Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Two.&nbsp; My BS meter is fully functional. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Since you can't seem to tell EU from BS, like I said, *one* redeeming quality. &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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since you can't seem to tell EU from BS, like I said, *one* redeeming quality. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Sure I can.&nbsp; I have been around a lot of cattle.&nbsp; EU smells worse.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sure I can.&nbsp; I have been around a lot of cattle.&nbsp; EU smells worse. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This is where your Taro card reading method of education is a problem.&nbsp; Since you won't bother to even read PC theory from the guy that developed it, nor will you study it from any of his students, you have no idea what PC/EU theory actually "smells like".&nbsp; All you know is what your own ignorance "smells like", and we both agree that it stinks. </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'>This is where your Taro card reading method of education is a problem.&nbsp; Since you won't bother to even read PC theory from the guy that developed it, nor will you study it from any of his students, you have no idea what PC/EU theory actually "smells like".&nbsp; All you know is what your own ignorance "smells like", and we both agree that it stinks. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As I have told you many times I have read several of Alfven's papers, including his book <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics.&nbsp; </em>I have read Scott's paper, and some of Peratt's work.&nbsp; I have been through your web site.</p><p>I have also studied classical physics in some detail.&nbsp; I have advanced degrees in both electrical engineering and mathematics.</p><p>If I am ignorant simply because I have opted not to spend $150+ for the only book which you seem to believe holds the "whole truth" then so be it.</p><p>But EU still stinks to high heaven.&nbsp; Its reputation for illogical notions that in total are self-contradictory is well deserved.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I have told you many times I have read several of Alfven's papers, including his book Cosmical Electrodynamics. </DIV></p><p>Then why in world would you have any trouble with "circuits" in plasma?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have read Scott's paper, </DIV></p><p>Which you sort of handwaved away at and ultimately ignored.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and some of Peratt's work.</DIV></p><p>Which work specifically, and what was the problem with it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have been through your web site.</DIV></p><p>Yet you've never once tried to explain the RD image from LMSAL or the Doppler image from Kosvichev.&nbsp; You've never explained why Rhessi observes neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere and annihilation signatures as well. You've never explained solar wind acceleration, coronal loops, CME's ect.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have also studied classical physics in some detail. </DIV></p><p>And ultimately plasma physics is classical physics at the particle physics level.&nbsp; It involves "circuits" and current flows.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have advanced degrees in both electrical engineering and mathematics.</DIV></p><p>Yet you expect me to be your math mommy at every turn instead of reading the materials I suggested to you. &nbsp; You impune Peratt and yet you can't explain why, </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I am ignorant simply because I have opted not to spend $150+ for the only book which you seem to believe holds the "whole truth" then so be it.</DIV></p><p>A few years ago, I asked around to find out which book(s) might be my best bet if I wanted to learn something about PC/EU theory.&nbsp; The "consensus" of the folks I met suggested that Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma" was pretty much the defining book on the topic as it relates to math and physics.&nbsp; Guess which book I bought when I went looking to educate myself on this topic?</p><p>If the book is too rich for your blood, I suggest a public library.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But EU still stinks to high heaven. </DIV></p><p>What "stinks to high heaven" is for you to pretend to play devil's advocate without having a clue what you're talking about.&nbsp; The term 'circuits" is used over 200 times in PC.&nbsp; It's an integral part of EU theory.&nbsp; If you can't comprehend the basics, you'll never begin to undertand the theory either from a mathematical perspactive or at the particle physicsl perspective.&nbsp; You're ignorant of a basic set of understandings that would eventually set your mind free, and you intentionally deprive your mind of basic facts on this topic.&nbsp; What can anyone exept you do to set you free? I can't make you understand the math and the physics if you refuse to even read the materials you ask for, and claim to wish to read.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Its reputation for illogical notions that in total are self-contradictory is well deserved.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It is amazing to me how completely oblivious to truth you can be only because you refuse to properly educate yourself.&nbsp; Alfven won the Nobel Prize DrRocket.&nbsp; He wasn't "self-contradictory".&nbsp; The theory is not self contradictory, in fact it is based upon emprical expermentation done for more than 100 years now.&nbsp; "Circuit reconnection" has been emprically demonstrated to work in a lab DrRocket. &nbsp; The term "magnetic reconnection" is self-contradictory because magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect.&nbsp;&nbsp; All of the self-conficted behaviors and naming conventions are coming from your side of the aisle, not from EU theory.&nbsp; EU theory is emprical physics, starting with the work of Kristian Birkeland.&nbsp; The only thing that "stinks" is that you refuse to accept it. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.... The term 'circuits" is used over 200 times in PC.&nbsp; It's an integral part of EU theory.&nbsp; If you can't comprehend the basics, you'll never begin to undertand the theory either from a mathematical perspactive or at the particle physicsl perspective.&nbsp;&nbsp;...&nbsp; The term "magnetic reconnection" is self-contradictory because magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect.&nbsp;&nbsp; All of the self-conficted behaviors and naming conventions are coming from your side of the aisle, not from EU theory.&nbsp;&nbsp;..&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As always your argument boils down to: 1) a reliance on terminology at the expense of substance and 2) total reliance on a single book as apparently containing all the wisdom of the universe, and perhaps laying out a mat and praying in the direction of Djursholm, Sweden.</p><p>It doesn't matter how many times the word "circuit" is used.&nbsp; That does not change the facts.&nbsp; The facts are that circuit theory is a low-frequency/ small-dimension approximation to Maxwell's equations that cannot and does not reflect the effectds of magnetic coupling except within individual lumped ideal devices called inductors.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is not a substitute for field theory.&nbsp; It also does not change the fact that while "equivalent circuits" can be and are used appropriately in some electrical engineering applications, "equivalent circuits" are not physical circuits and the derivation of their properties relies on the underlying physics, in the case of plasmas that means field theory ala Maxwell and fluid dynamics as reflected in the Navier-Stokes equations.&nbsp; You can gain some useful insight by using that fundamental physics to describe plasma phenomena in terms of equivalent circuits, but you cannot jump from square 1 directly to circuit theory and expect to do anything other than distort reality.&nbsp; This is not a matter of terminology, the number of times the word "circuit" is used, or any other such nonsense.&nbsp; It is a matter of physics.</p><p>Any term term, "magnetic reconnection" included, can be defined to be meaningful.&nbsp; You and you alone have interpreted it mean the physical severing and reconnecting of lines that have no physical existence in the first place.&nbsp; the physicists have used it to describe a topological change in the B field that results in lower energy density and hence a release of energy from the field that is realized in the acceleration of plasma&nbsp;particles.</p><p>You have in turn misused the term "circuit" repeatedly, and failed to distinguish between a physical circuit and an equivalent circuit, and the origiin and limitations of circuit theory itself.&nbsp; To compoiund it you have adopted a meaning for the term "particle physics" which is quite different from the normal useage in physics.&nbsp; Semantics is not physics.&nbsp; And terminology is not science.</p><p>Apparently you see no contradictions in EU theory.&nbsp; Others might question a number of EU notions:</p><p>1) The mainstream would disagree that the sun has solid core just under the photosphere no less, consisting primarily of solid materials such as iron.&nbsp; They would point out that elementary principles of heat transfer would result in a temperature far above the melting point of such materials.</p><p>2)&nbsp; The mainstream would disagree that the primary power source for the sun and other stars is an external current source rather than fusion.&nbsp; They might point out is such a current were to exist it would create a magnetic field at the surface of the earth many millions of times greater than what is observed.</p><p>3)&nbsp; The mainstream would disagree that the photosphere of the sun is largely composed of neon, and that the sun is basically an big neon light powered by an external electric current.</p><p>4)&nbsp; The mainstrean would disagree that galaxies are held together by magnetic fields, in the plane of rotation, since the resulting Lorentz force would then be normal to the plane of rotation and could not possibly provide the necessary centripetal acceleration.</p><p>5)&nbsp; The mainstream would disagree that comets are electric and show evidence of electric discharge machining on their surface.</p><p>The mainstream would most certainly disagree that one can justify nonsensical physics through semantic arguments.</p><p>If EU notions don't make you a bit self-conflicted then you really do need to learn some physics and some mathematics.&nbsp; It would be a better use of time than parsing individual sentences and makeing silly arguments based on terminology alone.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... Yet you expect me to be your math mommy at every turn instead of reading the materials I suggested to you....Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't even know what a "math mommy" is.</p><p>What I expect is a sound scientific argument in the language of physics.&nbsp; That language is mathematics.&nbsp; You have yet to produce any such argument.&nbsp; You claim to have pointed out where a couple of equations were wrong, and I pointed out to you that you had, as usual, misconstrued what was said on the basis of semantics and that your criticism is invalid.&nbsp; You have provided no mathematical reasoning of any sort on any topiic.</p><p>It is not a matter of being a "math mommy" whatever that might be, but rather a matter of producing a logical argument in the appropriate language.&nbsp; What you call "math magic" is instead the heart of physics.&nbsp;&nbsp; Mathematics is the official language of the subject.&nbsp; Mathematical incompetence is synonymous with illiteracy.&nbsp; Produce a literate argument and I will listen.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As always your argument boils down to: 1) a reliance on terminology at the expense of substance</DIV></p><p>Pure baloney. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and 2) total reliance on a single book as apparently containing all the wisdom of the universe, and perhaps laying out a mat and praying in the direction of Djursholm, Sweden.</DIV></p><p>More pure baloney.</p><p>It boils down to particle physics in the final analysis DrRocket.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It doesn't matter how many times the word "circuit" is used.&nbsp; That does not change the facts.&nbsp; The facts are that circuit theory is a low-frequency/ small-dimension approximation to Maxwell's equations that cannot and does not reflect the effectds of magnetic coupling except within individual lumped ideal devices called inductors.</DIV></p><p>Induction is not "magnetic reconnection" DrRocket, and circuit reconnection is all that Birn describes. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not a substitute for field theory. </DIV></p><p>Nor is field theory a substitute for understanding the particle interactions. &nbsp; Alfven used both options (field and particle) when trying to explain energy transfers in plasma.&nbsp; When current flows were involved, he switched to a particle perspective.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It also does not change the fact that while "equivalent circuits" can be and are used appropriately in some electrical engineering applications, "equivalent circuits" are not physical circuits and the derivation of their properties relies on the underlying physics, in the case of plasmas that means field theory ala Maxwell and fluid dynamics as reflected in the Navier-Stokes equations.&nbsp; You can gain some useful insight by using that fundamental physics to describe plasma phenomena in terms of equivalent circuits, but you cannot jump from square 1 directly to circuit theory and expect to do anything other than distort reality.&nbsp; This is not a matter of terminology, the number of times the word "circuit" is used, or any other such nonsense.&nbsp; It is a matter of physics.</DIV></p><p>Man are you amazing.&nbsp; Somehow it's not a matter of "physics" when monopoles are invoked, but it's a problem talking about circuits in plasma.&nbsp; You're rationalizations are simply absurd.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Any term term "mnagnetic reconnection" included can be defined to be meaningful.&nbsp; You and you alone have interpreted it mean the physical severing and reconnecting of lines that have no physical existence in the first place.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>No, because I called it "circuit reconnection" in the final analysis DrRocket.&nbsp; Aren't you even following the conversation? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the physicists have used it to describe a topological change in the B field that results in lower energy density and hence a release of energy from the field that is realized in the acceleration of plasma&nbsp;particles.</DIV></p><p>A change in the topology is related to the change in the flow patterns of the particles that make up that field. The only thing that might happen as a result of that topology change is induction, not magnetic reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have in turn misused the term "circuit" repeatedly, and failed to distinguish between a physical circuit and an equivalent circuit,</DIV></p><p>Whereas in your mind it's "ok" to invoke monopoles in plasma physics.&nbsp; Sheesh.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Others might question a number of EU notions:1) The mainstream would disagree that the sun has solid core just under the photosphere no less, consisting primarily of solid materials such as iron.&nbsp; They would point out that elementary principles of heat transfer would result in a temperature far above the melting point of such materials.</DIV></p><p>First of all, EU theory isn't even predicated upon any specific solar model!&nbsp; If you'd actually read my website, you would already know why the temperature at the surface isn't as high as the photosphere,the chromosphere or the corona.&nbsp; It has it's own temp range just like every other layer.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2)&nbsp; The mainstream would disagree that the primary power source for the sun and other stars is an external current source rather than fusion.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>The mainstream can't figure out simple stuff like CME's, solar wind acceleration or any of the things that Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" model "predicts'.&nbsp; Who cares what they agree with. YOu said that EU was inconsistent with itself in some way,not inconsistent with current beliefs!&nbsp; Holy Cow.</p><p>The rest of your points seem to be focused on the same thing.&nbsp; Evidently you can't tell the difference between something that is "self-inconsistent" and something that isn't 'mainstream".&nbsp; Hoy.</p><p>The term "magnetic reconnection" is a "self-inconsistent" term because no magnetic field lines are actually disconnecting or reconnecting, only particles and circuits.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's a perfect example of "self-inconsistency". Get 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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't even know what a "math mommy" is.What I expect is a sound scientific argument in the language of physics.&nbsp; That language is mathematics. </DIV></p><p>I gave you such a reference.&nbsp; You refuse to read it.&nbsp; What would you like me to do, spoon feed the math to you because you're too lazy to visit a library? </DIV><br /></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>

 

[nimbus]

<p>Calm down guys..</p><p>Did you get an answer to your email yet, Michael?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I gave you such a reference.&nbsp; You refuse to read it.&nbsp; What would you like me to do, spoon feed the math to you because you're too lazy to visit a library? </DIV> <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You realize, of course, that with this post and the one immediately preceding it you have provided an example of each of the points in my post that you were attempting to rebut.&nbsp; Som ironicallym my rebuttal to your rebuttal is your rebuttal.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Calm down guys..Did you get an answer to your email yet, Michael? <br /> Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>Not as of this morning. &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'>]You realize, of course, that with this post and the one immediately preceding it you have provided an example of each of the points in my post that you were attempting to rebut.&nbsp; Som ironicallym my rebuttal to your rebuttal is your rebuttal. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'm just trying to figure out what your excuse is going to be a year from now when you *still* haven't read the mathematical models and materials that I've suggested.&nbsp; Will you still be falsely and ignorantly asserting that there is no mathematical or scientific basis for EU theory?</p><p>I can't make you read the math and consider the computer models that Alfven and Peratt have provided us with.&nbsp; It is certainly not my job to personally do all the math associated with EU theory for you on command in this thread.</p><p>I can't force you accept that "circuit reconnection" has already been empricallly demonstrated to be directly related to auroras, coronal loops, CME''s, solar wind acceleration, etc in real scientific experiments by Birkeland over 100 years ago.&nbsp; He did in fact demonstrate this however very conclusively, in real emprical experiments, not just in computer simulations. </p><p>The only thing you're demonstrating now is your own willful stubborness, and the obvious downside of that stubborness. &nbsp; What you claim to seek is definitely there DrRocket, you just refuse to read it.&nbsp; As the saying goes:&nbsp; "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make 'em drink".&nbsp; I cannot make you drink from the fountain of emprical scientific wisdom, you must choose to do that for yourself, or not. &nbsp; As long as you refuse to drink from emprical experiments and detailed mathematical explanations, there's nothing more I can say or do to help you.&nbsp; Believe me, I have certainly tried. &nbsp; In the end howver, the decision to educate yourself is not mine to make, but yours and yours alone. </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 you claim to seek is definitely there DrRocket, you just refuse to read it.&nbsp; As the saying goes:&nbsp; "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make 'em drink".&nbsp; I cannot make you drink from the fountain of emprical scientific wisdom, you must choose to do that for yourself, or not. &nbsp; As long as you refuse to drink from emprical experiments and detailed mathematical explanations, there's nothing more I can say or do to help you.&nbsp; Believe me, I have certainly tried. &nbsp; In the end howver, the decision to educate yourself is not mine to make, but yours and yours alone. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;I don't mean to butt in on this personal argument between you and DrRocket, but you do realize that he(and myself as well) have the same exact thoughts when discussing things with you, don't you?&nbsp;&nbsp; We feel that if you read the vast library of "mainstream" knowledge, you will understand astronomical events and physics as we do.&nbsp; You feel that if we read the vast...book of EU knowledge, we will throw all that away.&nbsp; Think of things from our perspective.&nbsp; There is so much evidence for magnetic reconnection and other things such as the elemental composition ofthe sun, that it's difficult to find a single representative paper...this is because they are all just as good as the next.&nbsp; Obviously there will be reluctance to throw away all this evidence and take up a position that is highly undefensable.&nbsp; All your evidence relies on a single book and an experiment, and I'd argue that, based on how you misinterpret the mainstream papers and our own words on this forum, that some of the conclusions drawn from these sources have been twisted.&nbsp; You find it frustrating arguing EU theory because there isn't much to draw from...we are frustrated because you dismiss the entire mainstream volume of knowledge by waving around a single book.&nbsp;</p><p> You may say that the S/H/B paper is valid, but you don't really even agree with it.&nbsp; Unless he responds saying otherwise, they are not describing circuit reconnection.&nbsp; Even if he responds saying that circuit reconnection may be able to explain some aspects of their theory, that still doesn't mean "magnetic" should be replaced with "circuit".&nbsp; The only reason this would occur is if he agrees that circuit reconnection EXACTLY can explain the same process.&nbsp; For the rest of the mainstream to be convinced, he, or someone, would need to put it in writing, mathematically.&nbsp; Even with someone in the mainstream, if he starts telling people it is circuit reconnection, he will be viewed with a ton of skepticism until he proves it to them.&nbsp; That is how science works.&nbsp; The idea that magnetic reconnection is equivalent to circuit connection is a NEW idea(if you say it is not, show me the part of Alfven's book where he addresses this paper and says "nope, circuit reconnection").&nbsp; Therefore it necessitates a proof for it to be taken seriously.&nbsp; Until you reach this point you will never convince me or DrRocket, or anyone who believes in the current system of science, where work is judged by their peer experts in the field before it is accepted as truth. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I don't mean to butt in on this personal argument between you and DrRocket, but you do realize that he(and myself as well) have the same exact thoughts when discussing things with you, don't you?&nbsp;&nbsp; We feel that if you read the vast library of "mainstream" knowledge, you will understand astronomical events and physics as we do.</DIV></p><p>The problem with that logic is that up until a few years ago, I did "understand" astronomical events and physics as you do today.&nbsp; The problem however is that I have since "learned" and "evolved" in my thinking due to what I've read and what I've studied for the past 3+ years.&nbsp; I can't "go back" to thinking as you do today.&nbsp; It's like losing your religion.&nbsp; You can eventually find new belief systems that work for you, but the old ones will never fit again.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You feel that if we read the vast...book of EU knowledge, we will throw all that away. </DIV></p><p>You won't throw it all away anymore than I'm throwing away Birn's work or Einstein's work.&nbsp; You will simply incorporate Birkeland's work and Alfven's work into your "vocabulary" and into your "understanding" of how things work.&nbsp; It's not like gravity is going to go away, or math or physics is going to get thrown away.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The only thing that get's "thrown out" is the belief that plasmas in space are 'neutral". &nbsp; </p><p>What gets "added back in" is well worth it.&nbsp; We can now understand why coronal loops reach millions of degrees.&nbsp; We can understand why solar wwind particles accelerate as they leave the photosphere, and why He+2 is favored over He+1 by many multiples.&nbsp; We can comprehend why we observe neutron capture signatures and gamma rays in the solar atmopshere.&nbsp; We can "understand" how "reconnection" works at the particle physical level.&nbsp; All of these new "understandings" have come about by reading Birkeland's work, Bruce's work and Alfven's work.&nbsp; Peratt's work was also very valuable, particularly if you're a computer jock (like me) and want to make sure that the math works in a computer model.&nbsp; It does, and Peratt and Alfven have demonstrated it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Think of things from our perspective.&nbsp; There is so much evidence for magnetic reconnection</DIV></p><p>There is only evidence of "circuit reconnection", which ultimately only supports EU theory.&nbsp; There is evidence that currents are flowing in those two "circuits" even by Birn's own defintion.&nbsp; Birkeland already showed us how "reconnection" works, and it necessarily involves "non neutral" plasma, currents in the plasma, circuits in the plasma and electrons flow through the plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and other things such as the elemental composition ofthe sun,</DIV></p><p>Actually, EU theory isn't predicated on any particular solar model.&nbsp; Alfven tended to frame his arguements from a "standard" solar model perspective.&nbsp; You need not give up your solar beliefs only to embrace EU theory.&nbsp; I personally tend to be more of a "Birkeland purist' as I see it, but that is actually "optional".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that it's difficult to find a single representative paper...this is because they are all just as good as the next.&nbsp; Obviously there will be reluctance to throw away all this evidence and take up a position that is highly undefensable.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>I have had no problem "defending" my scientific beliefs, because they are all based upon emprical tested "physics' in a lab, by Birkeland.&nbsp; Everything I have proposed is already demonstrated in his experiments. &nbsp; You should see astronomers try to "defend" BB theory sometime from a skeptics perspective.&nbsp; Talk about "faith" in things that cannot be emprically demonstrated.....</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All your evidence relies on a single book and an experiment, </DIV></p><p>No, I've read many books, and Birkeland conducted many experiments and took many insitu measurements.&nbsp; Parts of his work have been verified by satellite and agreed upon by the mainstream.&nbsp; Some of his work has been verified by satellites and has *not* been agreed upon by the mainstream "yet".&nbsp; All of my beliefs are predicated upon emprical experimentation with real objects in real scientific experiments.&nbsp;&nbsp; EU theory is pure emprical physics, beginning with Birkeland's contribution.&nbsp; Bruce and Alfven built upon that work and showed the mathematical correlations and explanations of events in space.&nbsp; Peratt showed us computer simulations to verify these ideas work on larger scales.&nbsp; That's the best we will ever be able to do until we can venture outside of our solar system and see what's out there in space. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and I'd argue that, based on how you misinterpret the mainstream papers</DIV></p><p>Which ones?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and our own words on this forum,</DIV></p><p>Well, I never claimed to be a perfect "interpretor' of all statements.&nbsp; I try to get to the core issues, even if I miss a point along the way.&nbsp; I eventually see the light if the arguement is framed correctly, like that whole debate over magnetic reconnection being an "oxymoron". &nbsp;&nbsp; Once I "got it", I had no trouble seeing things Derek's way. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that some of the conclusions drawn from these sources have been twisted. </DIV></p><p>From my perspective, some of these papers "twisted" the physics going on at the particle physicsl level.&nbsp; Instead of treating it as moving charged particles, some authors "twisted' the concepts in bizarre ways.&nbsp; That was no my fault.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You find it frustrating arguing EU theory because there isn't much to draw from...</DIV></p><p>Actually I believe that there is a *wealth* of information to draw from.&nbsp; I've been absolutely floored at the amount of information that is out there on this topic, particularly in terms of the math and the physics.&nbsp; I had no idea a few years ago that this much information existed on this topic.&nbsp; I'm frustrated at DrRocket only because he refuses to educate himself properly on this topic and he expects me to be his math mommy and spoon feed him every single line of math.&nbsp; Imagine how you'd feel if I expected you personally to duplicated every line of math produced by Birn, Hesse and Schindler before I'd even read their work?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>we are frustrated because you dismiss the entire mainstream volume of knowledge by waving around a single book. </DIV></p><p>I'm doing no such thing.&nbsp; I didn't "dismiss" Birn's work in the least.&nbsp; I "renamed" it to what I believe is it's proper name, but I accept that his math and his physics is good.&nbsp; I have no need to "dismiss" all work from the mainstream as you seem to believe.&nbsp; I can't help the fact that Alfven did happen to write the book on EU theory from a math, physics, and electrical theory/MHD perspective.&nbsp;&nbsp; I know of better books, but they are even more expensive than Alfven's book and DrRocket won't read them either.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You may say that the S/H/B paper is valid, but you don't really even agree with it. </DIV></p><p>But that's the problem.&nbsp; I *do* find myself agreeing with almost every single part of their presentation.&nbsp; The only thing I don't seem to agree with is the name of the process.&nbsp; Everything else looks right to me and I don't see any serious problems with it from the perspective of math or physics.&nbsp; It looks great from my perspective too, it just has a bad name IMO.&nbsp; That is to be expected if Yevaud was correct and this is simply an issue of semantics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unless he responds saying otherwise, they are not describing circuit reconnection.</DIV></p><p>From the moment he said that there was current flowing inside that "magnetic line" he was talking about "circuit reconnection". &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Even if he responds saying that circuit reconnection may be able to explain some aspects of their theory, that still doesn't mean "magnetic" should be replaced with "circuit". </DIV></p><p>It would be a lot more congruent with particle physics theories and electrical engineering principles to replace the term "magnetic" with "circuit".&nbsp; There is nothing wrong with the math or the physics, just the name.&nbsp; Magnetic lines don't "disconnect" or "reconnect".&nbsp; Circuits do.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only reason this would occur is if he agrees that circuit reconnection EXACTLY can explain the same process. </DIV></p><p>Unless he intends to simply ignore Birkeland's work, Birkeland has already demonstrated that every single solar and space event they associate with "magnetic reconnection" has already been shown to be directly related to "circuit reconnection" in Birkeland's experiments. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the rest of the mainstream to be convinced, he, or someone, would need to put it in writing, mathematically. </DIV></p><p>IMO he already put it in "writing" mathematically, he simply needs to agree with me on a "theoretical' perspective and put that in writing.&nbsp; I don't need anymore math.&nbsp; I see for myself that it works mathematically. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even with someone in the mainstream, if he starts telling people it is circuit reconnection, he will be viewed with a ton of skepticism until he proves it to them. </DIV></p><p>All he need do is point them to Birkeland's work with spheres in a vacuum.&nbsp; I will continue to treat "magnetic reconnection' with some skepticism if he says no, and nobody ever duplicates Birkeland's work with aurora with "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is how science works. </DIV></p><p>Birkeland demonstrated how "science" works.&nbsp; It involved active experimentation, not simply math.&nbsp; Some *understanding* is not found in the math, but in the experiments themselves at a conceptual level.&nbsp; Birkeland already emprically demonstrated that "circuit reconnection" works.&nbsp; Birn need not demonstrate that to me or anyone.&nbsp; It's already been done. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The idea that magnetic reconnection is equivalent to circuit connection is a NEW idea(if you say it is not, show me the part of Alfven's book where he addresses this paper and says "nope, circuit reconnection"). </DIV></p><p>What he said was "nope", these are simple particle interactions in a double layer.&nbsp; He used "circuit" everytime someone introduced a "current flow" inside a "magnetic line"".&nbsp; I assme they've read his work too. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Therefore it necessitates a proof for it to be taken seriously.&nbsp; Until you reach this point you will never convince me or DrRocket, or anyone who believes in the current system of science, where work is judged by their peer experts in the field before it is accepted as truth. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The only "proof' that is required was done by Birkeland.&nbsp; What "proof" do you have that you can duplicate Birkeland's work *without* circuit reconnection?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp; As long as you refuse to drink from emprical experiments and detailed mathematical explanations, there's nothing more I can say or do to help you.&nbsp;...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The next detailed mathematical explanation from you will be the first one.&nbsp; In fact the next post with a single mathematical expression or any quantitative description of anything will be the first one.</p><p>You have provided no scientific explanation of anything whatever in this thread.&nbsp; I have seen Alfven's work in several papers and in his first book.&nbsp;&nbsp;Your posts have consistently been inconsistent with that material.&nbsp; You have provided not reasons or evidence whatever that there would be anything to be gained by reading yet another book.</p><p>You have made many assertions in this thread.&nbsp; When challenged you have backed up none of them.&nbsp; You have infact ignored all calls to back up your semantic arguments with science.&nbsp; If and when you can present any scientific argument, in the language of physics and mathematics, that supports any of your ideas, then I might reconsider pursuing the references further.&nbsp; When you can provide science and not semantics perhaps you can regain some credibility. &nbsp;But until then simple reference to the "One True Book" is not a valid argument, or an argument at all.</p><p>So, if it is credibility that you seek, you can start by providing sound physical and mathematical justifications for your assertions.&nbsp; You might start with your notion of "circuit reconnection" and show what specific "circuits" you think are being "reconnected" and what that means.&nbsp; I note that you stated an intention of interpreting magnetic reconnection in this framework and have yet to produce any specific notion of what that interpretation might be.&nbsp; Your notion of "circuit" reconnection in this context remains mysterious.&nbsp; Presumably you have posed a question to Birn in this context.&nbsp; If you have explained "circuit reconnection" in an intelligible manner, it might do to provide at least that explanation to the participants in this thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The next detailed mathematical explanation from you will be the first one.</DIV></p><p>Pure denial.&nbsp; I offered you many such an explanations from Alfven and Peratt.&nbsp; You won't read them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In fact the next post with a single mathematical expression or any quantitative description of anything will be the first one.</DIV></p><p>Evidently you expect me personally do to the work for everyone that has ever believed in EU theory, or I'm supposed to copy and paste it for you to this thread on command.&nbsp;&nbsp; Get a grip.&nbsp; I didn't make you copy and paste Birn's presentation did I?&nbsp; What is your problem when it comes to reading the materials you ask for?&nbsp; That has to be the single strangest personal behavior I've ever come across in cyberspace. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have provided no scientific explanation of anything whatever in this thread. </DIV></p><p>More pure denial.&nbsp; Birkeland did more to "scientifically explain", coronal loops, auroras, and "circuit reconnection' than has ever been done for "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; In fact Birkeland is the only one to actually scientifically explain these reconnection events and show how they actually work.&nbsp; It's called "circuit reconnection" DrRocket.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have seen Alfven's work in several papers and in his first book.&nbsp;&nbsp;Your posts have consistently been inconsistent with that material.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Boloney.&nbsp; More pure denail/pure fabrication.&nbsp; There's no poiint in discussing this with you anymore.&nbsp; You're hopeless because you won't help yourself and actually read Alfven's work, nor will you embrace emprical laboratory testing.&nbsp; What's the point in us bickering any further if you never intend to read what I suggest you read?&nbsp; You don't figure someone is going to notice that you're being completely irrational? </p><p>What "stinks" is the fact that "circuit reconnection" has been shown to work in a lab, and you refuse to embrace it.&nbsp; That stinks.&nbsp; Your attitude about education stinks too.&nbsp; Evidently you don't believe in mathematical and physical education on this topic or you'd just read the materials you asked me for and be done with 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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pure denial.&nbsp; I offered you many such an explanations from Alfven and Peratt.&nbsp; You won't read them.Evidently you expect me personally do to the work for everyone that has ever believed in EU theory, or I'm supposed to copy and paste it for you to this thread on command.&nbsp;&nbsp; Get a grip.&nbsp; I didn't make you copy and paste Birn's presentation did I?&nbsp; What is your problem when it comes to reading the materials you ask for?&nbsp; That has to be the single strangest personal behavior I've ever come across in cyberspace. More pure denial.&nbsp; Birkeland did more to "scientifically explain", coronal loops, auroras, and "circuit reconnection' than has ever been done for "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; In fact Birkeland is the only one to actually scientifically explain these reconnection events and show how they actually work.&nbsp; It's called "circuit reconnection" DrRocket.Boloney.&nbsp; More pure denail/pure fabrication.&nbsp; There's no poiint in discussing this with you anymore.&nbsp; You're hopeless because you won't help yourself and actually read Alfven's work, nor will you embrace emprical laboratory testing.&nbsp; What's the point in us bickering any further if you never intend to read what I suggest you read?&nbsp; You don't figure someone is going to notice that you're being completely irrational? What "stinks" is the fact that "circuit reconnection" has been shown to work in a lab, and you refuse to embrace it.&nbsp; That stinks.&nbsp; Your attitude about education stinks too.&nbsp; Evidently you don't believe in mathematical and physical education on this topic or you'd just read the materials you asked me for and be done with it. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Lots of words.&nbsp; No science.&nbsp; No mathematics.&nbsp; The saga continues.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Lots of words.&nbsp; No science.&nbsp; No mathematics.&nbsp; The saga continues. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><br />Here are lots of words about circuits in space by Alfven which you can access freely.&nbsp; Lots of science.&nbsp; Lots of mathematics.&nbsp; The denial continues.</p><p>FYI, I have collected a number of Alfven's papers which you can read anytime you wish. </p><p>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/ </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>FYI, Alfven also used the circuit concept to describe coronal loop activity.&nbsp; He even used some of that dreaded math stuff. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here are lots of words about circuits in space by Alfven which you can access freely.&nbsp; Lots of science.&nbsp; Lots of mathematics.&nbsp; The denial continues.FYI, I have collected a number of Alfven's papers which you can read anytime you wish. http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/ <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Been there.&nbsp; Done that.&nbsp; Read 'em quite a while ago.&nbsp; So what ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FYI, Alfven also used the circuit concept to describe coronal loop activity.&nbsp; He even used some of that dreaded math stuff. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>Interesting paper.&nbsp; Notice that Alfven proceeds as I have earlier descbribed that one must, first applying field theory and Maxwell's equations to properly model the physics and only once that has been done using the terminology and imagery of circuit theory, in a rather passing and simple way in this case.&nbsp; Alfven apparently understands that "dreaded math stuff" that so bewilders you, applies field theory properly and uses the terminology of circuits only in a rather fleeting way once the real work has been done with Maxwell's equations.</p><p>He first used field theory, and only once the situation had been described, quantified and limited in those terms did he use the terminology of circuit.&nbsp; He did not actually apply classical circuit theory, in terms of Kirkoff's laws of circuits, at all in reaching his conclusions.&nbsp;</p><p>This paper serves to reinforce the points that I have trying to get you to understand.&nbsp; One cannot just jump into a distributed parameter problem, such as the description of a plasma phenomena, and use lumped parameter techniques, like circuit theory, without first very carefully analyzing the situation in terms of field theory and only then applying the approximations and imagery of the simpler circuit model.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Been there.&nbsp; Done that.&nbsp; Read 'em quite a while ago.&nbsp; So what ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>So what makes the "circuit" solution to coronal loops and magentospheric activity any less compelling than a "magnetic reconnection" explanation? </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'>&nbsp;Interesting paper.&nbsp; Notice that Alfven proceeds as I have earlier descbribed that one must, first applying field theory and Maxwell's equations to properly model the physics and only once that has been done using the terminology and imagery of circuit theory, in a rather passing and simple way in this case. </DIV></p><p>Noice that he uses the term "circuit"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Alfven apparently understands that "dreaded math stuff" that so bewilders you, applies field theory properly and uses the terminology of circuits only in a rather fleeting way once the real work has been done with Maxwell's equations.He first used field theory, and only once the situation had been described, quantified and limited in those terms did he use the terminology of circuit.&nbsp; He did not actually apply classical circuit theory, in terms of Kirkoff's laws of circuits, at all in reaching his conclusions.&nbsp;This paper serves to reinforce the points that I have trying to get you to understand.&nbsp; One cannot just jump into a distributed parameter problem, such as the description of a plasma phenomena, and use lumped parameter techniques, like circuit theory, without first very carefully analyzing the situation in terms of field theory and only then applying the approximations and imagery of the simpler circuit model.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You're ignoring the point.&nbsp; The "circuit" model he uses, and the "particle" method he employs is equally valid compared to any "field" oriented solution.&nbsp; He intentionally switched to the circuit/particle model when describing currents in plasma.&nbsp; Birn notes the current flowing into the "reconnection' point, but describes the process as "magnetic reconnection", even though the circuit energy is the thing that provides the actual kinetic energy of the "reconnection' event.&nbsp; The total ciruit energy determines the amount of 'reconnection" in any short circuit between two "magnetic ropes" (which he describes as "Bennet Pinches" in current carrying plasma filaments.&nbsp; The whole issue here is one of the energy source for these reconnection events.&nbsp; Alfven desribes the E field as being critically important when trying to understand these types of high energy plasma discharges.</p><p>What you seem to be unwilling to embrace is that every facet of "circuit reconnection" has been verified to work as 'predicted" in lab, including coronal loop activity and auroral activity.&nbsp;&nbsp; The only thing that is any different between Alfven's descriptions of these reconnection events and Birn's is one of terminology.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven used the terms "circuits" whereas Birn uses the term "magnetic line".&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'>This paper serves to reinforce the points that I have trying to get you to understand.&nbsp; One cannot just jump into a distributed parameter problem, such as the description of a plasma phenomena, and use lumped parameter techniques, like circuit theory, without first very carefully analyzing the situation in terms of field theory and only then applying the approximations and imagery of the simpler circuit model.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This paper serves to reinforce what I've have been trying to get you to understand.&nbsp; Alfven used the concept of "circuits" and "particles" in all instance where current flows were taking place, specifically everywhere in solar atmospheric activity, and everywhere in interplanetary space.&nbsp; He also did all the math you claim is missing. &nbsp; Get 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>