<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's weird, becuase I have never once heard it attributed to magnetic reconnection. From what I understand, magnetic reconnection occurs far above (as in thousands of miles above) the aurora. 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. The solar wind is an *electrical* process. 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. A charged particle however that is attracted to the heliosphere will accelerate as it travels away from the sun. The solar wind accelerates away from the sun it doesn't decelerate from gravity. 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. 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". It is a "god of the gaps" argument, or in this case a "stuff in something other than electricity" argument IMO. 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. Instead it's all a "magnetic reconnection" process. I don't buy it. I've never seen magnetic fields make and break connections, and Hannes Alfven didn't believe they did that either. </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. I may be misunderstanding, but this sounds an awful lot like moving the goalposts. "Okay, yeah, they do experiments, but not enough." 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. I'm obviously painting with too wide of a brush.
There are many aspects of astronomy and there are many parts of astronomy that do involve emprical testing. Having said that however, 96% of astronomy today (in terms of identified energy/mass) has not been emprically demonstrated. 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. 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? It sounds suspiciously like a "stuffing of the gaps" argument. 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? 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. It allows us to determine many aspects of science. 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. A controlled experiment is necessarily to determine if this presumed force (like inflation or dark energy) can actually have the required effect on matter. 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. 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. It may be close, but not fully accurate. 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. We can see it and observe it from the Earth. 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. 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". 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. 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. Physics involves controlled experimentation with particles and stuff. We can't physically falsify or verify the existence of inflation or magic elves in nature with pure observation of distant objects. 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. It involves photons and such. 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. We might observe expansion, but that does not tell us the cause. </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. It is not rational however for me to point to distant plasma in the sky and claim my magic elves caused that same movement. EM fields have been demonstrated to exist in nature in controlled experimentation whereas my elves have not. 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. You think that what is published is the whole of science. It's not. What is published is what is popular to study right now. Everything has trends. There's nothing sinister about it, anymore than there's anything sinister about the current popularity of hip-hop. People just like it. Black holes have a certain "cool factor" so there's a lot of research about them. 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. My complaint is that there is an active surpression of the EU idea in these same publications. The IEEE has no trouble finding EU material to publish, what's the APJ's problem? EU theory also has a "cool" factor. I don't resent that people are into their own thing. I'm bothered by the fact that EU theory is actively surpressed both in the publishing world, and many times in astronomy related websites. In fact, this is probably the only high traffic astronomy website where I can freely discuss the issue. 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. We see the same bias in the APJ. It never published EU oriented material. 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." It's expecially annoying that they use MHD theory to support the idea because Alfven outright rejected the whole idea. I'd be fine with them claiming MHD theory supported the idea if they put up some emprical evidence. They didn't. They simply use that term now as a gap filler to explain everything they can't really explain without electrical current. I've seen them attribute "jets" to magnetic reconnect, charge particle acceleration to magnetic reconnection and the corona temperature to magnetic reconnection. Never once did they identify the physics behind the concept or demonstrate it empirically. It's actually being used (as a theory) to surpress the electrical flow of energy through our solar system. There is not such thing as magnetic reconnection, regardless of how "cool" it might seem. 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. It predates my introduction to astronomy and big bang theory too. 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. It's the same basic thing as the celestial mechanics calculations done longhand by Lagrange several hundred years ago. It's as valid as when Newton invented "fluxions" to help him work out the math. 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. I don't care that "inflation" or elves can be plugged into a math formula. I care that they have never been demonstrated to emprically exist in nature. 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). It wasn't until the 20th Century that anyone found observational evidence of their existence. We have since exploited some of these points (eg SOHO, Genesis, WMAP, Stereo), and thus, experimentally confirmed their existence. Not that anyone doubted their existence by that point. Sometimes, experimentation really, truly is superfluous.</DIV></p><p>But Lagrange could emprically test the force of gravity. 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. 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. A software program can emulate anything, real or unreal. A software program alone cannot validate the existence of a force or nature, neither can a pure (uncontrolled) observation. 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? 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. 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. 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. Physics involves real particles and real things. Inflation and elves are not real things. They have no effect on matter. They are not physicall real. They are imaginary. All the math in the world isn't going to make them any less imaginary. </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". 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. Magnetic fields in real life don't do that. Only charged particles and electrical connections "reconnect". It's not me that said that. 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. 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". It's simply a bogus idea. If you read that paper from Scott, he even quotes Alfven. Alfven called the idea pseudocience. I believe that Alfven was right. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And yet, they should sound familiar. Magnetism is very significant to plasmas. A moving plasma will follow magnetic lines of force. Surely you know that. </DIV></p><p>Sure. It also creates current carrying threads. I know that too. The moving plasma itself a type of "current flow" but that part is almost never mentioned. 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". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's been experimentally demonstrated oodles of times. 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. Sure, magnetic field and current flow are related, but the current flow generates the magnetic field. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And magnetism and electricity are deeply, deeply related. I think you are asking for the impossible if you want a demonstration of magnetics without electricity. 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. If you use electricity to generate the energy release process, how do you know that the sun doesn't do exactly the same thing? 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. 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. Unlike other theories in astronomy, this is one idea that could and should be demonstrated in a lab. </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>