Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think we'll have to wait and see what Birn et all have to say about it.&nbsp; I've pretty clearly explained this event from the particle physics perspective and the way Alfven used terms. It wouldn't be universally applicable in dense cold plasma that wasn't moving.&nbsp; It is however applicable in the plasma ball scenario where current carrying filemants are present. Plasma cosmolog, Chapter 2: He of course goes on to expain this whole circuit analogy in great detail, but you wouldn't know anything about it.&nbsp; Evidently you're more of an expert on this topic than the Nobel Prize winning scientist that developed MHD theory.&nbsp; All this expertize and you've never even bothered to read his book!&nbsp;&nbsp; You really should read the book and save us a lot of grief.&nbsp; It's painful to talk with you about this topic because you're in complete conflict with the guy that developed the theory and you won't be bothered to read his work. Hoy Vey.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Maybe yo ought to look a bit harder at the last sentences.&nbsp; That makes it quite clear that he is using an analogy that is applicable under special conditions and that the analogy can be misleading if applies incorrectly.&nbsp; This is what I have been saying.&nbsp; You must be very careful in applying circuit theory and recognize that it is not a good description under many and likely most situations involving large scale phenomena in presence of large electromagnetic fields.&nbsp;</p><p>My problemis not with what Alfven is saying.&nbsp; It is with your distortion of what Alfvenis saying.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are again overemphasizing analogies and over-simplified terminology and revealing a lack of knowledge of the underlying physics.</DIV></p><p>Oh the irony. This from a guy that fancies himself more "knowledgeable" on the topic of MHD theory than the Nobel Prize winning author of that theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can of course view, on a microscopic level, a current flow as a bundle of "fibers" or "wires" of curren, and you can also look a materials as a structure composed of fibers with essemtially constant stress in contimuum mechanics, but those are just useful analogies.&nbsp; Those analogies do not imply that such structures are meaningful on large scales, or that circuit theory is an adequate approximation except in special circumstances.</DIV></p><p>The "special circumstances" are applied to *every event involving current flow through the plasma* according to Alfven.&nbsp; You're ignoring the circuit energy. He never did that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They can provide useful visualizations on a small scale. I&nbsp;use them myself, but recognize the limitations.</DIV></p><p>The problem is that the mainstream is attempting to understand particle physics from the perspective of the magnetic field.&nbsp;&nbsp; The total circuit energy must be accounted for in current carrying plasma and the 'reconnection' process takes place a *particle physical* level.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I have explained to you in some detail why circuit theory may not be an appropriate model for phenomena that occur on large scales and that are governed by coupled partial differential equations. </DIV></p><p>Yes, but Alfven explained it differently from you and I trust the guy that wrote the theory, not some guy that never bothered to even read his later book.&nbsp; You don't have a clue what you're talking about because you education ended in the 60 when Alfven wrote his first book.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is not a matter of terminology or of semantics, no matter how much you wish it were so.The problem is not that I have not read the references or Alfven's work, which I have, but that you have failed to become conversant in the basics physics in general and of electrodynamics in particular.</DIV></p><p>This is utterly backwards from reality.&nbsp; You have failed to become conversant in the "basics", like circuits.&nbsp; It's you that lack the basic education here DrRocket.&nbsp; You never read the book!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is not a matter of the total energy of a circuit, whatever you think that might mean,</DIV></p><p>Hoy.&nbsp; The things you say at times are absolutely astrounding.&nbsp; I'm not going to waste my time today.&nbsp; You've never read his later work on MHD theory.&nbsp; Of course you don't know what your talking about because you never studied his later work.&nbsp; You seem to be quite certain that you know more about MHD theory than the author of that theory. I'm amazed, dismayed, and blown away at your ignorance of the basics circuit method that Alfven used when working with current carrying plasma. &nbsp;</p><p>Alfven spends chapter 1 and 2 explaining where we need to use the "field" view of MHD theory, or the magnetic field side of MHD to understand events in plasma.&nbsp; He also explain where we need to switch to a plasma physical "particle" view of these energy exchanges.&nbsp; The clear deliniation he makes is based on whether or not the plasma is carrying currents.&nbsp; In such cases he explicity accounted for the circuit energy and used a "particle" approach toward explaining these events.&nbsp; That makes a lot of sense once you understand it.&nbsp; As it stands, you don't understand it because you've only read his earliest work.</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe what you ought to do is shut up, listen a bit, and learn something. <br /><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I think maybe you need to be silent for awhile and actually read the book I suggested. You've put your foot in your mouth in this thread so many times that I've lost count, all of which could have easily been avoided if you had simply read the book I suggested instead of doing your own thing in your own way and ignoring my suggestion.&nbsp; Instead of us being able to have a nice, useful, meaningful discussion on this topic, you continually make statements that go directly against the teaching of the author of MHD theory.&nbsp; I don't know you from Adam, whereas I trust that Alfven properly understood MHD theory. As far as I can tell, your lack of understanding is a direct result of your unwillingness to educate yourself on this topic through Alfven's later work, or Peratt's work, or anyone who actually understands the material.&nbsp;&nbsp; You fancy yourself as quite the expert, but you haven't got the first clue about the importance of circuits in MHD theory, meaning you don't know anything.&nbsp; MHD theory is predicated upon the *ELECTRICAL*, the magnetic as well as the fluid properties of plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You're only paying attention to two of three important physical properties, because you've never given yourself a proper education on this topic.</p><p>Wires and "circuits" are often the only vaible analogy one can use depending on the circcumstance inside the plasma.&nbsp; When talking about DENSE, COLD, NON current carrying plasma, the B field may play a major role in plasma events.&nbsp; In light, hot, current carrying plasma, the circuit energy is also critically important.&nbsp; You won't even acknowledge this point, and that is a key point Alfven makes throughout the first three chapters of CP.&nbsp; I can't help you anymore DrRocket because you refuse to educate yourself, you don't know what you're talking about, and you have some irrational belief that you're more of an expert on plasma physics than the author of the theory.&nbsp; I can't work with that combination of ignorance and arrogance.&nbsp; Either read his material or quit trying to pretend you understand this subject.&nbsp; You clearly do not understand this subject, mostly at the level of particle physics because you refuse to look at MHD theory from the perspective of particle physics.&nbsp; The only "stored" energy in the magnetic field is the kinetic energy stored in the moving particles of plasma.&nbsp; &nbsp; You haven't the first clue of the role of kinetic energy in these particle reconnection events. </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'>Maybe yo ought to look a bit harder at the last sentences. </DIV></p><p>Maybe you need to read the book and stop trying to build a federal case over a single sentence.&nbsp; When Alfven talked about "being careful", he explain the boundary conditions where caution was required, and where different viewpoints were required.&nbsp; In current carrying plasma he was *careful* to apply a "particle" viewpoint to MHD problems, whereas in cold dense, non current carrying plasma, he was *careful* to apply a "field" or magnetic viewpoint when looking at the plasma interactions.&nbsp; By not being careful about these boundary conditions, you are recklessly abandoning the "circumstances" where a particle physical approach to the problem is superior to a field oriented viewpoint alone.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That makes it quite clear that he is using an analogy that is applicable under special conditions and that the analogy can be misleading if applies incorrectly. </DIV></p><p>And if we tried to apply this to *non* current carrying plasma, you might have a point.&nbsp; As it stands, you're on the wrong side of the "being careful" process and you don't even realize it because you never read the book!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is what I have been saying.&nbsp; You must be very careful in applying circuit theory and recognize that it is not a good description under many and likely most situations involving large scale phenomena in presence of large electromagnetic fields.&nbsp;My problemis not with what Alfven is saying.&nbsp; It is with your distortion of what Alfvenis saying. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The only one who is distorting what he said is you.&nbsp; In fact you don't even know what he said because you never read the book.&nbsp; The only parts you've read are the parts I posted to rebutt your ridiculous comments.&nbsp; You are so transparent on this issue it's absurd.&nbsp; You don't know what you're talking about or what Alfven said, because you don't have a clue what Alfven said. </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>CP, page 7. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As is shown ir Figure I.4, some types of plasma phenomena should be described by the field picture and others by the current picture . Attempts to describe a certain group of phenomena with the wrong formalism often lead to erroneous results . This will be discussed in some detail in Chapter II. Phenomena which cannot be understood without explicitly accounting for the current are :<br />(A) Energy transfer from one region to another (see II and III).<br />(B) Formation of double layers (see II .6).<br />(C) The' occurrence of explosive events such as solar flares (I11 .8), magnetic substorms<br />(111 .5 .1), possibly also `internal ionization' phenomena in comets (Wurm, 1963;<br />Mendis, 1978) and stellar flares.<br />(D) Double layer violation of the Ferraro corotation (II1 .3) . Establishing `partial corotation'<br />is essential for the understanding of some features of the solar system (see<br />ESS, 17, 18).<br />(E) Formation of filaments in the ionospheric aurora, the solar atmosphere, the nebulae<br />and in the ionosphere of Venus (1I .4 and 1I .93).<br />(F) Formation of current sheets which may give space a `cellular structure' 1I .10<br />and VI).<br />Exploration of those plasma properties which can be described by the magnetic fields concept have in general been successful . However, this is not the case for those phenomena which cannot be understood by this approach . <strong>The present monograph shall concentrate on the latter, and try to give a survey of cosmic plasmas based on the particle (electric current) aspect.</strong></DIV> </p><p>In other words, everywhere in space, Alfven tended to use the "particle" viewpoint of MHD theory because that plasma was carrying electrical current and it was better described from the *particle* side of MHD theory.&nbsp; Get it DrRocket? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The polarization of light, due to the vector in which the electric field propogates, seems rather well known.&nbsp; If they can make sunglasses that can filter out polarized light (they're cheap and work wonderfully... i own a couple), someone must have a good understanding of what's going on.&nbsp; This isn't something new.</DIV></p><p>No, probably not.&nbsp; What's relatively "unusual" is their explicit recognition of the *electric* field.&nbsp; If I'm going to complain about it when the mainstream doesn't mention the electric field, I should also compliment them when they do explicity mention the electric field.&nbsp; It only seems fair. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This has absolutely nothing to do with the article that YOU cited.</DIV></p><p>Of course it does.&nbsp; It works exactly like Alfven's unipolar inductor model, including the point of acceleration of particles near the poles.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This has nothing to due with how the particles are accelerated.</DIV></p><p>Of course it does, otherwise he wouldn't have "predicted" these things in his unipolar induction model.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are trying to figure out where they are starting to accelerate. </DIV></p><p>It's evidently quite near the spin axis poles, right where Alfven predicted them to occur.&nbsp; Birkeland's early experiments also produced "jets", and "cathode beams".&nbsp; None of this is new to EU advocates.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That they have determined the electromagnetic radiation shows significant polarization leads them to believe the acceleration is quite close to the neutron star. </DIV></p><p>I would expect that this is true.&nbsp; We see significant acceleration events in events near the poles of our own sun, and the formation of powerful "jets" of plasma from our own sun.&nbsp; Birkeland' actually "predicted" such events.&nbsp; The fact the apply to larger, more dense objects in the universe is not surprising.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Polarization isn't a haphazard, random thing.&nbsp; Polarization requires specific phenomena to occur.&nbsp; Apparently the best place for this amount of polarization to occur is close to the surface where the magnetic field appears to be more ordered and less chaotic than further away from the surface.</DIV></p><p>FYI, I have nothing but great respect for their "technique" and their results.&nbsp; I almost get the impression you felt that I thought it was a problem in some way.&nbsp; I was simply encouraged they explicitely noted the electric field.&nbsp; In most of these articles all one hears about is the magnetic field.&nbsp; This one is "different" in a way that I personally appreciate.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You've repeated that about 500 times... still has nothing to do with the article you posted.&nbsp; In fact, they are still relying on the magnetic field to acceelerate the particles.&nbsp;It would be hard to discuss the polarization of electromagnetic radiation without discussing the electric field.&nbsp; I'm glad you are encouraged.&nbsp;I'm dismayed at what you gleaned from that rather straighforward article.&nbsp; How you twisted their interpretation up is beyond me.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It's not a matter of "twisting" anything.&nbsp; It's a matter of noting that these observations are consistent with Alfven's model, and Birkeland's early predictions.&nbsp; It a matter of me being "happy" that someone in the mainstream *finally* mentioned the electrical current involved in these events. &nbsp; </p><p>I guess I should have tried to come acrross more postive when I posted this article.&nbsp; I'm happy that they explicity mentioned the electrical energy in the "circuit". &nbsp; I realize it would be nearly impossible to not mention it given the nature of the paper and the methods that were used, but it's highly encouraging to an EU advocate to see the mainstream start discussing the electric field and the wiring of the "circuits".&nbsp; I've yet to seem much mention of "circuits" in space, but at least they are talking about the E field and not just the B field.&nbsp; I'm not complaining.&nbsp; I'm happy for a change.&nbsp; I just *wish* that they'd mentioned Alven's or Birkeland's predictions and how they matched these events, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day. </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'>...light, hot, current carrying plasma, the circuit energy is also critically important.&nbsp; You won't even acknowledge this point, and that is a key point Alfven makes throughout the first three chapters of CP.&nbsp; I can't help you anymore DrRocket because you refuse to educate yourself, you don't know what you're talking about, and you have some irrational belief that you're more of an expert on plasma physics than the author of the theory.&nbsp; I can't work with that combination of ignorance and arrogance.&nbsp; Either read his material or quit trying to pretend you understand this subject.&nbsp; You clearly do not understand this subject, mostly at the level of particle physics because you refuse to look at MHD theory from the perspective of particle physics.&nbsp; The only "stored" energy in the magnetic field is the kinetic energy stored in the moving particles of plasma.&nbsp; &nbsp; You haven't the first clue of the role of kinetic energy in these particle reconnection events. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is just absurd.&nbsp; You are throwing around words that you don't understand and trying to draw conclusions from nonsense.&nbsp; </p><p>Just for starts, why don't you try to define your terms.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

Posted by michaelmozina <p>CP, page 7. </p><p><br />Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">As is shown ir Figure I.4, some types of plasma phenomena should be described by the field picture and others by the current picture . Attempts to describe a certain group of phenomena with the wrong formalism often lead to erroneous results . This will be discussed in some detail in Chapter II. Phenomena which cannot be understood without explicitly accounting for the current are :<br />(A) Energy transfer from one region to another (see II and III).<br />(B) Formation of double layers (see II .6).<br />(C) The' occurrence of explosive events such as solar flares (I11 .8), magnetic substorms<br />(111 .5 .1), possibly also `internal ionization' phenomena in comets (Wurm, 1963;<br />Mendis, 1978) and stellar flares.<br />(D) Double layer violation of the Ferraro corotation (II1 .3) . Establishing `partial corotation'<br />is essential for the understanding of some features of the solar system (see<br />ESS, 17, 18).<br />(E) Formation of filaments in the ionospheric aurora, the solar atmosphere, the nebulae<br />and in the ionosphere of Venus (1I .4 and 1I .93).<br />(F) Formation of current sheets which may give space a `cellular structure' 1I .10<br />and VI).<br />Exploration of those plasma properties which can be described by the magnetic fields concept have in general been successful . However, this is not the case for those phenomena which cannot be understood by this approach . <strong>The present monograph shall concentrate on the latter, and try to give a survey of cosmic plasmas based on the particle (electric current) aspect.</strong></div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In other words, everywhere in space, Alfven tended to use the "particle" viewpoint of MHD theory because that plasma was carrying electrical current and it was better described from the *particle* side of MHD theory.&nbsp; Get it DrRocket? {/QUOTE]</p><p>Of course I get it.&nbsp; He is noting that plasmas are composed of charged particles and that those particles are mobile.&nbsp; Of course you have to consider that motion and since current is nothing more or less than moving charged particles the associated electrical current is a vital aspect of the physics.&nbsp; It is what creates magnetic fields.&nbsp; I get it.&nbsp; But I don't think that you do.</p><p>What Alfven has said is quite logical and rather obvious.&nbsp; What you have said in trying to ape Alfven, unsuccessfully, is gibberish.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vividasday]

&nbsp; Why is electiricy the forbiddn language of Astronomy???&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; Why is electiricy the forbiddn language of Astronomy???&nbsp; <br /> Posted by vividasday</DIV>Please don't degrade an already strained discussion by pretending to be obtuse.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is just absurd.&nbsp; You are throwing around words that you don't understand and trying to draw conclusions from nonsense.&nbsp; Just for starts, why don't you try to define your terms. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>We have reached an impasse now in our discussion DrRocket.&nbsp; This impasse is directly related to your failure to read the matierals that I suggested to you.&nbsp; I am not using my own terms.&nbsp; I'm using terms that Alfven used.&nbsp; I quoted him for you and everything.&nbsp; If you simply refuse to read the materials in question, and you pretend to know more about MHD theory than the author of that theory, I don't really know how to have a rational discussion with you on the topic of MHD theory.&nbsp; I defined and explained for you the "physical processes" that are acually occuring at the particle physical level of reconnection, and I actually do happen to understand a little something about particle physics.&nbsp; I have even been published in the Journal of Fusion Energy and Physics of Atomic Nuclei.&nbsp; I have read Alfven's MHD materials, including the later materials on MHD theory as well as the early materials from the 60's. &nbsp; I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to the physical process of "reconnection" at a particle physical level.</p><p> I don't really have a clue what your qualifications might be on the topic of particle physics.&nbsp; Have you ever published anything in any scientific journal?&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't even know.&nbsp; From the best that I can tell from our conversation, you don't seem to grasp the actual "physics" of particle physical interactions where the "reconnection" event is actually occuring.&nbsp; We seem to therefore be incapable of continuing this discussion in a rational, calm and scientific manner.</p><p>FYI, as I have explained to you on a number of occasions now, Alfven explicity swiched to a "particle" viewpoint when discussing current carrying plasma. &nbsp; That approach to physics is in alignment with the fields of electrical engineering, nuclear chemisty and every other scientific field of study that I can think of.&nbsp; In some cases the "particle" interaction process is more revealing than the "field" viewpoint, particularly in light, hot, electrically active plasmas.&nbsp;&nbsp; The magnetic field 'stores" particle kinetic energy by compressing it into tighly wound streams or 'tubes" of flowing material.&nbsp; That "stored energy" can be passed to other things, but it is kinetic energy at the level of particle physics. </p><p>I strongly suggest you chill out, read Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma" and then get back to me.&nbsp; Our discussions would go a whole lot smoother if you did that.&nbsp; If you won't read the information I have suggested to you, I can't really discuss this much further with you.&nbsp; If you don't grasp the impications of the kinetic and electrical interactions as the particle physical level, all of this must seem like some sort of math excersize to you.&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; I's honest to God plasma physics.&nbsp; It's physical "reconnection" at the level of particle physics.&nbsp; There's no mystery about these "reconnection" processes in physical plasma. &nbsp; They are particle physical interactions within the moving plasma.&nbsp; If you don't understand the actually particle physics processes, and you refuse to understand Alfven's views about current carrying plasma, then I can't really think of any logical reason for us to continue our conversation.&nbsp; All we are doing now is talking past one another and insulting one another because you are too stubborn to read the matierals that will enlighten you.&nbsp; I can't change your internal desire to learn or your refusal to do so.&nbsp; Only you can do that. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We have reached an impasse now in our discussion DrRocket.&nbsp; This impasse is directly related to your failure to read the matierals that I suggested to you.&nbsp; I am not using my own terms.&nbsp; I'm using terms that Alfven used.&nbsp; I quoted him for you and everything.&nbsp; If you simply refuse to read the materials in question, and you pretend to know more about MHD theory than the author of that theory, I don't really know how to have a rational discussion with you on the topic of MHD theory.&nbsp; I defined and explained for you the "physical processes" that are acually occuring at the particle physical level of reconnection, and I actually do happen to understand a little something about particle physics.&nbsp; I have even been published in the Journal of Fusion Energy.&nbsp; I have read Alfven's MHD materials, including the later materials on MHD theory as well as the early materials from the 60's. &nbsp; I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to the physical process of "reconnection" at a particle physical level. I don't really have a clue what you qualifications might be on the topic of particle physics.&nbsp; Have you ever published anything?&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't even know.&nbsp; From the best that I can tell, you don't seem to grasp the actually "physics" of particle physical interactions where the "reconnection" event is actually occuring.&nbsp; We seem to therefore be incapable of continuing this discussion.FYI, as I have explained to you on a number of occasions now, Alfven explicity swiched to a "particle" viewpoint when discussing current carrying plasma. &nbsp; That approach to physics is in alignment with the fields of electrical engineering, nuclear chemisty and every other scientific field of study that I can think of.&nbsp; In some cases the "particle" interaction process is more revealing than the "field" viewpoint, particularly in light, hot, electrically active plasmas.&nbsp;&nbsp; The magnetic field 'stores" particle kinetic energy by compressing it into tighly wound streams or 'tubes" of flowing material.&nbsp; That "stored energy" can be passed to other things, but it is kinetic energy at the level of particle physics. I strongly suggest you chill out, read Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma" and then get back to me.&nbsp; Our discussions would go a whole lot smoother if you did that.&nbsp; If you won't read the information I have suggested to you, I can't really discuss this much further with you.&nbsp; If you don't grasp the impications of the kinetic and electrical interactions as the particle physical level, all of this must seem like some sort of math excersize to you.&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; I's honest to God plasma physics.&nbsp; It's physical "reconnection" at the level of particle physics.&nbsp; There's no mystery about these "reconnection" processes in physical plasma. &nbsp; They are particle physical interactions within the moving plasma.&nbsp; If you don't understand the actually particle physics processes, and you refuse to understand Alfven's views about current carrying plasma, then I can't really think of any logical reason for us to continue our conversation.&nbsp; All we are doing now is talking past one another and insulting one another because you are too stubborn to read the matierals that will enlighten you.&nbsp; I can't change your internal desire to learn or your refusal to do so.&nbsp; Only you can do that. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't quite understand why you think that the issue here is "credentials" and publications.&nbsp; That seems a poor means of judging physics.&nbsp; You have not provided any physical arguments in this thread at all.&nbsp; You have merely manipulated words and attempted to reduce physical arguments to discussions of semantics.&nbsp; You have consistently relied on terminology arguments, taken out of context, based on a single book, with protestations to the contrary that are simply falacious.</p><p>With regard to publications.&nbsp; Yes I have published several technical papers, in refereed formats.&nbsp; I have published papers written on my own, and not with co-authors who covered the technical work and who are themselves discredited and clearly unbalanced -- has Manuel gone to trial yet ?&nbsp; A bad publication is no recommendation whatever -- quite the contrary.&nbsp; A publication purporting to show that the sun is primarily of heavy elements like iron and that flies in the face of all observations and fundamental principle of physics is hardly a In your case I have read the publication, and it is hardly a recommendation for your technical competence. &nbsp; I notice in&nbsp;arXiv that you&nbsp;have&nbsp;several other drafts that apparently have not been accepted for publication. &nbsp;I have advanced degrees in both electrical engineering and mathematics and have published in both disciplines. I have never had a paper rejected.&nbsp; And no, I will not provide you with references, I receive quite enough crank e-mail as it stands. &nbsp; I understand ciruit theory.&nbsp; I understand field theory.&nbsp; That is probably where the problem lies -- I do actually understand these things beyond simply having memorized some terminology.&nbsp; I actually know what the words mean.&nbsp; </p><p>If, as you claim you understand "particle physics" then present a sound physical argument, complete with the necessary physics and mathematics.&nbsp; Throwing aroundn= words that you do not understand is not a rigorous argument.&nbsp; And claiming understanding is rather different from demonstrating that understanding.&nbsp; So, using Kirkoff's laws of circuit theory and Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field (if you can't remember then look back at my posts where I stated them for you) go right ahead and present your argument for whatever you think "circuit reconnection" might be and the relationship between kinetic energy and the energy stored in the magnetic field.&nbsp; This argument, just like your attempted refutation of Priest, will, of course, never be presented because you cannot do it.&nbsp; You cannot do it because the concept is falacious.&nbsp; And you cannot present any physical argument in any case because, despite continually claiming understanding, you have DEMONSTRATED that you have no understanding whatever of the real physics of plasmas, fields, circuits, mechanics, or the mathematics that describes these disciplines.</p><p>You might like to know that the term "particle physics" is generally something quite different from your use of the term, but I understand that you are merely talking about the fact that plasmas are composed of charged particles, actually particles that both carry charge and also have the characteristics of a gas -- a fact known to all students of physics and to Alfven in particular.</p><p>You are now adopting the debating techniques of the proponents of 'intelligent design".&nbsp; Having failed utterly to&nbsp;make a case on scientific grounds, and in fact having presented no scientific argument whatever, you are leaving the chess game having knocked over all the pieces, and declaring victory.&nbsp; That tactic is well-known and utterly ridiculous.</p><p>I do recognize that you do not know how to have a rational discussion with me.&nbsp; If you presented a valid scientific argument as indicated above, using the appropriate mathematics and physics, that would probably work.&nbsp; But as you said you do not know how to do that.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't quite understand why you think that the issue here is "credentials" and publications.&nbsp; That seems a poor means of judging physics. </DIV></p><p>Everything about our conversations would suggest to me that although you are more than proficient enough in math, you do not understand the physical proceseses that are occuring inside these "tubes" or "wires"" or "circuits" as they reconnect.&nbsp; I do understand something about nuclear chemistry DrRocket, in my own right.&nbsp; I don't know if you do.&nbsp; I don't see any evidence of this in our discussion.&nbsp; This could be due to a couple of factors, the most obvious being the fact that you never bothered to actually read Alfven's later work on plasma physics. That particular information is more than enough to understand the arguments I have presented to you since they are based on Alfven's presentation, not my own presentation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have not provided any physical arguments in this thread at all.&nbsp; You have merely manipulated words and attempted to reduce physical arguments to discussions of semantics.</DIV></p><p>No, I used words to attempt to convey to you a physical meaning behind the "reconnection" process&nbsp; beyond just a mathematical understanding.&nbsp; Yes, the magnetic field stores "energy", but it is kinetic in nature.&nbsp; It's like two intersecting tornados with all that "stored" kinetic energy interacting between the two tornados.&nbsp; There is a kinetic and particle component to this reconnection process which you seem utterly oblivious to.&nbsp; It's not just math, it's *physics* at the *particle physical* level.&nbsp; Alfven explicity switched to the "particle" point of view when describing events in current carrying plasma. That is consistent with nuclear chemistry, and consistent with electrical theory.&nbsp; This is a "circuit reconnection" and a "particle reconnection" process.&nbsp; At it's most fundamental level it's pure particle physics at the point of kinetic "reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have consistently relied on terminology arguments,</DIV></p><p>These are otherwise&nbsp; known as "conceptual" arguements.&nbsp; You clearly do not have a problem with your math skills DrRocket. Obviously the problem is related to the fact that you do not recogonize the *particle* side of MHD theory or the physical mechanical reconnection process that is occuring between these two moving filaments of current carrying plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>taken out of context,</DIV></p><p>No, I used the very "context" that Alfven suggested we use, and I quoted him directly so that you could not claim that this was "my idea".&nbsp;&nbsp; This statement is pure denial on your part and those quotes demonstrate my point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>based on a single book,</DIV></p><p>It's the same "single book" that lays out the mathematical and theoretical foundation of EU theory.&nbsp; It's the "single book" I recommended to you and the "single book" you utterly refuse to read, even after an antire year.&nbsp; That's like saying is "single book" that you read is only a "single book".&nbsp; You essentially took the first semester of MHD theory and skipped the second semester called "particle viewpoint of plasmas".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>with protestations to the contrary that are simply falacious.</DIV></p><p>The only thing that is falacious is you pretending to know more about MHD theory than the Nobel Prize winning author of that same theory.&nbsp; &nbsp; That's arrogance run amuck and everyone knows it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With regard to publications.&nbsp; Yes I have published several technical papers, in refereed formats. </DIV></p><p>Anything on partcle physics by any chance?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have published papers written on my own, </DIV></p><p>Let me read one.&nbsp; It will probably explain a lot to me about your real resistence to educating yourself on this topic.&nbsp; </p><p>I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post.&nbsp; You're going way below the belt, way outside the bounds of ordinary scientific discourse and way outside the realm of honest scietnific dialog.&nbsp; That's pure emotional dribble. </p><p>If and when you ever get around to reading Cosmic Plasma, you let me know.&nbsp; Until then it's quite clear that this conversation is going nowwhere, you don't understand the "physics" going on in these events and you won't learn the "particle" side of MHD theory from the guy that wrote MHD theory.&nbsp; What can anyone do to help you? &nbsp; The answer is nothing.&nbsp; You can only help yourself at this point, or not.&nbsp; I can't make you read his book or understand MHD theory from the particle perspective.&nbsp; Alfven might have that kind of influence on you and your opinions, but obviously I don't have that kind of influence on you or your opinions.&nbsp; The guy that wrote MHD theory might change your mind, but you refuse to read his work.&nbsp; You claim to want a mathematical presentation of these ideas, but when you are given a reference to that mathematical presentation,&nbsp; you refuse to read it.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gah!</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'>If, as you claim you understand "particle physics" then present a sound physical argument, complete with the necessary physics and mathematics.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Why in your mind it is necessary for me personally to do what Alfven has already done for you?&nbsp; When did I ever agree to become your personal math mommy? </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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What can anyone do to help you? &nbsp; The answer is nothing.&nbsp; You can only help yourself at this point, or not.&nbsp; I can't make you read his book or understand MHD theory from the particle perspective.&nbsp; Alfven might have that kind of influence on you and your opinions, but obviously I don't have that kind of influence on you or your opinions.&nbsp; The guy that wrote MHD theory might change your mind, but you refuse to read his work.&nbsp; You claim to want a mathematical presentation of these ideas, but when you are given a reference to that mathematical presentation,&nbsp; you refuse to read it.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gah! <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Try to answer this honestly...if DrRocket, or myself, read this book and still didn't agree with you, what would your reaction be?&nbsp; I already mentioned what I think it would be, but I'd like to hear it from you.&nbsp; You seem to think that because this is written by a Nobel prize winning author, we can't possibly either disagree with a statement(backed up with modern research), or, more likely, take a different interpretation on it.&nbsp; It is much the same way you would read a text written by a reputable scientist on a subject such as stellar structure.&nbsp; Reading a book, on its own, won't convince you, and it won't convince us.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>As we established before, credentials mean nothing.&nbsp; Especially in a relatively unregulated atmosphere like this, even the most revered scientist could post meaningless drivel every day and his credentials wouldn't justify it.&nbsp; On the other hand, a relatively uneducated, unpublished person could make valid points, and his lack of credentials would not discredit them.&nbsp; It's all about what you say and how you back it up.&nbsp; Michael's arguments consistently are the following, with little to no expansion of the idea or justification, or, if they are correct, they are obvious statements that are entirely irrelevant:</p><p>1) Magnetic field lines don't reconnect, particles/circuits do.</p><p>2) Stuff about tornadoes and current carrying threads in a plasma&nbsp; </p><p>3) Telling us to go buy a plasma ball to "see for ourself" the idea of circuit reconnection</p><p>4) Telling us Alfven claimed reconnection can't occur in a current sheet or that Alfven said we can't apply the frozen line condition</p><p>5) Irrelevant attacks based on credentials and the fact we haven't read a particular book</p><p>6) The mainstream never mentions E fields, ever&nbsp;</p><p>7) Monopoles don't exist&nbsp;</p><p>The common theme you'll see in these arguments is they are all, for the sake of this argument, irrelevant.&nbsp; Also, #6 for example is entirely wrong and even after being shown many papers that not only mention it but base about half the paper talking about it, he continues to imply this ignorance.&nbsp; He noticed that they mentioned it in one paper and condescendingly says the mainstream is doing a "good job" and he is "pleased" with us.&nbsp; Fact is, that paper is one of many.&nbsp; A simple arxiv search would prove this.</p><p>Regarding the current sheet arguments, most reconnection occurs in thin sheets(half-width of about 10 ion gyroradii).&nbsp; These are very turbulent regions(Schindler, Hesse 2008) so your simplified view of the physics in current sheets is not adequate.&nbsp; A plasma ball won't reproduce these conditions. &nbsp;</p><p>My point is, you can't keep railing DrRocket for not having read Alfven's book when you haven't given him anything of substance to argue against.&nbsp; When you have, he has responded with arguments based on Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; You seem to think the answer we are all looking for is in this book, but if it is, then why have you been unsuccessful in reproducing the argument(i.e. with the Priest paper)?&nbsp; If reconnection can be explained by circuit reconnection, it is insufficient to just make the claim.&nbsp; You may/will say "well go read the book", but that is a silly stance to have.&nbsp; As the presentor of such an argument, you are responsible for backing it up.&nbsp; It'd be similar to me saying "the sun does not have an iron surface, hundreds of books say so" and refusing to discuss it further until you read all of them.&nbsp; I still argued my point of view based on real physical arguments despite the fact that you haven't read "the" book on magnetic reconnection.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>You are being rather transparent...you got stuck in your attempt to "convert" magnetic reconnection, so you are deflecting attention from this fact by saying you will wait to hear from Birn(I gave you his contact info, it'd make more sense for you to ask since you are the one making the claims), and trying to turn the thread's attention to the fact that we haven't read Cosmic Plasma. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why in your mind it is necessary for me personally to do what Alfven has already done for you?&nbsp; When did I ever agree to become your personal math mommy? &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are hardly my "personal math mommy".&nbsp; You have utterly failed to present any mathematical arguments whatever.&nbsp; It would behoove you to do so in order to actually attempt a valid physical argument.&nbsp; Mathematics is the language of physics and your "conceptual" arguments are not really conceptual, but rather simply demonstrate your illiteracy in the language of the subject.</p><p>If you would care to phrase your arguments in the proper scientific language, mathematics, I would certainly try to follow those arguments.&nbsp; I don't really need you to act as my "math mommy".&nbsp; My own mother, now deceased, was a mathematics major and filled that role quite well.&nbsp; I think I can someholw struggle along and follow a mathematical argument if you would care to provide one.&nbsp; I did manage to acquire a mathematics degree of my own, so perhaps I can muddle through.</p><p>As I said, I think you are distorting what Alfven has said, and distorting it rather badly.&nbsp; That is clearly the case with the several papers that I have read as well as with his book <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics.&nbsp; </em>Attempts to defend an undefendable position by vague references to a single text are simply pitiful.&nbsp; If you understand the physics that you claim supports your position then present that physical argument, and present in the language of physics, which is mathematics.</p><p>So to answer your question as to why you should present a real physical argument --- because you opened the discussion and made claims that require proof.&nbsp; You have not provided that proof.&nbsp; Telling us to go read a single specific book is not proof at all.</p><p>If you can make a physical argument then do so.&nbsp; If you do not, the only logical conclusion is that your claims are bogus and you do not know what you are talking about.</p><p>You have in the past decried other forums and scientific journals for failure to publish EU articles.&nbsp; Many of those venues require authors to present sound physical/arguments and ban or do not publish those who fail to respond to questions with substantive responses.&nbsp; Is perhaps the answer to your question as to why "Electricity" is the forbidden topic of astronomy, that the proponents of EU refuse to back up their wild notions with any sound physical and mathematical arguments that reflect basic logic ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Try to answer this honestly...if DrRocket, or myself, read this book and still didn't agree with you, what would your reaction be? </DIV></p><p>Don't agree with me about what specifically?&nbsp;&nbsp; Agree with me (and Alfven) that plasma can contain "circuits" and can be modelled from the "particle" viewpoint?&nbsp; I'd be utterly speechless at that point since the author of MHD theory is the one that started this particle modeling process. He'd be essentially claiming to be more of an expert on the topic of MHD theory than Alfven himself, even after having read Alfven's presentation.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I already mentioned what I think it would be, but I'd like to hear it from you.&nbsp; You seem to think that because this is written by a Nobel prize winning author, we can't possibly either disagree with a statement(backed up with modern research), or, more likely, take a different interpretation on it. </DIV></p><p>If DrRocket can demonsrate where Alfven made a mistake in his presentation, I'll certainly listen to his argument.&nbsp; Since he's never read the material, or explained where Alfven made any mistakes, I have no reason to believe that Alfven did make any mistakes in his presentation of MHD theory.&nbsp; I certainly tend to trust the guy that wrote the theory over the word of someone that never bothered to READ the theory in question.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is much the same way you would read a text written by a reputable scientist on a subject such as stellar structure.&nbsp; Reading a book, on its own, won't convince you, and it won't convince us.</DIV></p><p>Reading a book on stellar structure should convince me that hydrogen fusion is a *possible energy source* of the sun, even if I don't agree that it *is* the full source of energy from the sun.&nbsp; DrRocket is trying to deny the *particle/electrical* side of MHD theory is even valid as far as I can tell.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That's a non starter.&nbsp; It's like me suggesting that hydrogen fusion isn't even "possible" *without* bothering to read about it!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As we established before, credentials mean nothing. </DIV></p><p>Fine, credentials mean nothing, but education does matter.&nbsp; I bothered to educate myself to Alfven's theories on particle physics.&nbsp; DrRocket only took the first semester evidently and hasn't updated his information since the early 1960's.&nbsp;&nbsp; He's living 50 years in the past at the moment.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It's all about what you say and how you back it up.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>I backed it up from quotes from Alfven, the guy that developed the theory.&nbsp; How did DrRocket back up his claims again?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael's arguments consistently are the following, with little to no expansion of the idea or justification:</DIV></p><p>What?&nbsp; I "justified" a lot of this stuff based on *laws* of physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1) Magnetic field lines don't reconnect, particles/circuits do.</DIV></p><p>And I have posted a paper from Don Scott, an electical engineer that explained all of this in some detail.&nbsp; I also showed you quotes from Alfven on this topic as it relates to MHD theory and the expression of Maxwell's equations in MHD theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2) Stuff about tornadoes and current carrying threads in a plasma </DIV></p><p>You can watch these filaments form inside an ordinary plasma ball.&nbsp; You can see mathematical presenation of these filaments on page 23 of Cosmic plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; The magnetic field acts to contain and "pinch" the current thread. This is actually pure empical physics that you can demonstrate to yourself for less that $25.00.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3) Telling us to go buy a plasma ball to "see for ourself" the idea of circuit reconnection</DIV></p><p>When you turn on and off the power switch on the plasma ball, you will see a "circuit reconnection" process in action, and you can see how that circuit reconnection process manifess itself inside of plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4) Telling us Alfven claimed reconnection can't occur in a current sheet or that Alfven said we can't apply the frozen line condition</DIV></p><p>Alfven told you this, not me.&nbsp; You seem to confuse people now.&nbsp; I simply quoted him on this topic, and explained in some detail why this is so.&nbsp; He did in fact explicity reject the notion of "magnetic reconnection" when associated with current carrying plasma because he treated these filaments as "circuits", not simply "magnetic lines".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>5) Irrelevant attacks based on credentials</DIV></p><p>My attack was based on his lack of physical understanding about the kinetic nature of the "stored energy" of a magnetic field in plasma threads.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and the fact we haven't read a particular book</DIV></p><p>It is *the* defining book on "Plasma Cosmology' theory! It's not just "any" book, its *the* book I recommended to him since it came from the guy that developed MHD theory and applied it to space plasmas.&nbsp; It's not just "a" book, it's "the" book that defined EU theory from a mathematical and physical perspective.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>6) The mainstream never mentions E fields, ever </DIV></p><p>Actually, that's not the case.&nbsp; Birn mentioned it in his paper.&nbsp; It was mentioned in the article I cited yesterday too.&nbsp; It's just never mentioned in conjuction with "reconnection" events (other than Birn's presentation), or anything related to solar surface activity. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>7) Monopoles don't exist</DIV></p><p>Is that my fault?&nbsp; It is my fault that Priest tried to use them to explain kinetic plasma interactions?&nbsp; Is that somehow my fault?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The common theme you'll see in these arguments is they are all, for the sake of this argument, irrelevant. </DIV></p><p>No, none of them are irrelevant with the exception of perhaps number 6 which is you strawman.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, #6 for example is entirely wrong and even after being shown many papers that not only mention it but base about half the paper talking about it,</DIV></p><p>I'm not claiming number 6 is true, in fact I was quite pleased that Schildler, et all did mention the E field and treated it as an important element in their presentation.&nbsp; That is why I'd like to understand they position on this naming dispute.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>he continues to imply this ignorance. </DIV></p><p>This has nothing to do with *my* ignorance. I've read Alfven's book.&nbsp; It's about the *ignorance* of claiming to be an expert on the topic *without* bothering to read the topic in question.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He noticed that they mentioned it in one paper and condescendingly says the mainstream is doing a "good job" and he is "pleased" with us.</DIV></p><p>Unless your name was on those papers or presenations, I wasn't talking about you personally.&nbsp; I'm pleased with the authors of any paper that explicity note the importance of the role of E field in these plasma interactions.&nbsp; Birn, Hesse and Schindler are on my "I'm a fan" list, whereas Priest is no, at least not based only on these two papers.&nbsp; I'm going to give Priest the benefit of the doubt and asusme he's written better papers.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Fact is, that paper is one of many.&nbsp; A simple arxiv search would prove this.</DIV></p><p>I'm not denying this.&nbsp; In fact I pointed out myself that I'd read better papers from Priest and that some scientists have acknowledge the role of current flow in these energy exchange events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Regarding the current sheet arguments, most reconnection occurs in thin sheets(half-width of about 10 ion gyroradii).&nbsp; These are very turbulent regions(Schindler, Hesse 2008) so your simplified view of the physics in current sheets is not adequate. </DIV></p><p>Actually, their description of this "reconnection sheet" seems right on the money to me.&nbsp; The turbulance is directly related to the filmentary process.&nbsp; Their view seems adequate and correct to me which is why I need to know where they stand on this debate about the use of terms.&nbsp; If they do agree that this can also be referred to as "circuit reconnection', then what?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A plasma ball won't reproduce these conditions.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>No, but they show the conditions of each of the "circuits" before they interact in the double layer between them.&nbsp; This is a kinetic energy transfer event between charged particles in plsama inside that double layer.&nbsp; The "reconnection" process is kinetic in nature, and a great example of "circuit reconnection" as two circuit exchange energy.&nbsp; I don't have a problem with their physical description of these events.&nbsp; I agree with them in fact.&nbsp; It's simply the label of their paper that I have any question about.&nbsp; You seem to be overlooking that point.&nbsp; *If* I were trying to claim that their "physics" was flawed, then you might have a point.&nbsp; I'm only claiming that the name they chose as a label of this physical process is flawed.&nbsp; Big difference.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My point is, you can't keep railing DrRocket for not having read Alfven's book when you haven't given him anything of substance to argue against.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>That's absurd from my perspective since I've given him everything he's asked for, *except* to be his personal math mommy.&nbsp; I'm not his mathematical teacher, and I have no desire to reinvent the wheel for him in cyberspace only because he refuses to read the appropriate material.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When you have, he has responded with arguments based on Maxwell's equations.</DIV></p><p>Alfven's "particle" view is also directly based on "Maxwell's equations".&nbsp; Whom shall I believe is more of an expert on MHD theory, DrRocket or Alfven?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You seem to think the answer we are all looking for is in this book, but if it is, then why have you been unsuccessful in reproducing the argument(i.e. with the Priest paper)?&nbsp; If reconnection can be explained by circuit reconnection, it is insufficient to just make the claim. </DIV></p><p>Well, that's why I asked you to ask Birn what he thinks too.&nbsp; By definition however, their recognition of the importance of the E field in these "current carrying threads", would automatically equate to what Alfven calls a "circuit" in MHD theory.&nbsp; There is a one to one correlation between these things and I posted a relevant quote to demonstrate that point.&nbsp; The two "circuits" do in fact "reconnect" during the process.&nbsp; The fact that they never tried to exclude E from the process demonstrates that this is also "circuit reconnection", at least as Alfven used terms.&nbsp; I would have needed to convert Priest's paper to E since he tried to simplify for B, but that really isn't the case with Hesse, Schindler and Birn.&nbsp; They didn't try to oversimplify the process to B alone.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You may/will say "well go read the book", but that is a silly stance to have.&nbsp; As the presentor of such an argument, you are responsible for backing it up. </DIV></p><p>But I have ""backed it up" with quotes from Hannes Alfven, the person that wrote MHD theory.&nbsp; I am no the original presentor of this argument, nor has DrRocket presented a real argument to counter an entire book on MHD theory written from the perspective of particle physics and "circuits".&nbsp;&nbsp; I can't just ignore what Alfven said only because DrRocket doesn't believe it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It'd be similar to me saying "the sun does not have an iron surface, hundreds of books say so" and refusing to discuss it further until you read all of them. </DIV></p><p>I'm not asking you to read anything because you don't keep putting your foot in your mouth and making outrageoustly false statements.&nbsp; I am however expecting him to read the Nobel Prize winning author on this topic because DrRocket keeps misrepresenting that theory in post after post after post.&nbsp;&nbsp; I would not expect you to believe in a Birkeland solar model rather than a gas model solar theory without observational evidence to support my case.&nbsp; I have read many books and papers on gas model theory and I at least understand it to some degree.&nbsp; As far as I can tell DrRocket does not understand the *particle* side of MHD theory at all.&nbsp; If I were claiming that hydrogen fusion could not occur, then you would be right to expect me to do some additional reading on that topic.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I still argued my point of view based on real physical arguments despite the fact that you haven't read "the" book on magnetic reconnection. </DIV></p><p>Actually however, I have read the papers and I have found a "model" that I would agree is a demonstration of "magnetic reconnection" that does not violate laws of physics (like Gauss's law of magnetism).&nbsp; I also believe that I have found a model that can also be accurately described as "circuit reconnection", and I'm curious what the authors think. If they agree that these are interchangeble terms, then Yevaud was right, this is simply an argument about semantics, not physics.&nbsp; I need to know the answer to that question since I dont see any differences between our physical understandings of these kinetic energy transfers between particles inside of a double layer. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are being rather transparent...you got stuck in your attempt to "convert" magnetic reconnection, so you are deflecting attention from this fact by saying you will wait to hear from Birn(I gave you his contact info, it'd make more sense for you to ask since you are the one making the claims), and trying to turn the thread's attention to the fact that we haven't read Cosmic Plasma. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I didn't got "stuck" as you seem to think.&nbsp; They fact these authors expressly account for E and describe E the way they do took away any need I had to "convert" anything.&nbsp; As far as I can tell, they got everything right, physics, math and the whole ball of wax.&nbsp; The only thing they did that I take exception to is labeling that process "magnetic reconnection"" rather than "circuit reconnection". If however that is the only differernce of opinion between us, then it is only an issue of semantics and there is nothing more to demonstrate.&nbsp; The arguments we've had over that last several weeks only demonstrates my point conclusively.&nbsp;&nbsp; Scientific terms are important to avoid confusion between various scientific industries. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven's "particle' and "circuit" explanations were entirely consistent with nuclear chemistry because it specifically accounts for the kinetic energy and explain *how* magnetic fields "store" energy.&nbsp; It was also entirely consistent with electrical engineering since only particles and circuits reconnect in electrical engineering.&nbsp; The use of the term "magnetic reconnection" is entirely confusing because it doesn't describe the kinetic energy particle reconnection event in question, nor do magnetic lines actually "reconnect" in this process.&nbsp;&nbsp; The only things that actually "reconnect" are the particles inside the plasma double layer.&nbsp; These are examples of "circuit reconenction" and "particle reconnection". </p><p>I will take the time to email Birn and to solicit his response. I will post whatever comments he makes to this thread provided he grants me the persmission to do so.&nbsp; &nbsp; I do however need to understand their position on this matter because it's a critical issue.&nbsp; If they agree, then Yevaud is right, this is only a matter of semantics, but IMO Yevaud seriously underestimates the importance of words and the confusion caused by a use of terms.&nbsp; Our multi-week argument on this topic is proof of that. </p><p>There is no doubt that Alfven treated each current carrying thread as a "ciruit".&nbsp; There is no doubt that these "circuits" reconnect. &nbsp; There is no doubt that no magnetic field lines are not "cut" or "spliced" or "reconnected" during this reconnection event.&nbsp; The only doubt seems to be what we should call this process. </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'>...I do understand something about nuclear chemistry DrRocket, in my own right.&nbsp;...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This discussion thus far has nothing whatever to do with nuclear chemistry.</p><p>In any case I doubt that you understand anyting whatever of the subject.&nbsp; You have already characterized yourself as a drop out from the electrical engineering curriculum who now makes software that may produce&nbsp;"simulations" of almost anything, whether physically possible or not.&nbsp; &nbsp;Co-authoring a single article in a third-rate journal with a nuclear chemist who has been discredited and for which there is some evidence of extremely unbalanced behavior (http://themissouriminer.com/content/view/845/49/) hardly makes you an expert in nuclear chemistry.&nbsp;When that paper purports to show that the sun is composed primarily of heavy elements, such as iron, in gross contradiction to what is known from observation and from stellar astrophysics, it doesn't support the expertise of any of the authors.&nbsp; http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf&nbsp; http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf</p><p>To answer your next question, yes, some journals do publish crap.</p><p>If you do indeed have a applicable understanding of the relevant science, then please present a valid scientific argument.&nbsp; Such an argument should be phrased in terms of known physical principles and mathematics.&nbsp; Saying that Alfven did it in the single text <em>Cosmic Plasma</em> without actually presenting a physical and mathematical argument is not sufficient.&nbsp; If that single book contained all the answers then scientific research in the subject should stop, and all further publications, whether research articles or books would be superfluous.&nbsp; Clearly it is not the case that all answers were known to Alfven and the subject was completed with his last book.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are hardly my "personal math mommy".&nbsp; You have utterly failed to present any mathematical arguments whatever. </DIV></p><p>No, I presented *many* mathematical arguments, you just refused to read them.&nbsp; You refuse to read Alfven's presentation, and Peratt's presentation or any of the references I suggested.&nbsp; Evidently you expect me to personally provide you with mathematical calculations on demand.&nbsp; You're not my teacher, nor am I your teacher when it comes to math.&nbsp; I don't personally have to do all the math.&nbsp; Get it?&nbsp; Science doesn't work like that.&nbsp; I can rely upon a reference to explain these ideas, just and UFmbutler provided (an excellent) reference to explain magnetic reconnection theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't expect him to walk me through each and every line of math, nor should you expect me to provide you with an explanation of Alfven's models.&nbsp; They exist,&nbsp; They are there to "understand" anytime you wish. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would behoove you to do so in order to actually attempt a valid physical argument.&nbsp; Mathematics is the language of physics</DIV></p><p>Yes, but you don't want to study physics or math from the guy that actually developed them.&nbsp; For some reason you want me personally do what has already been done.&nbsp; That's not how science works DrRocket.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I didn't require that you personally explain every line of math behind "magnetic reconnection" theory so why would you expect me to present Alfven's theories to you?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and your "conceptual" arguments are not really conceptual, but rather simply demonstrate your illiteracy in the language of the subject.</DIV></p><p>Bah!&nbsp; You are illiterate because you won't read Alfven's later work in life.&nbsp; I guess you figure if you never bother to actually read it, you must somehow still be right.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you would care to phrase your arguments in the proper scientific language, mathematics, I would certainly try to follow those arguments. </DIV></p><p>I offered you a simple way to follow these arguments from the indifidual that explained the theory and developed the theory.&nbsp; You are refusing to educate yourself and whiing and for not doing all Alfven's work for you in this thread. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't really need you to act as my "math mommy". </DIV></p><p>Then read Alven's book "Cosmic Plasma", and stop trying to make me bark up math for you on command! </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I did manage to acquire a mathematics degree of my own, so perhaps I can muddle through.</DIV></p><p>Then put your mathematics degree to good use and "muddle through" Alfven's presentation of "circuits" and "particles" and how they relate to MHD theory and stop denying their importance to plasma physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I said, I think you are distorting what Alfven has said, and distorting it rather badly. </DIV></p><p>How could you possibly know that?&nbsp; You can't know that, and you don't know that.&nbsp; You never even read the material!&nbsp; This has to be the most outragous statement that you've made because you haven't got a clue what he said. &nbsp; You sound ridiculous since you haven't a clue what he even said.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is perhaps the answer to your question as to why "Electricity" is the forbidden topic of astronomy, that the proponents of EU refuse to back up their wild notions with any sound physical and mathematical arguments that reflect basic logic ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>No, it's due to people like you not bothering to educate themselves on the topic and therefore they remain ignorant to the work that has already been done.&nbsp; The math has already been wrtiten.&nbsp; The physics has already been written and explained.&nbsp; All you need to do is study it.&nbsp; If you don't study it, then you wallow ignorance and make ignorant statements.&nbsp; That's all you're doing DrRocket and your ignorance is entirely self imposed. </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'>This discussion thus far has nothing whatever to do with nuclear chemistry.</DIV></p><p>Why exacty does Rhessi observe neutron capture signatures and gamma rays in the solar atmosphere DrRocket? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In any case I doubt that you understand anyting whatever of the subject. </DIV></p><p>Ditto.&nbsp;</p><p>I'm done responding to the stupid and pointless insults and you personal attacks, the mischaracterization of my education, the whole personal attack mode that you're so infamous for at this point.&nbsp; You don't have a clue what you're talking about DrRocket, mathematical degree or no mathamatical degee.&nbsp; Physical understanding requries more than math, it requires a conceptual understanding of the paritcle physical processes that occur when particles "reconnect" at very high velocites.&nbsp; The high energy emissions we observe from space are in fact directly related to this kinetic energy discharges in plasma, including those gamma rays and neutron capture signatures observed by Rhessi.&nbsp; The fact you won't educate yourself is only making you look bad.&nbsp; Your personal attacks only make you look pety.</p><p>The math is there for you to read anytime you wish to study it. </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'>No, probably not.&nbsp; What's relatively "unusual" is their explicit recognition of the *electric* field.&nbsp; If I'm going to complain about it when the mainstream doesn't mention the electric field, I should also compliment them when they do explicity mention the electric field.&nbsp; It only seems fair. Of course it does.&nbsp; It works exactly like Alfven's unipolar inductor model, including the point of acceleration of particles near the poles.Of course it does, otherwise he wouldn't have "predicted" these things in his unipolar induction model.It's evidently quite near the spin axis poles, right where Alfven predicted them to occur.&nbsp; Birkeland's early experiments also produced "jets", and "cathode beams".&nbsp; None of this is new to EU advocates.I would expect that this is true.&nbsp; We see significant acceleration events in events near the poles of our own sun, and the formation of powerful "jets" of plasma from our own sun.&nbsp; Birkeland' actually "predicted" such events.&nbsp; The fact the apply to larger, more dense objects in the universe is not surprising.FYI, I have nothing but great respect for their "technique" and their results.&nbsp; I almost get the impression you felt that I thought it was a problem in some way.&nbsp; I was simply encouraged they explicitely noted the electric field.&nbsp; In most of these articles all one hears about is the magnetic field.&nbsp; This one is "different" in a way that I personally appreciate.It's not a matter of "twisting" anything.&nbsp; It's a matter of noting that these observations are consistent with Alfven's model, and Birkeland's early predictions.&nbsp; It a matter of me being "happy" that someone in the mainstream *finally* mentioned the electrical current involved in these events. &nbsp; I guess I should have tried to come acrross more postive when I posted this article.&nbsp; I'm happy that they explicity mentioned the electrical energy in the "circuit". &nbsp; I realize it would be nearly impossible to not mention it given the nature of the paper and the methods that were used, but it's highly encouraging to an EU advocate to see the mainstream start discussing the electric field and the wiring of the "circuits".&nbsp; I've yet to seem much mention of "circuits" in space, but at least they are talking about the E field and not just the B field.&nbsp; I'm not complaining.&nbsp; I'm happy for a change.&nbsp; I just *wish* that they'd mentioned Alven's or Birkeland's predictions and how they matched these events, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>There is absolutely nothing unusual about discussing electric fields when related to polarization.&nbsp; You might, personally, find it unusual becuase you have this false notion that electric fields are never discussed in astrophysics.&nbsp; Synchrotron radiation, unipolar induction, reverse compton scattering, etc all concern themselves with the electric field when dealing with high energy cosmic particle acceleration. &nbsp;</p><p>In the case of isolated pulsars with no accretion disk, I believe it is still an open question hence the statements made in the article.</p><p>Now, you might claim predictions by Alfven and Birkeland describe what is going on in a pulsar, but I would argue that you are wrong.&nbsp; Pulsars, Quasars, AGN are completely different environments than the sun.&nbsp; You can't compare any of them to what is going on with the sun.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Unipolar induction is a valid solution whent there is an accretion disk, but I don't think it is valid when there is no inflow of an electrical current.&nbsp;</p><p>I'm only guessing, but I think you might be relating it to Alfven's heliospheric current circuit for the sun.&nbsp; Again, no detected inflow of current, AFAIK.&nbsp; </p><p>I don't see anywhere in the article where they talk about circuit like you mention.&nbsp; I think you are trying to stir up a debate where there is none.&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'>There is absolutely nothing unusual about discussing electric fields when related to polarization. </DIV></p><p>Yes, I understand that.&nbsp; There is something unusual however about astronomers discussing electric fields in space.&nbsp; They tend to speak strictly about the "magnetic fields" and rarely note the electric field.&nbsp; That's obviously not the case in *every* presentation, but Priet's approach is more the "rule" (simplifying for B), and Schildler's approach tends to be the exception.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might, personally, find it unusual becuase you have this false notion that electric fields are never discussed in astrophysics. </DIV></p><p>They aren't usually presented to the public.&nbsp; Look at the last Themis presentation.&nbsp; They didn't even use a current flow analogy until the last few minutes of the interview.&nbsp; When specifically asked by interviewers what exactly was "reconnecting", they didn't mention the "particles" that actually interact, nor the "current flow" other than to use a short circuit analogy at the very end of the interview.&nbsp; Until that very last analogy, they had consistently portrayed this as a "magnetic reconnection" event, rather than a particle physical reconnection event or a circuit reconnection event.&nbsp; Magnetism is ok to talk about.&nbsp; Electrical cicuits in space seems to be taboo.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Synchrotron radiation, unipolar induction, reverse compton scattering, etc all concern themselves with the electric field when dealing with high energy cosmic particle acceleration.</DIV></p><p>Yet somehow they only talk about "magnetic reconnection" in plasma?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In the case of isolated pulsars with no accretion disk, I believe it is still an open question hence the statements made in the article.</DIV></p><p>I think that's true of almost every article, but I was still pleased that the term "electric field" was mentioned. It was encouraging to me, kind of like watching your children take "baby steps" for the first time.&nbsp; Birkeland certainly understood the importance of the electric field in relationship to aurora and coronal loops.&nbsp; The mainstream still seems to struggling to understand these "basic" electrical interactions with spheres in a vacuum.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, you might claim predictions by Alfven and Birkeland describe what is going on in a pulsar, but I would argue that you are wrong. </DIV></p><p>I don't suppose you've read any of Peratt's papers on their computer modeling?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pulsars, Quasars, AGN are completely different environments than the sun.&nbsp; You can't compare any of them to what is going on with the sun.</DIV></p><p>Actually you can in terms of induction between a stationary EM field and a rotating plasma body.&nbsp; The same thing would apply to iron suns by the way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unipolar induction is a valid solution whent there is an accretion disk, but I don't think it is valid when there is no inflow of an electrical current. </DIV></p><p>I believe that the problem is that you only percieve that there is no inflow of electrical current when in fact there is electrical current flowing into the poles and out around the equatoral region.&nbsp; You and Alfven definitely have different opinions on that topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm only guessing, but I think you might be relating it to Alfven's heliospheric current circuit for the sun.&nbsp; Again, no detected inflow of current, AFAIK. </DIV></p><p>I remember reading something from WIND or one of the solar wind satellites about a 'strahl' in the polar regions that corresponded to a lack of electrons flowing out of the sun near the poles.&nbsp; I'll see if I can't find it for you after work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't see anywhere in the article where they talk about circuit like you mention.&nbsp; I think you are trying to stir up a debate where there is none.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Actually not really.&nbsp; I think it's noteworthy that the E field is being mentioned, and I think it is noteworthy that these observations are consistent with Peratt's computer modeling and Alfven's basic theories.</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>I'd just like to make the observation that selling a new theory in a book (or worse, selling a book with a new theory), is not a valid source for scientific debate.&nbsp; It's also not fair to require someone that you are debating with online to shell out 150 dollars or else consider them ignorant.&nbsp; If you claim to understand what Alfven is describing in his book and are making claims that it is valid, then you should have no problems expressing it in the language of physics and math.&nbsp; Don't concern yourself if the rest of us can't understand it.</p><p>You tirelessly continue to mention that Alfven is the father of MHD.&nbsp; We all know that and understand it.&nbsp; However, this doesn't make him the final authority on the subject.&nbsp; He recieved a Nobel for his work, but that doesn't mean all future work is infallable.&nbsp; It's a silly notion to think so.&nbsp;</p><p>Einstein presented us the the equations that define GR.&nbsp; I wasn't long after that before there were other that probably understood GR than he did.&nbsp; Same with his Nobel worthy work on the photoelectric effect.&nbsp; Some of the earliest work in quantum mechanics.&nbsp; Does that make everthing Einstein discussed about quantum mechanics correct?</p><p>Just because one builds the foundations of a theory doesn't mean others can not build on that foundation.&nbsp; Nor does it mean the originator of the theory is correct on all future theories related to the original.</p><p>I gaurantee there are people today that understand SR and GR better than Einstein.&nbsp; There are people that understand quantum mechanics better than Bohr.&nbsp; QED and Feynman.&nbsp; And I have no doubt that there are folks that understand MHD better than Alfven.&nbsp; That's the nature of the progression of science.&nbsp;</p><p>I'd also like to add that many of the giants in the world of physics have had bad ideas despite some of their previous work having major impact on science and physics.</p><p>Michael, it is you making the claims and basing them on a book.&nbsp; Others are questioning your claims.&nbsp; The onus is on you to present your claims other than quoting from a book or claiming the questioner are ignorant because they haven't read the book.&nbsp; You should have no problems describing what you claim to understand.&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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that's true of almost every article, but I was still pleased that the term "electric field" was mentioned. It was encouraging to me, kind of like watching your children take "baby steps" for the first time.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Could you be any more condescending?&nbsp; They've been discussing the E field since the 80s at least, and so have many people(see many of the citations to these papers).&nbsp; I'm sorry but their mentioning of the E field cannot be twisted into somehow backing up EU theory. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, I understand that.&nbsp; There is something unusual however about astronomers discussing electric fields in space.&nbsp; They tend to speak strictly about the "magnetic fields" and rarely note the electric field.&nbsp; That's obviously not the case in *every* presentation, but Priet's approach is more the "rule" (simplifying for B), and Schildler's approach tends to be the exception.</DIV></p><p>It all depends on the subject matter you are researching.&nbsp; Electric fields have their place and magnetic fields, theirs.&nbsp; The difference between Priest and Schindler is between 2d reconnection and 3d reconnection.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They aren't usually presented to the public.&nbsp; Look at the last Themis presentation.&nbsp; They didn't even use a current flow analogy until the last few minutes of the interview.&nbsp; When specifically asked by interviewers what exactly was "reconnecting", they didn't mention the "particles" that actually interact, nor the "current flow" other than to use a short circuit analogy at the very end of the interview.&nbsp; Until that very last analogy, they had consistently portrayed this as a "magnetic reconnection" event, rather than a particle physical reconnection event or a circuit reconnection event.</DIV></p><p>That press conference isn't really fresh in my head anymore, but IIRC, the short cicuit analogy was nothing more than an oversimplified analogy for a layman.&nbsp; They protrayed it as a magnetic reconnection event because that is what they believe it to be.&nbsp; Why would they describe it as something they don't believe is an accurate description?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetism is ok to talk about.&nbsp; Electrical cicuits in space seems to be taboo.</DIV></p><p>Your perception.&nbsp; Each have their place.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yet somehow they only talk about "magnetic reconnection" in plasma?</DIV></p><p>Magnetic reconnection has nothing to do with the other high energy acceleration models I presented.&nbsp; All of which work with the electrical field because there is no change in the topology of the magnetic field.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that's true of almost every article, but I was still pleased that the term "electric field" was mentioned. It was encouraging to me, kind of like watching your children take "baby steps" for the first time.&nbsp; Birkeland certainly understood the importance of the electric field in relationship to aurora and coronal loops.&nbsp; The mainstream still seems to struggling to understand these "basic" electrical interactions with spheres in a vacuum.I don't suppose you've read any of Peratt's papers on their computer modeling?Actually you can in terms of induction between a stationary EM field and a rotating plasma body.&nbsp; The same thing would apply to iron suns by the way.I believe that the problem is that you only percieve that there is no inflow of electrical current when in fact there is electrical current flowing into the poles and out around the equatoral region.&nbsp; You and Alfven definitely have different opinions on that topic.I remember reading something from WIND or one of the solar wind satellites about a 'strahl' in the polar regions that corresponded to a lack of electrons flowing out of the sun near the poles.&nbsp; I'll see if I can't find it for you after work.Actually not really.&nbsp; I think it's noteworthy that the E field is being mentioned, and I think it is noteworthy that these observations are consistent with Peratt's computer modeling and Alfven's basic theories. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'm not even going to address this anymore.&nbsp; You'll just use the same old tired arguments in predictable fashion.&nbsp; If you have something new to present, I might respond.</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'>I'd just like to make the observation that selling a new theory in a book (or worse, selling a book with a new theory),</DIV></p><p>Er, I'm not "selling" anything, nor is plasma cosmology theory a "new theory".&nbsp; I don't make any royalties when someone buys Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; I simply have something useful to disucss about EU theory once they have read the book.&nbsp; It's actually very weird that someone would skeptically attack EU theory without first educating themselves somewhere, somehow, at a depth beyond a few simple papers. &nbsp;&nbsp; When DrRocket says things like circuits don't apply to plasma physics, I want to hurl. &nbsp; He professes to know more about MHD theory than the author of the theory *WIHTOUT* ever even reading the theory!&nbsp; That's absurd!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>is not a valid source for scientific debate.&nbsp; It's also not fair to require someone that you are debating with online to shell out 150 dollars or else consider them ignorant.</DIV></p><p>I have politely waited for over a year now for him to read that book.&nbsp; Has he never heard of a public library?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you claim to understand what Alfven is describing in his book and are making claims that it is valid, then you should have no problems expressing it in the language of physics and math.</DIV></p><p>I could copy and paste his math to this thread, but DrRocket doesn't have a problem with math, just a problem understanding the "basics", like "circuits" in plasma.&nbsp; What's the point of pushing math at him when his problem is conceptual in nature?&nbsp; I thought that the material I posted was highly relevant and directly related to his "problem".&nbsp; The math isn't his problem.&nbsp; His problem relates to concepts involving particle physics at the particle level where Alfven spent most of his time in the book Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; The whole point in my recommending that book to him in the first place is that he would have some reasonably up to date material from Alfven and a first class mathematical presentation of this material from someone he has every reason to respect and admire.&nbsp; What can I do if has no respect for me, and won't bother to actually read the material I suggest?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Don't concern yourself if the rest of us can't understand it.</DIV></p><p>IMO anyone and everyone *can understand it*.&nbsp;&nbsp; One just has to "want to understand it" and most importantly one has to actually "read the material".&nbsp; Not everyone will necessarily understand all the math, but the basic concepts are not that complicated.&nbsp; While plasma has many complicated properties, there are only a limited number of them and only some of them apply in any given circumstance.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You tirelessly continue to mention that Alfven is the father of MHD.&nbsp; We all know that and understand it.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Then why won't he read it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, this doesn't make him the final authority on the subject.</DIV></p><p>It certainly makes him *an* authority on the subject and the natural one to start with if you're trying to understand either MHD theory or plasma cosmology theory, particularly if you have any real interest in actually comprehending these topics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He recieved a Nobel for his work, but that doesn't mean all future work is infallable. </DIV></p><p>I never claimed otherwise. DrRocket is obviously not infallible either.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; I'll need an example where you think he's mistaken to be any more specific.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's a silly notion to think so. </DIV></p><p>It's equally silly that to think DrRocket is infallible too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Einstein presented us the the equations that define GR.&nbsp; I wasn't long after that before there were other that probably understood GR than he did.</DIV></p><p>But I have no logical reason to believe that DrRocket has somehow exceeded Alfven's grasp of MHD theory. Do you?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The onus is on you to present your claims other than quoting from a book or claiming the questioner are ignorant because they haven't read the book.&nbsp; You should have no problems describing what you claim to understand.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I have presented many statements (and I can obviously include his math) to verify my statements.&nbsp;&nbsp; If DrRocket won't admit that the term "circuits"" applies to plasma physics, no amount of math is going to fix this basic problem.&nbsp; He's missing a critical conceptual understanding of MHD theory and only education from someone he respects is going to resolve that basic problem.&nbsp; I can't help him.&nbsp; He has no respect for me personally, nor any respect for plasma physics or he would simply read the material in question and be done with it.&nbsp; He could have read that book a half dozen times by now and saved us all a lot of grief. </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>