<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This paper serves to reinforce what I've have been trying to get you to understand. 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. He also did all the math you claim is missing. Get it? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I get it just fine. But apparently you don't. Alfven did not use circuit theory at all in that paper. He used field theory and spoke briefly in the terminology and imagery of circuits. But nowhere did he apply either of the fundamental principles of circuit analysis -- Kirkoff's current law and Kirkoff's voltage law.</p><p>He did a nice job of posing some hypothetical conditions and applying field theory to analyze the consequences of his hypothesis. He use solid physics, but he did not really use circuit theory. If you understood circuit theory and field theory you would understand that. But the only points that you are raising are based on semantics, as usual, and a distortion of physics, again as usual.</p><p>The math that I have claimed is missing, and that most certainly is in fact missing, is in your posts and in your misrepresentations of physics in gerneral and Alfven's work in particular. I understand what Alfven was saying, and I also understand what he was not saying.</p><p>There is nothing in this paper whatever that supports your statements that one should use circuit theory to describe large-scale plasma behavior without first performing a proper field-theoretic analysis. There is also nothing in this paper that contradicts the notion of magnetic reconnection. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I get it just fine. </DIV></p><p>No, you don't. Let me quote that first paper for you: </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, there is a more fundamental viewpoint based on the fact that any magnetic configuration is ultimately determined by the volume distribution of currents. <strong>The currents, in turn, are determined by the distribuition of particles and their velocities.</strong></DIV> </p><p>Emphasis mine. Notice how he's taking a more "fundamental" approach to these types of energy exchanges DrRocket? These are "particle" and "circuit" reconnections in plasma. The magnetic fields are simply a function of particle density and velocity. The movement of the plasma creates the magnetic field. You keep missing this point!</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is also nothing in this paper that contradicts the notion of magnetic reconnection. <br /><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yes, there is. He takes a more "fundamental" (particle physics) approach to these "reconnection" events. He calls these current carrying magnetic lines "circuits". This is no coincidence. He does this to keep MHD theory consistent with other branches of science, specifically particle physics and electrical engineering. The *fundamental* issue you keep ignoring is that any "stored magnetic energy" is found inside that stream of particles that flows through the "circuits".</p><p>There is nothing wrong with Birn's presentation other than the name he came up with to describe these particle reconnection events. This is simply "circuit reconnection" in the final analysis since the magnetic lines are composed of charged particles flowing inside circuits. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, you don't. Let me quote that first paper for you: Emphasis mine. Notice how he's taking a more "fundamental" approach to these types of energy exchanges DrRocket? These are "particle" and "circuit" reconnections in plasma. The magnetic fields are simply a function of particle density and velocity. The movement of the plasma creates the magnetic field. You keep missing this point!Yes, there is. He takes a more "fundamental" (particle physics) approach to these "reconnection" events. He calls these current carrying magnetic lines "circuits". This is no coincidence. He does this to keep MHD theory consistent with other branches of science, specifically particle physics and electrical engineering. The *fundamental* issue you keep ignoring is that any "stored magnetic energy" is found inside that stream of particles that flows through the "circuits".There is nothing wrong with Birn's presentation other than the name he came up with to describe these particle reconnection events. This is simply "circuit reconnection" in the final analysis since the magnetic lines are composed of charged particles flowing inside circuits. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are missing the physics, as usual. Of course the magnetic fields are determined by the distribution of current density, hence currents. What else would they be determined by? That is simply the result of Maxwell's equations. And of course that that is a function of particle density and velocity, which is precisely what current density is. Your addition of emphasis is nothing but a clear failure to recognize that is is nothing but a re-statement of Maxwell's equations. This is field theory in its purest form, and appropriately. It has little to do with circuit theory. </p><p>Moreover, this has nothing to do with particle physics. Particle physics is a rather distinct discipine from plasma physics, and we are talking about plasma physics here. There is no separate scientific discipline of electrical engineering with which Alfven needs to be concerned with MHD. It is just physics. Electrical engineers follow the same brand of field theory that physicists do -- it is just Maxwell's equations. And as you have noted magnetic field lines are not physical things at all, They don't carry current, they are not cut and spliced, they are just lines that indicate the direction of the magnetic field. Magnetic field lines are not circuits and Kirkoff's Laws and circuit theory do not apply.</p><p>Magnetic lines are not composed of charged particles or anything else. They are simply graphical devices used to visualize the magnetic field. If you think that the electrid and magnetic field energy is somehow related in a quantitative way to the kinetic energy of ions or electrons then please make that connection explicit, if you can -- with mathematics. The energy is in the field. </p><p>I am not ignoring any fundamental issue at all. Energy density is clearly and quantitatively related to the electric and magnetic fields. If you want to claim otherwise then demonstrate your claim with rigor. Here is the relationship between FIELD strength and energy density. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/engfie.html</p><p>This is a field concept and not a circuit concept, although in circuit theory capacitors and inductors offer a lumped parameter analog. </p><p>Now, if you are noting that the flow of the plasma gas also has a kinetic energy and momentum due to its flow, then that is also correct, but that does not change the fact that there is energy in the electromagnetic fields.<br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are missing the physics, as usual. </DIV></p><p>You're the one missing the "particle physics" part of the equation here DrRocket because you're only looking at it from the "field" (magnetic) or in this case an 'overview" sort of perspective. I guess that what happens when you only read the first book. Alfven understood that there was a fundamentally more important and "more detailed" perspective to be considered, specifically the particle physical interactions inside the "magnetic lines". He took it to a "deeper", more "fundamental" level of understanding, specifically the "particle physical" level of kinetic energy. You're only looking at the big picture (field), whereas Alfven went to the smaller (particle) level. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course the magnetic fields are determined by the distribution of current density, hence currents. </DIV></p><p>Hence the "circuits" then define the "boundary conditions" inside the plasma at a particle physical level.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What else would they be determined by? </DIV></p><p>Beats me. You however have been treating them as some sort of independent energy source, detached from the current flow that ultimately sustains them. It's like calling a plasma ball filament a "magnetic line". It's actually a flowing stream of moving particles that are part of a larger "circuit" of moving kinetic energy. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is simply the result of Maxwell's equations. And of course that that is a function of particle density and velocity, which is precisely what current density is.</DIV></p><p>So the only thing that magnetic fields store is "kinetic energy" that is driven by the larger circuit of energy that flows through the plasma filament.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Your addition of emphasis is nothing but a clear failure to recognize that is is nothing but a re-statement of Maxwell's equations. </DIV></p><p>Indeed it is, but you don't seem to respect the "particle" side of MHD theory. That's because you only read the first book and you refuse to recognize the importance of the energy of the whole *circuit* when it comes to the energy transfer process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is field theory in its purest form, and appropriately. It has little to do with circuit theory.</DIV></p><p>These two statements are at odds with each other, and the fact you can't see that is directly related to your problem. It has *everything* to do with circuit theory because those "circuits" sustain the magnetic field at the particle physicsl level. This is the part you're missing, right here. Without the circuit, there is no magnetic field. Magnetic fields in plasma are directly related to the circuit energy that sustains them, just like the curcuit sustains the magnetic field around a filament inside any ordinary plasma ball. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moreover, this has nothing to do with particle physics. </DIV></p><p>This is another naive statement. It has *everything* to do with particle physics. At it's most basic level this is a kinetic and electrical transfer of energy between charged particles. It has *everything* to do with particle physics!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Particle physics is a rather distinct discipine from plasma physics,</DIV></p><p>Not in Alfven's world. MHD theory *IS* plasma physics and particle physics in motion. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and we are talking about plasma physics here.</DIV></p><p>And plasma is nothing more than charged particles in motion. It is a kinetic "sea" of moving and flowing energy. No monopoles are involved. 
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no separate scientific discipline of electrical engineering with which Alfven needs to be concerned with MHD. It is just physics. Electrical engineers follow the same brand of field theory that physicists do -- it is just Maxwell's equations. </DIV></p><p>Indeed. That's why Alfven refered to the magnetic lines as "circuits" and he worked at the "particle" (detail) level of particle physics when talking about current sheet transfers of energy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And as you have noted magnetic field lines are not physical things at all, </DIV></p><p>All they do is compress and "pinch" the kinetic flow of moving charged particles into "threads", or "ropes" of current carrying plasma that resemble tornado like processes. I'm sure that's not a coincidence by the way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They don't carry current, </DIV></p><p>They only "pinch" and direct the current into moving "wires", or "circuits" inside the plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>they are not cut and spliced,</DIV></p><p>Only the twisting filament "circuits" of plasma flow are "reconnecting" at a particle physicsl level. It is particle reconnection and circuit reconnection. Not a single magnetic line is disconnected or reconnected from any other magnetic line. Magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect, only circuits and charged paricles reconnect. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>they are just lines that indicate the direction of the magnetic field. </DIV></p><p>The magnetic field winds around and pinches the current flow of the circuit energy into spinning, moving, filaments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic field lines are not circuits</DIV></p><p>The magnetic field line flows roughly in parallel to the electric field inside a Birkeland current. The electric field is part of the circuit, whereas the magnetic field acts to "guide" or "pinch" the curcuit.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and Kirkoff's Laws and circuit theory do not apply.</DIV></p><p>Sure they do. They just apply at the particle physical level where the actual particle "reconnection" is occuring.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic lines are not composed of charged particles or anything else. </DIV></p><p>This is another rather misleading statement. In plasma the magnetic field is driven by the electric field and "caused by" the electric field that is composed of moving charged particles in a tighly wound thread. What you said is techincally true, but also highly misleading as it relates to plasma. In your case I think you're overlooking the fact that these magnetic fields are driven by and caused by "Birkeland currents" at their most basic and fundamental level. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now, if you are noting that the flow of the plasma gas also has a kinetic energy and momentum due to its flow, then that is also correct, but that does not change the fact that there is energy in the electromagnetic fields. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>What you're missing here IMO is the fact that the "elecromagnetic field energy" you're talking about is simply stored "kinetic energy" in the pinched flow stream of particles. It's like the kinetic energy of the water coming out of the hose. The magnetic field acts like the hose to contrain the flow of particles, whereas the total circuit energy is related to the kinetic energy of the particle flow coming through the hose/circuit. </p><p>The "stored" EM energy is nothing more that a river of flowing charged particles that have been "pinched" into tighly wound threads or wires inside the moving plasma. The circuit energy determines the "reconnection rate" and the "Reconnection duration", not just the local EM fields as the point of "reconnection". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no separate scientific discipline of electrical engineering with which Alfven needs to be concerned with MHD. It is just physics. Electrical engineers follow the same brand of field theory that physicists do -- it is just Maxwell's equations. </DIV></p><p>Indeed. That's why Alfven refered to the magnetic lines as "circuits" and he worked at the "particle" (detail) level of particle physics when talking about current sheet transfers of energy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And as you have noted magnetic field lines are not physical things at all, </DIV></p><p>All they do is compress and "pinch" the kinetic flow of moving charged particles into "threads", or "ropes" of current carrying plasma that resemble tornado like processes. I'm sure that's not a coincidence by the way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They don't carry current, </DIV></p><p>They only "pinch" and direct the current into moving "wires", or "circuits" inside the plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>they are not cut and spliced,</DIV></p><p>Only the twisting filament "circuits" of plasma flow are "reconnecting" at a particle physicsl level. It is particle reconnection and circuit reconnection. Not a single magnetic line is disconnected or reconnected from any other magnetic line. Magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect, only circuits and charged paricles reconnect. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>they are just lines that indicate the direction of the magnetic field. </DIV></p><p>The magnetic field winds around and pinches the current flow of the circuit energy into spinning, moving, filaments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic field lines are not circuits</DIV></p><p>The magnetic field line flows roughly in parallel to the electric field inside a Birkeland current. The electric field is part of the circuit, whereas the magnetic field acts to "guide" or "pinch" the curcuit.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and Kirkoff's Laws and circuit theory do not apply.</DIV></p><p>Sure they do. They just apply at the particle physical level where the actual particle "reconnection" is occuring.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic lines are not composed of charged particles or anything else. </DIV></p><p>This is another rather misleading statement. In plasma the magnetic field is driven by the electric field and "caused by" the electric field that is composed of moving charged particles in a tighly wound thread. What you said is techincally true, but also highly misleading as it relates to plasma. In your case I think you're overlooking the fact that these magnetic fields are driven by and caused by "Birkeland currents" at their most basic and fundamental level. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now, if you are noting that the flow of the plasma gas also has a kinetic energy and momentum due to its flow, then that is also correct, but that does not change the fact that there is energy in the electromagnetic fields. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>What you're missing here IMO is the fact that the "elecromagnetic field energy" you're talking about is simply stored "kinetic energy" in the pinched flow stream of particles. It's like the kinetic energy of the water coming out of the hose. The magnetic field acts like the hose to contrain the flow of particles, whereas the total circuit energy is related to the kinetic energy of the particle flow coming through the hose/circuit. </p><p>The "stored" EM energy is nothing more that a river of flowing charged particles that have been "pinched" into tighly wound threads or wires inside the moving plasma. The circuit energy determines the "reconnection rate" and the "Reconnection duration", not just the local EM fields as the point of "reconnection". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You're the one missing the "particle physics" part of the equation here DrRocket because you're only looking at it from the "field" (magnetic) or in this case ah'overview" sort of perspective. I guess that what happens when you only read the first book. Alfven understood that there was a fundamentally more important and "more detailed" perspective to be considered, specifically the particle physical interactions inside the "magnetic lines". He took it to a "deeper", more "fundamental" level of understanding, specifically the "particle physical" level of kinetic energy. You're only looking at the big picture (field), whereas Alfven went to the smaller (particle) level. Hence the "circuits" then define the "boundary conditions" inside the plasma at a particle physical level.Beats me. You however have been treating them as some sort of independent energy source, detached from the current flow that ultimately sustains them. It's like calling a plasma ball filament a "magnetic line". It's actually a flowing stream of moving particles that are part of a larger "circuit" of moving kinetic energy. So the only thing that magnetic fields store is "kinetic energy" that is driven by the larger circuit of energy that flows through the plasma filament.Indeed it is, but you don't seem to respect the "particle" side of MHD theory. That's because you only read the first book and you refuse to recognize the importance of the energy of the whole *circuit* when it comes to the energy transfer process.These two statements are at odds with each other, and the fact you can't see that is directly related to your problem. It has *everything* to do with circuit theory because those "circuits" sustain the magnetic field at the particle physicsl level. This is the part you're missing, right here. Without the circuit, there is no magnetic field. Magnetic fields in plasma are directly related to the circuit energy that sustains them, just like the curcuit sustains the magnetic field around a filament inside any ordinary plasma ball. This is another naive statement. It has *everything* to do with particle physics. At it's most basic level this is a kinetic and electrical transfer of energy between charged particles. It has *everything* to do with particle physics!Not in Alfven's world. MHD theory *IS* plasma physics and particle physics in motion. And plasma is nothing more than charged particles in motion. It is a kinetic "sea" of moving and flowing energy. No monopoles are involved. Indeed. That's why Alfven refered to the magnetic lines as "circuits" and he worked at the "particle" (detail) level of particle physics when talking about current sheet transfers of energy.All they do is compress and "pinch" the kinetic flow of moving charged particles into "threads", or "ropes" of current carrying plasma that resemble tornado like processes. I'm sure that's not a coincidence by the way.They only "pinch" and direct the current into moving "wires", or "circuits" inside the plasma.Only the twisting filament "circuits" of plasma flow are "reconnecting" at a particle physicsl level. It is particle reconnection and circuit reconnection. Not a single magnetic line is disconnected or reconnected from any other magnetic line. Magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect, only circuits and charged paricles reconnect. The magnetic field winds around and pinches the current flow of the circuit energy into spinning, moving, filaments.The magnetic field line flows roughly in parallel to the electric field inside a Birkeland current. The electric field is part of the circuit, whereas the magnetic field acts to "guide" or "pinch" the curcuit.Sure they do. They just apply at the particle physical level where the actual particle "reconnection" is occuring.This is another rather misleading statement. In plasma the magnetic field is driven by the electric field and "caused by" the electric field that is composed of moving charged particles in a tighly wound thread. What you said is techincally true, but also highly misleading as it relates to plasma. In your case I think you're overlooking the fact that these magnetic fields are driven by and caused by "Birkeland currents" at their most basic and fundamental level. What you're missing here IMO is the fact that the "elecromagnetic field energy" you're talking about is simply stored "kinetic energy" in the pinched flow stream of particles. It's like the kinetic energy of the water coming out of the hose. The magnetic field acts like the hose to contrain the flow of particles, whereas the total circuit energy is related to the kinetic energy of the particle flow coming through the hose/circuit. The "stored" EM energy is nothing more that a river of flowing charged particles that have been "pinched" into tighly wound threads or wires inside the moving plasma. The circuit energy determines the "reconnection rate" and the "Reconnection duration", not just the local EM fields as the point of "reconnection". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have reached a new level of parsing. You have begun responding to phrases rather to whole sentences, let along whole thoughts. This semantics gone wild. Physics is based on concepts, not terminology. </p><p>Have you heard from Birn? I can hardly wait to see his reply, if any, dissected word by word.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Indeed. That's why Alfven refered to the magnetic lines as "circuits" and he worked at the "particle" (detail) level of particle physics when talking about current sheet transfers of energy.All they do is compress and "pinch" the kinetic flow of moving charged particles into "threads", or "ropes" of current carrying plasma that resemble tornado like processes. I'm sure that's not a coincidence by the way.They only "pinch" and direct the current into moving "wires", or "circuits" inside the plasma.Only the twisting filament "circuits" of plasma flow are "reconnecting" at a particle physicsl level. It is particle reconnection and circuit reconnection. Not a single magnetic line is disconnected or reconnected from any other magnetic line. Magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect, only circuits and charged paricles reconnect. The magnetic field winds around and pinches the current flow of the circuit energy into spinning, moving, filaments.The magnetic field line flows roughly in parallel to the electric field inside a Birkeland current. The electric field is part of the circuit, whereas the magnetic field acts to "guide" or "pinch" the curcuit.Sure they do. They just apply at the particle physical level where the actual particle "reconnection" is occuring.This is another rather misleading statement. In plasma the magnetic field is driven by the electric field and "caused by" the electric field that is composed of moving charged particles in a tighly wound thread. What you said is techincally true, but also highly misleading as it relates to plasma. In your case I think you're overlooking the fact that these magnetic fields are driven by and caused by "Birkeland currents" at their most basic and fundamental level. What you're missing here IMO is the fact that the "elecromagnetic field energy" you're talking about is simply stored "kinetic energy" in the pinched flow stream of particles. It's like the kinetic energy of the water coming out of the hose. The magnetic field acts like the hose to contrain the flow of particles, whereas the total circuit energy is related to the kinetic energy of the particle flow coming through the hose/circuit. The "stored" EM energy is nothing more that a river of flowing charged particles that have been "pinched" into tighly wound threads or wires inside the moving plasma. The circuit energy determines the "reconnection rate" and the "Reconnection duration", not just the local EM fields as the point of "reconnection". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have reached a new level of parsing. You have begun responding to phrases rather to whole sentences, let along whole thoughts. This semantics gone wild. Physics is based on concepts, not terminology. </p><p>Have you heard from Birn? I can hardly wait to see his reply, if any, dissected word by word.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">and Kirkoff's Laws and circuit theory do not apply.</div><p> </p><p>Sure they do. They just apply at the particle physical level where the actual particle "reconnection" is occuring.</p><p>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Do you have any idea what ciruit theory and Kirkoff's Laws are ? </p><p>http://www.circuit-magic.com/laws.htm</p><p>And do you, who insists on the importance of terminology, have any idea what particle physics is ?</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you have any idea what ciruit theory and Kirkoff's Laws are ? http://www.circuit-magic.com/laws.htmAnd do you, who insists on the importance of terminology, have any idea what particle physics is ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This is getting hopeless...Michael, it seems like the crux of your argument relies on just SEEING the word circuit in papers. Much like you instantly get excited the second you SEE the word electric. You see these buzz words surrounded by math and assume the math is supporting your interpretation of things. The difference here is that we are trying to understand the words around these buzz words, while you(quite literally) just go through and count the amount of times circuit or electric are mentioned. How this is relevant is beyond me. I could count the word "magnetic", but this would actually weaken my argument. DrRocket asked if you noticed a valid argument based on Maxwell's equations and field theory, and you responded with "Notice that he mentions the word circuit"...you aren't even trying anymore.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is getting hopeless...Michael, it seems like the crux of your argument relies on just SEEING the word circuit in papers. Much like you instantly get excited the second you SEE the word electric. You see these buzz words surrounded by math and assume the math is supporting your interpretation of things. The difference here is that we are trying to understand the words around these buzz words, while you(quite literally) just go through and count the amount of times circuit or electric are mentioned. How this is relevant is beyond me. I could count the word "magnetic", but this would actually weaken my argument. DrRocket asked if you noticed a valid argument based on Maxwell's equations and field theory, and you responded with "Notice that he mentions the word circuit"...you aren't even trying anymore. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>When in a hole....</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>put the shovel down. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is getting hopeless...Michael, it seems like the crux of your argument relies on just SEEING the word circuit in papers. Much like you instantly get excited the second you SEE the word electric. You see these buzz words surrounded by math and assume the math is supporting your interpretation of things. </DIV></p><p>The part that seems "hopeless" from my perspective is that Alfven has already explained how circuit theory relates to MHD theory. I should not have to educate DrRocket on these topics. Even when he sees these ideas, concepts and terms used in a specific paper, he utterly and completely ignores them as though Alfven never explained them. It's ridiculous. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The difference here is that we are trying to understand the words around these buzz words,</DIV></p><p>While that may be true of you, that is not not true in DrRocket's case. If he *wanted* to understand these ideas, he would by now. He won't even read the papers I provide or acknowledge Alfven's points. It's quite sad from my perspective.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>while you(quite literally) just go through and count the amount of times circuit or electric are mentioned. How this is relevant is beyond me. I could count the word "magnetic", but this would actually weaken my argument. </DIV></p><p>In the book Cosmic Plasma, Alfven introduces the concept of "circuits" from the very start. He explain how electrical theory and circuit theory apply to plasma. Somehow in DrRocket's mind, it's "ok" to use the term "monopoles" in relationship to the energy transfer processes of plasma, but it's not "ok" to think in terms of "circuits". That'a just weird. There are no monopoles in plasma, and it's a useless analogy when trying to convey the real physics of what's going on in the plasma at the particle physicsl level. Circuits on the other hand do form in plasma. You can watch them form inside an ordinary plasma ball when you switch on the '"circuit" and you can watch them go away when you turn off the power. We should not even be debating the notion that circuit theory can be applied to plasmas since Alfven did it constantly. It's frustring to run into a brick wall of pure ignorance and denial. These should be ideas we simply agree upon, but instead it's being "debated" as though there is some doubt. That's absurd. </p><p>I can 'count' words and read them too because I own and have read the material in question. That' more than DrRocket can do or has done or will ever do.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DrRocket asked if you noticed a valid argument based on Maxwell's equations and field theory, and you responded with "Notice that he mentions the word circuit"...you aren't even trying anymore. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I provided you both with two specific papers that are directly related to this topic, that includes all the math, includes all the relevant explanations, and that addresses these key points. DrRocket is simply ignoring the content of these works entirely and acting as though I owe him something more. I do not. All the math and the physics is layed out before him. He simply refuses to address it, acknowledge it, or deal with it. I'm about to start calling him DrDenial.</p><p>Circuit theory is used *extensively* in PC. It's not like you can just ignore that fact. The entire book is based upon the ideas that circuits form between and around objects in space. Acting like circuit theory can't be applied to MHD theory is like claiming magnetic field theory can't be applied to MHD theory. It's a non starter. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When in a hole.... put the shovel down. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I don't believe that you folks even realize how far in the hole you're standing right now. </p><p> The fact that DrRocket simply ignores the matieral that I present to him is evidence that the hole of pure denial is starting to collapse. He won't deal with facts. He won't address the material. He won't even acknowledge the matieral or the points that Alfven makes in the material. It would be as if I simply ignored Birn's presentation entirely and kept claiming over and over again that there was no math or physics behind "magnetic reconnection" theory. It's absolutely rediculous how deep that hole of denial has gotten, but DrRocket keeps digging away, ignoring Alfven's point entirely and ignoring the implications of his statements.</p><p>Alfven took a "more fundamental' view of particle interactions when talking about transfers of energy in current carrying plasma. He recognized that there was a more fundamental *cause* behind magnetic lines, specifically the flow of current. He also realized that the only thing that "reconnects" in plasma are particles and circuits and he rejected the notion of magnetic reconnection because as he put it, not a single line is disconnected or reconnected to any other line. The "fundamental" physics going on at the point of reconnection takes place at the particle physical level between two current carrying "circuits". </p><p>And yet the denial routines continue.....</p><p>That hole of pure denial is looking mighty deep right now.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.. It's ridiculous. While that may be true of you, that is not not true in DrRocket's case. If he *wanted* to understand these ideas, he would by now. He won't even read the papers I provide or acknowledge Alfven's points. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That is simply ridiculous, and in fact a bald-faced lie. The issue that we are discussing is the use of field theory vs actual circuit theory in a paper of Alfven that you provided. I have acknowledged Alfven's points in that paper, but I have pointed out how you have misconstrued and misrepresented those points. It is not Alfven's but rather your points that have gone wanting. </p><p>The problem is that I have understood Alfven's points and they are totally different from your misconceptions and misrepresentations of them. The fact that I don't agree with you does not mean that I don't understand what Alfven said. Rather the fact that I understood what Alfven said is one reason that I don't agree with you. </p><p>You seem to base all of your arguments on semantics and references to the single book <em>Cosmic Plasma.</em> But you have misconstrued and mis-stated Alfven's points in the papers and books that I have read. Why would I expect it to be any different with a change of title ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have reached a new level of parsing.</DIV></p><p>I simply tried to point out the *specific* and key mistakes that you're making, but of course you don't care. You aren't even interested in actually learning anything because you'd have to admit that there is a more *FUNDAMENTAL* particle reconnection process going on here and that would bust you're whole show. You refuse to even deal with the materials I have presented to you in an intellectually honest manner. It doesn't matter that Alfven explained all these same energy exchange events in terms of "circuits", or that he provided you with ample mathematical end physical explanations. All you care about is not being wrong, so you simply ignore the material entirely and act as though you know more about MHD theory than Alfven himself. Gah.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you heard from Birn? </DIV></p><p>Nope. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nope. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>It's been a week so I think it's safe to assume that if he did read it at all he isn't planning on responding. Either that or it just got buried by the massive amount of lab email that gets sent out every day. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is simply ridiculous, and in fact a bald-faced lie.</DIV></p><p>No, it is a bald faced lie when you claim things like EU theory isn't well explained mathematically or physically. It is a bald faced lie that circuit theory does not apply to MHD theory and plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The issue that we are discussing is the use of field theory vs actual circuit theory in a paper of Alfven that you provided. I have not acknowledged Alfven's points in that paper,</DIV></p><p>You have not acknowledge *any* points that Alfven has made in *any* of the papers I have provided you with. You simply don't even respond to the key points, even when I highlight the key sentences. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but I have pointed out how you have misconstrued and misrepresented those points. It is not Alfven's but rather your points that have gone wanting. </DIV></p><p>My "points" come straight from Alfven's lips! I have no "misrepresented" his feelings about "magnetic reconnection" theory or circuit theory and how it applies to MHD theory. You're just in pure denial at this point. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem is that I have understood Alfven's points and they are totally different from your misconceptions and misrepresentations of them. </DIV></p><p>Another bald faced lie. I even quoted him for you. You just ignored it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact that I don't agree with you does not mean that I don't understand what Alfven said. </DIV></p><p>In this case, it does. You don't seem to have the slighest idea how magnetic lines "store and release' energy. You don't seem to have the first clue that Alfven took a more "fundamental" approach to these particle interactions in plasma. All you care about is not having to admit that you were wrong.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Rather the fact that I understood what Alfven said is one reason that I don't agree with you.</DIV></p><p>Your rationalizations are utterly and completely absurd at this point. Alfven wrote EU theory. I agree with him. You're the odd man out DrRocket. He and I both agree that the universe is filled with "circuits" that interact at the particle physical level. Alfven and I both reject "magnetic reconnection" because we both know that only particles "reconnect" in plasma. You don't understand squat and you never will because you won't even try.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You seem to base all of your arguments on semantics and references to the single book Cosmic Plasma. But you have misconstrued and mis-stated Alfven's points in the papers and books that I have read. Why would I expect it to be any different with a change of title ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>If Alfven had rejected EU theory instead of developing it, and promoting EU theory, then your attitude and comments wouldn't sound so utterly ridiculous. You won't acknowledge the points he makes in the papers I have freely provided you with, so I seriously doubt anything would change if you had the book. I doubt you'd bother to read it because it would bust your whole show if you actually attempted to understand MHD theory and how it applies to objects in space. </p><p>You don't want to learn anything here, nor do you wish to have an honest conversation on this topic. If you did you would acknowledge Alfven's point that there is a more *FUNDAMENTAL* viewpoint (particle) that takes presedent over field theory. At a *FUNDAMENTAL* physical level, only "particles" and "circuits" reconnect. Magnetic field lines are *FUNDAMENTALLY* incapable of disconnecting or reconnecting to any other magnetic lines. At the most *fundamental* physical level, this is *PARTICLE RECONNECTION*, not "magnetic reconnection". PERIOD. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's been a week so I think it's safe to assume that if he did read it at all he isn't planning on responding. Either that or it just got buried by the massive amount of lab email that gets sent out every day. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I'm a patient guy. I'd just like to be sure he even got my email. He may or may not choose to respond, but it would be nice to know that he actually recieved the email. </p><p>After doing more reading on this topic, I'm not convinced he's ever going to repond. Alfven personally and directly addressed Parker's brand of "reconnection" in the 3 circuit explaination of magnetosphere transactions. He carefully explained why Parker's approach is wrong in that paper I just cited. Alfven explained that there is a more *fundamental* physical process that must be considered, specifcially the particle interactions in the plasma. The "magnetic lines" are not disconnecting or reconnecting, just the particles inside the plasma. The circuits that define and create the "magnetic lines" provide the kinetic energy to generate and sustain the 'reconnection" process. That paper directly addresses Parkers brand of "magnetic reconnection". He mentions him by name in fact. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm a patient guy. I'd just like to be sure he even got my email. He may or may not choose to respond, but it would be nice to know that he actually recieved the email. After doing more reading on this topic, I'm not convinced he's ever going to repond. Alfven personally and directly addressed Parker's brand of "reconnection" in the 3 circuit explaination of magnetosphere transactions. He carefully explained why Parker's approach is wrong in that paper I just cited. Alfven explained that there is a more *fundamental* physical process that must be considered, specifcially the particle interactions in the plasma. The "magnetic lines" are not disconnecting or reconnecting, just the particles inside the plasma. The circuits that define and create the "magnetic lines" provide the kinetic energy to generate and sustain the 'reconnection" process. That paper directly addresses Parkers brand of "magnetic reconnection". He mentions him by name in fact. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> That may be true, but nobody is arguing that magnetic field lines disconnect and reconnect in the manner you are suggesting. I showed you a paper that addresses both of the old versions of reconnection and defines them conceptually, and both are concerned with a change in field topology...Alfven was right about lines not being able to disconnect or reconnect, but that is irrelevant because nobody is saying they do. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That may be true, but nobody is arguing that magnetic field lines disconnect and reconnect in the manner you are suggesting.</DIV></p><p>Then IMO it is irrational to call it "magnetic" reconnection. When you look at the real "physics" behind Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" experiments, it was the electrical currents that created the "magnetic lines" in "coronal loops" and it was also the power source behind aurora, the two key things being associated with "magnetic reconnection" theory. At the particle physicsl level, the only things that actually 'reconnect" are the charged particles inside moving "circuits" of flowing charged particles. The "reconnection" takes place not at the magnetic level (an overview level), but at the detailed level of "particle" physics. That's why Alfven switched to a "particle" and circuit orientation. He understood that the circuits were providing the energy, just like they provide the energy in Birkeland emprical experiments.</p><p>This is simply "circuit" reconnection and "particle"" reconnection with a very misleading name IMO.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I showed you a paper that addresses both of the old versions of reconnection and defines them conceptually, and both are concerned with a change in field topology...Alfven was right about lines not being able to disconnect or reconnect, but that is irrelevant because nobody is saying they do. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Alfven was also right to reject the term "magnetic reconnection" IMO because of that fact. He understood how misleading that phrase was, and he undertood how incongruent that term was with the meaning of Maxwell's original equations. He assumed that this term would give way to a real understanding at the particle physics level, but that's obviously not happening. As a result we have a huge skism between electrical and MHD theory and astronomy. We can't even agree that magnetic reconnections is one and the same thing as circuit reconection! That's how confusing this term has become as a result of the use of a terrible label. The energy exchange is kinetic in nature and electrically driven from start to finish. The moment Birkeland turned off the current flow, the show was over. Circuit reconnection happens and it has been emprically demonsrated to be directly linked to aurora and coronal loops in a lab with spheres in a vacuum. I know with absolutely emprical certainty that "circuit reconnection" works. I also know with certainty that magnetic lines do not disconnect or reconnect. While the concept of "magnetic reconnection" may indeed be directly related to "circuit reconnection", even by the authors standards, there is no doubt that no new forms of "reconnection" are necessary to explain aurora and coronal loops around spheres in a vacuum. it's already been done with "circuit reconnection". That is the only way that Birkeland was able to sustain his auroras for hours on end, and its the only way that nature could work. Each and every magnetic line in plasma is directly related to 'current flow'. </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>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">The issue that we are discussing is the use of field theory vs actual circuit theory in a paper of Alfven that you provided. I have not acknowledged Alfven's points in that paper,</div><p> </p><p>You have not acknowledge *any* points that Alfven has made in *any* of the papers I have provided you with. You simply don't even respond to the key points, even when I highlight the key sentences. </p><p>. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Typo on my part. I have corrected the original post which should have read "I have acknowledged Alfven's points in that paper."</p><p>However, that does not change the fact that I have respnded to the key points WHICH ARE NOT SEMANTIC POINTS. I have in fact shown that many of Alfvens statements are correct but that you have misintepreted and misrepresented those points.</p><p>Perhaps I should be a bit more clear. So far the problem has not been Alfven's physics but rather Mozina's lack of physics that is the sticking point.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..You don't want to learn anything here, nor do you wish to have an honest conversation on this topic. If you did you would acknowledge Alfven's point that there is a more *FUNDAMENTAL* viewpoint (particle) that takes presedent over field theory. At a *FUNDAMENTAL* physical level, only "particles" and "circuits" reconnect. Magnetic field lines are *FUNDAMENTALLY* incapable of disconnecting or reconnecting to any other magnetic lines. At the most *fundamental* physical level, this is *PARTICLE RECONNECTION*, not "magnetic reconnection". PERIOD. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I guess that if you couldn't argue semantics and push the capital button you would be rendered mute. But you certainly have not reduced the volume of rhetoric. You have misrepresented me, you have misrepresented Alfven, you have misrepresented classical physics, you have completely missed the boat with respect to circuit theory.</p><p>Why not at least attempt to phrase your points in terms of physics and mathematics and drop the emotion and semantics?. A little content would go a long way. How do you expect an honest conversation when you refuse to discuss the subject of physics in terms of physical principles and in the language of the subject, which is mathematics. You have ridiculed mathematics. You have misstated and misrepresented physics. Your next assertion in terms of either real physical law or the mathematics that describes it will be the first one. Your statemens are simply ridiculous.</p><p>What, for instance is "particle reconnection"? You seem to delight in semantics, yet this term is non-sensical. Particles don't connect, reconnect or even split. They simply move. You might talk in terms of flow lines, the fluid dynamic equivalent of magnetic field lines, but that would require some mathematics. And even then flow lines change continuously, just as do magnetic field lines. So again you would be talking about a change in topology, which is what the physicists mean by magnetic reconnection, and we know how you feel about that.</p><p>You can continue to try to attack me on the basis that "I don't want to learn anything" but that is patently false. I have in fact learned quite a bit by reading Alfven's papers and his book. What you don't seem to appreciate is that what I learned contradicts what you think you know.</p><p>Despite your assertion to the contrary, in plasma physics there is no more fundamental particle viepoint that takes precedence over field theory. Plasma physics and the sub-discipline of magnetohydrodynamics are both concerned with the behavior of ionized gasses. ?to quote Alfven, "The term 'plasma'was introduced by Langmuir for the state in the positive column of electric discharges in gases. It is nowadays used as the synomym for 'ionized gas'. " </p><p>To further quote Alfven "When <em>classical electrodynamics</em> had been developed during the nineteenth century, it could be directly applied only to some special problems in cosmical physics. A more general application was not possible until classical electrodynamics had been combined with <em>hydrodynamics</em> to form <em>magnetohydrodynamics, ..." </em>So you see the fundamental viewpoint is one that develops a description of the ionized gas using Maxwell's equations to describe the electromagnetic forces and fluid dynamics equations, specifically the Navier-Stokes equation, to describe fluid flow under the effects of the electromagnetic forces and the forces of pressure resulting from thermodynamics and pressure characteristic of a gas, ionized or not. This is is MHD at its most basic. It is Alfven's viewpoint, It is the viewpoint of mainstream physicists as well. It does not appear to be your viewpoint.</p><p>The problem seems to be that what you "know" and what Alfven wrote, combined with the basic principles of classical physics are worlds apart. Mark Twain much have you in mind:</p><span class="body1"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="3">It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. – Mark Twain</font></span></span> <p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Typo on my part. I have corrected the original post which should have read "I have acknowledged Alfven's points in that paper."However, that does not change the fact that I have respnded to the key points WHICH ARE NOT SEMANTIC POINTS. I have in fact shown that many of Alfvens statements are correct but that you have misintepreted and misrepresented those points.Perhaps I should be a bit more clear. So far the problem has not been Alfven's physics but rather Mozina's lack of physics that is the sticking point. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Let's recap the facts here for a moment.</p><p>1) Circuit reconnection has been emprically demonstrated to be directly linked to aurora, coronal loops and plasma "jets" around spheres is a plasma vacuum in real scientific experimentation. </p><p>2) Alfven wrote the math and electrical engineering book on Plasma Cosmology/EU theory.</p><p>3) It's not "ok" to use "monopoles" in papers about plasma physics because they violate the known laws of physics.</p><p>4) It is "ok" to talk about "circuits" in plasma, since Alfven described all the boundary conditions of interplanetary, interstellar and intergalactic space in terms of "circuits" and "wires" and "cables".</p><p>5) Alfven rejected "magnetic reconnection" in favor or plasma physics at the particle physicsl level. He realized that this is "paritlcle" reconnection and "circuit" reconnection process and he explicity and continously rejected all notions of "magnetic reconnection", particularly when applied to current carrying plasma.</p><p>6) Electrical discharges in plasma have been known to "pinch" neutrons from plasma, release x-rays and both of these have been observed in solar satellite images (RHESSI). </p><p>7) Alfven wrote the book on EU theory, provided ample math and physical explanations, and had students like Peratt who actually created working computer models based on his mathematical presentations of EU theory.</p><p>8) I have read Cosmic plasma and I agree with everything Alfven stated and believed in.</p><p>Now you of course not only reject EU theory in general, you make absurd statements about how it lacks mathematic and/or physical support. You think it's "ok" to use monopole "analogies" even though they violate known laws of physics. You think it's not ok to use use "circuis" when describing events in space. You reject Peratt's work. You won't even read Cosmic Plasma, or Peratt's work. You find Peratt to be an "embarassment" to the scientific community, even though he's worked at Los Alamos and has published many papers. You reject everything that Alfven put forth as it relates to EU theory. You reject every computer model dervived from the MHD equations that Alfven used to describe events in space. You claim there is no mathematical or physical foundation for EU theory. Even though I personally embrace all these things that Alfven embraced and that you reject, you somehow in your twisted thinking have convinced yourself that you know what Alfven really meant and have some kind of superior understanding of what Alfven really said. Evidently you got this information via osmosis, because you've never even bothered to read the book I recommended! From now on I'm just going to refer to you as "DrDenial". You don't have any credibility left with me at all. The rationalizations going on in your head to believe you have a better understand of Alfven's work is off the scale. Somehow you think that you have a better understanding of Alfvens material, even though you reject all of it.</p><p>Care to explain exactly what Alfven was wrong about for us? What is it that you "understand" that I do not "understand" or that Alfven did not "understand" that causes you to reject his entire plasma cosmology theories? </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have misrepresented me, you have misrepresented Alfven, you have misrepresented classical physics, you have completely missed the boat with respect to circuit theory.</DIV></p><p>This line is amazing. I posted his quotes for you. How can I misrepresent him by quoting him specfically and highlighting the relevant points? Your rationalizations are absurd. I respect he EU theories. You don't. I'm not misrepresenting them, you are. You reject his theories and you bash at them every chance you get. Get a grip! You aren't even being rational.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why not at least attempt to phrase your points in terms of physics and mathematics and drop the emotion and semantics?.</DIV></p><p>I showed you the laws of physics that Priest's brand of "magnetic reconnection" violated. It's not about semantics or emotions, but "particle physics". Only particles and circuits reconect, not magnetic lines.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> A little content would go a long way. </DIV></p><p>When I post any content, you utterly ignore it. You don't respond to the key points and you continuously claim I don't provide you with mathematical models even though every single paper or book I have recommended is loaded with math.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How do you expect an honest conversation when you refuse to discuss the subject of physics in terms of physical principles and in the language of the subject, which is mathematics. </DIV></p><p>I have provided you with *tons* of mathematical models that came straight from Alfven himself! What the heck are your talking about?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have ridiculed mathematics.</DIV></p><p>No, I have never ridiculed mathematics. I have only ridiculed the idea of relying *ONLY* upon mathematical models in absense of emprical testing. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You have misstated and misrepresented physics. </DIV></p><p>Baloney. I'm in agreement with Alfven's views. You are not. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your next assertion in terms of either real physical law or the mathematics that describes it will be the first one.</DIV></p><p>This line is pure denial. Both of the last two paper I cited described the math and the physics. You seem to think I'm supposed to do the work myself or something. That's not how science works! Get over yourself. Alfven blew you away in terms of math and science skills and I'm the one that actually agrees with his theories and have read them, not you.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your statemens are simply ridiculous.What, for instance is "particle reconnection"? </DIV></p><p>Your questions are ridiculous. What exactly do you think it means?</p><p>I'm stopping here. I can't take any more of this denial/rationalization routine.</p><p>Let's recap now. I'm the one who agrees with Alfven that EU theory has value and merit. I agree with him that magnetic reconnection is not occuring in plasma. I agree with him that a "paricle"" and "circuit"' orientation is superior to a "magnetic field" orientation when it comes to describing these "reconnection" events in plasma. You disagree with all of these things and yet you fancy yourself as more enlightened than me about Alfven's theories? Why? How in the heck can any intellectually honest individual ever rationalize something like this? You're so far "out there" at this point, it's pitiful. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I showed you the laws of physics that Priest's brand of "magnetic reconnection" violated. It's not about semantics or emotions, but "particle physics". Only particles and circuits reconect, not magnetic lines.</DIV></p><p>Look michael, repeat this line as much as you want, but it is extremely transparent that you're hoping people don't go back and read where we've torn this statement apart many many times earlier in the thread. Priest did not say monopoles exist, therefore he did not violate Maxwell's equations. Nobody said lines disconnect and reconnect. NOBODY. You are not helping yourself by repeating this garbage ad nauseum. It was a valid question at the time to ask about the monopole thing, but it was quickly resolved to everyone but you. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When I post any content, you utterly ignore it. You don't respond to the key points and you continuously claim I don't provide you with mathematical models even though every single paper or book I have recommended is loaded with math.</DIV></p><p>You have a serious problem with science...theres no way to put it nicely. You see certain buzz words or you see a lot of math and just make assumptions about what it is saying. You say you understand Alfven's equations, but when you post excerpts it does not appear to be the case. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm the one who agrees with Alfven that EU theory has value and merit. I agree with him that magnetic reconnection is not occuring in plasma. I agree with him that a "paricle"" and "circuit"' orientation is superior to a "magnetic field" orientation when it comes to describing these "reconnection" events in plasma. You disagree with all of these things and yet you fancy yourself as more enlightened than me about Alfven's theories? Why? How in the heck can any intellectually honest individual ever rationalize something like this? You're so far "out there" at this point, it's pitiful. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I realize you're talking to DrRocket here, but this is out of line. You are crucifying DrRocket for not agreeing with you, and you back up that argument by saying he should agree with you just because you believe it. </p><p>It is readily apparent that you are taking this argument way too persoanlly. In your mind, magnetic reconnection is the same thing as circuit reconnection. If you truly believe that and have no problem with the models aside from their name, then you wouldn't care whether DrRocket read Alfven's book or not. This thread has transformed from being a discussion of reconnection to your personal beef with DrRocket. If you are correct it should be straightforward to prove it. If you present such a proof, we will all read it. If it is valid, we will agree with you. I have absolutely no problem admitting I am wrong by saying circuit reconnection is not what is going on, but in order for me to do that I need to be proven wrong first...this isn't proving a negative, it is proving your assertion that circuit reconnection can explain what we call magnetic reconnection. Saying Alfven said so is not sufficient. This is something that has not been done before, and as such it is on you, or your colleagues, to prove it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....Let's recap now. I'm the one who agrees with Alfven that EU theory has value and merit. I agree with him that magnetic reconnection is not occuring in plasma. I agree with him that a "paricle"" and "circuit"' orientation is superior to a "magnetic field" orientation when it comes to describing these "reconnection" events in plasma. You disagree with all of these things and yet you fancy yourself as more enlightened than me about Alfven's theories? Why? How in the heck can any intellectually honest individual ever rationalize something like this? You're so far "out there" at this point, it's pitiful. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You can't even get a recap straight.</p><p>1) You seem to have your very own little world in which you misconstrue what Alfven has said and then agree with your own personal delusion.</p><p>2) Alfven has not said that "particle" and "circuit" orientatin is superior to a "magnetic field" orientation. In his papers Alfven uses a field theoretic approach to derive the "circuit" imagery that he uses. His perspective is clearly and soundly rooted in the field theory of Maxwell's equations.</p><p>3) I disagree with your position, yes. Alfven has formulated his theories in terms of basic physics and the mathematics that goes with them. He is using field theory properly in developing his description of the plasma behavior and using circuit imagery to illustrate that which he finds using field theory. It is a good approach. I am relatively conversant in electrical engineering, field theory, and the associated mathematics. So perhaps I do understand it better than do you. Did you ever stop to think that such might be the case ? I am not the one who dropped out of electrical engineering. If you think that you do understand what is going on, then why not demonstrate that understanding by discussing the physics itself, rather than focusing solely on the terminology and semantics and simply claiming to understand that which you then proceed to misrepresent.</p><p>You agree with his terminology and then disagree with his physics. You don't even recognize the disagreement. That is an irrational position.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Look michael, repeat this line as much as you want, but it is extremely transparent that you're hoping people don't go back and read where we've torn this statement apart many many times earlier in the thread. </DIV></p><p>I'm hoping they do read the whole thread actually. It's been an interesting journey IMO. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Priest did not say monopoles exist, therefore he did not violate Maxwell's equations. </DIV></p><p>Then he should not have used them in his presentation. If it is "acceptable" to use a monopole "analogy" in MHD theory, then it absoultely, positively, without any doubt be "acceptable" to use the word "circuits' in relationship to plasma behaviors. You can't claim one idea is acceptable and the other is not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Whereas Preist chopped up his magnetic field into tiny little monopoles, Aflven chopped up the "circuit" into tiny little particles. Alfven's "analogy"" is far more to the point when it comes to describing the particle transactions in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody said lines disconnect and reconnect. NOBODY. </DIV></p><p>The nobody should be calling this reconnection process "magnetic reconnection", NOBODY!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are not helping yourself by repeating this garbage ad nauseum.</DIV></p><p>It's not "garbage". These are simple facts. If no magnetic lines disconnect or reconnect, then its not "magnetic reconnection". This is not a new FORM of reconnection, this is simple circuit reconnection, just like in Birkeland's empirical experiments with spheres in a vacuum. The "circuit" supplied the energy to power the aurora, to power the jets and to power the coronal loop activity. Once he turned off the circuit, the energy transactions in the chamber ceased. We need no new forms of "reconnection" to epxlain what Birkeland already demonstreated with "current flow" and "circuit reconnection". They may be one and the same idea, but it looks like only Birn can answer that question for us, and he's not talkng.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It was a valid question at the time to ask about the monopole thing, but it was quickly resolved to everyone but you. </DIV></p><p>But then it should also be quickly resolved that what Priest was really referring to is "current flow" between "circuits" too, but somehow that's not how you folks see things. Care to eleborate?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You have a serious problem with science...theres no way to put it nicely.</DIV></p><p>I have a serious love of *EMPRICAL* science and a serious problem with mythos passed off as science. There's no way to put it nicely I guess. Magnetic lines don't reconnect. Circuits do reconnect. Particles do reconnect. This is circuit reconnection, the same circuit reconnection that powered Birkeland's auroras. I have a great respect for Birkeland's brand of emrpical physics. I love it. I will protect that type of science from the likes of folks like DrRocket that go out of their way to smear the good works of great men.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You see certain buzz words or you see a lot of math and just make assumptions about what it is saying. </DIV></p><p>No, I'm noticing that Alfven used a circuit analogy everywhere that mainstreamers are now applying the concept of "magnetic reconnection". I see that term being applied to CME's, auroras, coronal loops, jets, etc, all the same things that Birkeland emprically demonstrated to be related to "circuit reconnection". I'm noticing distinct similarities to the math used in Birn's presentations and Alfven's presentations when describing events between "circuits" in Alfven's lingo. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You say you understand Alfven's equations, but when you post excerpts it does not appear to be the case.</DIV></p><p>I post links to whole papers that I expect you to read and to respond to just as I read and responded to Birn's presentation and Preist's presentation. I don't have to copy and paste all the math formulas on command. I didn't make you do that with Priest's presentation or Birn's presentations did I? Why am I supposed to do that exactly? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I realize you're talking to DrRocket here, but this is out of line. You are crucifying DrRocket for not agreeing with you, and you back up that argument by saying he should agree with you just because you believe it. </DIV></p><p>No, I'm simply amazed that he doesn't realize how pitful this all sounds to me. Alfven's ideas are utterly and completely congruent with my own beliefs on MHD theory and plasma cosmology theory, at least to the point of intergalacitic space. I have no trouble accepting Alfven's views on these topics and I can and will attempt to explain them to the best of my abilities. DrRocket however has played devils advocate against EU theory throughout this entire thread, long before you even joined the conversation. Believe me when I say I have enjoyed talking to you rather than to him. </p><p>I'm blown away that DrRocket would profess to understand Alfven's work better than I do when he's never read it. That sounds positively irrational from the start. I don't have a clue how he expects to understand Alfven's work when he evidently never reads it because he keeps claiming I never provided him with any math! He disagrees with all of Alfven's cosmology beliefs, whereas I agree with Alfven's views, but he somehow thinks he's more of an expert on Alfven's beliefs (as a skeptic) than I am. Why? What material has he actually *READ AND RESPONDED TO*?</p><p>It's like a twilight zone episode from my perspective. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is readily apparent that you are taking this argument way too persoanlly.</DIV></p><p>I don't take your criticisms personally because they are never aimed at me personally. That is true of Derek's criticisms as well. DrRocket however goes out of his way to belittle me as a person and as an individual for not being his mathematical equal. I'm sick of his arrogance. Science is more than just being professient in math. Birkeland was 20 times the scientiest that DrRocket will ever be IMO, just based on the fact that he did real emprical experimentation. His math skills were probably superior to DrRocket's math skills too. Math skills are no measure of a person, and they aren't all that science is about. Understanding is sometimes related to *concepual* issues, not mathematical details.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In your mind, magnetic reconnection is the same thing as circuit reconnection.</DIV></p><p>I believe that Yevaud was right about that, yes. The fact that you don't agree with me however demonstrates the magnetude of the problem that name has created.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you truly believe that and have no problem with the models aside from their name, then you wouldn't care whether DrRocket read Alfven's book or not. </DIV></p><p>And if DrRocket agreed with me, and wasn't trashing EU theory at every opportunity, I would not care. I don't care that you and Derek haven't read the book. Neither of you have been making ridiculously false statements.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This thread has transformed from being a discussion of reconnection to your personal beef with DrRocket. </DIV></p><p>Not entirely. There's a fundamental issue here of human understanding at stake that goes beyond the individuals. The fact we have a "beef" at all, and that we see these as different demonstrates that there is a serious problem caused by naming this process "magnetic reconnection". It *should be* obvious to everyone that these are one and the same ideas. It's not. It's not even obvious to your or Derek. That's a problem that goes beyond personalities. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you are correct it should be straightforward to prove it.</DIV></p><p>I should be able to point you to Birkeland's experiments with "circuit reconnection", spheres, auroras, coronal loops and that should be "proof" enough. It is the only emprical proof there is of these types of kinetic energy treansfers in plasma. When was that done with "magnetic reconnection"" so we can compare the two experiments?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you present such a proof, we will all read it.</DIV></p><p>The only proof you should require was the line from Birn's paper that I already quoted to you when he said it was "obvious" that currents were flowing through the "magnetic line". Alfven explicity refered to that as a "circuit" in plasma. It's a "Birkeland current", just like you find in any ordinary plasma ball. I should not have to "prove" anything since it's already been done by Alfven and Birkeland.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If it is valid, we will agree with you.</DIV></p><p>It is valid and yet you do not agree with me, and Birn will not answer my question. Why? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I have absolutely no problem admitting I am wrong by saying circuit reconnection is not what is going on, but in order for me to do that I need to be proven wrong first...this isn't proving a negative, it is proving your assertion that circuit reconnection can explain what we call magnetic reconnection. </DIV></p><p>But Birkeland already did that! In fact he's the only one who has emprically demonstrated a connection between "circuit reconnection", aurora, jets, coronal loops and rings around spheres. That's never been done with "magnetic reconnection". You should be required to empricallly demonstreate that this can be done in the absense of "circuit reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Saying Alfven said so is not sufficient. This is something that has not been done before, and as such it is on you, or your colleagues, to prove it. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I have quoted Alfven because Alfven was evidently familiar with Parker's presentation of magnetic reconnection. He suggested in that magnetosphere paper I just posted that there was a more "fundamental" (that's the word he used) way of looking at this reconnection process, and then he proceeded to explain it in terms of "circuits and particles".</p><p>Birkeland already "proved" (emprically) that circuit reconnection works. I don't need magnetic reconnection to explain these events arounds spheres in a vacuum. Every single observations that Birn and Priest attribute to "magnetic reconnection" is directly related to Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" experiments. There is nothing more I can physicslally or or say that hasn't already been done by either Birkeland or Alfven on these issues. I can point you to the math and the papers that explain his theories, but I can't make you accept them as being equivilant to what Birn called "magnetic reconnection". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>I'm blown away that DrRocket would profess to understand Alfven's work better than I do when he's never read it. That sounds positively irrational from the start. I don't have a clue how he expects to understand Alfven's work when he evidently never reads it because he keeps claiming I never provided him with any math! He disagrees with all of Alfven's cosmology beliefs, whereas I agree with Alfven's views, but he somehow thinks he's more of an expert on Alfven's beliefs (as a skeptic) than I am. Why? What material has he actually *READ AND RESPONDED TO*?</p><p>It's like a twilight zone episode from my perspective. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is readily apparent that you are taking this argument way too persoanlly.</DIV></p><p>I don't take your criticisms personally because they are never aimed at me personally. That is true of Derek's criticisms as well. DrRocket however goes out of his way to belittle me as a person and as an individual for not being his mathematical equal. I'm sick of his arrogance. Science is more than just being professient in math. Birkeland was 20 times the scientiest that DrRocket will ever be IMO, just based on the fact that he did real emprical experimentation. His math skills were probably superior to DrRocket's math skills too. Math skills are no measure of a person, and they aren't all that science is about. Understanding is sometimes related to *concepual* issues, not mathematical details.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In your mind, magnetic reconnection is the same thing as circuit reconnection.</DIV></p><p>I believe that Yevaud was right about that, yes. The fact that you don't agree with me however demonstrates the magnetude of the problem that name has created.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you truly believe that and have no problem with the models aside from their name, then you wouldn't care whether DrRocket read Alfven's book or not. </DIV></p><p>And if DrRocket agreed with me, and wasn't trashing EU theory at every opportunity, I would not care. I don't care that you and Derek haven't read the book. Neither of you have been making ridiculously false statements.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This thread has transformed from being a discussion of reconnection to your personal beef with DrRocket. </DIV></p><p>Not entirely. There's a fundamental issue here of human understanding at stake that goes beyond the individuals. The fact we have a "beef" at all, and that we see these as different demonstrates that there is a serious problem caused by naming this process "magnetic reconnection". It *should be* obvious to everyone that these are one and the same ideas. It's not. It's not even obvious to your or Derek. That's a problem that goes beyond personalities. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you are correct it should be straightforward to prove it.</DIV></p><p>I should be able to point you to Birkeland's experiments with "circuit reconnection", spheres, auroras, coronal loops and that should be "proof" enough. It is the only emprical proof there is of these types of kinetic energy treansfers in plasma. When was that done with "magnetic reconnection"" so we can compare the two experiments?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you present such a proof, we will all read it.</DIV></p><p>The only proof you should require was the line from Birn's paper that I already quoted to you when he said it was "obvious" that currents were flowing through the "magnetic line". Alfven explicity refered to that as a "circuit" in plasma. It's a "Birkeland current", just like you find in any ordinary plasma ball. I should not have to "prove" anything since it's already been done by Alfven and Birkeland.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If it is valid, we will agree with you.</DIV></p><p>It is valid and yet you do not agree with me, and Birn will not answer my question. Why? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I have absolutely no problem admitting I am wrong by saying circuit reconnection is not what is going on, but in order for me to do that I need to be proven wrong first...this isn't proving a negative, it is proving your assertion that circuit reconnection can explain what we call magnetic reconnection. </DIV></p><p>But Birkeland already did that! In fact he's the only one who has emprically demonstrated a connection between "circuit reconnection", aurora, jets, coronal loops and rings around spheres. That's never been done with "magnetic reconnection". You should be required to empricallly demonstreate that this can be done in the absense of "circuit reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Saying Alfven said so is not sufficient. This is something that has not been done before, and as such it is on you, or your colleagues, to prove it. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I have quoted Alfven because Alfven was evidently familiar with Parker's presentation of magnetic reconnection. He suggested in that magnetosphere paper I just posted that there was a more "fundamental" (that's the word he used) way of looking at this reconnection process, and then he proceeded to explain it in terms of "circuits and particles".</p><p>Birkeland already "proved" (emprically) that circuit reconnection works. I don't need magnetic reconnection to explain these events arounds spheres in a vacuum. Every single observations that Birn and Priest attribute to "magnetic reconnection" is directly related to Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" experiments. There is nothing more I can physicslally or or say that hasn't already been done by either Birkeland or Alfven on these issues. I can point you to the math and the papers that explain his theories, but I can't make you accept them as being equivilant to what Birn called "magnetic reconnection". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I disagree with your position, yes. Alfven has formulated his theories in terms of basic physics and the mathematics that goes with them. </DIV></p><p>Yet you repeatedly have claimed that EU theory lacks emprical and/or mathematical support. Why?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He is using field theory properly in developing his description of the plasma behavior and using circuit imagery to illustrate that which he finds using field theory. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and that is what he does in every instance that is now being attributed to "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is a good approach. </DIV></p><p>It's certainly better than "monopoles". It's the more "fundamental" approach according to Alfven. Notice that he meantioned Parker by name here DrRocket? Why did he claim there was a more "fundamental" way of looking at these energy exchanges?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am relatively conversant in electrical engineering, field theory, and the associated mathematics. </DIV></p><p>I'm sure you're proficient at both, but you lack any sort of undestanding of what Alfven was refering to as the "particle" perspective of MHD theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So perhaps I do understand it better than do you.</DIV></p><p>At the mathematical level? Probably. At the concepual level? No way. You never did your homework.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Did you ever stop to think that such might be the case ? </DIV></p><p>DrRocket, I have already admitted on several occasions that you probably have superior math skills. That's never been in doubt in anyones mind, not even mine. There is however more to science that simply being proficient in math. Conceptual understanding is just as important as math. Birkeland and Alfven were also you mathematical superiors IMO. Neither of them relied soley on math alone either.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am not the one who dropped out of electrical engineering. </DIV></p><p>This is typical of your low blow, political spin, personal attack nonsense. I told you that while I took classes on electrical engineering, my love was computers and software engineering. You then twist that statement into a strwawman that is ultimately a pety personal attack. You are a pety person with pety behviors. Birkeland and Alfven were definitely your superiors on that level.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you think that you do understand what is going on, then why not demonstrate that understanding by discussing the physics itself, rather than focusing solely on the terminology and semantics and simply claiming to understand that which you then proceed to misrepresent.</DIV></p><p>This comes acrosss as pure denial from my point of view because that's what I've been doing now for weeks. I've posted papers and materials and you keep making stupic claims about me never presenting you with any math. Gah. This is so frustrating. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You agree with his terminology and then disagree with his physics. You don't even recognize the disagreement. That is an irrational position. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You're whole show is irrational IMO. You never read his work. You don't know what he said. Even what I highlight the relevenant lines of the paper you ignore them. Even when I show you papers on exactly the same topics where "magnetic reconnection" is supposedly taking place by Alfven, you ignore them. What can I do? I can't *force* you to look at this at a more "fundamental" level if you refuse to do so. I can't make you look at the kineitic energy exchanges at the paritcle physicsl level. I can't make you acknowlede that Birkeland's emrpical experiments with "circuit reconnection already explain all the events beings associated with "magnetic reconneciton". I can't make you agree they are the same concepts, even when Alfven explicity wrote about it and mentioned Parker by name. What can I do for you 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>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 176
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
Blue Origin stacks huge New Glenn rocket ahead of 1st launch (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
US Congress will hold another UFO hearing this week. Here's how to watch
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
-
FAA creating new committee to update launch regulations
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 2
-
Question Educating Space to Toddlers to Pre-Adolescence?
- Started by NeoViking
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram