Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can you give me another of your published papers to read?I've done a quick read through on the first one you provided. Give me more </p><p>Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988JGR....93.5547S</p><p>Let's take a close look now at the abstract and the implications of these statements:</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This paper considers the concept of magnetic reconnection from a general point of view, with special consideration given to magnetic reconnection in nonvanishing magnetic fields,</DIV></p><p>A reconnection process in nonvanishing magnetic fields is necessarily sustained by the "current flow" of the circuit energy flowing inside of each of the current carrying threads of plasma.&nbsp; The fact that the magnetic fields do not vanish means that the current flow through the current sheet filaments remains constant or at least does not vanish.&nbsp; The kinetic energy of that preexisting current flow inside the two circuits is sustaining the "reconection" process between the two circuits. &nbsp; This all relates back to individual coronal loops which individually (without reconnecting to another loop) reach millions of degrees and have a sustained magnetic field around them due to the strong electrical currents that flow through them and "z-pinch"" the plasma into dense, current carrying filaments. These current flows can "reconnect" (IOW "short circuit) each other and release energy in the process, but the current flow is the sustaining force, and the energy supply of the reconnection process.&nbsp; The fields wouldn't exist without the current flow, and the strength of the B field is directly related to this current flow.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>i.e., finite-B reconnection as distinct from zero-B reconnection. </DIV></p><p>Thers is no such thing as "zero-B reconnection". If there is no particle flow, there is no B field and there is no energy tranfer process taking place.&nbsp; One of the things I'm noticing in many of these papers is the reference to "Null points', which are in fact not null at all, but simply reconnection "short circuit" points of two active electrical circuits.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is shown that the electric field component parallel to the magnetic field (E-parallel) plays a crucial physical role in finite-B reconnection. </DIV></p><p>I agreee. The electric field sustains the magnetic field and they wind around each other in a typical "Birkeland current". That's how it generates the helical shapes in plasma.&nbsp; The magnetic field z-pinches the plasma into dense, current carrying filaments.&nbsp; You can see this process in action inside of an ordinary plasma ball.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Two theorems involving E-parallel are proposed.</DIV></p><p>I'm likely to propose a third options, namely that we refer to these E-parallel fields as "circuits" like we would in any electrical engineering description of this field.&nbsp; A plasma filament contains both flow of electrical current through the thread, as well as a parallel magnetic field.&nbsp; That is SOP for current carrying plsama.&nbsp; I forms pinched dense filaments that are constricted by the magnetic field around the current flow channel.&nbsp; The way to view this would be to see this as two parallel circuits running in opposite directions.&nbsp; These two circuits touch and "short circuit" and the electrical currents seeks a different path through the plasma. &nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The first defines a necessary and sufficient condition of E-parallel for global reconnection to occur. The second theorem is concerned with the change of magnetic helicity to E-parallel for cases where the electric field vanishes at large distances. The general magnetic reconnection concept is tested by applying it to the process of plasmoid formation process.</DIV></p><p>I'll have to wait to read the whole paper, but I must admit I'm encouraged by their references to the parallel electrical currents that drive these magnetic fields in the first place.&nbsp; They don't seem to be trying disconnect the electrical aspects from the physics involved in this process.&nbsp; That's a highly encouraging sign from my perspective.&nbsp; I look forward to reading the paper.</p><p>FYI, as I said before, I really hope their math is absolutely flawless and we can focus on the specifics of what is actually "reconnecting" here inside the electrically active plasma.&nbsp; The fact they acknowledging the electric field that runs parallel to the magnetic field in each of the two circuits is certainly a good sign from my perspective&nbsp; and a good start at helping us bridge our conceptual differences.</p><p>E does indeed play a vital role in this "reconnection" process inside of plasmas.&nbsp; The fact they acknowledge the electric field would imply that they should have no problem seeing these persistent magnetic fields as "circuits" that are composed of flowing charged particles.&nbsp; </p><p>It should be noted that if the magnetic field remains stable at the point of reconnection, then there is necessarily a current flow that is sustaining that persistent magnetic field in the plasma.</p><p>The electric field is certainly the key to understanding all of these reconnection process.&nbsp; At least as far as the abstract is concerned, things are looking pretty good. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[colesakick]

<p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">What a typical joke of a response! God help me for coming back to look at the wake of my comments, I knew what to expect and got just what I imagined, immature, prideful and defensive comments that utterly lack intellectual honesty.</font></p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">A child can understand cosmology and astronomy; only astrophysics poses a little complexity that is beyond the scope of a high school student&rsquo;s math training. </font></p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">I was once a true believer of Carl Sagen et al. I was Full Square in the camp of the mainstream until I discovered EU 6 years ago. Since I have no professional bias that would cause me to WANT to declare the idea of electromagnetic forces explaining the larger structures of the universe I soaked it in. I was already a long time student of quantum physics so the jump was easy to make. At the quantum level there is nothing but electromagnetic forces, nothing. It is as if the entire universe only seems solid though it is made of un-solid stuff.</font></p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Your books likely only quote Alfven when he spoke of &ldquo;frozen in&rdquo; charge. He denounced his position on that but nobody listened. So stop patting yourself on the back as if your community really does have a full appreciation his concepts&nbsp;of electromagnetism in space when it does not. Until the words &ldquo;dark matter or energy&rdquo; and &ldquo;black holes&rdquo; are eliminated from the lexicon of space science it is you guys that will remain the pseudoscientists, not the EU camp.<span>&nbsp; </span>They speak only of what is real and provable, not fairy dust to explain the (without appreciation for electromagnetism) unexplainable in the absence of a proper understanding of EE and plasma physics.</font></p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Look, I studied medicine to become what I am, but I am no doctor. In like manner you may have gotten some intro courses in EE to become what you are but you are no more an expert electrical engineer than I am a medical doctor. Besides, the focus you guys likely get in your courses treat electricity like a fluid when it is no such a thing.</font></p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Roll your eyes all you want but the Aether was not disproven. The M&M test was not null! It wasn&rsquo;t what they expected but how could they expect anything of an invisible super-fluid in an age when no one ever tested or even imagined such a thing as a super-fluid? The only reason Maxwell&rsquo;s equations approximate reality is because of the Aether, that actually is fluidic in nature and is the substrate that not only imparts charge but carries it as well. (Didn&rsquo;t follow the link did you, so typical!)</font></p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">I&rsquo;m not here to school you so I&rsquo;m not going to waste my time by explaining a single thing to you, it is your job to read the available material and then report back as to if it was illuminating to you or not. You won&rsquo;t read because you care more about being right in what you believe now than in ever challenging yourself by reading dissident material. Just try to deny that. Prove me wrong; I dare you.</font></p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">I take back what I said about credentials, what I really meant to say was have you actually gone to Michael site? Talk about thoughtful and detailed. He&rsquo;s no hack and has not come about his findings lightly. He has support by like-minded folks like Oliver Manuel and Don Scott who are mostly highly on his side (with minor differences that can&rsquo;t be cleared up until the blockade against allowing such people access to the equipment they need to study and prove their theories. How do you explain such blockades? Have you ever heard of H. Arp's case of blockades?). </font></p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'TimesNewRoman'">Michael is no fool as you suppose and he is not alone in his conclusions. He is part of a growing community who has finally decided that the scientific thought of a 100 plus years ago was a bit blind and unarmed with current knowledge that makes that era obsolete. Live in the past if you want to but stop being an active agitator against those who are growing up and out of our misguided even if sincere past!</span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>As we go through Schindler, Hesse and Birn's presentation of magnetic reconnection, I'd like to begin by trying to bridge some conceptual differences between our points of view.&nbsp; The best way for me to explain how Alfven described these current sheet transfer events, is to use a plasma ball analogy and to explain some basic concepts in the way that Alfven looked at these events and how he applied them to events in space.</p><p>If we look at the plasma density of interplanetary space, it is an extremely low density environment.&nbsp; An ordinary plasma ball actually has many times more ions per cubic MM than we are likely to find in an averaged out amount of interplanetary medium.&nbsp; The threading action we observe inside of an ordinary plasma ball is part of a "circuit" of current flow that move particles between the glass shell and the inside sphere.&nbsp; The sun and solar system works in a similar way in Birkeland's experiments.&nbsp; The photosphere is relatively positively charged whereas the heliosphere is buffetted by a stream of electrons and charged particles.&nbsp; The heliosphere has a relatively negative charge compared to the surface of the photosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp; Likewise in a plasma ball the inside sphere is positively charged and the glass sphere is grounded.&nbsp; The moving "treads" that we observe inside the plasma ball are "tornado-like" spinning filaments of relatively dense plasma. &nbsp; Such threads are a "classic" process that can be observed in any sort of high energy discharge event inside of current carrying plasma.&nbsp; Plasmas form current carrying threaded "circuits" within these filament channels.&nbsp; The topology of the magnetic fields around the threads changes as the movement patterns of the tornado filament change from moment to moment.&nbsp; Just as we might move our hand from one area of the outer glass surface and change the "flow pattern" and the filament channel arrangements in the plasma ball, so too the interstellar winds change the relative charge of the heliosphere over time and the circuit flow patterns through the sun change over time accordingly. &nbsp;</p><p>The E-parallel field that Schindler, Hesse and Birn are referring to is essentially one of these tornado-like threaded filament channels.&nbsp; It's the same kind of "structure" that we might find in an ordinary plasma ball.&nbsp; The plasma in the dense thread "spins" and it is full of kinetic energy from the moving charged particles in the tornado.&nbsp; It's not just&nbsp; a "frozen" column of plasma, it's a rotating, moving column of pinched plasma.&nbsp; The E-field produces these moving threaded filaments inside of current carrying plasma.&nbsp; The magnetic field that runs parallel to the E-field is the force that pinches the filaments into dense columns and helps hold them together. The pinch from the B field creates these dense filament channels, but the current flow sustains them. </p><p>When describing these magnetic lines, you will have to conceptually understand that Alfven described them as "circuits" composed of moving columns of charged particles which flow from one point to another in a circuit.&nbsp; He defined each end point in the plasma circuit based on a specific charge.&nbsp;&nbsp; In these reconnection diagrams we have two basic current flow filaments that are moving in opposite directions based on the polarity of the end points they are attached to. &nbsp; While the "circuit" topology might change over time, and the threads might touch and "short circuit", at no point is B doing all the work, nor is it required to create energy in any way.&nbsp; E sustains the process.&nbsp; B pinches the plasma into dense columns.&nbsp; The energy tranfer process comes from the current flowing in the threads and the kinetic force inside each of particles in the circuits. &nbsp; Each endpoint retains it's charge polarity even while the circuits "reconnect" inside the plasma.&nbsp; From Alven's perspective, we have two simple circuits that actually "short circuit" inside the current sheet.&nbsp; There no form of "magnetic reconnection" happening in these reconnection events, just "circuit reconnection", and circuit flow changes that may result in induction between the two circuits.&nbsp; At no point would Alfven have described these events in terms of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Instead he would have begun by labeling each of the magnetic lines as a "circuit" that is composed of flowing charged particles inside of a Birkeland current type thread where the magnetic and electric fields run parallel to each other. &nbsp; H would have then talked about the reconnection process in terms of circuit reconnection and particle collisions. </p><p>In order for us to proceed to discuss these conceptual issues as they come up in this paper, we will all need to understand these issue from the perspective of Alfven as he descrbed these terms in MHD theory. &nbsp; Indeed, as the author suggest, the E-parallel field is critically and vitally important when it comes to understanding these energy exchange events.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As long as we can conceptually agree that a "magnetic line" of flowing charged particles is also an "electic circuit", I'm sure we can bridge our differences as we discuss this paper.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Um, that is his fault, not mine.&nbsp; He shouldn't be talking about monopoles sources in plasma.</DIV></p><p>How in thei world is it his fault you don't understand the meaning?&nbsp; He didn't write it for you... He wrote it for other experts in the field.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm looking to see if you ever answer my question about how he increaed the particle flow and decreased the magnetic field in the process.</DIV></p><p>I don't see where he says that.&nbsp; What I see is him talking about the gradient in strength of the field.&nbsp; "...decreases substantially from a uniform value (Be) at large distances to a value (Bi)..."&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because he had no business "saying" MONOPOLE SOURCE.&nbsp; Who wouldn't be confused?&nbsp; I think even Petschek would be confused at his choice of labels! {<em>snipped repetative argument</em>}</DIV> </p><p>Experts in the field of magnetic reconnection wouldn't be confused.&nbsp; I admit that I was confused at first, but the paper wasn't written for someone with my level of knowledge about the subject.&nbsp; I did a little digging and am no longer confused.&nbsp; It's really, really, really simple.&nbsp; He's not talking about monopoles in the particle sense.&nbsp; It's a freakin' analogy to explain a particle trajectory.&nbsp; He actually explain something similar later in the book.</p><p>How about this paper:</p><p>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/58/10245/00484468.pdf?arnumber=484468</p><p>Do you want to argue their whole premise is wrong because they used the term 'monopole' right in the title of the paper?&nbsp;</p><p>How about this one?</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979JPSJ...47..755I</p><p>Are you going to dismiss it out of hand because he uses a monopole analogy?</p><p>I'm sure there's plenty more.</p><p>Priest is NOT referring to real, physical monopoles.&nbsp; You normally offere a good debate, but this isn't one of those times.&nbsp; You've gone of the deep end with your logic here.&nbsp; I'm done arguing about it. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>As for Petschek's model, to quote from Priest's book, "<em>Petschek's mechanism is not rigorous, but it shows great physical insight</em>."&nbsp; I haven't directly read Petschek's paper, but by Priest claiming it is not rigorous tells me the quantitative analysis isn't in depth.&nbsp; My assessment of Priest's statement could be wrong, but I'm guessing there a lot of room to work within Petschek's model.&nbsp; Along with the Sweet/Parker model, they are foundational model.&nbsp; Models can be adjusted based on new physics and new observations. </p><p>With that said, I doubt Petschek would be 'confused' or 'appalled'.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael is no fool as you suppose and he is not alone in his conclusions. He is part of a growing community who has finally decided that the scientific thought of a 100 plus years ago was a bit blind and unarmed with current knowledge that makes that era obsolete.</DIV></p><p>I really appreciate that someone else has voiced these points in this thead and really I appreciate your comments and your support.&nbsp; The way I see things, Birkeland was ahead of all of us by at least 100 years so what is the point in any of us developing an ego about being right about any of this?&nbsp;&nbsp; As I see it, Birkeland was the real "scientist" that did the groundwork and emprical testing of EU theory.&nbsp; Bruce and Alfven and Peratt and Arp and others added the mathematical and conceptual complexity to understand how it all applies at the larger scales.&nbsp; None of this is really news, nor does the information actually come from me.&nbsp; Rather it's been part of human and scientific history for over 100 years.&nbsp; Unfortunately not everyone remembers or places the same value on emprical scientiic history. </p><p>Assuming that we can all "chill out", take a deep breath and all work on communicating our ideas rather than scoring ego points, this should shape up into a really excellent scientific discussion, particularly if you join the discussion.&nbsp; I welcome your scientific input.&nbsp; Let's all try to pay attention to each other's feelings during this process and focus our attention on the science side of the debate, and not on each other.&nbsp; I think we'll all be happier that way. </p><p>FYI, I'm really pleased to have some help in communicating these ideas. It's a tough audience at times.&nbsp; I do think you'll come to like Derek and UFMButler.&nbsp; DrRocket can get a bit gruff at times but at least I got him to read Alfven's first book so he's not beyond hope either.&nbsp; It might take a few years mind you, but he's not beyond hope........ </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How did Priest get plasma to do magic tricks?</DIV></p><p>"Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like magic" - A.C.Clarke </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How did he get the magnetic field to decrease in strength, and simulateously get it to accelerate plasma in that equation?You're avoiding this question like the plague.&nbsp; You can't answer it, because it *NEVER* works that way in the lab.&nbsp; The only way you're going to get the magnetic field strength to decrease is by decreasing the flow of the particles inside the plasma.&nbsp; The moment he claimed that he decreased the magnetic field and increased the flow, he stepped outside of the realm of physics. The monopole comments just confused the issue ever further. When are you going to explain his claim for us?&nbsp;&nbsp; You keep insisting it's right, but it violates the laws of physics *and* the experiments with plasma that have been done in a lab.&nbsp; Since when can you increase the current flow and decrease the magnetic field? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Like is said in my last post, I think he is talking about the gradient in strength over distance.&nbsp; He's not claiming the increase in flow is causing a decrease in the entire field.&nbsp; I don't believe he is making that correlation.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How in thei world is it his fault you don't understand the meaning?&nbsp; He didn't write it for you... He wrote it for other experts in the field.</DIV></p><p>That's the problem.&nbsp; He should have been writing for experts in *ALL* fields of science, not just his own field of science.&nbsp; No other field of science accepts the concept of monopoles.&nbsp; That was a mistake to even speak in those terms IMO.&nbsp; Anyone with an electrical engineering background or some basic understanding of MHD theory is going to be instantly turned off by that statement and that description.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't see where he says that.&nbsp; What I see is him talking about the gradient in strength of the field.&nbsp; "...decreases substantially from a uniform value (Be) at large distances to a value (Bi)..." </DIV></p><p>That can only happen if the "current flow" decreases from a uniform value at large distances to a smaller value at Bi. How did he get particle acceleration at of that?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Experts in the field of magnetic reconnection wouldn't be confused.</DIV></p><p>Whereas experts in any other field, including electrical engineering would be confused, just like me.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I admit that I was confused at first, but the paper wasn't written for someone with my level of knowledge about the subject. </DIV></p><p>But it should not have been written in a way that violates the principles of Gauss's law of magnetism!&nbsp; That's what makes it so darn confusing.&nbsp; It wasn't your fault you and I were confused by his invokation of monopoles.&nbsp; It wasn't logical in the first place, nor even accurate as far as I can tell.&nbsp; It's not like I'm claiming his whole lifes work is worthless, but that particlar statement is darn close to worthless as it relates to conveying useful scientific information about the process he's trying to desribe.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I did a little digging and am no longer confused.&nbsp; It's really, really, really simple. </DIV></p><p>Then why didn't he make it simple to understand and clear to begin with?&nbsp; IMO your making excuse for his poor desription in a critically important equation.&nbsp; It's not like it's the end of the world here Derek, it was simply a bad way to attempt to convey his point.&nbsp;&nbsp; For all I know he may even be willing to concede that point.&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; I haven't asked him.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He's not talking about monopoles in the particle sense. </DIV></p><p>Then he never should have used that term.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's a freakin' analogy to explain a particle trajectory.</DIV></p><p>The term "particle trajectory" would convey that meaning far more clearly don't you agree?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> He actually explain something similar later in the book.How about this paper:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/58/10245/00484468.pdf?arnumber=484468Do you want to argue their whole premise is wrong because they used the term 'monopole' right in the title of the paper?</DIV></p><p>I only argued that *this* premise was wrong and it voilates the laws of physics.&nbsp; I've already noted in his defence that I've seen him come up with better descriptions in other papers.&nbsp;&nbsp; I am however having to "translate" in ways that seem irrational from any sort of electrical engineering background.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> How about this one?http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979JPSJ...47..755IAre you going to dismiss it out of hand because he uses a monopole analogy?</DIV></p><p>I'm inclined to dismiss any theory that requires monopoles to work properly.&nbsp; I certainly wouldn't base any paper on another paper that used them in the explanation.&nbsp; I wouldn't do so "out of hand" but because monopoles violate the known laws of physics, specifically Guass's law of magnetism. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sure there's plenty more.Priest is NOT referring to real, physical monopoles.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Then he should cease and desist using that term in his papers.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You normally offere a good debate, but this isn't one of those times.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Ditto. &nbsp; IMO, you're trying to rationalize *OUR* confusion as *OUR* fault with clearly it had nothing to do with us but rather with his invokation of monopoles. it's an irrational way to explain EM fields to anyone IMO. even to "experts". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My assessment of Priest's statement could be wrong, but I'm guessing there a lot of room to work within Petschek's model.&nbsp; Along with the Sweet/Parker model, they are foundational model.&nbsp; Models can be adjusted based on new physics and new observations. With that said, I doubt Petschek would be 'confused' or 'appalled'.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I have to believe that there are better papers and presentations on this topic.&nbsp; I'm already encouraged by what I see in Birn, Hesse and Schindler's presentation.&nbsp; I haven't given up hope, but I can't translate monopoles into E or j because monopoles do not exist in nature or Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; There has to be an easier way to bridge this gap, and starting with the core papers makes more sense that whipping a dead horse over one poor choice of terms.&nbsp; The fact he uses this analogy more than once however is in fact a bit disturbing from my perspective, only because evidently no referee he's worked with has explained the confusion caused by his use of that analogy.&nbsp;&nbsp; Petschek seems to be describing electron scattering in a current sheet not "monopole sources".&nbsp;&nbsp; I still don't understand his use of the term "monopole" even after doing more reading.&nbsp; It isn't a good choice of words IMO and the confusion isn't personal.&nbsp; Anyone who understand electrical theory is going to be highly confused by that analogy.&nbsp; I know I sure was.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I assume that was simply a very poor choice of words on his part and a lapse on his part that he doesn't seem to repeat in any other papers that I've glanced through.</DIV></p><p>A lapse?&nbsp; That's funny.&nbsp; Considering he wrote the paper and put it in his book, I doubt it was a lapse.&nbsp; Do you think the referees also had a lapse?&nbsp; How about all the other papers that cite the paper?&nbsp; How about other papers that use the term monopole such as:</p><p>http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/311445 (in the abstract)</p><p><cite>http://lasp.colorado.edu/sdo/meetings/session_4_5_6/presentations/session4/4_08_Barnes.pdf (mentioned on page 2)</cite> </p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2001PASA...18..415K (page 416, section 2)</p><p> Reconnection at the heliopause (in the abstract)</p><p>I could keep going.&nbsp; Are these all lapses, too?&nbsp; Beside, if Priest was having a lapse in judgement, don't you think someone would have pointed it out by now?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but the confusion of my part was a direct result of his poor choice of words in that particular paragraph.</DIV></p><p>I'm sure he would really appreciate you giving him the benefit of the doubt.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In Priest's defense, he has evidently written at least two "better" papers that I've glanced through today in terms of explaining this process.&nbsp; I didn't see him making these same verbage errors in either of the other two presentations I've glanced through so I can only assume that this was simply a momentary lapse of judgement on his part in this single paragraph in one single paper.</DIV></p><p>So now you have become enough of an expert to grade his papers as "better"?&nbsp; Are you listening to yourself?&nbsp; Your assessments and critiques are becoming laughable.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>[edit:&nbsp; fixed links]&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988JGR....93.5547S I'll have to wait to read the whole paper, but I must admit I'm encouraged by their references to the parallel electrical currents that drive these magnetic fields in the first place.&nbsp; They don't seem to be trying disconnect the electrical aspects from the physics involved in this process.&nbsp; That's a highly encouraging sign from my perspective.&nbsp; I look forward to reading the paper.FYI, as I said before, I really hope their math is absolutely flawless and we can focus on the specifics of what is actually "reconnecting" here inside the electrically active plasma.&nbsp; The fact they acknowledging the electric field that runs parallel to the magnetic field in each of the two circuits is certainly a good sign from my perspective&nbsp; and a good start at helping us bridge our conceptual differences.E does indeed play a vital role in this "reconnection" process inside of plasmas.&nbsp; The fact they acknowledge the electric field would imply that they should have no problem seeing these persistent magnetic fields as "circuits" that are composed of flowing charged particles.&nbsp; It should be noted that if the magnetic field remains stable at the point of reconnection, then there is necessarily a current flow that is sustaining that persistent magnetic field in the plasma.The electric field is certainly the key to understanding all of these reconnection process.&nbsp; At least as far as the abstract is concerned, things are looking pretty good. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>All 3D reconnection is always associated with electric fields parallel to magnetic field lines. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic fields cannot disconnect or reconnect. Only cirucuits and particles do that.&nbsp; It's not only a nod to electrical engineering, it's a step toward clear communcation and a better fundamental understanding of what's going on in space.The importance of this issue is found in the fact that you, Derek and DrRocket all seem to believe that "magnetic reconnection"' and "circuit reconnection" are not the same thing.&nbsp; They must be the same thing.&nbsp; They are the same thing.&nbsp; There are not "reconnections" possible in a magnetic field that has no beginning and no ending.&nbsp; The currrent carrying circuits 'reconnect'. but the magnetic lines cannot reconnect.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Serious question (read: not rhetorical).&nbsp; What happens when you break a permanent magnet in half and separate it?&nbsp; You have 1 dipole with magnetic field lines forming a full continuum turning into 2 dipoles each forming their own full continuum.&nbsp; How can this happen if the magnetic field lines didn't break?&nbsp;</p><p>It might happen simultaneously so as there is never an open ended field line, but there is still must be some break and reconnection in the field line to change the topology.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's the problem.&nbsp; He should have been writing for experts in *ALL* fields of science, not just his own field of science.</DIV></p><p>This makes no sense.&nbsp; He's not writing a tutorial.&nbsp; This isn't a "Magnetic Reconnection for Dummies" style paper.&nbsp; Why would he care if archeologists, biologists, geologists or even software programmers "get it"?&nbsp; He writing it to add knowledge within his own field of study.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No other field of science accepts the concept of monopoles.</DIV></p><p>There's electric monopoles, acoustic monopoles and monopole antennae of the top of my head.&nbsp; None of them are actually concerned with magnetic monopole particles.&nbsp; How about this... think of a charged particle crossing the magnetic north pole of the Earth where the field lines are basically all parallel.&nbsp; It's trajectory would be treated as if in was traversing a monopole source.&nbsp; None of the above are insinuating the existence of a magnetic monopole and neither is Priest.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That was a mistake to even speak in those terms IMO</DIV></p><p>This might sound harsh, but your opinion doesn't count.&nbsp; If the referees feel it is a mistake, he doesn't get published.&nbsp; If after it is published, his peers within the field feel it is a mistake, they won't cite it.&nbsp; If it was a mistake, the proper people would point it out to him and he would correct it.&nbsp; The paper wasn't publiished yesterday... there's been plenty of time, if it was a mistake, for it to be recognized and corrected.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Anyone with an electrical engineering background or some basic understanding of MHD theory is going to be instantly turned off by that statement and that description.</DIV></p><p>Apparently not.&nbsp; Actually... <strong><em>Obviously</em></strong> not.&nbsp; It's seems it is only YOU that is turned of by it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That can only happen if the "current flow" decreases from a uniform value at large distances to a smaller value at Bi. How did he get particle acceleration at of that?</DIV></p><p>This makes no sense.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Whereas experts in any other field, including electrical engineering would be confused, just like me.</DIV></p><p>As far as I can tell, it's ONLY you.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But it should not have been written in a way that violates the principles of Gauss's law of magnetism!</DIV></p><p>I would agree if Priest was actually saying the magnetic field was full of magnetic monopoles, but... well... He's NOT!!!&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's what makes it so darn confusing.&nbsp; It wasn't your fault you and I were confused by his invokation of monopoles.</DIV></p><p>What's so confusing is why you still find it confusing.&nbsp; When I said it was really simple, that because using the term monopole is the simplest way to describe it.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It wasn't logical in the first place, nor even accurate as far as I can tell.</DIV></p><p>Obviously, those folks that actually study this stuff for a living disagree.&nbsp; I'll take their word over yours.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not like I'm claiming his whole lifes work is worthless, but that particlar statement is darn close to worthless as it relates to conveying useful scientific information about the process he's trying to desribe.</DIV></p><p>Worthless only to those that don't understand it.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then why didn't he make it simple to understand and clear to begin with?</DIV></p><p>He did.&nbsp; Referring to the distortion as being produced by a monopole source is as about as simple as it can get.&nbsp; I suppose he could have called it a point source, but that is essentially the same thing.&nbsp; If the distortion could be regarded as being influenced by a dipole or quadrupole source, he would have said dipole source or quadrupole source.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO your making excuse for his poor desription in a critically important equation.</DIV></p><p>Well, it's only a poor description in your eyes.&nbsp; All I'm doing is arguing logic.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not like it's the end of the world here Derek, it was simply a bad way to attempt to convey his point.</DIV></p><p>Repeating this argument might make it sound more concrete to you, but the rest of us are confused why you are continuing to use it.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For all I know he may even be willing to concede that point.&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; I haven't asked him.</DIV></p><p>Folks far more knowledgeable than you and me have read this paper.&nbsp; I have no doubt if they had issues with his usage of the word 'monopole' in the context he used it, he would have been called on it.&nbsp; There's nothing wrong with questioning stuff, but someday logic has to set in.&nbsp;</p><p>You can find his email here... why not just ask:</p><p>http://www-maths.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/homepages/erp.html</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The term "particle trajectory" would convey that meaning far more clearly don't you agree?</DIV></p><p>No, I don't agree.&nbsp; Citing a monopole source is useful to describe a charged particles trajectory.&nbsp; I would venture to guess that the distortion he is referring to is the particle trajectories not being smooth. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO, you're trying to rationalize *OUR* confusion as *OUR* fault with clearly it had nothing to do with us but rather with his invokation of monopoles.</DIV></p><p>My confusion was 100% my lack of understanding.&nbsp; DrRocket, who has a background better equipped to understand the nuances of these things, pretty much nailed it in his first response.&nbsp; If you are truly interested in completly undestanding this and not just guessing and try to interpret, why not try to contact someone who studies it for a living.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I haven't given up hope, but I can't translate monopoles into E or j because monopoles do not exist in nature or Maxwell's equations.</DIV></p><p>And you never will because Priest is not relying on magnetic monopoles quantizing the magnetic field.&nbsp; There is no magnetic charge involved in magnetic reconnection. <br /><br /></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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll have to wait to read the whole paper, but I must admit I'm encouraged by their references to the parallel electrical currents that drive these magnetic fields in the first place.&nbsp; They don't seem to be trying disconnect the electrical aspects from the physics involved in this process.&nbsp; That's a highly encouraging sign from my perspective.&nbsp; I look forward to reading the paper.</DIV></p><p>Thats what I've been telling you for pages and pages now.&nbsp; This is not some realization you suddenly made.&nbsp; I've been telling you there is a wealth of papers out there dealing with your precious electric field. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>E does indeed play a vital role in this "reconnection" process inside of plasmas.&nbsp; The fact they acknowledge the electric field would imply that they should have no problem seeing these persistent magnetic fields as "circuits" that are composed of flowing charged particles. </DIV></p><p>Umm, no, it doesn't imply that at all.&nbsp; People deal with E fields ALL THE TIME in modern astrophysics, not just in this field, but just because something has an important E component does not make it a circuit. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Assuming that we can all "chill out", take a deep breath and all work on communicating our ideas rather than scoring ego points, this should shape up into a really excellent scientific discussion, particularly if you join the discussion.&nbsp; I welcome your scientific input.&nbsp; Let's all try to pay attention to each other's feelings during this process and focus our attention on the science side of the debate, and not on each other.&nbsp; I think we'll all be happier that way. </p><p>FYI, I'm really pleased to have some help in communicating these ideas. It's a tough audience at times.&nbsp; I do think you'll come to like Derek and UFMButler.&nbsp; DrRocket can get a bit gruff at times but at least I got him to read Alfven's first book so he's not beyond hope either. </DIV></p><p>No offense to you michael, but I am not impressed at all by this person.&nbsp; I realize she just got here, but thus far her arguments have had absolutely no substance whatsoever.&nbsp; At least you TRY, in your own way, to back up your points.&nbsp; Also, I am known to be a little..vitriolic, so I don't react well to someone coming in here and calling me a fool and a pseudoscientist with absolutely no basis for her claims.&nbsp; Speaking of her... </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">A child can understand cosmology and astronomy; only astrophysics poses a little complexity that is beyond the scope of a high school student&rsquo;s math training. </font></p><p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font> <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">I was once a true believer of Carl Sagen et al. I was Full Square in the camp of the mainstream until I discovered EU 6 years ago.</DIV></font></p><p>Carl Sagan was a great scientist aside from his television series, which were pretty oversimplified.&nbsp; I hope you are not implying I am not capable of understanding astrophysics.&nbsp; I have far from a high school student's math training and I'm certainly not a child. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Until the words &ldquo;dark matter or energy&rdquo; and &ldquo;black holes&rdquo; are eliminated from the lexicon of space science it is you guys that will remain the pseudoscientists, not the EU camp.<span>&nbsp; </span>They speak only of what is real and provable, not fairy dust to explain the (without appreciation for electromagnetism) unexplainable in the absence of a proper understanding of EE and plasma physics.</DIV></font></p><p>What do dark matter/energy and black holes have to do with this thread?&nbsp; Absolutely nothing.&nbsp; I know plenty of electrical engineers, even PhD electric engineers.&nbsp; Same with plasma physicists.&nbsp; None of them believe this nonsense.&nbsp; Oh, but I guess they didn't study the RIGHT version of EE.&nbsp; They didn't have to read Alfven's book(pretend I'm saying these sentences in a mocking tone). &nbsp; I've taken QM/atomic physics classes...I've never read Bohr's original work.&nbsp; I've taken solar system astrophysics...I've never read Copernicus's work.&nbsp; I've taken courses on geometry...I've never read Euclid's work.&nbsp; Reading the founding material of a field does not prevent you from understanding it in any way shape or form.&nbsp; It might be interesting in a historical sense, but in all good texts for these courses and courses on plasma physics, the original work will be replicated and built upon.&nbsp; So reading the original work would be nothing but a rehash of what you've already studied.&nbsp; EU will never be viewed as anything but pseudoscience if you don't "play the game".&nbsp; This is of course assuming you could, which is an entirely false assumption.&nbsp; That means using all three branches of science.&nbsp; That does not mean pointing to one lab experiment and one guy's book and a couple papers and expecting people to listen.&nbsp; It does mean putting your physics into simulations, demonstrating your point of view through observations, showing the world rigorously(that means with math and physics) that you are correct.&nbsp; If you can demonstrate it in the lab as well(that means IN ADDITION to, not by itself), great, that will only solidify your argument.&nbsp; But as it stands all you have is one experiment that you've twisted to say what you think it says...</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Look, I studied medicine to become what I am, but I am no doctor. In like manner you may have gotten some intro courses in EE to become what you are but you are no more an expert electrical engineer than I am a medical doctor. Besides, the focus you guys likely get in your courses treat electricity like a fluid when it is no such a thing.</DIV></font></p><p>I must have missed that class when the professor called electricity a fluid.&nbsp; Also, you can hardly say you would be an expert with a degree in EE...EVERY class you take in undergrad is an intro course.&nbsp; Even in grad school most of the courses are intros(usually in name only though).&nbsp; I will never understand why someone in the field of medicine thinks they are not only an expert in EE but is more intelligent than the entire population of astrophysicists.&nbsp; There was that quote a bit ago...I think you said it in fact.&nbsp; The one about where if you think you are wise for long enough you will become a fool.&nbsp; This is what has happened to you. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">I&rsquo;m not here to school you so I&rsquo;m not going to waste my time by explaining a single thing to you, it is your job to read the available material and then report back as to if it was illuminating to you or not. You won&rsquo;t read because you care more about being right in what you believe now than in ever challenging yourself by reading dissident material. Just try to deny that. Prove me wrong; I dare you.</DIV></font></p><p>I bet you smirked to yourself and leaned back in your chair, thinking yourself victorious after this paragraph.&nbsp; You CLEARLY haven't been keeping up with this thread.&nbsp; I've read Alfven's papers.&nbsp; I've read about Birkeland's work.&nbsp; I've read Michael's website.&nbsp; I haven't read Cosmic Plasma, but unless you feel like loaning me 153 dollars plus shipping, that's not going to happen any time soon.&nbsp; You've never read the book on magnetic reconnection, or I dare say ANY of the literature published about it, so you have no leg to stand on.&nbsp; There, I proved you wrong.&nbsp; Was something amazing supposed to happen?&nbsp; Because I still think EU is pseudoscience and you are a fool.&nbsp; Go ahead, try to prove me wrong by backing up your arguments with hard math and physics.&nbsp; I dare you. </p><p>The ONLY reason EU people can't get access to lab equipment to test their theories is because they don't try.&nbsp; You have to write proposals to use lab equipment(in general).&nbsp; In a proposal you need to justify your idea.&nbsp; It is clear there is no mathematical basis or theory simulations to back up anything in EU.&nbsp; So this blockade you speak of is ENTIRELY self-imposed. &nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The importance of this issue is found in the fact that you, Derek and DrRocket all seem to believe that "magnetic reconnection"' and "circuit reconnection" are not the same thing.&nbsp; They must be the same thing.&nbsp; They are the same thing.&nbsp; There are not "reconnections" possible in a magnetic field that has no beginning and no ending.&nbsp; The currrent carrying circuits 'reconnect'. but the magnetic lines cannot reconnect.</DIV> </p><p>OK...back to michael.&nbsp; </p><p>First, your argument is entirely based on an illogical non-sequitir.&nbsp; You say magnetic reconnection is the same as circuit reconnection because magnetic field lines do not reconnect.&nbsp; The second half is true BUT it does not imply the first half.&nbsp; At all.&nbsp; We have been trying to get it through your head that none of the reconncetion theories say this ANYWHERE. &nbsp; </p><p>Arguing conceptually is not acceptable here.&nbsp; Especially when the concepts don't "speak for themselves".&nbsp; We NEED mathematical justification.&nbsp; The kind that is in the Hesse/Schindler paper(you linked to the companion paper, which is useful but make sure you read the intro to understand the purpose of it...the other one is the mathematical proof).&nbsp; You can talk about tornadoes and plasma balls all you want, but until you back it up, it is falling on deaf ears.&nbsp; We've heard it all before.&nbsp; You aren't going to overturn the mainstream thought with words. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All 3D reconnection is always associated with electric fields parallel to magnetic field lines. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Yes, but there is never any mention of the "circuit" that produces this electric field.&nbsp;&nbsp; There seems to be a consistant reference in these papers to 'null points" of the "magnetic lines" when in fact there is only a "connection point" (short circuit point) between the two flowing circuits.&nbsp; It's not a "null point" unless the B and E fields of both circuits are 0 at the point of reconnection.&nbsp; Since plasma is moving in this intersection, it's not a null point.&nbsp; Why are they calling this a null point if there is moving plasma present?&nbsp; It's like calling a short circuit location between two wires a "null point".&nbsp; It's a "short circuit" point, not a "null point".</p><p>There is an important "translation" in terms that is necessary from the start.&nbsp; What all these authors are refering to as "magnetic lines" are in fact "electrical circuits" with an active E field.&nbsp; The E field (actually the particle current flow) is producing the force for this "reconnection" event, and the E field (and the flowing particles) are the theings that actually "reconnect" during this short circuit process.&nbsp; The magnetic field is simply along for the ride.&nbsp; The topology of the magnetic field changes as the flow patterns of the filaments change.&nbsp; In an ordinary plasma ball you can change the ""magnetic lines" inside the ball by moving your fingers to a differnt part of the glass sphere. &nbsp; The circuits change their topology, as do the magnetic fields that form around the threads.&nbsp; The key here is that there is both an electric and magnetic field in each of the two&nbsp; "magnetic lines" that all these papers refer to.&nbsp; They are "current carrying filaments", that simply "reconnect" at an electrical level.&nbsp;&nbsp; From a general perspective, the two circuits are simply "reconnecting" over time at point of the short circuit that occurs between the two current carrying filaments.&nbsp; The "lines" we are talking about is not just "magnetic lines", they are electrically driven circuits.&nbsp; The plasmas flow in opposite directions because the polarity at each end is reversed.&nbsp; The kinetic energy of one circuit is moving in the opposite direction from the flow pattern in the other thread.&nbsp; The kinetic energy of the flow is part of the "reconnection" process, but at a fundamental level, it's the two "circuits" that actually "reconnect".&nbsp; The particles actually do the "reconnection" at the point of interest, and the reconnection happens at the atomic and subatomic level, but it's not the "magnetic lines" that are reconnecting, just the two circuits.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

I'll have to nibble at my responses today.&nbsp; I'll probably be more responsive after work hours today. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thats what I've been telling you for pages and pages now.&nbsp; This is not some realization you suddenly made.&nbsp; I've been telling you there is a wealth of papers out there dealing with your precious electric field.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>The "realization" that is missing here is the fact that these are not just two magnetic lines, they are two *electrical circuits* composed of moving charged particles.&nbsp; The realization you will need to make here is that we can relabel those "magnetic lines" as "electrical circuits".&nbsp; Each circuit creates a flow pattern of charged pariicles moving in the opposite direction from the thread moving the opposite direction.&nbsp; Imagine that same plasma ball type scenario with two filamentary threads running in opposite directions.&nbsp; You have two twister like filaments that come into close proximity and they begin to kinetically and electrically interact with one another.&nbsp; The circuit topology eventually changes as the twister filaments "reconnect" to different circuits.&nbsp; The kinetic and electrical interactions at the point of intersections are a short circuit point, like a four way intersection.&nbsp; The particles slam into each other, cause induction to flow between circuits and it wreaks general havoc until the reconnection process is complete.&nbsp; The charge particle acceleration is a direct result of these kinetic and electrical particle interactions.</p><p>You need to realize that these are not just "magnetic lines", they are "circuits" composed of moving filamentary tornado-like vortexes inside the plasma.&nbsp; A standard plasma ball will form these same exact filamentary circuits.&nbsp; There's a one to one correlation here between what you are calling "magnetic lines" and what I am calling "circuits". </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Umm, no, it doesn't imply that at all.&nbsp; People deal with E fields ALL THE TIME in modern astrophysics, not just in this field, but just because something has an important E component does not make it a circuit.</DIV></p><p>Sorry about having to nibble at your posts today.&nbsp; It's just busy at work today. </p><p>Actually, that's not the case here.&nbsp; In each case where plasma contained an important E component, Alfven did treat it as part of a "circuit".&nbsp; That's probably why he rejected magnetic reconnection theories that included any E (Curl B) component at the point of reconnection.&nbsp; He was very explicit about his rejection of magnetic reconnection theory in current carrying plasma because he conciously and deliberately treated these scenarios as "circuits", and connect points between circuits.&nbsp; He very explictly set boundaries and he used explicit terms that are directly related to electrical engineering.&nbsp; MHD theory is based on electrical engineering principles and that is the terminology that Alfven himself used. &nbsp;&nbsp; The fact it does contain an important E component necessitates the use of the term 'circuit" in this case.&nbsp; That is the terminology that Alfven used in current carrying plasma events like this.</p><p>What we have here are two twister like filaments of moving plasma that "short circuit" each other, as though we touched two wires together and created a point of intersection between the two circuits.&nbsp; The fallout from this short circuit event is directly related to the E field and the strength of the E field. The E and B fields are also intimately related to each other.&nbsp; The flow speed is also related to the strength of the magnetic and electric fields.&nbsp; Every part of this process necessitates a "circuit" overview with discussing this point of interersection between two twisting threads of plasma.&nbsp; We have to explicitly account for the movements of the plasma, and the E field interactions.&nbsp;&nbsp; In electrical engineering and MHD theory as Alfven describe it, these are "circuit reconnection" events.&nbsp;&nbsp; The only difference between ordinary circuit reconnection in solid circuits is that the plasma "wires"" are composed of the same kinds of threads we observe in ordinary plasma balls. &nbsp;&nbsp; The wires can "move around" unlike the solid circuits.&nbsp; We can create a short circuit in two wires, and also in two plasma filaments.&nbsp; We do however have to pay explicit attention to *the entire circuit* to be able to accurately 'predict" the outcome.&nbsp; If the circuit voltage and/or amperage is small, then the reaction might be minimal.&nbsp; If the circuit amperage is very large, all hell might break loose.&nbsp; The "circuit energy' must also be explicitly and completely accounted for in such interactions. &nbsp;&nbsp; Everything that occurs at the point of the short circuit will be directly related to the total circuit energy. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> No offense to you michael, but I am not impressed at all by this person.&nbsp; I realize she just got here, but thus far her arguments have had absolutely no substance whatsoever. </DIV></p><p>Well, give her a chance.&nbsp; I think we all need to take a deep breath here and just relax.&nbsp; I'd love to have her stay around and help out and get friendly with the natives. &nbsp;&nbsp; I got the impression from her comments that she is still carrying a bit of a chip on her shoulder towards specific individuals based on old conversations from awhile back.&nbsp; I think it would be a good idea for everone to just relax and remember this is a friendly scientific conversation and this conversation today is not about any previous conversation in the past, or even previous discussions in this same thread. &nbsp;</p><p>I can tell you from experience that it is extremely frustrating to attempt to explain EU theory on public forums such as this.&nbsp; The hostility towards EU theory from the mainstream is unlike the accepting sort of process we find with virtually every other type of theory related to cosmology. I can find tons of materials on inflation, monopoles, dark energy, SUSY dark matter, etc, but never can I find EU theories being presented in mainstream astronomy journals.&nbsp;&nbsp; EU theory is treated very differently than any other cosmology theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even public boards on astronomy create rules that expressly treat EU theory differently from any other "mainstream" theory.&nbsp; It's a very frustrating experience to be an EU advocate these days and it's really easy to develop a 'tude after awhile.&nbsp; I've been guilty of that myself on many occassions.&nbsp; I have however learned to rembember to relax and not hold grudges and to forgive and forget.&nbsp; That seems to work best for me personally.&nbsp; It also allows me to enjoy good online relationships and not allow the bad relationships to pollute the good ones.&nbsp; It takes a lot of concious effort to treat everyone as individuals and it's all too easy for me to condemn the whole industry for the sins of a few.&nbsp; I can relate to her feelings, beleive me.&nbsp; On ther other hand it takes time to develop good online communication skills and I'm still certainly learning to become a more efficient and less hostile "communicator" of these ideas.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Give her some time.&nbsp; I'm sure when she's ready to make her points, she'll "impress you" in due time.&nbsp; I can convey many of these ideas just fine all by myself, but I would surely welcome anyone who could make my job easier. &nbsp; Let's see how things go.</p><p>FYI, I did not get the impression that any of her comments were aimed at you personally.&nbsp; I'd say you are rather "liberal" as it comes to "mainstreamers" and I personally enjoy our converations.&nbsp; My impression is that her comments were "generalization" (which I am also guilty of) that you found offensive.&nbsp; I'm still trying to learn to be less general in my criticisms.&nbsp; It's hard to discuss EU theory and not inadverteently offend the wrong people, believe me. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><br /><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

I wonder if you might not mind asking Birn or any of his associates if they would agree or disagree with my "translation" of their term "magnetic line" with "circuit" based on the description I provided you with today.&nbsp; The reason I ask this question is becausee of their realization of the importance of E.&nbsp; That would immediately suggest to me that they *may* in fact already agree with the physical description of plasma conditions in the filaments that I just provided you with.&nbsp; Since I have already noted that their calculations may in fact accurately represent the particle physical process at the point of intersection, it's important to me that I understand their position on this issue before I proceed.&nbsp; It could be that their mathematical presentation is flawless and all we really are debating here is in fact an issue of "semantics".&nbsp; I want to be sure I don't go on a wild goose chase here over a simple disagreement about the use of terms.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...How is that energy stored DrRocket.&nbsp; You seem to be suggesting there is some way to generate "stored" magnetic energy that is somehow different from the stored kinetic energy in the flowing electrons.&nbsp; The flow of currest creates the field in the first place and the current flow does all the work....Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So when I stop the electrons in the circuit feeding the primary, somehow those electrons transfer their energy to the secondary without the intervening magnetic field ?&nbsp; And when I pulse a laser and send out a light beam that heats up an object a light year away, it is the electrons that stopped flowing a year earlier that produce heat when the beam strikes a target ?</p><p>You have two choices.&nbsp; 1) Recognize that the creation of a magnetic field requires energy that is thereafter stored in the field and available if that field changes in time.&nbsp; 2) Continue to ignore well-established electrodynamics, focus on semantics and appear&nbsp;to be a complete fool.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So when I stop the electrons in the circuit feeding the primary, somehow those electrons transfer their energy to the secondary without the intervening magnetic field ? </DIV></p><p>Can you kindly point me to the sentence where I said that, or was this just your own little strawman?&nbsp; Induction has a proper scientifc name already DrRocket.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And when I pulse a laser and send out a light beam that heats up an object a light year away, it is the electrons that stopped flowing a year earlier that produce heat when the beam strikes a target ?</DIV></p><p>What? What does this specfic question have to do with our discussion?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have two choices. </DIV></p><p>Sounds like you're trying to set up a false dichotomy to me....</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1) Recognize that the creation of a magnetic field requires energy </DIV></p><p>Yes, specfically the "energy" in the flowing charged particles in the circuit.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that is thereafter stored in the field</DIV></p><p>The energy is "stored" in the form of kinetic energy that is inside the flowing plasma filaments.&nbsp; These are the same kinds of filamenets like you would find in an ordinary plasma ball. It's energy is stored in kinetic energy. That energy can "dissipate" and it can induce currents in *separate* circuits, but no form of magnetic line reconnection is involved in this kinetic reconnection process.&nbsp; As Alfven points out, not a single line of the magnetic field is disconnected or reconnected.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and available if that field changes in time. </DIV></p><p>The kinetic energy in the thread will not instantly dissipate once the circuit is broken. The residual kinetic energy in the tornado-like filament will go somewhere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2) Continue to ignore well-established electrodynamics, focus on semantics and appear&nbsp;to be a complete fool. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You know DrRocket, I've gone to great lengths to attempt to educate you on MHD theory and plasma cosmology theory even though you utterly refuse to read the one book that I suggested to you that was written by a Nobel Prize winning author on this specific topic. &nbsp; I've consistently tried to keep the comments focused on the science and keep things on an even scientific keel.&nbsp; You however continue to use terms like "fool" that are loaded with emotional baggage.&nbsp;&nbsp; Why can't you just stick to physics?</p><p>These are two flowing filaments in plasma that simply "reconnect" at a particle physical and electrical energy level.&nbsp;&nbsp; The magnetic field topology folllows suit and follows the current flow.&nbsp; At most case you have induction.&nbsp; Induction and circuit reconnection are well explained by Alfven in Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; Anytime you're actually interested in educating yourself on the subject, feel free to do so.&nbsp; I can't tell you how many false comments you have made in this thread because you simply refuse to read the resources I suggested.&nbsp; I guarantee you that when you do finally break down and read Cosmic Plasma like I suggested to you over a year ago, you're not going to be pleased with your comments or your attitude in this thread.</p><p>What I really don't comprehend DrRocket is why you attempt to play the devil's advocate toward EU theory when you clearly do not understand this theory because you've never bothered to read it?&nbsp; Do you have any idea how silly that behavior seems from my perspecitve?&nbsp; Derek and UFMbutler have been cool and it's been a pleasure explaining these ideas to them, and talking with them.&nbsp; You on the other hand have been a pain in the neck at times and way over the top in terms of pegging the irony meter.&nbsp; The only fool is the one who *refuses* to educate themselves on any given topic yet fancies themselves as some sort of "expert" on the same topic.&nbsp; </p><p>At least I'm continuing to "educate" myself about magnetic reconnection theory.&nbsp; Sheesh. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can you kindly point me to the sentence where I said that, or was this just your own little strawman?&nbsp; Induction has a proper scientifc name already DrRocket.&nbsp; What? What does this specfic question have to do with our discussion?Sounds like you're trying to set up a false dichotomy to me....Yes, specfically the "energy" in the flowing charged particles in the circuit.The energy is "stored" in the form of kinetic energy that is inside the flowing plasma filaments.&nbsp; These are the same kinds of filamenets like you would find in an ordinary plasma ball. It's energy is stored in kinetic energy. That energy can "dissipate" and it can induce currents in *separate* circuits, but no form of magnetic line reconnection is involved in this kinetic reconnection process.&nbsp; As Alfven points out, not a single line of the magnetic field is disconnected or reconnected.&nbsp; The kinetic energy in the thread will not instantly dissipate once the circuit is broken. The residual kinetic energy in the tornado-like filament will go somewhere.You know DrRocket, I've gone to great lengths to attempt to educate you on MHD theory and plasma cosmology theory even though you utterly refuse to read the one book that I suggested to you that was written by a Nobel Prize winning author on this specific topic. &nbsp; I've consistently tried to keep the comments focused on the science and keep things on an even scientific keel.&nbsp; You however continue to use terms like "fool" that are loaded with emotional baggage.&nbsp;&nbsp; Why can't you just stick to physics?These are two flowing filaments in plasma that simply "reconnect" at a particle physical and electrical energy level.&nbsp;&nbsp; The magnetic field topology folllows suit and follows the current flow.&nbsp; At most case you have induction.&nbsp; Induction and circuit reconnection are well explained by Alfven in Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; Anytime you're actually interested in educating yourself on the subject, feel free to do so.&nbsp; I can't tell you how many false comments you have made in this thread because you simply refuse to read the resources I suggested.&nbsp; I guarantee you that when you do finally break down and read Cosmic Plasma like I suggested to you over a year ago, you're not going to be pleased with your comments or your attitude in this thread.What I really don't comprehend DrRocket is why you attempt to play the devil's advocate toward EU theory when you clearly do not understand this theory because you've never bothered to read it?&nbsp; Do you have any idea how silly that behavior seems from my perspecitve?&nbsp; Derek and UFMbutler have been cool and it's been a pleasure explaining these ideas to them, and talking with them.&nbsp; You on the other hand have been a pain in the neck at times and way over the top in terms of pegging the irony meter.&nbsp; The only fool is the one who *refuses* to educate themselves on any given topic yet fancies themselves as some sort of "expert" on the same topic.&nbsp; At least I'm continuing to "educate" myself about magnetic reconnection theory.&nbsp; Sheesh. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I will respond to only&nbsp; three points in this gibberish.</p><p>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Light is an electromagnetic wave.&nbsp; That laser beam, and electromagnetic waver, persists and carries energy long after the current flow in the circuit that created it has ceased to exist.&nbsp; The energy is in the field, in this case the electromagnetic wave or group of photons depending on how you want to look at it.</p><p>2.&nbsp; I have read Alfven's book, Cosmical Electrodynamics.&nbsp; The fact that you think this is the "wrong" book is utterly irrelevant.&nbsp; I have also read several of Alfven's papers.&nbsp; </p><p>3.&nbsp; Your attempt to "educate" me or anyone else in MHD seems to lack a foundation in basic physics, particularly electrodynamics.&nbsp; You have consistently ignored that subject and focused on semantics and not physics.&nbsp; The examples that I have given you are completely relevant, but you seem to not know enough physics to even recognize that fact.&nbsp; You focused absolutely nothing on science, and in fact have completely ignored scientific principles in favor of utter fantasies that are demonstrably false.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[colesakick]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Assuming that we can all "chill out", take a deep breath and all work on communicating our ideas rather than scoring ego points, this should shape up into a really excellent scientific discussion, particularly if you join the discussion.&nbsp; I welcome your scientific input.&nbsp; Let's all try to pay attention to each other's feelings during this process and focus our attention on the science side of the debate, and not on each other.&nbsp; I think we'll all be happier that way.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;<font size="4">Of course you are correct, my apologies to all. It just got my Irish up to read the arrogance you are facing by some here. But apparently you've gotten comfortable with it and overlook it. If you like this group then I'll back off and stop kicking sand around the box.</font></p><p><font size="4">I carry a lot of bitterness from a few years ago. Even the Moderators were arrogant and unfair. The rudeness just got overwhelming so I left. I don't know what possessed me to come back this week but I saw you were still around and felt compassion for the way you were being jerked around by some of these folks. Only one guy seems to be trying to work with you to some degree but he too talks like he couldn't possibly be wrong and you can't possibly be right.</font></p><p><font size="4">I'm an inside friend&nbsp;Dave Talbott's so I've met Wal Thornhil, Don Scott, Mel Acheson and the whole gang (Rens, Dwardu Oliver, Mike, the whole gang at a private conference last year). Both Wal and Dave&nbsp;are humble, sincere, intelligent, meek and gentle men. I take it personally when folks speak of their work like it's foolish or nonsensical. As you said, their work/your work&nbsp;is not new, it is the carried torch of Birkland&nbsp;who walked the north pole to study the aurora to prove it was an electromagnetic current and he was right. He was an honest to God scientist, a gentleman farmer who was curious about how nature works and took great risks to&nbsp;learn and understand the facts over fiction. Other great men followed his path.</font></p><p><font size="4">Cosmology has a long history of mythology attached to it. People still look up at the stars and imagine almost anything is possible so no matter how imaginary it is they still call it cosmology. I just hope for the day when rationality is applied just as faithfully to this field as it is to others. Cosmology gets a pass on the scientific method because it's nye impossible to actually test most of it. Even still, some basis in reality should be required. There is far too much faith in the field and too little critical analysis. The peer review system is broken because these folks have turned into a "good ole boys club." If you agree with them you get published, period! It's just damned frustrating,&nbsp;especially when good people get kicked to the curb in the process.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[colesakick]

<font face="Arial">In the APM, mass is induced to be a linear dimension, whereas charge is induced to be a distributed dimension.&nbsp; Distributed (squared) quantities increase in magnitude quicker than linear quantities.&nbsp; And just as the reciprocal of a cubed quantity is less than the reciprocal of a squared quantity, the force acting on a distributed dimension will drop off much quicker than the force acting on a linear dimension.<br /><br />I don't buy the argument about localized currents.&nbsp; As the scale of the system increases its density decreases.&nbsp; The idea about localized currents is therefore misleading since the assumption is that current density will be the same for a satellite laboratory and galactic electric filaments.&nbsp; This is not true.&nbsp; Galactic or Intergalactic electric currents passing through space seem almost impossible to measure with a satellite because the density is so sparse.&nbsp; Yet, the current flows through a much greater volume of space than would an Earth-based lightning bolt, for example.&nbsp; We look at the Crab Nebula from clear across the galaxy and think we are looking at an object.&nbsp; If we flew a spacecraft into it we would find nothing but empty space.&nbsp; The dust and photons are so sparse that we can see through it even from our present vantage point.&nbsp; <br /><br />I think the real problem of why the Electric Universe is not accepted by the mainstream is because cosmologists are not appreciating the effect of scale on what they are observing.&nbsp; For some reason, they seem to think that a low local current density or low local magnetic flux density means the electric and magnetic physics are non-existent.&nbsp; It would be like an amoeba exploring the human body looking for some sign of intelligence.&nbsp; There are all these stupid cells connected to each other reacting to some other cells, but none of them seem to be self sufficient like the amoeba.&nbsp; The concept the amoeba would need to understand is the concept of scale.&nbsp; <br /><br />What modern cosmologists need to understand is how low current density can produce effects on scales much larger than our solar system and even larger than the Milky Way.&nbsp; One does not need high current density to create a huge current over a huge volume of space.&nbsp; In fact, a large scale electric current cannot stay structured if the current can interact meaningfully at a local scale.&nbsp; <br /><br />BTW, I agree that magnetic fields and electric fields must always coexist, however, I do not see any basis why the electric field should be primary to the magnetic field.&nbsp; One would have to assume that an object is more real than the environment containing it to make such a statement.&nbsp; But the environment must exist before it can be populated with something physical.&nbsp; The APM shows that both environment and matter are created simultaneously.&nbsp; However, observation shows that space can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without space.&nbsp; <br /><br />Electric particles have a particulate characteristic, whereas magnetic fields have an environmental characteristic.&nbsp; Electric particles are electrons and protons, whereas magnetic fields are surrounding Aether units which have been magnetically oriented toward the magnetic structures of the electron and proton.&nbsp; The real question is whether moving particles are the only source of action, or whether Aether can have an inherent vibration of its own, which can affect the movement of matter through it.&nbsp; Personally, I believe it is possible to alter the behavior of the Aether without first causing matter to move through it.&nbsp; To understand this requires studying the structure of the Aether and how conductance affects both Aether and matter.&nbsp; And to be fair about not hiding what I'm leading up to, conductance can be manipulated both by moving matter and by something non-material that can make choices (like the mind).&nbsp; If people would like to see physical demonstrations of the latter, they need to watch Alain Nu bend spoons while other people are holding them.&nbsp; Brant just recently shared a very interesting link about a Russian physicist who has performed scientific experiments along these lines.&nbsp; <br /><br />Regardless of whether we can ever agree on whether electric fields are more primary to magnetic fields, I think we can all agree the main problem with the EU not being accepted is that people have not grasped the concept of scale.&nbsp; A plasma demonstration in a lab has identical physics to plasmas in space, but the size of the space plasmas demand a corresponding reduction in plasma density.&nbsp; </font><p><font face="Arial">Secrets of the Aether, Dave Thomson's comments above. </font><font face="Arial" color="#003399">www.16pi2.com</font><font face="Arial"> </font></p><div class="Discussion_UserSignature">Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Of course you are correct, my apologies to all. It just got my Irish up to read the arrogance you are facing by some here. But apparently you've gotten comfortable with it and overlook it. If you like this group then I'll back off and stop kicking sand around the box.I carry a lot of bitterness from a few years ago. Even the Moderators were arrogant and unfair. The rudeness just got overwhelming so I left. I don't know what possessed me to come back this week but I saw you were still around and felt compassion for the way you were being jerked around by some of these folks. Only one guy seems to be trying to work with you to some degree but he too talks like he couldn't possibly be wrong and you can't possibly be right.I'm an inside friend&nbsp;Dave Talbott's so I've met Wal Thornhil, Don Scott, Mel Acheson and the whole gang (Rens, Dwardu Oliver, Mike, the whole gang at a private conference last year). Both Wal and Dave&nbsp;are humble, sincere, intelligent, meek and gentle men. I take it personally when folks speak of their work like it's foolish or nonsensical. As you said, their work/your work&nbsp;is not new, it is the carried torch of Birkland&nbsp;who walked the north pole to study the aurora to prove it was an electromagnetic current and he was right. He was an honest to God scientist, a gentleman farmer who was curious about how nature works and took great risks to&nbsp;learn and understand the facts over fiction. Other great men followed his path.Cosmology has a long history of mythology attached to it. People still look up at the stars and imagine almost anything is possible so no matter how imaginary it is they still call it cosmology. I just hope for the day when rationality is applied just as faithfully to this field as it is to others. Cosmology gets a pass on the scientific method because it's nye impossible to actually test most of it. Even still, some basis in reality should be required. There is far too much faith in the field and too little critical analysis. The peer review system is broken because these folks have turned into a "good ole boys club." If you agree with them you get published, period! It's just damned frustrating,&nbsp;especially when good people get kicked to the curb in the process. <br /> Posted by colesakick</DIV></p><p>Do you actually have anything constructive to add or are you going to turn this thread into a sychophantic love fest toward Michael and the rest of the EU crew while deriding those that don't view things from your perspective?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[colesakick]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you actually have anything constructive to add or are you going to turn this thread into a sychophantic love fest toward Michael and the rest of the EU crew while deriding those that don't view things from your perspective?&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br /><font size="4">I have nothing unique to offer, I am a nobody. However I will interject the works of other thinkers who have taken these concepts to rational conclusion you won't be&nbsp;be very&nbsp;successful at invalidating to either the learned or casual observer. I don't mean that as a challenge, Lord knows I have no interest in antogonizing you, I mean it in all sincerity, it simply will be intellectualy tough for you to score in the eye of rational laypeople when what I plan to post will be so authentic, real and rational as compared to figments of the imaginations such as black holes and the like. Having named that, how about this:</font></p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">"If matter collapses to infinite density at a singularity, what distinguishes one collapsed mass from another?&nbsp;Wouldn't that mean that space was infinitely curved at that point? &nbsp;Isn't it more likely that matter collapses to some very highly dense but still finite state (quark star, string star etc) at the centre of a black hole, resulting in the different sizes of the event horizons?I don't understand where the assumption that matter must collapse to a singularity comes from when we still don't know how to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum&nbsp;Mechanics.&nbsp; <br />Posted by pendelton</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p class="MsoNormal">By what action can a black hole interact with "outside bodies"? First, the fundamental black hole is obtained as a solution for Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that is, by definition, empty - there is no matter present. So the alleged black hole can interact with nothing because its associated spacetime is empty - it precludes the presence of any matter. So there are no "outside bodies" present, by hypothesis. Furthermore, Einstein's theory of gravitation is non-linear and so the 'Principle of Superposition' does not apply. It does apply in Newton's theory. These are fundamentally different theories, and so one cannot simply insert lumps of matter into any spacetime of Einstein by an analogy with Newton's theory. So the notion of black holes at the centres of galaxies is nonsense. This is why the alleged black hole collisions, mergers and binaries are also nonsense. Each black hole is obtained separately as a solution to Ric = 0. The one black hole cannot<br />therefore be in the spacetime of another black hole and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by definition contains no matter; yet the black holers would have us all believe that claptrap. <br /><br />On another simple level the black hole is inconsistent with the Theory of Relativity. The alleged singularity of the black hole is infinitely dense. Now Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that a material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum (or equivalently that there is infinite energy), which violates the fundamental premise of Special Relativity. General Relativity, by definition, cannot violate Special Relativity, and so it too forbids infinite density. Thus, the Theory of Relativity forbids infinitely dense point-mass singularities and hence forbids black holes. <br /><br />Consequently, discussion of lensing by black holes, medium sized black holes, and all alleged black hole phenomena, are meaningless. Black holes are not predicted by any theory. The hypothetical Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton's theory is not a black hole because it possesses an escape velocity, whereas the black hole has no escape velocity; it does not require irresistible gravitational collapse, whereas the black hole does; it has no infinitely dense point-mass singularity, whereas the black hole does; it has no event horizon, whereas the black hole does; there is always a class of observers that can see the dark body, but there is no class of observers that can see the black hole. Thus the Michell-Laplace dark body does not possess the signatures of the alleged black hole and so it is not a black hole.<br /><br />Nobody has ever found a black hole because nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon. Moreover, it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to establish the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. All claims for the discovery of black holes are patently false. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'TimesNewRoman'">Bear in mind that billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted and continue to be wasted on the search for black holes and gravitational waves produced by them. Such projects are destined to detect nothing. The funding of them is just a gravy train for the participants, who are never short of excuses to get more out of the taxpayer.</span><font size="3">&nbsp;"</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>