Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

michaelmozina · Sep 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Won't have time tonight, but I'll take a look tomorrow. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I appreciate it Wayne.  It looks to me like the photosphere seems to shrink away at about the same time the loops tend to grow more dim, and the photosphere seems to expand as the arching loops get brighter.  I've looked at the movie a large number of times now and there does seem to be a correlation between the loop intensity and the photosphere location.  I'm not sure how they overlayed these different wavelengths, but there must be a reason why these things seem to correlate as they do. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Sep 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With this comment, I conclude that you believe that providing me material on strahl, polar rain, and electron flux in the Earth's geomagnetic tail is evidence that the Sun is being powered by an external source?</DIV></p><p>I'm expecting you to begin by acknowledging several things:</p><p>1.  Nobody claimed that the external currents are the *only* thing powering the sun.  In fact I personally know of no one who makes that claim, certainly not me.</p><p>2.  There is a specific "pattern" of energy flow that Birkeland isolated in his lab.  The "strahl" around the Earth's poles is related to the flow of currents into the Earth's poles.  Likewise the "strahl" around the sun's poles are related to the flow of energy into the sun.  There are expected "patterns" of where we should be likely to observe these current flows that are directly related to Birkeland's emprical experiments, and directly related to Alfven's unipolar inductor theories.  There are specific current flow "precdictions" in these experments and theories that can and should be "tested". </p><p>3.  Plasma in the solar atmosphere is not "frozen in", it's highly mobile, it doesn't follow clean "magnetic lines", but rather it's fluidlike in it's movements.  Theose "current flows" we observe in the auoral sheets in the Hinode images are flowing both inward and outward, up and down, in "channels" of bi-directional currents.  The discharges near the surface are far more energetic than the auroral plasmas. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it is obvious what I am looking for.  Birkeland used streams of electrons to power his terrella.</DIV></p><p>And how were those inward electron flows "obvious" in his experiments?  How did they manifest themselves and what<br />"patterns" did they follow?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I wan't to see how you scale that up to the size of the sun and recreate the phenomena we see on the Sun.  Mainly, I want to see these enormous amounts of electrons that must be flowing into and powering the sun and causing these externally driven (as you claim) events we see on a regular basis.  They should be terribly easy to detect and there should be tons of papers written on them.  Provide ONE. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews56.html</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Sep 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Most of us had t his figured out by post no. 2, but getting through to Michael is taking a wee bit longer. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>From a psychological perspective, you are both fascinating and amazing.  You didn't touch a single tough question I asked you about Alfven's "more fundamental" approach to current sheet transactions, nor respond to any key point I made with you.  You can't explain why solar wind accelerates as it leaves the surface. You can't explain why we observe neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere or gamma rays in the solar atmosphere, even though both events have been emprically tied to "electrical discharges" in plasma.  You can't explain how a single coronal loop reaches millions of degrees.  Even still you'll sit there and pretend to have it all figured out already. </p><p>Fascinating, truly fascinating. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Sep 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes the current should be easy to detect.  Somewhere far back in this thread I did a simple calculation and estimated that if the sun were powered by and external electric current as Michael claims, then that current would produce a magnetic field at the surface of the Earth that would be on the order of 57 million times what is actually observed.You might expect the incidence of "nail pops" in the sheet rock in your house to go up a tad. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Somewhere back there you *assumed* the sun's energy source is completely external and built a quaint little strawman from it.  Somewhere back there you ignored every influence of the Earth's magetosphere on that process, and somewhere back there you ignored everything I said and every important question I posed to you.  Think anyone noticed?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Sep 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Somewhere back there you *assumed* the sun's energy source is completely external and built a quaint little strawman from it.  Somewhere back there you ignored every influence of the Earth's magetosphere on that process, and somewhere back there you ignored everything I said and every important question I posed to you.  Think anyone noticed? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> As usual you twist words and hide behind semantics.  In this case you are hiding behind the word "all".  Here are your own words"</p><p>"Yes, that is a reasonably accurate description of my views.  You are actually more attentive to detail than I gave you credit for.  It is entirely correct that EU theory diverges at various points, particularly solar theory.  Birkeland's solar model works well in a lab and it's been well tested to work in a lab.  Hydrogen fusion doesn't seem to be sustainable in a lab.  FYI, the solar model I favor is the same one that Birkeland himself favored over 100 years ago.  He realized the sun had a plasma atmosphere that was electrically acitve.  That would still be true of a completely plasma sun, uncluding a mass separated plasma sun.  Either concept would likely produce similar results<strong> as long as the primary energy source is the electrical flow of the universe."  ---</strong> Michael Mozina</p><p>And as noted this premise has been shown to be completely incompatible with empirical measurements of the magnetic field at the surface of the Earth.</p><p>I think a lot of people have noticed your inconsistencies, your attempts to twist others words and your propensity to try to hide your own positions when they are exposed as nonsense and you find yourself in a corner.  You spend a lot of time in that corner.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Sep 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From a psychological perspective, you are both fascinating and amazing.  You didn't touch a single tough question I asked you about Alfven's "more fundamental" approach to current sheet transactions, nor respond to any key point I made with you.  You can't explain why solar wind accelerates as it leaves the surface. You can't explain why we observe neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere or gamma rays in the solar atmosphere, even though both events have been emprically tied to "electrical discharges" in plasma.  You can't explain how a single coronal loop reaches millions of degrees.  Even still you'll sit there and pretend to have it all figured out already. Fascinating, truly fascinating. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are again twisting words and distorting logic.  As you are fond of pointing out when your nonsensical ideas regarding solar physics are addressed, the subject that began this thread is not solar physics per se.</p><p>I have never claimed that mainstream astrophysics has yet completely solved the coronal heating problem or the other open issues to which you refer.  However, the current lack of complete explanations of those phenomena does not mean that you are free to conjer up magical solutions that violate known principles of classical physics.</p><p>You have not made any clear key points.  In fact because you refuse to discuss physics in the language of that subject, which is mathematics, you have not made any clear points at all.  One cannot intelligently discuss physics in terms of semantics.</p><p>You are in fact bringing up issues that have not been raised earlier and that are irrelevant to this thread.  I do not porpose to try to explain solar physics here.  I am not a solar physicist.  I do know enough physics to have been able to point out that many of your notions contradict some pretty basic principles, and you have yet to respond to those points.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Sep 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree.  IMO, it's a little bit like "As The Universe Turns", or "General Astronomer".</DIV><br /><br />"One Theory to Live" or "Theories of Our Lives".<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The amusing part from my perspective is that sooner or later the majority of astronomers will have to begin to start recognizing the important role of electricity in space.  It's only a question of "when', not "if" from my perspecitve.  The technology is just getting too sophisticated to remain ignorant of role of electricity in space forever.   Those Hinode images for instance blew giant holes in their "frozen in" concepts about magnetic lines and light plasma.  Plasma is very fluidlike in nature.  Birkeland already explained these things 100 years ago.  It's only a matter of time before our new technologies blow away their old theories.  It's interesting to me just watching it all unfold, one image and one movie at a time.</DIV><br /><br />I find your perspective amusing.  Let's take a look at your perspective as described by your statement:<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The amusing part from my perspective is that sooner or later the majority of astronomers will have to begin to start recognizing the important role of electricity in space.</DIV><br /><br />Nothing more than a strawman argument.  You're essentially claiming that astrophysicists don't understand the role of Maxwell's equations.  That's just a silly statement to make that you EU proponents fall back on despite the fact that you can never actually show where they are lacking in recognition of the importance.  Every time I read a paper about the mechanics behind many of the phenomena that occur in, on, or near the sun and see reference to electric currents, fields, densities, conduction, etc, I always think of how ludicrous those EU statements are.<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The technology is just getting too sophisticated to remain ignorant of role of electricity in space forever.</DIV><br /><br />You bring up a good point.   At least the point about the sophistication of our technology.  You would imagine if there was going to be a paradigm shift to an electric universe, it would have happened already considering the several decades that sophisticated technology has been in use.  As it stands now, EU doesn't even have a self consistent model that works better than the current model.<br /><br />Why is it that after all the petabytes of data that has been collected by this sophisticated technology that the LambdaCDM model of the universe and the Nucleosynthesis model of the sun are still the leading models?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Those Hinode images for instance blew giant holes in their "frozen in" concepts about magnetic lines and light plasma.</DIV><br /><br />All talk, no show.  Care to explain?  Or is this just your biased, wishful thinking "perspective".  Just because you say it or think it doesn't make it true.<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Plasma is very fluidlike in nature.</DIV><br /><br />No kidding?  Who woulda thunk it.  Lemme guess... you're misrepresenting the usage of the word "static" from the article for the general public.  How typical of you if this is the case.<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland already explained these things 100 years ago.   It's only a matter of time before our new technologies blow away their old theories.</DIV><br /><br />And yet, still no links, articles, papers to show there is an external source of electrons powering the phenomenon seen in, on, or around the sun.  This despite all the sophisticated technology we have and the petabytes of data collected.<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It's interesting to me just watching it all unfold, one image and one movie at a time. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Relying on images and movies without having and/or understanding the data behind... now THAT's good science.   </p><p>"If I <em><strong>think</strong></em> it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck despite data pointing to it being a swan... then it's a duck" </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

michaelmozina · Sep 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As usual you twist words and hide behind semantics.  In this case you are hiding behind the word "all".  Here are your own words""Yes, that is a reasonably accurate description of my views.  You are actually more attentive to detail than I gave you credit for.  It is entirely correct that EU theory diverges at various points, particularly solar theory.  Birkeland's solar model works well in a lab and it's been well tested to work in a lab.  Hydrogen fusion doesn't seem to be sustainable in a lab.  FYI, the solar model I favor is the same one that Birkeland himself favored over 100 years ago.  He realized the sun had a plasma atmosphere that was electrically acitve.  That would still be true of a completely plasma sun, uncluding a mass separated plasma sun.  Either concept would likely produce similar results as long as the primary energy source is the electrical flow of the universe."  --- Michael Mozina</DIV></p><p>Notice how I didn't claim it was the *only* source of energy DrRocket?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And as noted this premise has been shown to be completely incompatible with empirical measurements of the magnetic field at the surface of the Earth.</DIV></p><p>Only if you utterly *ignore* the role of the magnetosphere and the way real "magnetic lines" travel through space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think a lot of people have noticed your inconsistencies, your attempts to twist others words and your propensity to try to hide your own positions when they are exposed as nonsense and you find yourself in a corner.  You spend a lot of time in that corner. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I think folks are intelligent enough to see the difference between a strawman and a real arguement.  You don't ever have any real arguements. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · Sep 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm expecting you to begin by acknowledging several things:<br /><br />1.  Nobody claimed that the external currents are the *only* thing powering the sun.  In fact I personally know of no one who makes that claim, certainly not me.<br /><br />2.  There is a specific "pattern" of energy flow that Birkeland isolated in his lab.  The "strahl" around the Earth's poles is related to the flow of currents into the Earth's poles.  Likewise the "strahl" around the sun's poles are related to the flow of energy into the sun.  There are expected "patterns" of where we should be likely to observe these current flows that are directly related to Birkeland's emprical experiments, and directly related to Alfven's unipolar inductor theories.  There are specific current flow "precdictions" in these experments and theories that can and should be "tested".<br /><br />3.  Plasma in the solar atmosphere is not "frozen in", it's highly mobile, it doesn't follow clean "magnetic lines", but rather it's fluidlike in it's movements.  Theose "current flows" we observe in the auoral sheets in the Hinode images are flowing both inward and outward, up and down, in "channels" of bi-directional currents.  The discharges near the surface are far more energetic than the auroral plasmas.  </DIV><br /><br />Expect all you want from me, but I prefer to remain logical.<br /><br />1.  I never made the assumption that EU proponents claimed external current were the *only* thing powering the sun.   All I requested was a link that shows the sun is being powered by an external source sufficient enough to explain the phenomenon we observe.  Something you have yet to provide.<br /><br />2.  Birkeland's works is recognized as being crucial to understanding solar winds interacting with the Earth's magnetic field and producing aurora.   <br /><br />How is it related to powering the sun?<br /><br />Can you provide a link showing that electron strahls are flowing towards the sun's poles or are somehow related to and EXTERNAL source providing energy to the sun?<br /><br />3.   Frozen-in magnetic field lines can be 'frozen-in' despite the how the plasma is moving.  Stating that plasma is not frozen-in because the plasma is "highly mobile" shows a lack of understanding of what frozen-in magnetic field lines represent.  Given certain conditions and approximations, the magnetic field moves with the flow of the plamsa (aka, mobile)... hence frozen-in field lines.  It has absolutely nothing to do with "static" plasmas.</p><p>Stating that plasma is "fluidlike" when speaking in the context of MHD is a bit redundant... I mean, that's what the "hydro" in magneto<em><strong>hydro</strong></em>dynamics means, right?  The whole concept of MHD is the study of electrically conducting <em><strong>fluids</strong></em>, yes?  </p><p>You make that statement like you believe astrophysicists don't understand this?  Was telling me plasmas are fluidlike supposed to be some revealing epiphony for me? </p><p>And, what are "clean" magnetic field lines?<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews56.html </p><p>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />This is the second or third time you provided this link.  Explain to me how anything in this link supports the sun being supplies by an EXTERNAL source.   Asking me questions about Birkelands experiments has nothing to do with providing evidence to support the sun is being powered by an EXTERNAL source.  Birkeland powered his terrella with an external source which led to discovering aurora were driveen by an external source.   Where is this seen in the sun?  It's a pretty easy to understand and straightforward request.  </p><p>Either you can provide something or you can't... which is it?  In today day and age, with all the sophisticated equipment focused on the sun, citing an experiment from over 100 years ago is not good enough. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

michaelmozina · Sep 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nothing more than a strawman argument.  You're essentially claiming that astrophysicists don't understand the role of Maxwell's equations. </DIV></p><p>No, I"m claiming they don't realize the important role that "eletcricity' play in phenomenon in space. They can't explain simple stuff that even Birkeland could explain.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's just a silly statement to make that you EU proponents fall back on despite the fact that you can never actually show where they are lacking in recognition of the importance.</DIV></p><p>How about all this "bunk" about "megnetic reconnection"?  Magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect.  Only circuits and particles do that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Every time I read a paper about the mechanics behind many of the phenomena that occur in, on, or near the sun and see reference to electric currents, fields, densities, conduction, etc,</DIV></p><p>Yet they talk about "magnetic reconnection" when Maxwell's equations expressly treat the magnetic field as a complete and whole field, without beginning and without end.  Go figure.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I always think of how ludicrous those EU statements are.</DIV></p><p>You should try being an EU advocate and here them talk about "magnetic reconnection".  Hoy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You bring up a good point.   At least the point about the sophistication of our technology.  You would imagine if there was going to be a paradigm shift to an electric universe, it would have happened already considering the several decades that sophisticated technology has been in use. </DIV></p><p>Er, except you seem to forget that they are "surprised" that the Hinode images didn't show "frozen in" magnetic lines.  Old concepts die hard, particularly when there is human ego involved.  Notice how they weren't claiming to understand these events?  First they have to let go of their old ideas. That's not happened yet. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As it stands now, EU doesn't even have a self consistent model that works better than the current model.</DIV></p><p>Well, that's a completely false statement at least as it relates to solar system activity.  Birkeland's emprical model is in fact the *only* model to actually *work* in an empircial test.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why is it that after all the petabytes of data that has been collected by this sophisticated technology that the LambdaCDM model of the universe and the Nucleosynthesis model of the sun are still the leading models?</DIV></p><p>Beats me.  Chapman's theories werre prefered over Birkeland's theories until the mid 70s.  Who know why the mainstream prefers their theories?  It certainly isn't based on emprical physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All talk, no show.  Care to explain?  Or is this just your biased, wishful thinking "perspective".  Just because you say it or think it doesn't make it true.No kidding?  Who woulda thunk it.  Lemme guess... you're misrepresenting the usage of the word "static" from the article for the general public.  How typical of you if this is the case.And yet, still no links, articles, papers to show there is an external source of electrons powering the phenomenon seen in, on, or around the sun.  This despite all the sophisticated technology we have and the petabytes of data collected.Relying on images and movies without having and/or understanding the data behind... now THAT's good science.   "If I think it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck despite data pointing to it being a swan... then it's a duck"  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Do you even read the article? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I"m claiming they don't realize the important role that "eletcricity' play in phenomenon in space. They can't explain simple stuff that even Birkeland could explain.</DIV></p><p>Once again, Birkeland did a fine job working with terrestrial aurora.  You have yet to define how it relates to the rest of astrophysics. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How about all this "bunk" about "megnetic reconnection"?  Magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect.  Only circuits and particles do that.  Yet they talk about "magnetic reconnection" when Maxwell's equations expressly treat the magnetic field as a complete and whole field, without beginning and without end.  Go figure.</DIV></p><p>The same old tired argument that has no bearing on the physics behind magnetic reconnection.  You really need to come up with something new.  It's clear to the entire scientific community that magnetic fields have never been observed to be open ended.  It's only you and your EU proponent that make this claim. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You should try being an EU advocate and here them talk about "magnetic reconnection".  Hoy.</DIV></p><p>Apples and oranges.  Mainstream isn't claiming EU supporters are ignorant of magnetic fields. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, except you seem to forget that they are "surprised" that the Hinode images didn't show "frozen in" magnetic lines.  Old concepts die hard, particularly when there is human ego involved.  Notice how they weren't claiming to understand these events?  First they have to let go of their old ideas. That's not happened yet.</DIV></p><p>They never claimed they were suprised the images didn't show frozen-in magnetic field lines.  I don't think they were even mention in the article or the paper.   Another strawman argument on your behalf. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, that's a completely false statement at least as it relates to solar system activity.  Birkeland's emprical model is in fact the *only* model to actually *work* in an empircial test.</DIV></p><p>Yet you fail to describe how his experiments relate to solar physics.  Again, where's the data supporting the phenomena seen on the sun being powered by an external source as it relates to Birkeland's experiments? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Beats me.</DIV></p><p>The best answer you've given this entire thread. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Chapman's theories werre prefered over Birkeland's theories until the mid 70s.  Who know why the mainstream prefers their theories?  It certainly isn't based on emprical physics.</DIV></p><p>See following post... </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you even read the article? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Of course I did.  Why would you form such strong, potentially misguided, opinions based on an article written for the "everyman"?</p><p>Did you even read the peer reviewed, published in a reputable journal, paper?????? </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>

derekmcd · Sep 22, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Chapman's theories werre prefered over Birkeland's theories until the mid 70s.  Who know why the mainstream prefers their theories?  It certainly isn't based on emprical physics.<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />HISTORY OF PRE-SPACE AGE MAGNETOSPHERE - David P. Stern<br /><br />http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v027/i001/RG027i001p00103/RG027i001p00103.pdf<br /><br />I hand typed some relevant material from the article, so any typos are mine and any bolded emphasis is mine and any reformatting paragraphs for ease of reading are mine<br />.  <br /><br />From the article contained in the above link:<br /><br />Abstract<br /><br />This review traces early research on the Earth's magnetic environment, covering the period when only ground-based observations were possible. Observations of magnetic storms (1724) and of perturbations associated with the aurora (1741) suggested that those phenomena originated outside the Earth; correlation of the solar cycle (1851) with magnetic activity (1852) pointed to the Sun's involvement. The discovery of solar flares (1859) and growing evidence for their association with large storms led Birkeland (1900) to propose solar electron streams as the cause. <br /><br />Though laboratory experiments provided some support, the idea ran into theoretical difficulties and was replaced by Chapman and Ferraro's notion of solar plasma clouds. Magnetic storms were first attributed (Stoermer 1911) to a "ring current" of high-energy particles circling the Earth, but later work  recognized that low energy particles undergoing guiding center drifts could have the same effect. To produce the ring current and aurora, plasma cloud particles required some way of penetrating The "Chapman-Ferraro cavity": Alfvén (1939) invoked an electric field, but his ideas met resistance. <br /><br />The picture grew more complicated with observations of comets (1943, 1951) which suggested a fast "solar wind" emanating from The Sun's corona at all times. This flow was explained by Parker's Theory (1958), and the permanent cavity which it produced around the Earth was later named the "magnetosphere" (1959). As early as 1905, Birkeland had proposed that the large magnetic perturbations of the polar aurora reflected a "polar" type of magnetic storm whose electric currents descended into the upper atmosphere; that idea, however, was resisted for more than 50 years. By the time of the International Geophysical Year (1957-1958), when the first artificial satellites were launched, most of the important features of the magnetosphere had been glimpsed, but detailed understanding had to wait for in situ observations.<br /><br /><br /><br />INTRODUCTION:  {snip}<br /><br />EARLY WORK ON GEOMAGNETISM:  {snip}<br /><br />THE SUNSPOT CYCLE:  {snip}<br /><br />SOLAR FLARES:  {snip}<br /><br /><br /><br />ELECTRON BEAMS FROM THE SUN?<br /><br />{snip}<br /><br />In 1896 Birkeland aimed cathod rays at a magnet and found that the magnet apparently "sucked in" cathode rays:  he suggested that the Earth's field did the same to beams from the Sun.  He comunicated his findings to his former teacher, the French mathematical physicist Henri Poincare, who showed that rather than being attracted, charged particles were guided by magnetic field lines (Poincare, 1896).  Poincare calculated the motion of an electron in the field of a magnetic monopole, a completely soluble problem, and found that the electron spiraled around a cone bounded by field lines, gradually losing headway until at a certain distance it was reflected backward.<br /><br />{snip}<br /><br />Birkeland certainly did his best to promote the notion of solar electron streams.  He also asked a colleague, the young mathematician Carl Stoermer, to calculate the motion of electrons in a dipole field, and Stoermer spent a large part of his career attacking that problem [Stoermer, 1955;  Nutting, 1908].  Unfortunately, motion in a dipole field (unlike the monopole problem) has no analytical solution but is beset by pathologies resembling those of teh notorious three-body problem of celestial mechanics [Dragt and Finn, 1976], so that Stoermer never achieved what he had sought, though he did integrate many orbits numerically.<br /><br />{snip}<br /><br />The theory of solar electron streams soon hit another snag:  Arthur Schuster [schuster, 1911;  Chapman, 1934;  Bartels, 1934b] showed that electrostatic repulsion would quickly disperse any stream of solar elelctrons.<br /><br />THE CHAPMAN-FERRARO CAVITY<br /><br />Sidney Chapman, a relative newcomer to the field of geomangentism who was apparently unaware of Schuster's work, again raised the idea of solar eelectron streams in a 1918 paper on magnetic storms [chapman, 1918;  Akasofu et al., 1969].  He was pounced upon by Frederick Lindemann {snip}.  Lindemann then suggested that any cloud or stream expelled from the Sun would have to be electically neutral, containing equal charge from ions and electrons.<br /><br />It took more than 10 years before Chapman figured out how a neutral beam could cause magnetic disturbances.  In 1927 he was joined in his quest by Vincent C. A. Ferraro, newly graduated [Cowling, 1975].<br /><br />The two had realized that an electrically neutral mixture of ions and electrons - what would nowadays be called a plasma - would be a very good conductor of electricity.<br /><br />{snip}<br /><br />The Earth's magnetic field also exerts a force on the induced currents, and that force grows stronger as the cloud draws nearer.  Ultimately, Chapman and Ferraro argued, it became strong enough to stop any further frontal advance of the cloud toward Earth;  however, the flanks continued to advance, so that soon a cavity was formed, enveloping the Earth.  That was known for many years as the "Chapman-Ferraro cavity, the region from which the plasma of the cloud was excluded by the action of the Earth's magnetic field.<br /><br />{snip}<br /><br />THE RING CURRENT {snip}<br /><br />ALFVEN'S THEORY AND ELECTRIC FIELD<br /><br />{snip}<br /><br />Alfven did not believe in the Chapman-Ferraro theory, which treated the cloud as a continuous fluid [Alfven, 1951] but rather viewed the cloud as a collection of individually moving particles.<br /><br />{snip}<br /><br />INTERPLANETARY PLASMA<br /><br />{snip}<br /><br />It then became clear that the Chapman-Ferraro cavity was not a temporary feature but existed at all times, and it received the name "magnetosphere" coined by Gold [1959].  Rapidly spreading plasma clouds produced by solar flares, like those envisioned by Chapman and Ferraro,  are sometimes superposed on the solar wind flow.  We now know that when the expansion velocity of such clouds greatly exceeds that of the solar wind, they are indeed preceded by collision-free shocks.<br /><br />POLAR MAGNETIC STORMS<br /><br />{snipped Chapman's work on distinguishing between magnetic storms and Birkeland's polar storms (now know as substorms.)}<br /><br />Contrary to Birkeland's interpretation, much of the horizontal part of their circuit, in the ionosphere, flows not along auroral arcs but perpendicular to them, for by a quirk of electrodynamics [fukushima, 1969, 1976] the main circuit produces only a weak magnetic signature on the ground.  What Birkeland observed was mostly the signature of an associated Hall current, the "auroral electrojet" which parallels auroral arcs.<br /><br />ASSESSMENT<br /><br />{snip}<br /><br />Many important magnetospheric features had indeed been inferred before spacecraft were available, but in almost every case some important detail was missing or wrong.  The Chapman-Ferraro cavity was predicted as a temporary rather than permanent feature, and the same was true for the radiation belt.  Alfven's convection contained a nucleus of truth, but electric field effect supplemented rather than supplanted the Chapman-Ferraro picture, and the convection which they produced was found to flow from the tail sunward, opposite to its direction in Alfven's theory.  Birkeland's auroral currents did exist, but their configuration was not the one predicted.  The existence and importance of the magnetospheric tail generally went unsuspected, and so did the existence of parallel electric fields along auroral arcs, although Alfven later developed the theory of quasi-neutral equilibria, relevant to such fields.  All this underscores the essential role of in situ observations:  one can only speculate how much of this might be paralleled in astrophysics.<br /><br />END OF ARTICLE<br /><br />to be continued...<br /><br /> <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>

derekmcd · Sep 22, 2008

Michael,<br /><br />First, let me say that I didn't verify the accuracy of this article.  However, being published in "Reviews of Geophysics" with nearly 3 full pages of references, I feel comfortable that the author went through great pains to ensure accuracy.  Is it all inclusive?  Certainly not and the author states as much.  I highly recommend reading the full article (it's only 13 pages)<br /><br /><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I showed you conclusively that Priest's use of monopoles violated Maxwell's equations, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism.  Evidently you rationalize in your head that it's 'OK' to use the term "monopoles" in conjection with plasma physics even though it violates known laws of physics when it's used as an "analogy" which the reader is expected to "figure out" all by themselves.<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, you're missing a critical point here.  There is "current" flowing through that "plasma".  There are no monoples running through that plasma.  While it is logical to suggest that plasma can be modelled like a "circuit" because it's carrying charged particles from one point to another, it is utterly irrational to suggest it carries "monopoles", because monopoles do not exist in nature, and they violate the known laws of physics and they don't exist in plasma..  Charged paritlcle flow violates no laws of physics, whereas monoples do.  Charged particles do flow through plasma, whereas monopoles do not.  Get it? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br /><br />The first thing I hope we can put to rest is your notion that Priests paper is flawed by using "monopole".  It was already clear to the rest of us why he applied the analogy.  I think the first two paragraphs I highlighted should put that argument to rest once and for all.  If not, here's a couple more papers regarding monopoles:<br /><br />I refer you to the section:  Birkeland-Poincare Effect, concerning monopoles on page 4.<br /><br />http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/MEMOS/GLmonopole/MONOPOLE.pdf<br /><br /> The magnetic monopole and the motion of charged particles first analyzed by Poincare in 1896.<br /><br />http://cellular.ci.ulsa.mx/comun/symm/node8.html<br /><br />As for the rest of the paragraphs I highlighted, I did so because of your constant reference to Birkeland when it comes solar physics and magnetic/sub storms.  He was not the be all end all answer.  In no way am I diminishing his work.  Not at all.  I'm just pointing out that his lab experiment didn't have all the answers.  Were they important?  Hell yes they were, but they were only the first of many, many steps.<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Chapman's theories werre prefered over Birkeland's theories until the mid 70s.  Who know why the mainstream prefers their theories?  It certainly isn't based on emprical physics.<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />On more than one occasion, you have brought up Chapman's mathematical theories and models as being wrong while Birkeland was right.  I think this article show how intellectually dishonest that assessment is.  Birkeland wasn't right about everything.  However, his work certainly broke new ground and paved the way for the rest of them to paint a clearer picture.<br /><br />I didn't see anywhere that Chapman's theories flew in the face of Birkeland's work for you to make such a statement.  Chapman's work wasn't always correct, but it was never so wrong that it needed to be tossed aside and ignored for other such as Alfven to completely start over.  My interpretation is that all their work paralleled each others and they built of each others ideas.  I didn't see any real paradigm shifts.  Indeed, I believe Chapman's work was quite important whether it was exact or not.<br /><br />I think everyone agree with your assessment that experiments in the lab are highly important to science, but in the case of astro/geophysics, it might not always be good enough.  In situ observations are not always viable.  Whether you believe it or not, remote observations are important, too.  However, without a mathematical framework, you may not understand what you are observing.  Theoretical physics can not be neglected.  You need all of them to advance science when dealing with "out of this world" situations.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

UFmbutler · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Notice how I didn't claim it was the *only* source of energy DrRocket?Only if you utterly *ignore* the role of the magnetosphere and the way real "magnetic lines" travel through space.I think folks are intelligent enough to see the difference between a strawman and a real arguement.  You don't ever have any real arguements. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'm quite sure he did notice that claim...considering the highlighted sentence.  You know that he noticed it.  You are only asking because you don't want to admit that you said it was the "primary"(your words) energy source powering the sun.  This is asserting that the external current produces more energy than any other internal source like fusion.  If this were the case it would have the same consequences that DrRocket keeps mentioning that you continue to ignore.   </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

UFmbutler · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I"m claiming they don't realize the important role that "eletcricity' play in phenomenon in space. They can't explain simple stuff that even Birkeland could explain.How about all this "bunk" about "megnetic reconnection"?  Magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect.  Only circuits and particles do that. Yet they talk about "magnetic reconnection" when Maxwell's equations expressly treat the magnetic field as a complete and whole field, without beginning and without end.  Go figure.You should try being an EU advocate and here them talk about "magnetic reconnection".  Hoy.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Not only is this garbage, it is garbage you've thrown at us probably for the 1000th time this thread.  We addressed every single one of those arguments over and over and over.  "Then why call it magnetic reconnection?"  you will say(even though I am addressing it preemptively).  They call it that because it involves a change of the field topology, as we have pointed out countless times.  It doesn't matter what they call it.  They are never going to rename planetary nebulae even though they have nothing to do with planets.  It's a thing called a "convention".  Note I am being generous and assuming(an assumption I don't believe) that the process can beexplained by your circuits.  </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, except you seem to forget that they are "surprised" that the Hinode images didn't show "frozen in" magnetic lines.  Old concepts die hard, particularly when there is human ego involved.  Notice how they weren't claiming to understand these events?  First they have to let go of their old ideas. That's not happened yet. Well, that's a completely false statement at least as it relates to solar system activity.  Birkeland's emprical model is in fact the *only* model to actually *work* in an empircial test.Beats me.  Chapman's theories werre prefered over Birkeland's theories until the mid 70s.  Who know why the mainstream prefers their theories?  It certainly isn't based on emprical physics.Do you even read the article?</DIV></p><p>You really need to improve your reading comprehension.  How exactly do you expect to see magnetic field lines in an image?  You can't.  They aren't physically real.  You can't just see something moving and say "see, they can't be frozen, the stuff is moving".  If you truly understood your hero's work, then you would understand that the concept of frozen-in field lines are, as derek said, moving along with the plasma.  It does not mean the structure(prominence, whatever) is just sitting there like a big ice structure.  They were NOT surprised about anything regarding the magnetic field, because it is impossible to infer anything about the magnetic field in that sense by looking at an image.  They were only intrigued that the system was so dynamic.  Again, if you really understood the physics you'd realize dynamic systems can have frozen-in fields.... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm quite sure he did notice that claim...considering the highlighted sentence.  You know that he noticed it.  You are only asking because you don't want to admit that you said it was the "primary"(your words) energy source powering the sun.</DIV></p><p>There is a distinct difference between claiming something is a "primary" energy source and claiming it's the *only* energy source.    There is also a big difference between *oversimplifying* a problem and dealing with it in a complex and complete manner.  Once can't ignore the role of the magnetosphere on the current flows coming from the sun.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is asserting that the external current produces more energy than any other internal source like fusion.  If this were the case it would have the same consequences that DrRocket keeps mentioning that you continue to ignore.    <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>IMO, it is you folks that keep ignoring the obvious here.  Birkeland's experiments made key "predictions" about the way "current flows" would manifest themselves around spheres in a plasma vacuum.  He "predicted' solar coronal loops.  He 'predicted" plasma "jets".  He "predicted" Birkeland currents would exist around the sphere.  All of these things exist on the sun.  To continue to ignore the implications of his work can only lead to disaster in the final analysis.  Birkeland's "predictions" must be dealt with and analyzed and applied.  Those aren't "Alfven waves" we observe in Hinode images, they are "Birkeland currents" that create "z-pinched" filamentary current flows in the solar atmosphere and release high energy photons in the process.  There are no "frozen" magnetic lines in the light solar atmosphere, but there are numberous "electrical discharges" all along the surface as "predicted" in Birkeland's experiments.  To keep ignoring these observations can only lead to confusion and false beliefs.   There is nothing different between what you refer to as 'magnetic reconnection" and circuit reconnection.   All the very same places that the mainstream claims "magnetic reconnection" is occurring is actually "predicted" in Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" model.  Is that a coincidence in your opinion? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not only is this garbage, it is garbage you've thrown at us probably for the 1000th time this thread.  We addressed every single one of those arguments over and over and over.  "Then why call it magnetic reconnection?"  you will say(even though I am addressing it preemptively).  They call it that because it involves a change of the field topology, as we have pointed out countless times.</DIV></p><p>But then so does "circuit reconnection" and yet you don't seem to believe they are one and the same thing.  Why?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It doesn't matter what they call it. </DIV></p><p>Actually, it does.  It matters because "circuit reconnection" is congruent with MHD theory as Alfven described it, it is consistent with electrical engineering, and it is consistent with particle physics.  The term "magnetic reconnection' is not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are never going to rename planetary nebulae even though they have nothing to do with planets.  It's a thing called a "convention". </DIV></p><p>But when the "convention" causes two intelligent people (like  you and I) to not be able to agree on what we're observing, then what?  If you readily agreed that "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" were the same thing, it would simply be an issue of "convention".  Since that is not the case, it's a deeper problem related to conceptual understanding.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Note I am being generous and assuming(an assumption I don't believe) that the process can beexplained by your circuits.</DIV></p><p>Technically they aren't "my" anything.  I cited a specific published paper where Alfven mentions Parker by name and explains the more 'fundamental" (particle/circuit) explanation of these same pheneomenon from his perspective.   Birn specifically refers to the Sweet-Parker model too, and Birn expressly states that current flows occur in each of the two "magnetic lines".  I can't do any more at this point than I have done without gettting some confirmation from your side of the aisle.  I can show you where Alfven mentions Parker by name and uses a circuit analogy to explain these same phenomenon, but I can't make you agree that they are the same thing.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You really need to improve your reading comprehension.  How exactly do you expect to see magnetic field lines in an image?  You can't.  They aren't physically real. </DIV></p><p>The magnetic fields are directly related to the movent of charged particles in the plasma.  We can and do see 'magnetic lines" around all "Birkeland currents".</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can't just see something moving and say "see, they can't be frozen, the stuff is moving".  If you truly understood your hero's work, then you would understand that the concept of frozen-in field lines are, as derek said, moving along with the plasma. </DIV></p><p>What you should also recognize is that the plasma is moving and that movement creates those "magnetic lines".  It's not as though the magnetic lines are separate from the 'current flows".  What we observe in those Hinode images is the change in the "current flow" and the fluid-like nature of these changes.  The aurora in the solar atmosphere are moving and flowing just like the aurora around the Earth's poles.  The "coronal loops" we see near the surface are "Birkeland curents" that Birkeland himself predicted to exist there. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does not mean the structure(prominence, whatever) is just sitting there like a big ice structure.  They were NOT surprised about anything regarding the magnetic field, because it is impossible to infer anything about the magnetic field in that sense by looking at an image.  They were only intrigued that the system was so dynamic.  Again, if you really understood the physics you'd realize dynamic systems can have frozen-in fields....  </p><p> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>We can infor something about the magnetic fields because they will be influenced directly by those current flows.  There is nothing "frozen" about light, current carrying 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>

michaelmozina · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Once again, Birkeland did a fine job working with terrestrial aurora.  You have yet to define how it relates to the rest of astrophysics.</DIV></p><p>I have defined how it relates to coronal loops, solar wind acceleration, etc.  If you continue to ignore these "predictions" that came straight from his work, how can we have meaningful discussion?  Is is coinsidence in your opinion that all the high energy events "predicted" in Birkeland's "current flow/circuit reconnection" experiments are the same events that are being attributed to 'magnetic reconnection'?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The same old tired argument that has no bearing on the physics behind magnetic reconnection.  You really need to come up with something new.  </DIV></p><p>I shouldn't have to.  That should be enough.  If you know that magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect and you know that Birkeland's "current flow" model is intimately related to these high energy events, then you should redily agree with me that circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection are exactly the same process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  Mainstream isn't claiming EU supporters are ignorant of magnetic fields. They never claimed they were suprised the images didn't show frozen-in magnetic field lines.</DIV></p><p>That's because no EU proponent ever expected them to be 'frozen" in any way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Again, where's the data supporting the phenomena seen on the sun being powered by an external source as it relates to Birkeland's experiments?</DIV></p><p>How about the fact that the corona is much hotter than the surface?  Pure coincidence that this is contrguent with an *external* energy source?  How about those solar wind acceleration proceses that are also consistent with Birkeland's model?  Pure coincidence?  How come there are loop discharge patterns all along the surface of the sphere just like Birkeland "predicted"?  How in your mind is it "ok" to ignore all the "tests" that Birkeland's model passed? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Sep 22, 2008

It's a busy day at work today and it's going to take me awhile to get through all your posts today Derek.   I'll get to them as I get time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm quite sure he did notice that claim...considering the highlighted sentence.  You know that he noticed it.  You are only asking because you don't want to admit that you said it was the "primary"(your words) energy source powering the sun.  This is asserting that the external current produces more energy than any other internal source like fusion. <strong> If this were the case it would have the same consequences that DrRocket keeps mentioning that you continue to ignore.    <br /></strong>Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Precisely.  If you even went so far as to say that only a bit over half of the sun's energy were provided by an external power source, then the calculation might be revised to estimate that the magnetic field at the surface of the Earth would be a mere 29 million times what is actually observed.</p><p>You and derekmcd are doing fine here.  Continue.  It is now late September, so I am going out into the woods hunting, a bit east of Salina, Utah.  If you wish, you can bring Michael by and we can discuss this on a mountain side under a tree, overlooking a deep canyon.  A very deep canyon.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

UFmbutler · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is a distinct difference between claiming something is a "primary" energy source and claiming it's the *only* energy source.    There is also a big difference between *oversimplifying* a problem and dealing with it in a complex and complete manner.  Once can't ignore the role of the magnetosphere on the current flows coming from the sun.IMO, it is you folks that keep ignoring the obvious here.  Birkeland's experiments made key "predictions" about the way "current flows" would manifest themselves around spheres in a plasma vacuum.  He "predicted' solar coronal loops.  He 'predicted" plasma "jets".  He "predicted" Birkeland currents would exist around the sphere.  All of these things exist on the sun.  To continue to ignore the implications of his work can only lead to disaster in the final analysis.  Birkeland's "predictions" must be dealt with and analyzed and applied.  Those aren't "Alfven waves" we observe in Hinode images, they are "Birkeland currents" that create "z-pinched" filamentary current flows in the solar atmosphere and release high energy photons in the process.  There are no "frozen" magnetic lines in the light solar atmosphere, but there are numberous "electrical discharges" all along the surface as "predicted" in Birkeland's experiments.  To keep ignoring these observations can only lead to confusion and false beliefs.   There is nothing different between what you refer to as 'magnetic reconnection" and circuit reconnection.   All the very same places that the mainstream claims "magnetic reconnection" is occurring is actually "predicted" in Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" model.  Is that a coincidence in your opinion? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You didn't answer or clarify any of my statements.  You did acknowledge that the external current is the primary energy source, which by the very definition of primary, it must produce more energy than fusion does.  You have not shown how this is the case and you certainly have not considered the consequences regarding our own magnetic field strength, which we would be able to verify if it were true. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

UFmbutler · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Technically they aren't "my" anything.  I cited a specific published paper where Alfven mentions Parker by name and explains the more 'fundamental" (particle/circuit) explanation of these same pheneomenon from his perspective.   Birn specifically refers to the Sweet-Parker model too, and Birn expressly states that current flows occur in each of the two "magnetic lines".  I can't do any more at this point than I have done without gettting some confirmation from your side of the aisle.  I can show you where Alfven mentions Parker by name and uses a circuit analogy to explain these same phenomenon, but I can't make you agree that they are the same thing.<br /></DIV></p><p>Again you base your argument on the basis of who mentions a certain name or buzzword.  They mentioned the Sweet-Parker model in entirely different contexes.  It is a fallacy to say that because Alfven criticized Parker's model, since Birn mentions it it means that his argument is based on that model.  Mentioning does not imply espousing that particular model.  If he agreed upon that model then he wouldn't have written an extra paper defining reconnection.  Clearly his paper is not only an improvement of that specific model, but on every model.  He combined the aspects of all the theories that were correct into a coherent, general theory of reconnection.  </p><p>I'm not even going to touch the whole frozen field line thing.  You seem to have no clue what frozen actually means in this context, so it's impossible to argue with you about it.  A good source to educate yourself is that one guy you mention all the time...can't think of his name.   </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Again you base your argument on the basis of who mentions a certain name or buzzword.  They mentioned the Sweet-Parker model in entirely different contexes.</DIV></p><p>Now wait a moment.  Alfven addressed both the coronal loops and the magnetospheric activity being associated with "magnetic reconnection"" and he explained a more 'fundamental' way of looking at these energy exchanges.   He mentioned Parker's definition of "magnetic reconnection" by name.  What more could you ask for?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is a fallacy to say that because Alfven criticized Parker's model, since Birn mentions it it means that his argument is based on that model. </DIV></p><p>His argument is based on earlier work, including Parker's work.   What is so "unique" to Birn's presentation of this idea that makes Alfven's points no longer valid?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mentioning does not imply espousing that particular model.  If he agreed upon that model then he wouldn't have written an extra paper defining reconnection.  Clearly his paper is not only an improvement of that specific model, but on every model.</DIV></p><p>Whether it's an "improvement" or not is irrelevant unless he's proposing an entirely new form of "magnetic reconnection".  Alfven's primary points would still necessarily apply so long as the basic concept is the same.  Since Birn explicitly mentions the current flow inside the magnetic line, it is fundamentally the same process that Alfven addresses in his paper.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He combined the aspects of all the theories that were correct into a coherent, general theory of reconnection.  I'm not even going to touch the whole frozen field line thing.  You seem to have no clue what frozen actually means in this context, so it's impossible to argue with you about it.  A good source to educate yourself is that one guy you mention all the time...can't think of his name.    <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>You seem to be ignoring two key points here from my perspective.  While Birn may have clerified and added to Parker's original concepts, the original ideas were around during Alfven's tenure.  Alfven carefully explains why this can be equated to "circuit reconnection".  I can't even think of a better way to make my point about the link between what you are calling "magnetic reconnection", and what I am calling 'circuit reconnection".  While I can agree that they may be one and the same thing based on everything I've read, I see no evidence that the models being presented today are fundamentally different than the one's being proposed in Alfven's time.   This is the 'best' type of evidence that there is a correlation between these two ideas that I can even think of.  Alfven personally addressed these same specific issues.  What then makes you believe that they are different? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Precisely.  If you even went so far as to say that only a bit over half of the sun's energy were provided by an external power source, then the calculation might be revised to estimate that the magnetic field at the surface of the Earth would be a mere 29 million times what is actually observed.</DIV></p><p>How did you account for the influence of the magnetosphere in your calculations?  You sort of love to hurl general nonsense into the discussion and pretend it's meaningful.  Meanwhile you're ignore those series of questions I put to you, you'll ignore all the "predictions" from Birkeland's experiments that that are now observed in satelite images.  You don't have a clue how to explain solar wind acceleration, those neutron capture signatures or those gamma rays in the soalr atmosphere.  In short you're ignoring everything you don't with to hear and *oversimplifying* the issue to the point of absurdity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

UFmbutler · Sep 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How did you account for the influence of the magnetosphere in your calculations?  You sort of love to hurl general nonsense into the discussion and pretend it's meaningful.  Meanwhile you're ignore those series of questions I put to you, you'll ignore all the "predictions" from Birkeland's experiments that that are now observed in satelite images.  You don't have a clue how to explain solar wind acceleration, those neutron capture signatures or those gamma rays in the soalr atmosphere.  In short you're ignoring everything you don't with to hear and *oversimplifying* the issue to the point of absurdity. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>We've endlessly addressed the topic of how solar wind acceleration occurs.  Myself, derekmcd, and DrRocket explain it using magnetic reconnection.  I can't speak to the other topics as I don't study the sun. </p><p>Although at times this discussion has gotten more heated than it is now, I think it is quickly unraveling.  I keep posting things hoping you'll address them directly but you just say some vague re-hash of your old posts that has nothing to do with what I want to hear from you.  If you ask me a question I am capable of answering, I will do my best to answer it, and if I can't I'll say so.  All I ask is that you do the same. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page