "circuit reconnection" in his experiments. He turned them off at night to save on electricity. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The THEMIS paper was saying there MIGHT be a link between the two events, based on a correlation they observed. </DIV></p><p>The problem is that the flow of energy didn't follow either of their "precticted" patterns. There was no correlation between "prediction" and observation. Birkeland's (actually Alfven's) circuit model correctly predicts the flow of energy into the aurora.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps reconnection isn't the source of aurorae. </DIV></p><p>I'm convinved that some type of "circuit reconnection" or "current flow" type process is involved, and I'm equally certainly that no form of "magnetic reconnection" is occuring because magnetic fields have no beginning, no ending and the don't reconnect. I know from emprical testing that Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" model works. He could turn on and off the circuit and see it's effects on the aurora. He could show a one to one correlation between "circuit reconnection" and aurora. No such thing has been done with "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>I'm going to stop here for now and I'll see I missed anything important when I get some free time. </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'>The THEMIS paper was saying there MIGHT be a link between the two events, based on a correlation they observed. </DIV></p><p>The problem is that the flow of energy didn't follow either of their "precticted" patterns. There was no correlation between "prediction" and observation. Birkeland's (actually Alfven's) circuit model correctly predicts the flow of energy into the aurora.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps reconnection isn't the source of aurorae. </DIV></p><p>I'm convinved that some type of "circuit reconnection" or "current flow" type process is involved, and I'm equally certainly that no form of "magnetic reconnection" is occuring because magnetic fields have no beginning, no ending and the don't reconnect. I know from emprical testing that Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" model works. He could turn on and off the circuit and see it's effects on the aurora. He could show a one to one correlation between "circuit reconnection" and aurora. No such thing has been done with "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>I'm going to stop here for now and I'll see I missed anything important when I get some free time. </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, I'm stuck on Gauss's law and the fact that all magnetic fields are dipole fields. You keep ignoring this point.</DIV></p><p>I have not ignored it. I've addressed it rather directly. I offered a link to a paper written by an undergraduate student in such a simple, straightforward way that anyone even vaguely familiar with this stuff could understand it. I've offered several terms that are easily researched on the web. All of which address why Priest said, "distortion may be <em><strong>regarded</strong></em> as being produced by a series of monopole sources..." Notice the usage of the word "regarded". How can you claim I have ignored it when I have directly adressed it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ya, actually I have. I've even shown you where Priest violated Maxwell's equations by introducing monopoles, a concept that directly violates the laws of physics.</DIV></p><p>I claimed you haven't done any quality research concerning why Priest used the phrase he did. You claim that you have and follow it up with a supporting statement that doesn't even address the <strong><em>reasons</em></strong> Priest's said what he said. All you are doing is setting up a strawman argument to argue against that isn't even relevant to the discussion. That is really, really odd. </p><p>Why have you yet to address the reasons we have given you for the Priest's usage of the above quote? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are no monopole "fields" in nature Derek.</DIV></p><p>Apparently there are situations that may be <strong><em>regarded</em></strong> as monopole fields and/or sources. This is not saying there <strong><em>are</em></strong> magnetic monopoles whether be the particles or their magnetic field. And, once again, claiming a negative based on absence of evidence is a logical fallacy.</p><p>Ad nauseum... </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't make excuses for Priest's behavior on this point.</DIV></p><p>What the heck does his behavior have to do with it and why would anyone ask you to make excuses for it? That was a really odd statement and completely irrelevant. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think "monopole field" would have probably be closer to the idea than a "particle". If I used the term "particle", my bad.</DIV></p><p>Doesn't matter what you want to call it. You are still referring to something different than the rest of us. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Monopoles do not exist in nature however, and no magnetic field contains "monopoles"</DIV></p><p>Ad nauseum... </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When did it attempt to suggest that any "laws" of physics were wrong?</DIV></p><p>I never claimed you did. That wasn't my point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Laws of physics that can be shown to be valid in controlled experimentation are not something I take lightly.</DIV></p><p>I don't believe anyone takes them lightly. That wasn't my point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In fact that is why I'm drawn to EU theory in the first place because it's core tenets can be demonstrated in emprical experimentation.</DIV></p><p>Irrelevant and not addressing my point. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it's highly dubious of you folks to simply be ignoring known laws of physics.</DIV></p><p>No one is ignoring known laws of physics. Strawman. Not addressing my point. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I said that laws of nature trump math alone and laws that can be shown to be true in controlled experimentation have value.</DIV></p><p>This, I actually agree with. What you are neglecting is that laws can always be modified. You simply can't reject something out of hand because you don't see it in a formula or evidence required to modify the law has not yet been revealed. Modifying laws doesn't necesssarily render the original law as invalid. Classic example are Newton's laws. Still valid. However, under certain circumstances they must be modified to explain observations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see no evidence that monopoles exist in nature or that magnetic fields are anything other than dipole fields. When then happens, you let me know. Until that time, there is no point in refering to monopoles because they don't exist in nature or in Maxwell's equations, hence my elf comparison.They would not. They know that magnetic fields are dipole fields. They also know that magnetic fields don't "reconnect", "disconnect" or do anything other then form dipole fields without beginning or end.They aren't *found* anywhere.</DIV></p><p>To say that magnetic monopoles have not been observed is the only correct statement one can make. The theories that predict them are still valid and thus their existence is still possible. Until such time a different theory comes along that excludes their existence, they is still no reason to believe they do NOT exist. Whether they do or not remains a questions. However, to blindly reject the possibility of their existence is foolish and simply closes the door that may lead to expanded understanding of the universe on scales both large and small. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are indeed described by astronomers, but then there is never any consistency in the way they are described. Guth for instance described them as not existing in any real quantity due to "inflation".</DIV></p><p>Odd. In your previous statement you claimed a "<em>mythical particle that Guth claimed didn't exist</em>." Now you claim not in any real quantity. Talk about inconsistency. Guth's inflation simply gives a reason why they are not abundent which is entirely consistent with what astronomers describe. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Priest is trying to suggest they exist in ordinary plasma interactions.</DIV></p><p>I refer back to my claim of your lack of research. Priest is, most definately, NOT making such claim... only <strong><em>you</em></strong> are. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, a "point charge" is not a magnetic monopole. Your're reaching.</DIV></p><p>I never said it was. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So it's just an electron or a proton or a charged particle of some kind?</DIV></p><p>Essentially... yes. It's a particle that quantizes a magnetic charge. Analagous to the electron quantizing the electric charge. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why didn't he just say that?</DIV></p><p>Because, for the umpteenth time, Priest is not referring to particles. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact he even used monopoles in his equations is a non-sequitur.</DIV></p><p>No it's not. Mainly because he is not speaking directly of magnetic monopole particles. Again, the fact you keep resorting to building this strawman shows that you are not researching the meaning behind it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They don't exist in Maxwell's equations or in plasma. Electrons and protons however do exist in nature and they do in fact "reconnect".</DIV></p><p>Ad nauseum </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Um, where have you been? For 25 years Guth has used that argument to support his concept of inflation. The two "bid deals" he used to support inflation was a lack of monopoles in nature and a homogenous distribution of matter.</DIV></p><p>This is in reference to your claim that Guth said monopoles do not exist. I claimed he made no such claim. A couple quotes above you switched gears a bit on your original claim. What exactly is it you think that Guth claims? Besides, you've got it backwards. The current lack of observed monopoles does not support inflation. Inflation explains the rarity of the particle and hence the reason they may well be impossible to detect. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yet they have some effect on ordinary plasma interactions (except in the lab of course)?Where's Priest is using them to describe ordinary plasma interactions inside our solar system?</DIV></p><p>Dear lord, Micheal. Priest is not referring to particles. Give it up already. Instead of arguing the same point ad nauseum, try doing some research. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You're wrong. </DIV></p><p>You're saying my claim that Guth does not exclude the existence of the magnetic monopole is wrong?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It means you're fighting a losing battle.</DIV></p><p>I'll let the readers be the judge of that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You've argued Priest's use of monopoles in two different ways.</DIV></p><p>After I did a bit of research, I have only argued it one way. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First you suggest he didn't really mean to use monopoles, and you also seem to think monopoles may exist.</DIV></p><p>I never claimed he didn't 'mean' to use monopoles, but I'll agree with your second assertion. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One argument here is unncessary.</DIV></p><p>Correct. The one that claims Priest is referring to particles. I wish you could get a handle on that one. My fingertips might not be so sore. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If he didn't use the term monopole (which he did) or at least didn't mean to suggest that monopoles exist, then there is no reason for you to argue that monopoles may exist.</DIV></p><p>Priest never claimed their existence. My argument that they may exist is a completely separate issue concerning the debate over what Priest's intentions are in his verbage. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If he did attempt to use them in his math (which he did), then it becomes beholden on you to show they do exist.</DIV></p><p>The existence of a monopole is not required. The math involved includes such thing as vector potential, guage invariance, Dirac strings and Aharonov-Bohm effect. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One of your approaches here is pointless. Either he used them (which he did) or they don't exist in nature, but there's no point in arguing the problem both ways.</DIV></p><p>Your entire approach is pointless. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It actually makes you look a bit desparate because you can't seem to make up your mind from my perspective. You seem to not be sure if you should be defending the existence of monopoles or "rationalizing" what Preist really meant by the term.The bottom line here Derek is that all magnetic fields are dipole fields without beginning and without end. Monopoles do not exist. They violate the laws of physics. Using them in math formulas takes us outside the realm of physics and into the realm of fantasy. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The only one here appearing desparate here is you. I base this assessment on the fact you aren't addressing the real issue. Rather, you are building your entie argument on a strawman that Priest is referring to real particles and their resulting fields. He is not.</p><p>QED. </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>
</DIV></p><p>You're saying my claim that Guth does not exclude the existence of the magnetic monopole is wrong?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It means you're fighting a losing battle.</DIV></p><p>I'll let the readers be the judge of that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You've argued Priest's use of monopoles in two different ways.</DIV></p><p>After I did a bit of research, I have only argued it one way. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First you suggest he didn't really mean to use monopoles, and you also seem to think monopoles may exist.</DIV></p><p>I never claimed he didn't 'mean' to use monopoles, but I'll agree with your second assertion. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One argument here is unncessary.</DIV></p><p>Correct. The one that claims Priest is referring to particles. I wish you could get a handle on that one. My fingertips might not be so sore. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If he didn't use the term monopole (which he did) or at least didn't mean to suggest that monopoles exist, then there is no reason for you to argue that monopoles may exist.</DIV></p><p>Priest never claimed their existence. My argument that they may exist is a completely separate issue concerning the debate over what Priest's intentions are in his verbage. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If he did attempt to use them in his math (which he did), then it becomes beholden on you to show they do exist.</DIV></p><p>The existence of a monopole is not required. The math involved includes such thing as vector potential, guage invariance, Dirac strings and Aharonov-Bohm effect. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One of your approaches here is pointless. Either he used them (which he did) or they don't exist in nature, but there's no point in arguing the problem both ways.</DIV></p><p>Your entire approach is pointless. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It actually makes you look a bit desparate because you can't seem to make up your mind from my perspective. You seem to not be sure if you should be defending the existence of monopoles or "rationalizing" what Preist really meant by the term.The bottom line here Derek is that all magnetic fields are dipole fields without beginning and without end. Monopoles do not exist. They violate the laws of physics. Using them in math formulas takes us outside the realm of physics and into the realm of fantasy. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The only one here appearing desparate here is you. I base this assessment on the fact you aren't addressing the real issue. Rather, you are building your entie argument on a strawman that Priest is referring to real particles and their resulting fields. He is not.</p><p>QED. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On this point we actually agree. Truth is not related to credentials, nor can we guage the validity of anyone's scientific argument based on their credentials. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>And yet, you throw Alfven's credentials and his Nobel at us every chance you get. The number of times you use credentials to support your argument dwarfs any mention of credentials from the rest of us put together.</p><p>Amusing... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And yet, you throw Alfven's credentials and his Nobel at us every chance you get. The number of times you use credentials to support your argument dwarfs any mention of credentials from the rest of us put together.Amusing... <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>That was a great mozina-style(in terms of structure, not quality) post you made derek. If, after that clarification, michael continues to argue about monopoles and whether they exist or not, I have no intention on continuing this argument in this thread. All you are doing michael is doing what you accused me of doing...playing whackamole. Your monopole objection didn't work so now you're transitioning back to Birkeland and semantics, which we have discussed ad nauseum for what has probably been almost half of this thread by now. We are getting nowhere because you refuse to do any meaningful thought or work before you make your encyclopedic posts. I bet if a mod went through and deleted everything that you have repeated almost word-for-word throughout this thread, it would only be 10 pages and almost all of your posts would be gone. If I were in your shoes, having been corrected about my monopole objection, I would acknowledge the misunderstanding and cease posting until I started with the other paper. I realize you have other obligations, but trust me, I'd rather(and I think the others would agree) wait until you made some sort of progress before you posted. You must realize you are repeating the same tired "strawman"(as derek accurately put it) argument over and over and over. Why is this necessary? You KNOW we read it the first time because we addressed it the first time. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have not ignored it. I've addressed it rather directly. I offered a link to a paper written by an undergraduate student in such a simple, straightforward way that anyone even vaguely familiar with this stuff could understand it. I've offered several terms that are easily researched on the web. All of which address why Priest said, "distortion may be regarded as being produced by a series of monopole sources..." Notice the usage of the word "regarded". How can you claim I have ignored it when I have directly adressed it?</DIV></p><p>There are no "monople sources" known to exist in nature Derek. I can't "regard" it that way since they don't exist! It's like saying "This process can be "regarded" as being a series of chanting elves. How do justify that? Why didn't he just call it a "stream of electrons" or something that actually relates to plasma physics? When did Alfven ever "regard" anything as a series of monopole sources? How do I convert that to Alfven's brand of MHD theory and stil call it "physics"? Care to explain how he got this series of monopoles sources to increase the speed of the plasma and simultaneously *decrease*the magnetic field? If Priest starts assigning magical properties to monopoles, I can no longer convert monopoles to electrons. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I claimed you haven't done any quality research concerning why Priest used the phrase he did.</DIV></p><p>I think its absolutely incredible that this statement passed peer review when the whole purpose of his paper wss to justify the math behind "magnetic reconnection" in terms of Maxwell's equations. it sort of defeats the whole purpose of his paper. </p><p>The ideal paper on "magnetic reconnection" would have included some commentatary on the electrical apsects of what is going on in the plasma and explain how this process is somehow unique and different from ordinarly electrical processes in plasma. Since that isn't a possibility, the bear minimum would be a paper that stuck to scientific terms that are consistent with Maxwell's equations. Sticking monopole sources inside of Maxwell's equations is not "physics".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You claim that you have and follow it up with a supporting statement that doesn't even address the reasons Priest's said what he said. All you are doing is setting up a strawman argument to argue against that isn't even relevant to the discussion. That is really, really odd. Why have you yet to address the reasons we have given you for the Priest's usage of the above quote?</DIV></p><p>There's no strawman here Derek. He used the term "monopole sources". There aren't any. I can't regard anything in plasma as a monopole source. Plasma is composed of charged particles and dipole fields. I can't convert monopole sources to plasma. Maxwell's equations don't mention monopole sources. The certainly don't suggest that increasing the speed of the flow is going to result in a *decrease* in the magnetic field. He's got monopole sources doing magic tricks! I can't convert that to E or j.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently there are situations that may be regarded as monopole fields and/or sources.</DIV></p><p>Plasma physics isn't one of them. Alfven *never* regarded anything in plasma as a source of monopoles. Electrical engineering isn't one of them either. It expressly forbids monopole sources.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is not saying there are magnetic monopoles whether be the particles or their magnetic field. </DIV></p><p>Then they never should have used that term to begin with. If your whole point is to express the concept of "magnetic reconnection" in terms of Maxwell's equations, there is no rational justification for stuffing monopoles into the discussion! That's only going to wave a red flag with every skeptic on the planet. It tell me that they are trying to make monopole magnetic fields do what is otherwise impossible to do in plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And, once again, claiming a negative based on absence of evidence is a logical fallacy.Ad nauseum...</DIV></p><p>I'm not going to do this line by line today, I'll stop here with this thought:</p><p>You only need to defend one position or the other Derek. Either you should agree with me that monopoles do not exist an that's not what Priest "really" meant to say, or you should own the fact that Priest is using monopoles and they might exist. By arguing that Priest didn't really mean to use them, while simulaneously insisting they might exist in physics anyway, seems rather silly. It looks like you're trying to cover all the bases in a desparate attempt to avoid the obvious. Either his presentation doesn't require them and therefore you can forget trying to defend the extence of monopoles, or his presentation does require them and you can stop trying to suggest he meant something else. Frankly I don't know how you think he doesn't need them to do magic tricks in that equation because I can't otherwise see any way to justify an increase in particle speed with a decrease in magnetic fields strength. It should be correlated the other way. An increase in current flow should increase the magnetic field. The only way his explanation might occur is if he's invoking a magical property of monopoles. </p><p>Theres a bigger problem than just his use of the term "monopole" Derek. He's using it to do magic tricks in plasma that never occur in the lab. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And yet, you throw Alfven's credentials and his Nobel at us every chance you get. The number of times you use credentials to support your argument dwarfs any mention of credentials from the rest of us put together.Amusing... <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It's not just about "credentials", it's about "understanding". Alfven *understood* plasma physics because he literally wrote the book. You don't seem to have his same "understanding". I must now ask myself whom I trust to provide me with the correct understanding of plasma physics. I've already read a lot of Alfven's work and I "understand" how he used E and j to represent moving, current carrying plasma. I don't see you folks using E and j to represent moving and current carrying plasma. Instead I see a fundamental difference in "understanding" happening here at a very fundamental and critical level that goes way beyond semantics, otherwise you would simply agree with me that "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are one and the same thing. </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'>That was a great mozina-style(in terms of structure, not quality) post you made derek. If, after that clarification, michael continues to argue about monopoles and whether they exist or not,</DIV></p><p>It not just about monopoles! How exactly did he get the magnetic field to decrease while the paritcle flow *increased*? It's not simply a question of semantics, it's the physical impossibilities he introduced along with the idea. In a lab, an increase in the flow of the plasma will result in an increase in the magnetic field. An ordinary plasma ball will demonstrate this process, completely with "circuit reconnection" features. </p><p>I can't however make plasma do magic tricks using monopoles! It's not that he just use the term "monopole", he made it do magic tricks! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>I can't however make plasma do magic tricks using monopoles! It's not that he just use the term "monopole", he made it do magic tricks! </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>*IF* I could simply substitute "electrons" for Priest's use of "monopoles", I might feel very differently. *Because* I can't simply do that, it presents us with a very different problem. In *real life* (laboratory) plasma physics, an increase in the flow of electrons would necessarily increase the magnetic field strength around the thread. There's a fundamental problem with his statements. Any increase in the velocity of the current flow would necessarily result in an increase in the magnetic field strength, just as we find in any ordinary "Birkeland current". </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>
The proof that this disagreement is not just about semantics is evidenced by the fact all three of you (not sure about Yevaud at this point) refuse to acknowledge that "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection" are one and the same process. If "translation" was all that this conversation was about, you three would simply agree with me that it is valid to calls his process circuit reconnection and we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is about more than semantics, it's about "understanding" the physical processes that occur inside of plasma and understanding that only circuits and particles "reconnect". <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>1. If you are unwilling to do a bit of simple research to understand the meaning behind Priest's statement and continue to rely on a flawed understanding, this conservation is over.</p><p>2. If you are unwilling to do a bit of simple research to understand the meaning behind Priest's statement and continue to rely on a strawman argument, this conservation is over. </p><p>3. If you actually have done some research concerning his statement and STILL have a flawed understanding, then I must conclude you are incapable of understanding.</p><p>4. If you actually have done some research concerning his statement and STILL continue to utilize a strawman argument, then I must conclude you are nothing more than a troll.</p><p>Personally, I think it is a combination of statements 1 & 2. If it was statement 3, I'm sure we could work with that. However, if statement 3 is true, you clearly are refusing to admit it by the nature of your posts which leads to the possiblity of statement 4.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1. If you are unwilling to do a bit of simple research to understand the meaning behind Priest's statement and continue to rely on a flawed understanding, this conservation is over.</DIV></p><p>That's not fair. I'm the one that's done all the reading and all the "research". The clear scientific questions I ask (like how Priest decreased the magnetic field while increasing the particle flow) are ignored entirely.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. If you are unwilling to do a bit of simple research to understand the meaning behind Priest's statement and continue to rely on a strawman argument, this conservation is over. </DIV></p><p>The whole point in asking you folks how Preist increased the plasma speed while decreasing the magnetic field was to learn and to understand. Instead of explaining it to me, you seem intent on taunting me with ridicule and condemnation. H ave you ever read 'Cosmic Plasma" Derek? Have you really tried to understand EU theory like I have tried to understand magnetic reconnection theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3. If you actually have done some research concerning his statement and STILL have a flawed understanding, then I must conclude you are incapable of understanding.</DIV></p><p>It never even occured to you that the reason I can't understand it is because Priest made a mistake?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4. If you actually have done some research concerning his statement and STILL continue to utilize a strawman argument, then I must conclude you are nothing more than a troll.</DIV></p><p>Sorry, but I'm definitely not a troll. I've been doing all the reading and responding and you've not read the material I've suggested. I'm defintely not the problem.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Personally, I think it is a combination of statements 1 & 2. If it was statement 3, I'm sure we could work with that. However, if statement 3 is true, you clearly are refusing to admit it by the nature of your posts which leads to the possiblity of statement 4. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>And again, it never once occured to you that Alfven was right about "magnetic reconnection" and that Preist made a serious mistake.</p><p>Just explain to me how Priest achieved an increase in particle speed, while simultaneously decreasing the magnetic field. No ridicule, just real answers based on real 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'>It not just about monopoles! How exactly did he get the magnetic field to decrease while the paritcle flow *increased*? It's not simply a question of semantics, it's the physical impossibilities he introduced along with the idea. In a lab, an increase in the flow of the plasma will result in an increase in the magnetic field. An ordinary plasma ball will demonstrate this process, completely with "circuit reconnection" features. I can't however make plasma do magic tricks using monopoles! It's not that he just use the term "monopole", he made it do magic tricks! <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Have you read about Petschek analysis yet? The answer to that question is in that process. </p><p>Also, while that may be true in a plasma ball, you are oversimplifyign the process. An increase in flow isn't ALL that is going on. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I can't however make plasma do magic tricks using monopoles! It's not that he just use the term "monopole", he made it do magic tricks! <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Have you read about Petschek analysis yet? The answer to that question is in that process. </p><p>Also, while that may be true in a plasma ball, you are oversimplifyign the process. An increase in flow isn't ALL that is going on. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you read about Petschek analysis yet? The answer to that question is in that process. Also, while that may be true in a plasma ball, you are oversimplifyign the process. An increase in flow isn't ALL that is going on. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p><br />http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node77.html</p><p>Well, I'm working myself in that direction. FYI the link above is probably the "best" explanation I've seen thus far. I'm still wading through the conceptual issues at the moment, including the introdution of "incompressible plasma". It sounds possitively far fetched, but I don't see anything that seems to violate the laws of physics. I'm still working my way through this website since it seems to present the information fairly clearly. EvidentlyPetshek's paper was written in 1964 and I'm having a tough time finding a PDF file of that paper.</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'>The proof that this disagreement is not just about semantics is evidenced by the fact all three of you (not sure about Yevaud at this point) refuse to acknowledge that "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection" are one and the same process. If "translation" was all that this conversation was about, you three would simply agree with me that it is valid to calls his process circuit reconnection and we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is about more than semantics, it's about "understanding" the physical processes that occur inside of plasma and understanding that only circuits and particles "reconnect". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>We "refuse to acknowledge" it because it has thus far not been demonstrated to be true. We can't just take your word for it. And you can't argue that Alfven already showed us this because reconnection as it is defined now was not known in his time. The whole thing boils down to you being bitter that they used the term "magnetic" instead of "electric". The name "planetary nebula" makes no sense. The name "black hole" doesn't really make any sense either. There are a number of archaic terms that, while they may be misleading to a layman, are fully understood for what they really are by those in the field. In my opinion, this is akin to the whole "planet" debate. Who honestly cares what is called a planet and what isn't? The importance lies in the science. The science behind the idea will not change, regardless of what you call it. If you are saying that magnetic reconnection is the same as circuit reconnection in your mind, then you are agreeing that the theory is based on sound physics...otherwise you'd have to say circuit reconnection violates the same physics as well. If this were true, we shouldn't even be discussing anything. I do not believe it is adequately characterized by circuits. Until I am shown otherwise, I will continue to consider it a unique process, which I think has been adequately demonstrated in this thread. Even if you proved that you could derive the same physics using circuits, nothing would change except what people called it. It truly does not matter. Misleading terms exist in every aspect of science and life. Sometimes changing the term creates more problems than it solves. But the bottom line is, no name is going to be changed unless there is a valid reason. So far there isn't one. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2001/5306/53060417.pdf</p><p>I have not been through this whole paper yet, but it looks to be a pretty good explanation of the various "flavors" of magnetic reconnection and the issues that are being presented. Looks like Priest's "monopole source" is more like a shock wave of some kind. I still don't see how the magnetic field is going to decrease while the particle flow increases. There defintely seem to be "better" papers on this topic that do seem to use consistent terminology that are far better suited to my purposes. Like I said, I haven't given up hope yet of showing the mathematical correlation between "magnetic reconnection" and circuit reconnection. The fact you believe them to be different in some way demonstrates that there is more than a semantics problem going on here. I'm seeing formulas related to resistivity and all sorts of useful information to work with. There's still hope here to show this mathematical correlation 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><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We "refuse to acknowledge" it because it has thus far not been demonstrated to be true. We can't just take your word for it. And you can't argue that Alfven already showed us this because reconnection as it is defined now was not known in his time.</DIV></p><p>Actually that doesn't seem to be the case. Both the Sweet and Parker brand of reconnection and the Pensheck flavor of "fast" reconnection seem to both have been written before Alfven's death. It would seem that these are the very same flavors of "magnetic reconnection" theories that he was presumably rejecting in Cosmic Plasma. I'm going to have to do a bit more digging. I know I'm missing something here in Alfven's work on this topic. I suspect he's addressed these very issues.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The whole thing boils down to you being bitter that they used the term "magnetic" instead of "electric".</DIV></p><p>No, actually I would have used the term "circuit reconnection" just as Alfven did. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The name "planetary nebula" makes no sense. The name "black hole" doesn't really make any sense either. There are a number of archaic terms that, while they may be misleading to a layman, are fully understood for what they really are by those in the field. </DIV></p><p>But there is a deeper underlying issue here. If you agreed with me that circuit reconnection and "magnetic reconnection" are the same thing, then it would simply be a matter of "bad labeling". As it stands now however, you see some difference between the two and yet there cannot be any difference between them. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But the bottom line is, no name is going to be changed unless there is a valid reason. So far there isn't one.Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>IMO there is a valid reason to change the name, specifically because magnetic fields do not "reconnect". Only circuits and particles can "reconnect". Assuming these are one and the same thing, then the name Alfven used would be appropriate, whereas the name chosen by astronomers would not be approrpriate due to the confusion of concepts.</p><p>Let's try this question for a second.</p><p>Suppose for just a second that I go to all the trouble to demonsrate that the agreed upon brand of "magnetic reconnection" can be equated directly back to "circuit reconnection"? Wouldn't you agree that "circuit reconnection" would make more sense and be more in alignment with other branches of science, including MHD theory and electrical engineering? </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://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2001/5306/53060417.pdfI have not been through this whole paper yet, but it looks to be a pretty good explanation of the various "flavors" of magnetic reconnection and the issues that are being presented. Looks like Priest's "monopole source" is more like a shock wave of some kind. I still don't see how the magnetic field is going to decrease while the particle flow increases. There defintely seem to be "better" papers on this topic that do seem to use consistent terminology that are far better suited to my purposes. Like I said, I haven't given up hope yet of showing the mathematical correlation between "magnetic reconnection" and circuit reconnection. The fact you believe them to be different in some way demonstrates that there is more than a semantics problem going on here. I'm seeing formulas related to resistivity all sorts of useful information to work with. There's still hope here to show this mathematical correlation between circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I've never heard of this particular author but given that it's from PPPL, it is obviously not some no-name publication. That said, while it may be useful to some extent, it is...different. The mainstream, in all cases i've encountered, believes Petschek reconnection to be the dominant form of reconnection, and is what the derivations are based on. So in essence, this paper is comparing the generally accepted version of reconnection with some other type, Song-Parker, which from what I can gather is a special case of Petschek reconnection. I don't agree that this is a better paper to use as a general definition of reconnection. It is not nearly as rigorous or general. Even so, I don't think you'll have much luck here either. </p><p>Regarding your above post, the ideas of Petschek have been developed and refined since then. There aren't any flavors of reconnection. Since the 80s we've had a general definition of reconnection. Arguing about old theories that have since been expanded and refined is pointless. Let's stick with the modern science.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've never heard of this particular author but given that it's from PPPL, it is obviously not some no-name publication. That said, while it may be useful to some extent, it is...different. The mainstream, in all cases i've encountered, believes Petschek reconnection to be the dominant form of reconnection, and is what the derivations are based on. So in essence, this paper is comparing the generally accepted version of reconnection with some other type, Song-Parker, which from what I can gather is a special case of Petschek reconnection. I don't agree that this is a better paper to use as a general definition of reconnection. It is not nearly as rigorous or general. Even so, I don't think you'll have much luck here either. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Well, there has to be a presentation of "magnetic reconnection" that doesn't invoke monopoles and is clearly explained and clearly written. I'm just looking for something I can actually work with that is a fair and complete explanation of the process in terms of using pure Maxwell equations. There must be such a presentation of magnetic reconnection and I don't care who's work I use as long as I can show the connection between circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection.</p><p>You still didn't answer my question (you might not have seen it yet). Assuming I can show that correlation, wouldn't it make more sense to refer to this process as "circuit reconnection" rather than magnetic reconnection?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram