Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem in a nutshell is that you (and pretty much most of the astronomy community) are under a very mistaken impression about plasma IMO. &nbsp; &nbsp;Plasma is an *excellent* conductor of electrical current. &nbsp;The particles do in fact "move around" and form current carrying threads, but electrons will traverse atomic plasma in a highly efficient manner, with little or no resistance.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Ignoring&nbsp;how the plasma itself could be a conductor for electrons and focusing on your comment that the "electrons traverse with little or no resistence", where would the heating come from?</p><p>Lightning cause such a huge amount of heat because of the high resistance to the electricity.&nbsp; If there is no resistance there are no losses, that is to say no heating.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ignoring&nbsp;how the plasma itself could be a conductor for electrons and focusing on your comment that the "electrons traverse with little or no resistence", where would the heating come from?Lightning cause such a huge amount of heat because of the high resistance to the electricity.&nbsp; If there is no resistance there are no losses, that is to say no heating.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>If there is truly zero resistance, then you are correct, and there is no heating.&nbsp; However, if there is a little bit of resistance, then you can get a lot of heating from massive currents.&nbsp; If you have a voltage source with an internal resistance of R1 and you connect to it a resistor with resistance R2 you can do an easy calculation to show that the maximum energy dissipation in the second resistor occurs when R2 = R2.&nbsp; That is why one matches speaker impedance to amplifier impedance to get the best performance.&nbsp; Now if R1 is very small then R2 is also very small.&nbsp; But if R1 is zero then if you make R2 also zero you get no heating, but you also calculate infinite current flow.&nbsp;What happens here is there is no single value that give maximum heating, you just get more and more heating as R2 gets smaller and smaller.&nbsp; So in this case the lower the value of R2 the higher the heating, until you actually consider 0 which is a singular point in the problem.</p><p>Lightning is similar, except you have a transition involved.&nbsp; Initially the resistance of the air is very high.&nbsp; But as the charge difference between clouds and the ground builds up the voltage gradient becomes large enough to tear some electrons loose from the air molecules and the air breaks down and resistance drops precipitously.&nbsp; The large rush of current through a plasma create quite a bit of heat, but it is due to high current rather than high resistance.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ignoring&nbsp;how the plasma itself could be a conductor for electrons and focusing on your comment that the "electrons traverse with little or no resistence", where would the heating come from?</DIV></p><p>It comes from the fact that not all the elements are fully ionized in the solar atmosphere and some are being ionized by the electrical discharge. &nbsp; Also, plasma is not a perfect conductor, so some amount of heating will occur, particularly during high current flows.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Lightning cause such a huge amount of heat because of the high resistance to the electricity.&nbsp; If there is no resistance there are no losses, that is to say no heating.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Whereas in the solar atmosphere, non ioniaed surface elements and non ionized elements from the lower atmosphere are being peeled away during the dishcarges and that non ionized material is being ionized inside the coronal loops.&nbsp; More importantly, the current flow creates the filamentary processes that lead to coronal loops in the first place.&nbsp; That current flow is directly responsible for the magnetic fields we observe in Hinode, SOHO and other satellite images.&nbsp; There is no "making and breaking of magnetic field lines". The current channels might cross one another and "reconnect" to a path of lesser resistance, but magnetic fields *always* form a complete continuum.&nbsp; Magnetic fields do *NOT* make and break connections like electrical driven current streams.&nbsp;&nbsp; Current carrying plasma filements howvever *can* reconnect with another current stream of plasma. </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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem in a nutshell is that you (and pretty much most of the astronomy community) are under a very mistaken impression about plasma IMO. &nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">The one thing&nbsp;of which&nbsp;I am absolutely certain is that you do not know what it is that I know.&nbsp; I would very much like to know what your thoughts are on the physics of plasmas, but you seem to not want to tackle that issue.&nbsp;</font></p><p>Plasma is an *excellent* conductor of electrical current. &nbsp;The particles do in fact "move around" and form current carrying threads, but electrons will traverse atomic plasma in a highly efficient manner, with little or no resistance. When astronomers look at the plasma in the solar atmosphere, they see a magnetic field. &nbsp;The reason they see that field is because electrons are flowing through the plasma and forming filaments in the plasma. The current is what creates the magnetic field. &nbsp;It's like looking at a copper wire with a magnetic field gauge. While the current is flowing through the copper wire, there will be a magnetic field around the wire. </p><p>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">No kidding.&nbsp; That is what I have been saying all along.&nbsp; Did you actually ever think about what I have been saying ?</font></p><p>&nbsp; Astronomers imagine it is the magnetic field that is the doing the work, when in reality, they have the cart before the horse. &nbsp;it is the flow of electrons in the wire that creates the magnetic fiend around the wire. &nbsp;Likewise, it is the electrons flow through the plasma that creates current carrying threads in the plasma which therefore have a magnetic field around them.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Yep.&nbsp; This is pretty standard.&nbsp; I understand it. I am equally certain that astronomer/physicists also understand it.&nbsp; Now, where do you think the motive force to cause the electrons to flow comes from?&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</p><p>The mainstream does not understand plasma because they never expermiment with it in a lab like Birkeland did and like Alfven did. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">I think the mainstream understands plasma physics quite well -- both experimental and theoreticl aspects.</font></p><p>Alfven understood the properties of plasma and electrical theory. &nbsp;He also understood the value and importance of emprical testing. &nbsp;Using standard tools of science he explained the mathematical properties of plasma, including current carrying plasma. &nbsp;The mainstream simply ignored the whole current carrying aspect of his work entirely.&nbsp; They forgot emprical science entirely, and focused only on computer simulations.&nbsp; That isn't good enough.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">You seem to make all of your arguments on what you think other people think.&nbsp; It would make a lot more sense if you based your arguments on physics.&nbsp;&nbsp;I am quite confident that you have no powers as a mind reader, and cannot tell what other people know or think.&nbsp; Respect for Alfven is appropriate, but hero worship is no substitute for logic and hard-core physics.</font></p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">Maybe what we need here is a sound definition of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Perhaps my understanding of that term is wrong.&nbsp; What I thought was mean by "magnetic reconnection" is basically a change in the geometry of the magnetic field, due to ordinary processes.&nbsp; Also I am not sure what you mean by normal electrical processes since you seem to have an aversion to things magnetic.&nbsp;&nbsp;The electric field and the magnetic field are just two sides of the same coin.&nbsp; They are both operating in plasmas.&nbsp; Magnetic phenomena are a part of "normal electrical processes."</font>&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I think you hit the nail on the head with that point.&nbsp; Yes, we most certainly do need a specific definition of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; We don't have such a thing to work with however. &nbsp; All we have are vague computer models, and nothing of emprical substance to work with.</p><p>I don't have any adversion to "magnetics", just an adversion to trying to sweep the current flow part under the rug.</p><p>This issue goes right back to current flow in copper wire.&nbsp;&nbsp; We would not try to suggest that the magnetic field around the wire exists in the absense of current flow.&nbsp; We would not try to suggest that the strength of the magnetic field is somehow separate from the current flow inside the wire.</p><p>When we get to plasma however, the mainstream does an about face.&nbsp; They ignore the current flow inside the plasma, and treat everything as a "magnetic" event. &nbsp; They are now trying to attribute properties to magnetism that magnetic fields simply don't have.&nbsp; Namely magnetic fields are always formed as a full continuum.&nbsp; They don't make and break connections and release energy in the process. That isn't the way they work.&nbsp; My aversion comes to an astronomer talking about "magnetic reconnection", when it is clearly impossible for this to occur.&nbsp; The only reconnection that is possible inside of plasma is an electrical reconnection process like we see in any typical atmospheric dishcarge. &nbsp; We point Rhessi and Geos at Earth and we see gamma ray bursts and x-rays from electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We point that same gear at the sun, and they chalk up these high energy photons to "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Baloney.&nbsp; The easiest way to explain these events in the solar atmosphere is the same way we explain them in the Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; They are nothing more than electrical dishcharges throught the solar atmosphere. </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>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If there is truly zero resistance, then you are correct, and there is no heating.&nbsp; However, if there is a little bit of resistance, then you can get a lot of heating from massive currents.&nbsp; If you have a voltage source with an internal resistance of R1 and you connect to it a resistor with resistance R2 you can do an easy calculation to show that the maximum energy dissipation in the second resistor occurs when R2 = R2.&nbsp; That is why one matches speaker impedance to amplifier impedance to get the best performance.&nbsp; Now if R1 is very small then R2 is also very small.&nbsp; But if R1 is zero then if you make R2 also zero you get no heating, but you also calculate infinite current flow.&nbsp;What happens here is there is no single value that give maximum heating, you just get more and more heating as R2 gets smaller and smaller.&nbsp; So in this case the lower the value of R2 the higher the heating, until you actually consider 0 which is a singular point in the problem.Lightning is similar, except you have a transition involved.&nbsp; Initially the resistance of the air is very high.&nbsp; But as the charge difference between clouds and the ground builds up the voltage gradient becomes large enough to tear some electrons loose from the air molecules and the air breaks down and resistance drops precipitously.&nbsp; The large rush of current through a plasma create quite a bit of heat, but it is due to high current rather than high resistance. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Noted, thank you.&nbsp; Michael often cites the 'million degree heating of the corona, that can only be achieved by an electrical discharge'.&nbsp; I am not sure how massive of a current can be running through such an extremely sparse amount of plasma.&nbsp; I suspect for a very conductive material such as plasma, given the sparse amount of plasma in the corona,&nbsp;the current flow to achieve this level of heating would indeed be incredibly massive.&nbsp; Finally I have never seen an adequate explanation from him on how such large electrical potential could be 'built up' in such a highly conductive material such as plasma.</p><p>My understanding of electrical theory is lacking,&nbsp;1 electrical engineering class&nbsp;([SARCASM]however, I&nbsp;can even&nbsp;do <em>double</em> integrals, so I am quite the mathematician!!![/SARCASM]),&nbsp;which is why my avatar is a test tube and not a lightning bolt!&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Noted, thank you.&nbsp; Michael often cites the 'million degree heating of the corona, that can only be achieved by an electrical discharge'.&nbsp; I am not sure how massive of a current can be running through such an extremely sparse amount of plasma.&nbsp; I suspect for a very conductive material such as plasma, given the sparse amount of plasma in the corona,&nbsp;the current flow to achieve this level of heating would indeed be incredibly massive.&nbsp; Finally I have never seen an adequate explanation from him on how such large electrical potential could be 'built up' in such a highly conductive material such as plasma.My understanding of electrical theory is lacking,&nbsp;1 electrical engineering class&nbsp;([SARCASM]however, I&nbsp;can even&nbsp;do double integrals, so I am quite the mathematician!!![/SARCASM]),&nbsp;which is why my avatar is a test tube and not a lightning bolt!&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Those are all good questions.&nbsp; I have been trying to get him to answer them myself.&nbsp; No luck there.</p><p>I am also not sure what is meant in this setting by an electrical discharge as opposed to a current.&nbsp; If&nbsp;the notion of a discharge is rather like a lightning bolt, then I don't see how one gets something like a capacitor to provide temporary charge build-up and development of a large voltage gradient.&nbsp; The plasma would be too conductive to permit that.&nbsp; You might be able to generate a big voltage pulse with a rapidly changing magnetic field, but he seems allergic to magnetic fields.</p><p>There seems to be some sort of notion that the sun and other stars are powered by some sort of current flow through the universe.&nbsp; But were that so there are a lot things to be explained -- things that I believe cannot be explained.&nbsp; Just one mnor example, for which I posted a crude model and calculation earlier, is the enormous magnetic field that such a current ought to create, and which is not observed.</p><p>I am quite tired of ad hominem arguments in reverse -- Alfven said so and so and therefore it must be true.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><p><font color="#0000ff">The one thing&nbsp;of which&nbsp;I am absolutely certain is that you do not know what it is that I know. </DIV></font></p><p>I'm sure that works both ways.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would very much like to know what your thoughts are on the physics of plasmas, but you seem to not want to tackle that issue. </DIV></font></p><p>Um, my understanding of plasma physics comes from Hannes Alfven and MHD theory, neither of which supports the notion of "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">No kidding.&nbsp; That is what I have been saying all along.&nbsp; Did you actually ever think about what I have been saying ?</DIV></font></p><p>Yes.&nbsp; I do however think you're missing a key issue here, specifically the fact that plasma will form filamentary channels to carry electrons.&nbsp; These are what we call "coronal loops".&nbsp; There is nothing mysterious about them. They are simply current carrrying plasma filaments within the plasma of the solar atmosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp; They are moving. They are flowing. They are carrying electrical currents from one region to another.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">Yep.&nbsp; This is pretty standard.&nbsp; I understand it. I am equally certain that astronomer/physicists also understand it.</DIV></font></p><p>No, they cetainly don't understand electrical theory or plasma physics.&nbsp; They *imagine* that magnetic fields make and break connection and "magnetic reconnect" somehow release energy in the process.&nbsp; According to Hannes Alven, and electrical theory, that doesn't ever happen.&nbsp; Either they don't understand plasma and electrical theory, or Hannes Alfven did not understand plasma and electrical theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; My money is on Alfven because he understood emprical science and he understood electrical theory.</p><p>Every paper I've ever read from an astronomer begins with a false statement about the behaviors of plasma that is then "demonstrated/verified" with a mathematical computer simulation of the idea.&nbsp; Astronomers are pretty clueless about electricity theory in my experience, and not one astronomer that I've ever met has even bothered to read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most of them have never taken in electrical theory classes.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure the mainstream is competely clueless when it comes to plasma physics and electrical theory.&nbsp; I know this because I know for a fact (from electrical theory in general) that magnetic field lines always form a full continuum, and only electrical circuits and charged particles make and break connections.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, where do you think the motive force to cause the electrons to flow comes from? </DIV></font></p><p>Charge attraction.&nbsp; The magnetic fields affect the movement as well, but mostly they pinch the plasma into tighly wound filaments.&nbsp; </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the mainstream understands plasma physics quite well -- both experimental and theoreticl aspects.</DIV></font></p><p>If they did then they would either:</p><p>A) not claim "magnetic reconnection" occurs, or</p><p>B) demonstrate it empirically.</p><p>They've done neither.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">You seem to make all of your arguments on what you think other people think.&nbsp; It would make a lot more sense if you based your arguments on physics.&nbsp; </DIV></font></p><p>This is an irrational statement from my perspective, since as I see it, my position is based *strictly* on physics and MHD theory and emprical testing.&nbsp; I have no idea what you base you belief in "magnetic reconnection" on, but I know it's not electrical theory, and I know that it's not based on particle physics either, because no one can identify what is "unique" about magnetic reconnection that would allow us to show that it is different from ordinary electrical current in plasma.&nbsp; There is no physical explaination for "magnetic reconnection", so I know darn well the idea is not based on emprical physics. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am quite confident that you have no powers as a mind reader, and cannot tell what other people know or think.&nbsp; Respect for Alfven is appropriate, but hero worship is no substitute for logic and hard-core physics.</DIV></font></p><p>If I were claiming *in spite of emprical evidence to the contrary* that Alfven was right because he was the author of MHD theory, *that* would be "hero worship".&nbsp; When I claim that Alfven should be given the benefit of the doubt for understanding the behaviors of plasma, unless his theories can be proven to be incorrect, that is sound logic. &nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven was an emprical scientist.&nbsp;&nbsp; He studied the behaviors of plasma in controlled laboratory conditions and he understood the difference between an electrical effect in plasma and a "magnetic" one.&nbsp;&nbsp; If he was incorrect about the topic of "magnetic reconnection", then standard electrical theory has to be tossed out the window, and there should be some emprical test to demonstrate it.&nbsp; Thus far all I've ever seen are false statements and computer simulations galore.&nbsp; Not one emprical test has ever demonstrated the physics behind "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>I'm not worshipping anyone.&nbsp; I'm not gullible either.&nbsp; The guy wrote the book on MHD theory and wes given a Nobel prize for his efforts.&nbsp; If he was wrong about something this basic as it relates to plasma, then there should be an emprical test that can demonstrate that fact, otherwise I have no doubt that Alfven knew more about plasma that most astronomers today, and he undestood electrical theory far better than most astronomers.&nbsp; I cannot logically see a valid reason to believe someone can disprove Alven's theories with a computer simulation, and the fact no one writes papers about emprical tests related to "magnetic reconnect" tells me that astronomers have lost touch with emprical science entirely.&nbsp; There is no logical or valid reason that this ideas would not be put to the test in a lab, and show to occur under X,Y, Z conditions in a reliable manner.&nbsp; Since they refuse to do that, and the continue to publish material on this topic and to falsely represent this ideas as being associated with MHD theory, I can only assume they're wrong, the have no real physics to back up their claims, and they refuse to admit it.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Noted, thank you.&nbsp; Michael often cites the 'million degree heating of the corona, that can only be achieved by an electrical discharge'. </DIV></p><p>It's certainly the easiest way to explain million degree plasma sitting above a 6K photosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am not sure how massive of a current can be running through such an extremely sparse amount of plasma.</DIV></p><p>You might look up the term "Bennett Pinch" sometime.&nbsp; The magnetic field around the current flow acts to constrict the plasma into dense, current carrying filaments, not unlike what you see inside of a plasma ball when it's running.&nbsp; The current creates highly defined, spiraling, flowing filaments inside the plasma.&nbsp; If we looked at these filaments with a magnetic field detector, we would see there is a manetic field alignment around the filament. &nbsp; Like an ordinary plasma ball, as long the current is flowing, the filaments will persist, and so will the magnetic fields.&nbsp; Turn of the electricity, and the party is over.&nbsp; The current does the work. The magnetic field is an affect of the current flow within the filament channels.&nbsp; If that z-pinch in the channel is powerful enough, it will release free neutrons and it even results in fusion reactions, and neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere that have been picked up by Rhessi. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I suspect for a very conductive material such as plasma, given the sparse amount of plasma in the corona,&nbsp;the current flow to achieve this level of heating would indeed be incredibly massive.</DIV></p><p>Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere are indeed massive.&nbsp; Those on Saturn are far powerful than on Earth.&nbsp; The sun is many times more massive than either of these planets, so yes, the current flow in the solar atmosphere is massive.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Finally I have never seen an adequate explanation from him on how such large electrical potential could be 'built up' in such a highly conductive material such as plasma.My understanding of electrical theory is lacking,</DIV></p><p>There is a conceptual issue you seem to be missing.&nbsp; You are assuming that a charge has to be "built up" somehow.&nbsp; That's not the way EU theory works.&nbsp; EU theory presumes that a galaxy, and every sun in the galaxy is simply a conductor of electrical current.&nbsp; The sun's atmosphere is charged because it carries the bulk of the electrical current through our solar system.&nbsp; There is no "build up".&nbsp; There is a constant electrical flow of energy through the sun.&nbsp; Think in terms of that charged plasma ball.&nbsp; When it's turned on, the discharges we see inside the ball are not due to a temporary "build up" of electrical current in a sealed device, but rather it's due to a constant flow of energy that comes from outside the device and flows through the device.&nbsp; When we turn off the current, the energy simply stops flowing and the light show is over.&nbsp; In EU theory, the bulk of the sun's energy is released as heat due to the electrical energy that flows through the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; The energy source is ultimately external, not internal. &nbsp; Birkeland bombarded the sphere with an cathode ray.&nbsp;&nbsp; The galactic wind is full of electrons and these electrons are ultimately what power the sun.&nbsp; The sun's heliosheath acts as a cathode because it is always more relatively negative than the surface of the photosophere. &nbsp;&nbsp; That is way we see charged particles accelerate as they leave the photosphere. They have a charge attraction to the heliosphere that causes them to accelerate as they leave the gravity well of the sun.</p><p>The galactic wind supplies the electrons and deposits them into the heliosphere.&nbsp; The photosphere then electrically interacts with the heliosphere.&nbsp; This process is very similar to what the Earth experiences as it sits inside it's magnetosphere, and like the Earth, the bulk of the energy flow comes through the poles. That is why we see faster solar wind near the poles, and the solar wind tends to be slowest nearest the equator.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p>http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Donald E. Scott received the Bachelor&rsquo;s and Master&rsquo;s degrees from the University of Connecticut, Storrs, and the Ph.D. degree from Worcester Polytechnic nstitute, Worcester, MA, all in electrical engineering.&nbsp; He was with General Electric (LSTG) in Schenectady,</DIV></p><p>Although I studied electrical theory, it became obvious to me pretty early on in my formal education that I was more interested in software development than in designing computer hardware.&nbsp; Dr. Scott however has a masters degree in electrical engineering and he very clearly explains the problem that most astronomers are having with electrical theory and MDH theory ultimately.</p><p>Magnetic fields always form a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end.&nbsp; We find it handy to talk about magnetic field "lines", but really it's a whole field, not simply one line.&nbsp; These fields always form in a full continuum.&nbsp; They do not make and break connections like electrical circuits. Charge attraction can cause current carrying plasma filament channels to "reconnect", but it is an "electrical reconnection" inside the plasma, not a "magnetic" one.&nbsp; Of course the magnetic fields will change as a result of the change in the direction of the flow of electrons, but the flow of electrons is what is driving these magnetic fields in light plasma.&nbsp; There are no "open magnetic field lines" extending out into space.&nbsp; There are only current channels that flow between the photosphere and the heliosphere, and persistent magnetic fields around these current channels. &nbsp;</p><p>Anyone with a strong background in electrical theory will verify this part of electrical theory to you.&nbsp;&nbsp; Dr. Scott's presentation of this material looks to be first rate, and it explains the skism between "astronomers" that don't tend to have a strong electronics background and someone like Alfven than obviosly did have a strong background in electrical theory and a strong background in emprical plasma physics. </p><p>Electrical currents will form inside a current carrying plasma envrionment.&nbsp; These currents can interact with each other&nbsp; electromagnetically.&nbsp; Make no mistake however, the driving force for these huge energy outputs during the interaction process are electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere just as the highest energy photons we see from the Earth's atmosphere come from electrical discharges in our atmosphere.&nbsp; There's no great mystery about these high energy events. They are electrically driven events in the solar atmosphere. The only mystery is why the mainstream can't just admit it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p>I'm trying to learn a bit as I read through your posts.&nbsp; I'm, admittedly, quite ignorant in terms of EU theory and MHD.&nbsp; These two articles I dug up seem to support magnetic reconnetion based on observation both in the lab and in nature. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMDI3T4LZE_index_0.html</p><p>http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080206-tw-magnetic-reconnection.html</p><p>http://mrx.pppl.gov/ </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>[edit:&nbsp; Added third link.&nbsp; Forgot to first time around, but Dr.Rocket's mention of the lab below reminded me.]</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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdfAlthough I studied electrical theory, it became obvious to me pretty early on in my formal education that I was more interested in software development than in designing computer hardware.&nbsp; Dr. Scott however has a masters degree in electrical engineering and he very clearly explains the problem that most astronomers are having with electrical theory and MDH theory ultimately.Magnetic fields always form a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end.&nbsp; We find it handy to talk about magnetic field "lines", but really it's a whole field, not simply one line.&nbsp; These fields always form in a full continuum.&nbsp; They do not make and break connections like electrical circuits.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I will and have agreed with you, subject to proper use of terminology.&nbsp; Magnetic field lines form a closed loop, a topological circle.&nbsp; Your use of the word continuum is a bit off the mark.&nbsp; The do form a continuum but so do straight lines and line segments.&nbsp; And yes, it is the magnetic field that is of interest.&nbsp; Magnetic field lines are merely a handy way of describing the vector field.&nbsp; This similar to the use of flow lines in fluid dynamics, a useful means of visualization and nothing more or less.&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;Charge attraction can cause current carrying plasma filament channels to "reconnect", but it is an "electrical reconnection" inside the plasma, not a "magnetic" one.&nbsp; Of course the magnetic fields will change as a result of the change in the direction of the flow of electrons, but the flow of electrons is what is driving these magnetic fields in light plasma.&nbsp; There are no "open magnetic field lines" extending out into space.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">But there could easily be magnetic flux lines that close up far out in space, out of the "field of view" of a sketch of a local region.&nbsp; I think this is what Scott fails to appreciate, as it is the way that I read his reference claiming that astrophysicists are asserting the existence of open field lines. http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmpause.html </font></p><p>&nbsp;There are only current channels that flow between the photosphere an the heliosphere, and persistent magnetic fields around these current channels. &nbsp;Anyone with a strong background in electrical theory will verify this part of electrical theory to you.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I am fully capable of handling the "electrical theory" myself.&nbsp; Maybe you changed your major early one but I did not. Electrical fields and magnetic fields, when currents vary in time as they all do outside of textbooks, come in pairs.&nbsp; You get both of them.&nbsp; And charged particles are affected by both the E&nbsp;field and&nbsp;the B field.&nbsp; In turn they affect the E field and B field themselves.&nbsp;&nbsp;You have to consider both mechanisms and the inbuilt feedback loops.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is nothing new and all knowledgeable physicists and electrical engineers know this (astrophysicists also).</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; Dr. Scott's presentation of this material looks to be first rate, and it explains the skism between "astronomers" that don't tend to have a strong electronics background and someone like Alfven than obviosly did have a strong background in electrical theory and a strong background in emprical plasma physics.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">See previous comment.&nbsp; It appears to me that Scott is arguing against a "misconception" that does not exist in&nbsp;at least one of the&nbsp;references that he cites to support it. On the contrary, physicists, and astrophysicists are physicists, usually have a very strong background in electrodynamics and what you call "electrical theory".&nbsp; Some of these physicists are conducting some very sophisticated experiments in magnetic reconnection as well. http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/magnetic_reconnect.html</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">The Princeton Plasma Physics laboratory has some rather good people.&nbsp; It was founded quite a while ago by John Archibald Wheeler.&nbsp; I can assure that Wheeler had a rather strong grasp of electrodynamics, as well as most of the rest of physics.&nbsp; I hope this disabuses you of the notion that plasma physicists do not conduct controlled experiments.</font></p><p>Electrical currents will form inside a current carrying plasma envrionment.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I have no idea what you mean here.&nbsp; By definition a current carrying plasma (or a current carrying anything else) has electrical currents.</font></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;These currents can interact with each other&nbsp; electromagnetically.&nbsp; </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Yep.&nbsp; Maxwell and Lorentz were pretty close.&nbsp; Nobody would argue with this statement.&nbsp; It is elementary and obvious.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Make no mistake however, the driving force for these huge energy outputs during the interaction process are electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere just as the highest energy photons we see from the Earth's atmosphere come from electrical discharges in our atmosphere.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">So you are saying that gamma ray bursts are the result of lightning ?&nbsp; I don't think so.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>There's no great mystery about these high energy events. They are electrically driven events in the solar atmosphere. The only mystery is why the mainstream can't just admit it.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">This assertion is not only unfounded, it is absurd.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p>DrRocket, nice post.&nbsp; The MRX home page that is linked to the article has a lot of great information on the experimentation, thanks for the 'heads up'.</p><p>I think that type of information is what will make this thread useful.&nbsp; Michael will never change his mind.&nbsp; I am&nbsp;wary of making absolute statements, but I assure you this is accurate.&nbsp; No amount of evidence reasoning or proof will change his mind.&nbsp; He has a tremendous amout invested into this idea of a solid surface of the sun / electrical universe stuff.&nbsp; He is convinced that he will one day be touted as the discoverer of some fundemental knowledge.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DrRocket, nice post.&nbsp; The MRX home page that is linked to the article has a lot of great information on the experimentation, thanks for the 'heads up'. I think that type of information is what will make this thread useful. </DIV></p><p>Identifying the unique energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" would be useful.&nbsp; Got one?&nbsp; Without it, it's unlikely my opinions will change. &nbsp; Emprical science is the name of the game.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael will never change his mind.&nbsp; I am&nbsp;wary of making absolute statements, but I assure you this is accurate. </DIV></p><p>I change my mind all the time.&nbsp; Such change however only comes when there is emprical support.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No amount of evidence reasoning or proof will change his mind. </DIV></p><p>Empirical evidence will change my mind.&nbsp; I've seen plenty of astronomer "reason" the need for "inflation", "dark energy", and "monopoles", so I will require a higher emphasis on empirical science than on pure "reasoning".&nbsp; I've learned that one man's "reason" can be another man's irrational belief.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He has a tremendous amout invested into this idea of a solid surface of the sun / electrical universe stuff.</DIV></p><p>I have far more personal time invested in hydrogen sun theories when you look at my whole life.&nbsp; I gave that idea up when I found emprical evidence to the contrary.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He is convinced that he will one day be touted as the discoverer of some fundemental knowledge.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Er, no.&nbsp; I gave that idea up the moment I read Kristian Birkeland's work.&nbsp; He beat me to the "discovery' of this solar model by over 100 years, and he did it *without* satellite evidence, nuclear chemistry analysys, and heliosiesmology data. &nbsp; More importantly, he did the emprical testing that the mainstream refuses to do.&nbsp; He simulated one it a lab and even created auroro, coronal loops, jets and a host of behaviors we see in satellite images today.&nbsp; I'm afraid it s bit late for me to claim the discovery of anything "fundamental". This model was lab tasted and on the table over 100 years ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I find it interesting that his work on Auroras is now accepted as "mainstream science", yet he didn't create them with "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; He created them with electrons and cathode rays.&nbsp; Of course no mainstream experiments have ever been done to recreate these experiments with "magnetic reconnection"".&nbsp; It's the pure reliance upon mathematical modeling that I reject in mainstream astronomy, particularly when testing is required and possible.&nbsp; In the case of magnetic reconnection, it's entirely possible to recreate it if such a thing actually occurs.&nbsp; It's also mandatory that it be done in controlled conditions to demonstrate that plasma can be heated to millions of degrees for hours on end.&nbsp; That's never been done.&nbsp; It won't ever be done either.&nbsp; It can't be done because magnetic fields form a continuum.&nbsp; They don't "cross" or "reconnect". &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<p>Like you, I'm a software person, so most of this is over my head.&nbsp; (I didn't even start an EE degree, though.&nbsp; I was software all the way.&nbsp; I did take chemistry for a while before switching to software.)&nbsp;</p><p>What puzzles me, though is your implication that mainstream science doesn't accept that&nbsp; auroras are analogous to cathode ray tubes.&nbsp; On the contrary, every explanation I've ever heard has made that exact analogy.&nbsp; I'm also baffled by your claim that mainstream astrophysicists never do empirical testing, because I know for a fact that they do.&nbsp; My brother did his PhD work on cosmic rays, based on his work with the MINOS experiment.&nbsp; That's a neutrino experiment, not a strictly electrical experiment, but it's reason enough for me to be bothered by your claim that mainstream scientists are just math geeks who never do any experiments.</p><p>There's also something that doesn't sound right about what you've said about magnetic reconnection, but it's too far over my head for me to get more involved in that part of the discussion.&nbsp; It kinda sounds like you're attributing things to it which not even mainstream scientists attribute to it, which might explain why you think the idea is so silly. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<ul><li><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DrRocket, nice post.&nbsp; The MRX home page that is linked to the article has a lot of great information on the experimentation, thanks for the 'heads up'.I think that type of information is what will make this thread useful.&nbsp; Michael will never change his mind.&nbsp; I am&nbsp;wary of making absolute statements, but I assure you this is accurate.&nbsp; No amount of evidence reasoning or proof will change his mind.&nbsp; He has a tremendous amout invested into this idea of a solid surface of the sun / electrical universe stuff.&nbsp; He is convinced that he will one day be touted as the discoverer of some fundemental knowledge.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV><br /></li></ul><p>I agree with you and I reached that conclusion earlier.&nbsp; I have run into similar personalities before.&nbsp; Their arguments can be intricate and a bit clever, but ultimately do not hold water.&nbsp; The problem is that they typically latch onto a grain of truth, taken out of context and/or away from the situation in which the underlying assumptions are valid, and turn it into a grandiose vision&nbsp; --&nbsp;really more of a hallucination.</p><p>There are two reasons to address them in a forum such as this.&nbsp; First, one can learn something from the exercise, by locating the grain of truth or attempting to do so.&nbsp; For instance the work at the Priniceton Plasma Laboratory on magnetic reconnection was something that I learned about as a result of this thread.&nbsp; Second, one of the potential benefits of a forum like this is the education, in a small way, of young people with an interest in science.&nbsp; Those folks may be lurkers, or occasional posters without sufficient experience and education, at the moment, to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.&nbsp; I hope that by shining a light, with real physics, onto the claims of those with wild and ill-founded notions that these potential future scientists will learn something about critical thinking.&nbsp; I think the way to do this is to attempt to point out where an incorrect construct agrees with and disagrees with that which has clearly been established,&nbsp;in this case classical electrodynamics, so that an observer can make an objective assessment of the validity of an oddball idea.</p><p>There is no hope of convincing a clever and obsessive personality using logic and science.&nbsp; If facts and logic were of use the discussion would probably never have started, or at least would not have gone beyond a couple of posts.&nbsp; Convincing Michael was never the point.&nbsp; There is no hope for him.&nbsp; But there is hope for some of the young folks who may be observing.&nbsp; Skepticism and imagination&nbsp;are good things.&nbsp; Mania gets in the way.</p><p>Sometimes it takes a liitle while to determine whether someone has a good idea.&nbsp; A couple of years ago I ran into a fellow at work who dabbled in astrophysics and seemed to have looked at data that he interpreted as disputing the accelerating universe hypothesis.&nbsp; Now, I too remain a bit skeptical about that.&nbsp; I don't say that it is wrong.&nbsp; It is just that it is still a bit new, based on inference from behavior of a certain class of star, and runs counter to my sense of aesthetics.&nbsp; Also the data and interpretation are still relatively new, and new ideas often are revised as greater physical insight is gained. &nbsp;None of that is nearly sufficient to say that the hypothesis wrong.&nbsp; And it is certainly not the result of delusion as it has been reviewed and at least conditionally accepted by some very good physicists.&nbsp; Nevertheless, I am open to and interested in opposing views based on real physics.&nbsp; Hence this fellow's reasoning was of interest to me.&nbsp;I looked at what he wrote up and couldn't quite understand it, but didn't see any glaring violations of physics either.&nbsp; I learned that&nbsp;one professinal astrophysicist had looked at the work and thought dissenting ideas like that out to be encouraged.&nbsp; Another, this one the brother of a Ph.D. chemist with whom I worked, had&nbsp;pointed out that the references used had been discredited some time in the past. Whether right or wrong his analysis was sufficiently clever, and he seemed to be sufficiently logical that I thought perhaps he ought to go back to graduate school and&nbsp;engage in serious research.&nbsp;</p><p>But then, the author of these ideas decided to give a talk on another idea of his.&nbsp; He had looked at the photos of the landing of the Huygens probe, decided the data was being misinterpreted, and that the rate of decent showed that Newton's law of universal gravitation was badly off the mark, not just a little as in corrections for general relativity but really far off.&nbsp; So we put together an audience with about a half-dozen scientists and engineers -- chemists, physicists, rocket designers.&nbsp; He gave his talk and explained his idea.&nbsp; Basically out to lunch.&nbsp; Not really a surprise at that point. &nbsp;When errors in his analysis, on solid physical grounds, were shown to him he reacted much as does Michael, with denial and selective interpretations of physics.&nbsp; He compounded that by displaying a complete ignorance of simple electromagnetics -- thinking that eddy currents in a piece of metal indicated a net charge and arguing that little nugget most vociferously.&nbsp; Nut case.&nbsp; Fortunately&nbsp;his true situation became sufficiently obvious so that rather than encouraging him to get more education (he couldn't have done it and it wouldn't have helped anyway) we recognized that his assignments in the laboratory ought to be limited to things where he could do no damage.&nbsp; For instance, it seemed a good idea to keep him away from explosives.</p><p>I think this thread is about worn out, but we'll see.</p><p>For the lurkers out there I will offer this insight.&nbsp; If you really think that you have a good idea that advances science you should make it known.&nbsp; But posting in an amateur forum is not an efficient way to do that.&nbsp; There is a very good and traditional way to break into research science.&nbsp; Get a Ph.D.&nbsp; New ideas and research are what the Ph.D. is all about.&nbsp; The requirement for the Ph.D. is different from the requirements for all other degrees.&nbsp; It is only slightly a matter of demonstrating knowledge of what is known in a field.&nbsp; It is very much a matter of making a significant original contribution to the field -- basically you have to discover something of&nbsp;some importance.&nbsp; New and radical ideas are encouraged.&nbsp; Hugh Everett received a physics Ph.D. with a dissertation on what came to be called the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, a far out idea but consistent with basic physical theory.&nbsp;&nbsp;You do have to defend your ideas with sound logic and show that it is consistent with known facts.&nbsp; Creativity is strongly encouraged, so long as it is defensible.&nbsp; You can be insane, but your ideas cannot be.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm trying to learn a bit as I read through your posts.&nbsp; I'm, admittedly, quite ignorant in terms of EU theory and MHD.&nbsp; These two articles I dug up seem to support magnetic reconnetion based on observation both in the lab and in nature. &nbsp;http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMDI3T4LZE_index_0.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080206-tw-magnetic-reconnection.html</DIV></p><p>Let's be specific here about the emprical science.&nbsp; You can't point to an uncontrolled event in the sky and claim "inflation did it", "dark energy did it", or "magnetic reconnection did it", without emprically demonstrating that these things exist in nature, and have some effect on plasma in a controlled experiment.&nbsp; Birkeland did all kinds of controlled experiments with "electrical current" and magnetic fields in his lab.&nbsp; He amped up the voltages, the field strengths, etc. He recreated aurora and coronal loop activity and had no problem recreating them at any point in time, and explaining exactly how it all worked.&nbsp; These articles while interesting to the causual observer, are IMO very misleading articles.&nbsp;&nbsp; Until and unless there is empircal support for "magnetic reconnection", and someone creates aurora using "magnetic reconnection" in a lab, then I see no reason to believe that such a thing ever occurs in nature, in plasma, or in space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://mrx.pppl.gov/ &nbsp;&nbsp;[edit:&nbsp; Added third link.&nbsp; Forgot to first time around, but Dr.Rocket's mention of the lab below reminded me.] <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>This is your "best" emprical reference, and it involves controlled experimentation.&nbsp; This is the only way that anyone could demonstrate "magnetic reconnection", specifically in a lab, in controlled conditions.&nbsp; Unfortunately, when you read the material, and watch their movie, what you discover is that they haven't actually identified anything unique about "magnetic reconnection" that isn't easily explained as an electrical interaction in plasma.&nbsp; In fact Alfven himself rejected the whole idea of "magnetic reconnection", because he understood electrical theory.&nbsp; Magnetic fields always form a continuum. They don't "make and break connections", like electrical circuits and charged particles.&nbsp; Charged particles will in fact "reconnect", but it is an electrical interaction in the plasma.&nbsp; Current stream can "reconnect", but again, it's an electrical interaction in the plasma.</p><p>The most peculiar part of this experiment is that it involves the storage of huge amounts of electrons, which are then released to generate giant magnetic fields that are then pumped into the plasma to create movement in the plasma.&nbsp; The particles create induction, and electrically interact in this process, but there is nothing "magnetic" about the reconnection process.&nbsp; What they fail to do, and what they can't do is define what exactly the physical energy release mechanism might be.&nbsp; Watch the movie and they'll tell that to you about 1/2 way though the movie after pronouncing the validity of "magnetic reconnection"" about a dozen times.&nbsp; That's silly.&nbsp; If they can't identifify anything unique about "magnetic reconnection", and they can't physically describe it, and they can't create million degree plasma with it, and create stable coronal loops with it like Birkleand did with his experiments electricty over 100 years ago, then how useful is it?</p><p>They are not creating "magnetic reconnection" by releasing a huge amount of electrons. They are temporarily creating a powerful magnetic field to create induction currents in the plasma, nothing more, nothing less.&nbsp; There is nothing unique here that is not easily explained by ordinary electrical interactions in plasma.&nbsp; The moment they turn off the electron flow, their experiment comes to a grinding halt.&nbsp; There's nothing unique about "magnetic reconnection". Alfven was right.&nbsp; These are simple electrical process between charged particles.&nbsp; Magnetic fields simply follow the current flow and are generated by the current flow, which is the primary reason they use electron flows to create these powerful magnetic field to begin with!&nbsp; It wouldn't even work without electricity to generate these powerful magnetic "bursts" of energy.</p><p>The major problem here is that all of this goes against electrical engineering theory and MHD theory as Alfven taught it.&nbsp; Magnetic fields never make and break connections in electrical engineering theory.&nbsp; They don't do so in Alfven's brand of MHD theory either.&nbsp; The magnetic field is direct result of the current flow inside the plasma.&nbsp; It would not exist were it not for the electrical flow.&nbsp; This analogy about coronal loops goes right back to that copper wire analogy.&nbsp; First of all, a single coronal loops is radiating at millions of degrees *before* two fo them "cross". Why?&nbsp; It's not "ok" to claim that "magnetic reconneciton" causes a coronal loop to reach millions of degree because there is no crossing magnetic fields in a coronal loop.&nbsp; It's just a current carrying plasma thread like you might find inside of an ordinary plasma ball. The individual threads "light up" without crossing one another because there is current inside the thread.&nbsp; There is a magnetic field around that thread because there is current runnng through the thread.&nbsp; There is a tiny amount of heat coming from the thread in an ordinary plasma ball because the electron flow inside the thread interacts with the plasma. &nbsp; The electron flow is doing the work. The magnetic field is simply an effect of the current flow.</p><p>When astronomers make pronouncements that aurora are driven by "magnetic reconnection" where are their lab experiments to verify this claim?&nbsp; Birkeland had no trouble at all creating aurora and coronal loops in his lab using elecrical current.&nbsp; I've never seen anything like a Birkieland lab experiment showing a continious aurora around a sphere in a vacuum using "magnetic reconnection" as an energy source.</p><p>The only one of the three articles that you posted that is really relevant to emprical science is the last one, and it too is predictated upon the continious flow of electrons to make it function? Coinsidence?&nbsp; I think not.&nbsp; I think that the sipliest way to generate heat in plasma is to run current through it.&nbsp; While an explosive release of electrons might create a magnetic field that can temporarily create induction forces in charged particles, there is nothing from the PPL experiment to demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique form of energy release.&nbsp; The way you can tell this is the fact that they never idenfied the physical energy release process that is unique to "magnetic reconnection", nor did they ever perform an experiment to isolate this unique energy signature from any other energy release signature in plasma caused by "electrical interactions" in plasma. &nbsp; That's the problem with the PPL experiments in a nutshell. </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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Like you, I'm a software person, so most of this is over my head.&nbsp; (I didn't even start an EE degree, though.&nbsp; I was software all the way.&nbsp; I did take chemistry for a while before switching to software.) </DIV></p><p>It sounds to me like you've had a rounded education actually.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What puzzles me, though is your implication that mainstream science doesn't accept that&nbsp; auroras are analogous to cathode ray tubes.&nbsp; On the contrary, every explanation I've ever heard has made that exact analogy.</DIV></p><p>Really?&nbsp; I don't recall ever reading an electrical explaination for aurora other than Bireland's explanation and Alfven's explanation. They attribute the energy source of aurora to "magnetic reconnection" (whatever that is.)&nbsp; I had to explain to people over at BAUT that Alfven easily explained aurora without "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; They seemed suprised. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm also baffled by your claim that mainstream astrophysicists never do empirical testing, because I know for a fact that they do.</DIV></p><p>It depends on their field of expertize in my experience.&nbsp; You don't see many emprical tests of "dark energy". for instance,or "inflation", or "monopoles".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My brother did his PhD work on cosmic rays, based on his work with the MINOS experiment.&nbsp; That's a neutrino experiment, not a strictly electrical experiment, but it's reason enough for me to be bothered by your claim that mainstream scientists are just math geeks who never do any experiments.</DIV></p><p>Your point it taken, but then I never much complained about neutrinos.&nbsp; I willingly accept that they have been demonstrated to exist in nature, and they have been shown to exist in nature in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; There is no doubt in my mind that they exist in nature.&nbsp; That is because they have been tested for in controlled experimentation in the typical emprical method of science.&nbsp; There's nothing "metaphysical" about the line of research that your brother is involved in.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is a branch of emprical science.</p><p>Compare and contrast that however with "inflation", or "dark energy", or "dark matter" that have not been shown to exist in a controlled experiment here on earth.&nbsp; These are branches of "astronomy" that are not based upon emprical science, but only upon computer modeling.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's also something that doesn't sound right about what you've said about magnetic reconnection, but it's too far over my head for me to get more involved in that part of the discussion.&nbsp; It kinda sounds like you're attributing things to it which not even mainstream scientists attribute to it, which might explain why you think the idea is so silly. <br /> Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>Every day I read Arxiv papers I'm finding some other physical phenomenon being chalked up to "black holes" (that belch and burp and whatever) and "magnetic reconnection" that seems to get stuffed into every electrical gap they can find. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The difference in my mind Calli is the emprical aspect of the science behind the field.&nbsp; I have no problem with neutrino experiments.&nbsp; I see that they are based on emprical science.&nbsp; They involve chemistry and physics and controlled experimentation.</p><p>I do however have a big problem with someone tells me "inflation did it".&nbsp; Inflation has never been shown to emprically exist in nature.&nbsp; It has never has any effect on plasma, or particles in a lab.&nbsp; Never.&nbsp; It's a gap filler and it's not based on physics and physical testing.&nbsp; Rather it is based entirely upon a mathematical model that is typically plugged into a software program.&nbsp; The problem from my perspective is that I can write a cool piece of software to calculate how many elves would fit on the head of a standard pin, but unless I can demontrate that elves physcially exist, my software "evidence" is pointless and meaningless.</p><p>Internally I recognize that some aspects of astronomy research (like neutrino detection) are entirely based on real physical science.&nbsp; I also note that some dogma of astronomy is simply dogma.&nbsp; It has not been emprically demonstrated to exist or have any effect on nature.&nbsp; That emprical testing aspect is the key issue from my perspective. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Keep in mind that whole reason for suggesting that neutrinos existed at all was due to controlled emprical testing of radioactive decays.&nbsp; We realized some amount of energy seemed to be missing, requiring that a new particle must exist to explain it, or the laws of conservation of energy were incorrect.&nbsp; They knew the probable source of the neutrino.&nbsp; Care to tell me the source of "inflation"? </p><p>For me at least, there is a difference between empirical testing like Birkeland did, and someone pointing to the sky and claiming "magnetic reconnection did it".&nbsp;&nbsp; Show me a controlled experiment that emulates Birkelands work that doesn't use electrical current as it's primary energy source, and then I might put some faith in the "magnetic reconnection" idea.&nbsp; Until then, I will have to defer to the author of MHD theory who claimed that magnetic reconnection was a myth and a misconcieved idea. &nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland had no trouble at all creating aurora and coronal loops in his experiments with electricity.&nbsp; I've never seen anyone do that with "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Why not? </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>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<p><em>It sounds to me like you've had a rounded education actually.Really?&nbsp; I don't recall ever reading an electrical explaination for aurora other than Bireland's explanation and Alfven's explanation. They attribute the energy source of aurora to "magnetic reconnection" (whatever that is.)</em></p><p>That's weird, becuase I have never once heard it attributed to magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; From what I understand, magnetic reconnection occurs far above (as in thousands of miles above) the aurora.&nbsp; It's related, in the sense that both involve magnetic field lines, and happen more when there's a lot of solar activity, but it doesn't cause the aurora itself.&nbsp; Perhaps the folks you've been talking to do not understand the idea of magnetic reconnection themselves and thus you have gotten this curious idea that mainstream scientists use it as a sort of "god of the gaps"?<br /> </p><p><em>You don't see many emprical tests of "dark energy". for instance,or "inflation", or "monopoles".Your point it taken, but then I never much complained about neutrinos.</em></p><p>A few posts ago, you said that mainstream scientists conduct no experimentation, and now you acknowledge that they do but just not in the area you are interested in.&nbsp; I may be misunderstanding, but this sounds an awful lot like moving the goalposts.&nbsp; "Okay, yeah, they do experiments, but not enough."&nbsp; If I can show you that they do experiments involving electricity, would that make you happy?</p><p>I'm not sure how you'd do an experiment involving inflation -- the whole point is that it occurs on a fantastically large scale, which would make it rather challenging to detect in a laboratory situation.&nbsp; Is observational evidence not useful?&nbsp; Must an idea be dismissed purely because it's basis is observational rather than experimental?&nbsp; The mass of the planet Pluto has never been determined experimentally -- should it therefore be suspect?&nbsp; Do we conclude that Pluto doesn't exist because we have never flown a spacecraft by it?&nbsp; Dark energy, meanwhile, probably isn't a monolithic entity.&nbsp; Like dark matter, that one really *is* a catch-all term for "stuff that seems to exist, since there's an observed effect, but we can't actually detect it so we don't really know what's causing the effect and will have to call it dark energy until we figure out what's really going on".&nbsp; Monopoles I just don't know anything about.</p><p>I'm also puzzled by the dichotomy you've drawn between "empirical science" and what you term "metaphysics".&nbsp; It seems that you equate "empirical science" with "experimentation", when there has never been such a limitation.&nbsp; Observation is empirical, not metaphysical.<br /> </p><p><em>These are branches of "astronomy" that are not based upon emprical science, but only upon computer modeling.Every day I read Arxiv papers I'm finding some other physical phenomenon being chalked up to "black holes" (that belch and burp and whatever) and "magnetic reconnection" that seems to get stuffed into every electrical gap they can find.</em> &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>And again, we return to the trap of publication bias.&nbsp; You think that what is published is the whole of science.&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; What is published is what is popular to study right now.&nbsp; Everything has trends.&nbsp; There's nothing sinister about it, anymore than there's anything sinister about the current popularity of hip-hop.&nbsp; People just like it.&nbsp; Black holes have a certain "cool factor" so there's a lot of research about them.&nbsp; That doesn't mean people are using them as a magical explanation for whatever.&nbsp; Same with magnetic reconnection, though I really don't think that's quite as pervasive as you think it is. </p><p><em>Inflation has never been shown to emprically exist in nature.&nbsp; It has never has any effect on plasma, or particles in a lab.&nbsp; Never.&nbsp; It's a gap filler and it's not based on physics and physical testing.&nbsp; Rather it is based entirely upon a mathematical model that is typically plugged into a software program.&nbsp; The problem from my perspective is that I can write a cool piece of software to calculate how many elves would fit on the head of a standard pin, but unless I can demontrate that elves physcially exist, my software "evidence" is pointless and meaningless.</em></p><p>Actually, the idea of an inflationary universe predates the software programs you disdain.&nbsp; Software, as you should well know, is nothing more than a means of automating calculations.&nbsp; It's the same basic thing as the celestial mechanics calculations done longhand by Lagrange several hundred years ago.&nbsp; It's as valid as when Newton invented "fluxions" to help him work out the math. &nbsp; But just because they proved celestial mechanics via mathematical experimentation rather than physical experimentation doesn't mean it's all BS.&nbsp; Lagrange's calculations predicted the existence of libration points (now known as Lagrange points in his honor).&nbsp; It wasn't until the 20th Century that anyone found observational evidence of their existence.&nbsp; We have since exploited some of these points (eg SOHO, Genesis, WMAP, Stereo), and thus, experimentally confirmed their existence.&nbsp; Not that anyone doubted their existence by that point.&nbsp; Sometimes, experimentation really, truly is superfluous.</p><p>Testing a theory by means of a software program is valid.&nbsp; The results are only as good as the quality of the information used to set up the model, and the quality of the software implementation of the model, but this certainly does not mean they should be treated as being purely fictional.&nbsp; The software models used to predict the expansion rate of the universe are not pulled out of some astronomer's behind.&nbsp; They are based on actual observations of the physical world. </p><p><em>For me at least, there is a difference between empirical testing like Birkeland did, and someone pointing to the sky and claiming "magnetic reconnection did it".</em></p><p>Of course there's a difference.&nbsp; What bothers me is that you're insulting mainstream scientists by suggesting that they are merely pointing at the sky and claiming "magnetic reconnection did it".&nbsp; You are simply refusing to examine their ideas, waving them off as bogus because they don't sound familiar to you.</p><p>And yet, they should sound familiar.&nbsp; Magnetism is very significant to plasmas.&nbsp; A moving plasma will follow magnetic lines of force.&nbsp; Surely you know that.&nbsp; It's been experimentally demonstrated oodles of times.&nbsp; Ambitious rocket designers even like to talk about someday using "magnetic bottles" to contain plasmas to be used in futuristic rocket motors, or as a deflector shield to help protect the crew when plowing through the interstellar medium (plasma) at relativistic speeds.</p><p>And magnetism and electricity are deeply, deeply related.&nbsp; I think you are asking for the impossible if you want a demonstration of magnetics without electricity.&nbsp; Well, it might be doable with ferromagnetics, but electromagnetics is so much simpler for these purposes. </p><p>All magnetic reconnection is talking about, if I understand it correctly, is field lines moving around and snapping together, with the potential to trap plasma.&nbsp; As I've had it explained to me (courtesy of NASA TV and other quite mainstream sources), a large mass of plasma emerges from the Sun in the form of a coronal mass ejection.&nbsp; This material (comprised of neutrinos, actually -- did you know that electrons are neutrinos?) carries with it a magnetic field.&nbsp; This is because it is conductive, and like most moving conductive substances, it generates a field.&nbsp; When the CME reaches the Earth's magnetosphere, its magnetic field interacts with the Earth's.&nbsp; New lines are formed, and that's when reconnection happens.&nbsp; This process transfers some of the charged material (plasma) out of the CME and into the Earth's magnetosphere, where it follows the field lines right into the Earth's upper atmosphere.&nbsp; That's when the aurora is produced, when the stuff hits the atmosphere and causes it to glow. </p><p>That's the mainstream explanation, as far as I've heard it explained.&nbsp; It seems pretty darned consistent with Birkeland's work with cathode ray tubes and not the wacky "we don't like Birkeland so we'll just make up a term" thing you've been presenting it as.&nbsp; I really think you agree more with the mainstream than you realize. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They involve chemistry and physics and controlled experimentation.I do however have a big problem with someone tells me "inflation did it".&nbsp; Inflation has never been shown to emprically exist in nature.&nbsp; It has never has any effect on plasma, or particles in a lab.&nbsp; Never.&nbsp; It's a gap filler and it's not based on physics and physical testing.&nbsp; Rather it is based entirely upon a mathematical model that is typically plugged into a software program.&nbsp; The problem from my perspective is that I can write a cool piece of software to calculate how many elves would fit on the head of a standard pin, but unless I can demontrate that elves physcially exist, my software "evidence" is pointless and meaningless.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Sorry but you are all wet.&nbsp; If you can explain some physical phenomena via your elf model, particularly one that seems inconsistent with current theory, and if your elf model is consistent with what is known about nature, then your elf model has merit.&nbsp; I wouldn't bet the farm on this one. There is a good deal more to a computer model than simply the display of numbers or a picture on a monitor screen.&nbsp; To be accepted physical models must be capable of matching what is observed and be consistent with other known physical principles.&nbsp; Software by itself is evidence of nothing.&nbsp; It is the underlying theory that is important, and the consistency of that theory with observations.&nbsp; </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Internally I recognize that some aspects of astronomy research (like neutrino detection) are entirely based on real physical science.&nbsp; I also note that some dogma of astronomy is simply dogma.&nbsp; It has not been emprically demonstrated to exist or have any effect on nature.&nbsp; That emprical testing aspect is the key issue from my perspective. &nbsp;&nbsp;Keep in mind that whole reason for suggesting that neutrinos existed at all was due to controlled emprical testing of radioactive decays.&nbsp; We realized some amount of energy seemed to be missing, requiring that a new particle must exist to explain it, or the laws of conservation of energy were incorrect.&nbsp; They knew the probable source of the neutrino.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Precisely,&nbsp;&nbsp;There existed a physical phenomena, beta decay.&nbsp; Observations of beta decay, combined with a mathematical analysis showed a problem with conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum.&nbsp; Based on this mathematical calculation, Wolfgang Pauli postulated the existence of a particle, the neutrino in 1930.&nbsp; The experimental&nbsp;detection of&nbsp;the neutrino was announced 26 years later by Harrison, Kruse and McGuire and&nbsp;the Nobel prize awarded for the experiment 39 years after that.&nbsp; But it was the mathematical model that predicted the existence of the neutrino and kicked off the whole investigation.&nbsp; The experiment confirmed the existence, but the discovery goes back to the model.</font></p><p>Care to tell me the source of "inflation"? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">The explanation is a bit long.&nbsp; You can find it, at a layman's level, in&nbsp;Alan Guth's book,&nbsp;<em>The&nbsp;Inflationary&nbsp;Universe.</em>&nbsp; The case is somewhat analogous to that for the neutrino.&nbsp; We see a universe that is homogeneous&nbsp;at extremely large scales, but lumpy at smaller scales.&nbsp; One then&nbsp;poses the&nbsp;question as to how the lumpiness (galaxies, stars, us) came from initial conditions that, though not completely understood, seem to&nbsp;be extremely homogeneous.&nbsp; Inflation is an attempt to answer that question.&nbsp; I&nbsp;don't find it entirely satisfactory, but it is the best hypothesis currently available.&nbsp; One would&nbsp;hope that in a future theory unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, an explanation would be an integral part of the theory and a separate notion of&nbsp;"inflation" or whatever would&nbsp;not be needed.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>For me at least, there is a difference between empirical testing like Birkeland did, and someone pointing to the sky and claiming "magnetic reconnection did it".&nbsp;&nbsp; Show me a controlled experiment that emulates Birkelands work that doesn't use electrical current as it's primary energy source, and then I might put some faith in the "magnetic reconnection" idea.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Here you go equivocating again.&nbsp; You seem to not understand that the theory is electro---magnetism.&nbsp; You take one, you get them both.&nbsp; Of course there will be electrical current used.&nbsp; How else would you expect to get large magnetic fields?&nbsp; And, plasmas require high temperatures which can be efficiently obtained using electrical current often across high potentials.&nbsp; </font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Why does the experiment, in your opinion, need to emulate Birkelands work of 100 years ago.&nbsp; I don't think any of the "mainstream" scientists are trying to show that Birkelands experimental data is incorrect.&nbsp;&nbsp;Debunking&nbsp;Birkeland&nbsp;simply is not the point of the experiments.&nbsp; They may have a different take on the underlying theory however.</font></p><p>Until then, I will have to defer to the author of MHD theory who claimed that magnetic reconnection was a myth and a misconcieved idea. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Now we are back to hero worship again.&nbsp; Alfven made significant contributions to MHD.&nbsp; But so did other people of equal or greater stature.&nbsp; He could be wrong.&nbsp; Einstein was a pretty good physicist.&nbsp; He seems to have been completely wrong about quantum mechanics -- and his early work helped to establish it.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">It is even a bit worse here.&nbsp; In earlier posts you seem to have differentiated between "electrical engineering theory" and the theory of physicists.&nbsp; There is only one theory of electrodynamics.&nbsp; It is taught in physics departments.&nbsp; It is also taught in electrical engineering departments.&nbsp; It is the same theory.&nbsp; I happen to have first been exposed to it under the banner of electrical engineering, but I have also read the physics books.&nbsp; Same stuff.&nbsp; Slightly different perspective(different perspectives are a good thing).&nbsp; No contradictions whatever.&nbsp; None.&nbsp;Nada. Nil. Zed. Zero.</font></p><p>&nbsp;Birkeland had no trouble at all creating aurora and coronal loops in his experiments with electricity.&nbsp; I've never seen anyone do that with "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Why not?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Dunno.&nbsp; I asssume that you have seen the results of every experiment ever performed.&nbsp;&nbsp;If not, maybe the answer is that you haven't looked in the right places.&nbsp; Or perhaps a more critical look at Birkeland's data is needed to understand what he really demonstrated.&nbsp; My point here, and I have no direct knowledge of his experiments, is that the phenomena that Birkeland correctly demonstrated in the laboratory may not be the same phenomena that one sees in the sun where boundary conditions are different and where more complicated interactions may be at play. Sometimes one needs to look for subtleties in what is observed.&nbsp; Just because I saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear (or something like that) doesn't drive me to believe in teleportation&nbsp; -- maybe not the best example, but it illustrates a point.</font></p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">I will and have agreed with you, subject to proper use of terminology.&nbsp; Magnetic field lines form a closed loop, a topological circle.&nbsp; Your use of the word continuum is a bit off the mark.</DIV></font></p><p>I don't think so.&nbsp; I think it's the whole issue.&nbsp; A continuum has no beginning or end.&nbsp; It's simply a mental contruct to think of these as "lines" at all.&nbsp; The magnetic field a full continuum.&nbsp; It doesn't make and break connectivity like an electrical circuit.&nbsp; That is the whole issue here.</p><p>Particles however do move around in plasma, and their movement creates induction forces and electical interactions will occur.&nbsp; This is not however "magnetic" reconection, it is particle reconnection, and charge reconnection.&nbsp; Only particles and charges "reconnect".&nbsp; Magnetic fields form a full and total continuum.&nbsp; Period.</p><p>"Magnetic reconnection" has now become a industry buzzword, a gap filler term for every phenomenon in plasma that actually relates to electrical energy and electrical reconnectivity and particle reconnectivity.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The do form a continuum but so do straight lines and line segments.</DIV></font></p><p>They form a continuum, without beginning and without end.&nbsp; They don't make and break connection.&nbsp; Only particles do that, and only charges and particles "reconnect". </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And yes, it is the magnetic field that is of interest.&nbsp; Magnetic field lines are merely a handy way of describing the vector field.&nbsp; This similar to the use of flow lines in fluid dynamics, a useful means of visualization and nothing more or less. </DIV></font></p><p>Fluid dynamics typically involves the movement of particles.&nbsp; Particles flow, and kinetic energy is contained in that particle movement.&nbsp; A coronal loop is a flowing stream of electrons.&nbsp; It is lit up and radiates at millions of degrees because of the current running through it, just like any discharge here on Earth.&nbsp; They do sometimes cross, and the electron streams and the particles "reconnect", and their kinetic energy is sprewed into space during this electrical process.&nbsp; It is however a fundamentally "electrical" process, and it is fundamentally a particle kinetic energy process, just like any discharge in any planetary atmosphere.&nbsp; Calling it "magnetic reconnection"" is like calling any discharge a "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; There is nothing "magnetic" about the energy source. The energy source is electrical in nature, and the magnetic field simply forms around the current flow, which is why every coronal loops has a flowing magnetic field around it, just like every plasma ball thread has a magnetic field around it.&nbsp; There is nothing mysterious about this process.&nbsp; You can simulate this process in an ordinary $20 plasma ball.&nbsp; There is nothing here that isn't covered by ordinary plasma physical processes related to current flow inside of plasma.</p><p>When astronomers then turn around and call this electrical/kinetic energy process "magnetic reconnection", I can't help but believe they are trying to hide the electricity part of the process from the public. They take it a step into the unethetical when they assign "Alfven" names to the "magnetic reconnection' process, because Alfven outright rejected this idea of a continuum doing anything to release energy.&nbsp; This is purely a kinetic energy/ electrical process. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">But there could easily be magnetic flux lines that close up far out in space,</DIV></font></p><p>Let's make sure we keep difining terms completely as we continue this discussion. Define the term "magnetic flux" and how that effects light plamsa like we find "far out in space"?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>out of the "field of view" of a sketch of a local region.</DIV></font></p><p>Being out of view has nothing to do with anything IMO.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's still a continuum.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think this is what Scott fails to appreciate, as it is the way that I read his reference claiming that astrophysicists are asserting the existence of open field lines. http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmpause.html</DIV></font></p><p>No, we both seem to appreciate that lines may extend far away from the magnetic source, but you are claiming they make and break connections, and that is not possible when they always from as a full continuum.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">I am fully capable of handling the "electrical theory" myself. </DIV></font></p><p>I'm sure that's true, but that may not be true for every reader.&nbsp; Keep in mind that sometimes my comments are desgined to help others follow the conversation.&nbsp; You may understand something, while origen may not.&nbsp; In fact that has happened in this thread already.&nbsp; That is typical since we all have slightly different views on lots of topics.&nbsp; Ad admit that sometimes my statements are not for your personal benefit. :)</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe you changed your major early one but I did not. Electrical fields and magnetic fields, when currents vary in time as they all do outside of textbooks, come in pairs.&nbsp; You get both of them.&nbsp; And charged particles are affected by both the E&nbsp;field and&nbsp;the B field.&nbsp; In turn they affect the E field and B field themselves.&nbsp;&nbsp;You have to consider both mechanisms and the inbuilt feedback loops.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is nothing new and all knowledgeable physicists and electrical engineers know this (astrophysicists also).</font> </DIV></p><p>They may be affected by both forces, but these forces tend to have somewhat different effects.&nbsp; Current flow tends to have a specific physical manifestation in plsama.&nbsp; It creates threaded channels inside the plasma to carry the energy load, and these current channels tend to "light up".&nbsp; When I then look at a coronal loops, I know that the easiest way to explain them is the same way I would explain a plasma filament in a plasma ball. It's a current channel, nothing more, nothing less.&nbsp; I has kinetic energy, and it "lights up" when the current flows.&nbsp; A simple magnetic field isn't necessarily going to manifest itself in this same manner.&nbsp; Care to show me a plasma ball that works on the principle of "magnetic reconnection"?&nbsp;&nbsp; You wouldn't try to claim that the plasma filaments in the plasma ball are caused by "magnetic reconnection" just because they have a magnetic field around them would you?&nbsp; If not, why would you suggest a coronal loops has anything to do with "magnetic reconnection"?&nbsp; Which "field" does the work?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">See previous comment.&nbsp; It appears to me that Scott is arguing against a "misconception" that does not exist in&nbsp;at least one of the&nbsp;references that he cites to support it. On the contrary, physicists, and astrophysicists are physicists, usually have a very strong background in electrodynamics and what you call "electrical theory".&nbsp; Some of these physicists are conducting some very sophisticated experiments in magnetic reconnection as well. http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/magnetic_reconnect.html</font></p><p></DIV></p><p>And yet when you look at what they've done thus far, they can't tell us the specific energy release process that is unique to "magnetic reconnection" that we could distinguish from energy releases like we might find in an ordinary plasma ball.&nbsp; Keep in mind that a plasma ball has a density that is usually many times higher than the average density of the corona. (This was one of those "not necessarily for you personally statements by the way. :) ).&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Princeton Plasma Physics laboratory has some rather good people.&nbsp; It was founded quite a while ago by John Archibald Wheeler.&nbsp; I can assure that Wheeler had a rather strong grasp of electrodynamics, as well as most of the rest of physics.&nbsp; I hope this disabuses you of the notion that plasma physicists do not conduct controlled experiments.</DIV></font></p><p>Then please ask one of them to explain to us the exact energy release mechanism that is unique to "magnetic reconnection", so that we can figure out a way to differentiate this energy signature from current carrying energy release processes and other energy release processes in plasma.&nbsp; I have no idea how to even test to make sure a specific energy release might be occuring&nbsp; from "magnetic reconnection", because as far as I know, no one, not even these capable scientists have idenfied the phyiscs behind the label "magnetic reconnection".</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no idea what you mean here.&nbsp; By definition a current carrying plasma (or a current carrying anything else) has electrical currents.</DIV></font></p><p>Sure, but the mainstream treats the universe as "neutral" plasma, not current carrying plasma.&nbsp; EU presumes that current flows through the whole system whereas standard theory does not.&nbsp;&nbsp; This has an effect on solar theory because the mainstream presumes all the energy must come from the sun, whereas that is not a prerequise in EU theory.&nbsp; The energy can flow *through* the sun and all the plasma in the solar atmosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These currents can interact with each other&nbsp; electromagnetically.&nbsp; </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Yep.&nbsp; Maxwell and Lorentz were pretty close.&nbsp; Nobody would argue with this statement.&nbsp; It is elementary and obvious.</DIV></font></p><p>But it is not elementary and obvious that magnetic fields make and break connection and thereby release energy.&nbsp; That's the part that isn't simple, obvious or likely.&nbsp; In an Occum's razor argument, current flow is the easy way to heat plasma to millions of degree and to sustain million degree coronal loops for hours on end.&nbsp;&nbsp; Magnetic fields do not do that.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p><font color="#0000ff">So you are saying that gamma ray bursts are the result of lightning ?&nbsp; I don't think so.</font> </DIV></p><p>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050502190314.htm</p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/rhessi_tgf.html</p><p>I would encourage you to think again. :)&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's no great mystery about these high energy events. They are electrically driven events in the solar atmosphere. The only mystery is why the mainstream can't just admit it.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">This assertion is not only unfounded, it is absurd.</font></p><p> <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />IMO it is absurd to attempt to attribute x-rays and gamma-rays in the solar atmosphere to anything other than electrical discharges.&nbsp; We point Rhessi at Earth and see gamma rays from disharges here on Earth.&nbsp; We point the same equipment at the solar atmosphere and claim "magnetic reconnection did it".&nbsp; Baloney.&nbsp; These are simply discharges occuring in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; IMO it doesn't even make logical sense to attempt to exclude electrical current from consideration because that is the only known cause of gamma rays from an atmosphere around any physical body in space.&nbsp; I think the only reason you believe it to be absurd is that you aren't aware of the Rhessi information. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>"Nuts" -- Tony McAuliffe<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><strong>"This has an effect on solar theory because the mainstream presumes all the energy must come from the sun, whereas that is not a prerequise in EU theory.&nbsp; The energy can flow *through* the sun and all the plasma in the solar atmosphere."</strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This statement really piqued my curiosity.&nbsp; How does EU fit the standard model of stellar evolution?&nbsp; Or, better yet, what is your model on stellar evolution?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's weird, becuase I have never once heard it attributed to magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; From what I understand, magnetic reconnection occurs far above (as in thousands of miles above) the aurora.&nbsp; It's related, in the sense that both involve magnetic field lines, and happen more when there's a lot of solar activity, but it doesn't cause the aurora itself. </DIV></p><p>http://mrx.pppl.gov/</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The charged particles which create the aurora are thought to be accelerated through magnetic reconnection.</DIV></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Charge attraction between the photosphere and the heliosphere is the force that accelerates the charged particles.&nbsp; The solar wind is an *electrical* process.&nbsp; A particle flung out by an internal magnetic field of the sun is going to decelerate as it moves out into space and is slowed by gravity.&nbsp; A charged particle however that is attracted to the heliosphere will accelerate as it travels away from the sun.&nbsp; The solar wind accelerates away from the sun it doesn't decelerate from gravity.&nbsp; The solar wind acceleratilon process is a charge attraction process, not an internally driven (by the sun) magnetic event, otherwise the charged particle would be slowed down by gravity.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That's not the case. </p> <p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps the folks you've been talking to do not understand the idea of magnetic reconnection themselves and thus you have gotten this curious idea that mainstream scientists use it as a sort of "god of the gaps"? </DIV></p><p>It's not just the folks I talk with, it's the folks at PPL and everywhere else that seem not to be able to identify the physics behind "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It is a "god of the gaps" argument, or in this case a "stuff in something other than electricity" argument IMO.&nbsp; It's not that they can't think of a logical way to explain a constantly accelerating solar wind, it's just that they refuse to discuss it, or publish the idea. &nbsp; Instead it's all a "magnetic reconnection" process.&nbsp; I don't buy it.&nbsp; I've never seen magnetic fields make and break connections, and Hannes Alfven didn't believe they did that either.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A few posts ago, you said that mainstream scientists conduct no experimentation, and now you acknowledge that they do but just not in the area you are interested in.&nbsp; I may be misunderstanding, but this sounds an awful lot like moving the goalposts.&nbsp; "Okay, yeah, they do experiments, but not enough."&nbsp; If I can show you that they do experiments involving electricity, would that make you happy?</DIV></p><p>I am certainly guilty of generalizing this issue. &nbsp; I'm obviously painting with too wide of a brush. :) &nbsp; There are many aspects of astronomy and there are many parts of astronomy that do involve emprical testing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Having said that however, 96% of astronomy today (in terms of identified energy/mass) has not been emprically demonstrated.&nbsp; There is no such thing as "dark matter" in any emprical test, nor any controlled demonstration of "dark energy" and they presumably compose most of the galaxy. &nbsp; No emprical test of a monopole exists, or any emprical test of inflation, so Guth certainly never solved any useful physics problem with inflation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure how you'd do an experiment involving inflation -- the whole point is that it occurs on a fantastically large scale, which would make it rather challenging to detect in a laboratory situation. </DIV></p><p>Isn't that a little convenient?&nbsp; It sounds suspiciously like a "stuffing of the gaps" argument.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We can't test it, we just have to take someone's (Guth's) word for it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is observational evidence not useful?&nbsp; Must an idea be dismissed purely because it's basis is observational rather than experimental? </DIV></p><p>If you and I have a disagreement about something that can easily be determined by observation, then sure, observation is the key to science in general.&nbsp; It allows us to determine many aspects of science. &nbsp; A problem arises however if we try to attribute an uncontrolled (pure) observation to a force or type of matter than has never been shown to actually exist.&nbsp;&nbsp; A controlled experiment is necessarily to determine if this presumed force (like inflation or dark energy) can actually have the required effect on matter.&nbsp; If that part is not done, the there is no way for you to disprove that my "invisble potatoes" are not the real cause of the bending of light in distant galaxies.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mass of the planet Pluto has never been determined experimentally -- should it therefore be suspect? </DIV></p><p>We may find that our current numbers need to be ajusted at some point, but we can certainly experiment with gravity and we can use what we learn in controlled experiments with gravity to calculate the likely mass of distant planets.&nbsp; We may find that EM fields have some effect on this number however, so yes, I would be a bit suspect about the final number.&nbsp; It may be close, but not fully accurate.&nbsp;&nbsp; We won't really know the exact mass until we land something on it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do we conclude that Pluto doesn't exist because we have never flown a spacecraft by it? </DIV></p><p>No because we can image it in orbit around the sun.&nbsp; We can see it and observe it from the Earth.&nbsp; We can see that something is there and we can predict where it will be in a month from now and verify it too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dark energy, meanwhile, probably isn't a monolithic entity.&nbsp; Like dark matter, that one really *is* a catch-all term for "stuff that seems to exist, since there's an observed effect, but we can't actually detect it so we don't really know what's causing the effect and will have to call it dark energy until we figure out what's really going on". </DIV></p><p>So as I see it, 96% of the universe remains "dark" (a placeholder term for human ignorance?) until we actually figure out what's going on.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Monopoles I just don't know anything about.</DIV></p><p>Nor does anyone else. They haven't ever been emprically demonstrated to exist, but Guth seems very happy about the fact he solved a missing monopole problem with yet another form of metaphysics (inflation). </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm also puzzled by the dichotomy you've drawn between "empirical science" and what you term "metaphysics".&nbsp; It seems that you equate "empirical science" with "experimentation", when there has never been such a limitation. </DIV></p><p>Oh, but controlled experimentation has always been a part of emprical science. &nbsp; If I simply point to the sky and claim that some form of acceleration is caused by magic elves, and I try to confirm the existence of my magic elves by the fact that the acceleration is occuring, that is metaphysics, not physics.&nbsp; Physics involves controlled experimentation with particles and stuff.&nbsp;&nbsp; We can't physically falsify or verify the existence of inflation or magic elves in nature with pure observation of distant objects.&nbsp; Some form of active experimentation is required to demonstrate something physically exists in reality.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Observation is empirical, not metaphysical. </DIV></p><p>Observation is physical.&nbsp; It involves photons and such.&nbsp;&nbsp; Pure (uncontrolled) observation however cannot be used to determine if my magic elves caused the universe to expand or inflation caused the universe to expand. &nbsp;&nbsp; We might observe expansion, but that does not tell us the cause. &nbsp;</p><p>If I can show you that EM fields affect plasma, then it's rational for me to point to plasma in the sky and claim EM fields did it, even if I can't emprically demonstrate that EM fields are responsible for that particular movement.&nbsp; It is not rational however for me to point to distant plasma in the sky and claim my magic elves caused that same movement. &nbsp; EM fields have been demonstrated to exist in nature in controlled experimentation whereas my elves have not.&nbsp; My EM "theory" is "scientific", whereas my elf theory is pseudoscience and metaphysics because I never showed that elves exist, or that they can have an effect on distant plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> And again, we return to the trap of publication bias.&nbsp; You think that what is published is the whole of science.&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; What is published is what is popular to study right now.&nbsp; Everything has trends.&nbsp; There's nothing sinister about it, anymore than there's anything sinister about the current popularity of hip-hop.&nbsp; People just like it.&nbsp; Black holes have a certain "cool factor" so there's a lot of research about them.&nbsp; That doesn't mean people are using them as a magical explanation for whatever.</DIV></p><p>My complaint is not that people enjoy black holes or enjoy writing about them, or the fact that this material is being published.&nbsp; My complaint is that there is an active surpression of the EU idea in these same publications.&nbsp; The IEEE has no trouble finding EU material to publish, what's the APJ's problem?&nbsp; EU theory also has a "cool" factor.&nbsp; I don't resent that people are into their own thing.&nbsp; I'm bothered by the fact that EU theory is actively surpressed both in the publishing world, and many times in astronomy related websites.&nbsp;&nbsp; In fact, this is probably the only high traffic astronomy website where I can freely discuss the issue.&nbsp; On some forums EU theory is singled out with special rules that don't apply to dark energy theories or dark matter theories or inflation theories or MOND theories.&nbsp; We see the same bias in the APJ.&nbsp; It never published EU oriented material.&nbsp; Where is someone supposed to learn about EU theory if the mainstream publications refuse to print anytihng related to EU theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Same with magnetic reconnection, though I really don't think that's quite as pervasive as you think it is. </DIV></p><p>Every Hinode paper I've read talks about "magnetic reconnection."&nbsp; It's expecially annoying that they use MHD theory to support the idea because Alfven outright rejected the whole idea.&nbsp; I'd be fine with them claiming MHD theory supported the idea if they put up some emprical evidence.&nbsp; They didn't.&nbsp; They simply use that term now as a gap filler to explain everything they can't really explain without electrical current.&nbsp; I've seen them attribute "jets" to magnetic reconnect, charge particle acceleration to magnetic reconnection and the corona temperature to magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; Never once did they identify the physics behind the concept or demonstrate it empirically.&nbsp; It's actually being used (as a theory) to surpress the electrical flow of energy through our solar system.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is not such thing as magnetic reconnection, regardless of how "cool" it might seem. &nbsp; What is different here between some "cool" theories and this one, is that this one could and should be emprically demonstrated in a lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually, the idea of an inflationary universe predates the software programs you disdain.</DIV></p><p>Yes, I know. Guth invented it, just as I was getting out of college.&nbsp; It predates my introduction to astronomy and big bang theory too.&nbsp; I can tell you who invented the concept and I can tell you that there is no such thing as inflation, a free lunch (as Guth claimed) or monopoles. They do not empircally exist in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Software, as you should well know, is nothing more than a means of automating calculations.&nbsp; It's the same basic thing as the celestial mechanics calculations done longhand by Lagrange several hundred years ago.&nbsp; It's as valid as when Newton invented "fluxions" to help him work out the math. &nbsp; But just because they proved celestial mechanics via mathematical experimentation rather than physical experimentation doesn't mean it's all BS. </DIV></p><p>But as you also know, a calculation involving elves is not science, irrespective of how "cool" the math looks.&nbsp; I don't care that "inflation" or elves can be plugged into a math formula.&nbsp; I care that they have never been demonstrated to emprically exist in nature.&nbsp; Therein lies the rub, not the computer/math.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Lagrange's calculations predicted the existence of libration points (now known as Lagrange points in his honor).&nbsp; It wasn't until the 20th Century that anyone found observational evidence of their existence.&nbsp; We have since exploited some of these points (eg SOHO, Genesis, WMAP, Stereo), and thus, experimentally confirmed their existence.&nbsp; Not that anyone doubted their existence by that point.&nbsp; Sometimes, experimentation really, truly is superfluous.</DIV></p><p>But Lagrange could emprically test the force of gravity.&nbsp; His caculations were based on experimentation with gravity and the effect of gravity on real objects. Inflation has never been shown to have any measurable affect on any object, so stuffing it into a math formula or computer simulation is pointless IMO.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Testing a theory by means of a software program is valid.</DIV></p><p>Not always.&nbsp; I can't use a computer simulation to verify my elves are causing the universe to expand simply by making up a cool looking math formula to represent the effect that elves have on matter and then showing how it matches with the expansion of the universe. &nbsp; A software program can emulate anything, real or unreal.&nbsp; A software program alone cannot validate the existence of a force or nature, neither can a pure (uncontrolled) observation.&nbsp; Even if my elves formula fits the uncontrolled observation, I have not valided the existence of elves with my math.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The results are only as good as the quality of the information used to set up the model, and the quality of the software implementation of the model, but this certainly does not mean they should be treated as being purely fictional. </DIV></p><p>So if I sent you a computer calculation on how many elves fit on the head of an ordinary pint, you wouldn't consider it fictional?&nbsp; Where do we draw the line then?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The software models used to predict the expansion rate of the universe are not pulled out of some astronomer's behind.</DIV></p><p>The expansion might be real, but the idea that inflation had anything to do with that expansion was in fact pulled out of someone's imagination, namely Guth. &nbsp; I have about as much faith in the belief that inflation has anything to do with expansion as you have faith that elves had anything to do with that same expansion.&nbsp; That idea was in fact pulled out of thin air and it was never emprically demonstrated in lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are based on actual observations of the physical world. </DIV></p><p>But you can't observe distant acceleration and use a math formula and computer simulation to demonstrate that elves did it.&nbsp; Physics involves real particles and real things. Inflation and elves are not real things. They have no effect on matter.&nbsp; They are not physicall real. They are imaginary.&nbsp; All the math in the world isn't going to make them any less imaginary. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What bothers me is that you're insulting mainstream scientists by suggesting that they are merely pointing at the sky and claiming "magnetic reconnection did it".&nbsp; You are simply refusing to examine their ideas, waving them off as bogus because they don't sound familiar to you.</DIV></p><p>It bothers me that they point to the sky, claim "magnetic reconnection did it" and have never demonstrated that magnetic reconnection is real, or that it occurs.&nbsp; Magnetic fields in real life don't do that. Only charged particles and electrical connections "reconnect".&nbsp; It's not me that said that.&nbsp; Alfven himself said the same thing. It's not bogus because it's unfamilar to me, it's bogus because it's never been demonstrated.&nbsp; PPL is the closest anyone has come to actually attempting to demontrate the concept, but they willingly admit to the fact they can't explain the actual physics involved in the specific energy release of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp;&nbsp; It's simply a bogus idea.&nbsp; If you read that paper from Scott, he even quotes Alfven. Alfven called the idea pseudocience.&nbsp; I believe that Alfven was right. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And yet, they should sound familiar.&nbsp; Magnetism is very significant to plasmas.&nbsp; A moving plasma will follow magnetic lines of force.&nbsp; Surely you know that. </DIV></p><p>Sure.&nbsp; It also creates current carrying threads.&nbsp; I know that too.&nbsp; The moving plasma itself a type of "current flow" but that part is almost never mentioned.&nbsp; That current flow might "reconnect" with another stream of current, but the "reconnection" will be electrical and charged particle in nature, not any type of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's been experimentally demonstrated oodles of times.&nbsp; Ambitious rocket designers even like to talk about someday using "magnetic bottles" to contain plasmas to be used in futuristic rocket motors, or as a deflector shield to help protect the crew when plowing through the interstellar medium (plasma) at relativistic speeds.</DIV></p><p>These types of designs all use "current flow" to achieve their goals.&nbsp; Sure, magnetic field and current flow are related, but the current flow generates the magnetic field.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And magnetism and electricity are deeply, deeply related.&nbsp; I think you are asking for the impossible if you want a demonstration of magnetics without electricity.&nbsp; Well, it might be doable with ferromagnetics, but electromagnetics is so much simpler for these purposes. All magnetic reconnection is talking about, if I understand it correctly, is field lines moving around and snapping together, with the potential to trap plasma. </DIV></p><p>I want to see a real controlled experiment that demonstrates that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique form or energy release.&nbsp; If you use electricity to generate the energy release process, how do you know that the sun doesn't do exactly the same thing?&nbsp;&nbsp; How do you differentiate between "magnetic reconnection"and ordinary charge (electrical) reconnection? </p><p>I'm getting swamped right now so I'll stop here for the time being.&nbsp; I'll check back to see if there was something I missed that was important when I get some free time.</p><p>Suffice to say that from my persective the whole "magnetic reconnection" idea is a misunderstanding of electrical theory and plasma physics.&nbsp;&nbsp; Unlike other theories in astronomy, this is one idea that could and should be demonstrated in a lab. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This statement really piqued my curiosity.&nbsp; How does EU fit the standard model of stellar evolution?&nbsp; Or, better yet, what is your model on stellar evolution?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I imagine that it doesn't fit well at all into current theory about stellar evolution.&nbsp; In fact, if the universe supplies all the energy in the form of electrons, then a sun could last forever, at least in theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can click on my sig line to go to my solar website.&nbsp; I also started a solar thread here a years ago that explains Birkeland's solar theory in some detail. </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
Not open for further replies.