Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[greddytalon]

reply #1301 baby! LOL<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How did you account for the influence of the magnetosphere in your calculations?&nbsp; You sort of love to hurl general nonsense into the discussion and pretend it's meaningful.&nbsp;...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Magnetic fields add vectorially and generally linearly except in a highlly ferromagnetic medium.&nbsp; The magnetosphere is the volume of space strongly influenced by the magnetic field of the Earth.&nbsp; In this case the imposed magnetic field from you hypothetical electric current supplying the primary power to the Sun would simply overwhelm the weak magnetic field of the Earth and make it irrelevant.</p><p>What you are calling general nonsense is in fact a rather simply application of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; I am sorry those equations do not make sense to you.&nbsp; Perhaps that is because you seem to refer to real calculations using real physics as "math magic".&nbsp; If you were to gain a small bit of knowledge regarding mathematics and electrodynamics perhaps it would start to make more sense to you.&nbsp; It is really just basic physics.&nbsp; </p><p>This issue is representative of the reason why EU theory has no credibility in the scientific community.&nbsp; You make assertions that can be show to be utterly absurd with the most simple applications of basic physics.&nbsp; It is akin to your claim that surface of the sun is a composed of solid ferrite-like material.&nbsp; That is simply impossible at the temperatures involved.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven noted that the sun is composed of plasma, not solid material.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic fields add vectorially and generally linearly except in a highlly ferromagnetic medium.&nbsp; The magnetosphere is the volume of space strongly influenced by the magnetic field of the Earth.&nbsp; In this case the imposed magnetic field from you hypothetical electric current supplying the primary power to the Sun would simply overwhelm the weak magnetic field of the Earth and make it irrelevant.What you are calling general nonsense is in fact a rather simply application of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; I am sorry those equations do not make sense to you.&nbsp; Perhaps that is because you seem to refer to real calculations using real physics as "math magic".&nbsp; If you were to gain a small bit of knowledge regarding mathematics and electrodynamics perhaps it would start to make more sense to you.&nbsp; It is really just basic physics.&nbsp; This issue is representative of the reason why EU theory has no credibility in the scientific community.&nbsp; You make assertions that can be show to be utterly absurd with the most simple applications of basic physics.&nbsp; It is akin to your claim that surface of the sun is a composed of solid ferrite-like material.&nbsp; That is simply impossible at the temperatures involved.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven noted that the sun is composed of plasma, not solid material. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>But DrRocket, you are forgetting that the only Alfven book that matters is Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; Forget all the writing he won the Nobel for.&nbsp; He clearly wasn't thinking straight back then. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We've endlessly addressed the topic of how solar wind acceleration occurs.&nbsp; Myself, derekmcd, and DrRocket explain it using magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>You have "alledged"" this to be true perhaps but I've never seen a full explanation of this process.&nbsp; In other words, why does the solar wind continue to accelerate as it moves toward the heliosphere?&nbsp; If these particles were simply "tossed out" in some momentary event, sooner or later gravity would begin to slow them down over time.&nbsp; You'd also need this "magnetic reconnection" process to occur from the entire surface at once.&nbsp; Why don't the partcles slow down over time?&nbsp; Why is He+2 selectively favored over He+1 by many multiples?&nbsp; Why is it that the first three most abundant ions in the solar wind are selectively favored by their postive charge/mass ratio?&nbsp; When did you show me an emprical test of this idea like Birkeland did with his "circuit reconnection" experiments?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't speak to the other topics as I don't study the sun.</DIV></p><p>Well, from my perspective, that's just a little "too convenient".&nbsp; There are *many* solar phenomenon that Birkeland's experiments "predicted" that are found in satellite images today.&nbsp; A full "explanation' should address more than a single phenomenon, but rather the whole range of observed phenomenon.&nbsp; Z-pinch reactions in plama are known to free neutrons in current carrying plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere release gamma rays.&nbsp; WE just so happen to observe both of the "electrical discharge" related phenomenon in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; Coincidence?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Although at times this discussion has gotten more heated than it is now, I think it is quickly unraveling. </DIV></p><p>I don't know about unraveling, but it's getting tough for me to keep up.&nbsp; I haven't even touched Dereks key points yet, but I will do so today.&nbsp; I would say that things are actually "unfolding' very nicely from my perspective.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; All I ask is that you do the same. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Ok, so try these question.&nbsp; What is so fundamentally different about the "magnetic reconnection' models of today that are not addressed by Alfven's critique of Parkers' magnetic reconnection model?&nbsp; What's so fundamentally new about the modern brand that would make Alfven's key points moot today?</p><p>Is it a coincidence in your opinion that all the "predicted" behaviors from Birkeland's models, including coronal loop activity, solar wind acceleration, auroras are now being attributed to "magnetic reconnection"?</p><p>What is the fundental difference between "circuit reconnection" in Birkeland's experiments and the "magnetic reconnection" you believe is responsible for these predicted events?&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Don't both "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection" require "current flow" in disctinct "lines" or 'circuits"? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The first thing I hope we can put to rest is your notion that Priests paper is flawed by using "monopole".&nbsp; It was already clear to the rest of us why he applied the analogy.&nbsp; I think the first two paragraphs I highlighted should put that argument to rest once and for all.&nbsp; If not, here's a couple more papers regarding monopoles:I refer you to the section:&nbsp; Birkeland-Poincare Effect, concerning monopoles on page 4.http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/MEMOS/GLmonopole/MONOPOLE.pdf&nbsp;The magnetic monopole and the motion of charged particles first analyzed by Poincare in 1896.http://cellular.ci.ulsa.mx/comun/symm/node8.html</DIV></p><p>I'm going to work at your post one concept at a time, starting with the monopole thing.&nbsp; As best as I can tell from your citied paper the subatomic world of 'leptons" seems to be "monopole" region.&nbsp; Of course if we look at plasma as ask ourselves where we might find free moving leptons, we'd immediately see the connection between moving electrons (leptons) and such an idea.</p><p>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/lepton.html</p><p>The other interesting point I'd make here is that during another thread I asked another individual how subatomic particles might be composed of "pairs and spares of electrons and positrons", at which time you handed me collider experiments that showed that there may in fact be merit to this sort of concept. &nbsp; If that is so, then all the subatomic wold might be composed of moving leptons.&nbsp; This is simply kinetic energy of charged particles in motion at that point.</p><p>There are no such things as "magnetic monopoles".&nbsp; They do not exist in nature.&nbsp; I understand why Priest invoked them since he needed a magnetic side kick to do the kinetic energy transfer process due to the fact that he specifically *excluded* the electric field.&nbsp; IMO it was a highly confusing and rather misleading concept of the real "physics" going on inside the plasma.</p><p>Alfven deals with the phsical processes associated with double layer transfers of energy.&nbsp; He names Parker and proceeds to discuss a more "fundamental" method to begin to understand these "reconnection" events involving moving charged particles.&nbsp; He switches to a particle perspective and a circuit orientation, and makes it clear that the whole "circuit" energy has to be accounted for in such interactions.</p><p>What I find most interesting is that you aren't on my side of this naming dabate thing.&nbsp; In other words I would expect that you of all people would be able to see the direct correlation here between Priests "lepton" reconnection, process and Alfven's "particle/electron" reconnection process.&nbsp; These are fundamentally the same idea.&nbsp; Why aren't you noting that they are the same ideas?</p><p>IMO that is due to the fact that astronomers have chosen a very poor name for what is otherwise a very easy to understand process.&nbsp; No magentic lines "reconnect", just charged particles and larger circuits.&nbsp;&nbsp; The fact you aren't on my side of this circuit reconnection/magnetic reconnection debate shows just how confusing that label is.&nbsp; You of all people should be able to see this, but evidently you don't.&nbsp; It's fascinating from my perspective, but also quite sad IMO.&nbsp; We should be "communicating" on this point, but we are not.&nbsp; </p><p>FYI, I'm not actually "condemning" Priest, I'm just sticking with Alfven' explanation since it's a more "fundamental" way of looking at this "lepton reconnection" process. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But DrRocket, you are forgetting that the only Alfven book that matters is Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; Forget all the writing he won the Nobel for.&nbsp; He clearly wasn't thinking straight back then. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>No, what matters is the real "physics' going on, not just the physics of the sun, but the Earth and the whole solar system configuration.&nbsp; An oversimplified calculations that makes no attempt to address the complexities of the real physics going on is pointless nonsense. </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]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><br /><p>Is it a coincidence in your opinion that all the "predicted" behaviors from Birkeland's models, including coronal loop activity, solar wind acceleration, auroras are now being attributed to "magnetic reconnection"?</p><p>What is the fundental difference between "circuit reconnection" in Birkeland's experiments and the "magnetic reconnection" you believe is responsible for these predicted events?&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Don't both "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection" require "current flow" in disctinct "lines" or 'circuits"? </p><p> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Despite the fact that these are heavily loaded questions, I will answer them...again. &nbsp;I don't care if Birkeland predicted them or not(I have a feeling you are just assuming he would have predicted them)...his experiment did not address the "why" part of the question. &nbsp;As in, why does current get accelerated? &nbsp;Since he started with a cathode ray, he was just assuming that there was a flow of charged particles...a correct assumption, but it does not address how the particles are accelerated. &nbsp;Empirical experiments are great for demonstrating ideas, but not so much for explaining the actual mechanism. &nbsp;You need theory for that. &nbsp;That's where reconnection comes in. &nbsp;So I'm not sure what you mean by coincidence...it's just the natural extension of his experiments. &nbsp;He showed us that current flow can produce events like aurorae, people came up with reconnection to explain why we have accelerated electrons to begin with. &nbsp;</p><p>Here is your answer to the other question, provided quite clearly in the abstract of the paper you claim to agree with.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The properties of relatively simple magnetic field models provide a strong preference for one of two definitions of magnetic reconnection that exist in the literature. Any concept of magnetic reconnection defined in terms of magnetic topology seems naturally restricted to cases where the magnetic field vanishes somewhere in the nonideal (diffusion) region. The main part of this paper is concerned with magnetic reconnection in nonvanishing magnetic fields (finite-B reconnection), which has attracted less attention in the past. We show that <em>E</em> _∥ (the electric field component parallel to the magnetic field) plays a crucial physical role in finite-B reconnection, and we present two theorems involving <em>E</em> _∥. The first states a necessary and sufficient condition on <em>E</em> _∥ for global reconnection to occur. Here the term &rdquo;global&rdquo; means the generic case where the breakdown of magnetic connection occurs for plasma elements that stay outside the nonideal region. The second theorem relates the change of magnetic helicity to <em>E</em> _∥ for cases where the electric field vanishes at large distances.</DIV></p><p>Did Alfven criticize parallel electric fields? &nbsp;Did he criticize the idea of a changing magnetic helicity? &nbsp;Do you even realize what these terms mean? &nbsp;Just because they refer to the word "electric" does not mean they are talking about circuits. &nbsp;There is current flow, yes, and obviously, yes, it does generate a magnetic field. &nbsp;However, the idea that it must flow in distinct lines in closed circuits is not required and I have seen nothing suggesting such a thing. &nbsp;Michael, you are basically asking us to do what it is you said you would do yourself. &nbsp;I can't think of a way of explaining reconnection using circuits, and neither can you apparently. &nbsp;And by explain I mean using physics equations, not just saying it is. &nbsp;</p><p>A lot of things require current flow. &nbsp;It doesn't mean they are all the same thing.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven's convection contained a nucleus of truth, but electric field effect supplemented rather than supplanted the Chapman-Ferraro picture,</DIV></p><p>Yes, and from my perspective that electric field effect is going to "supplement" rather than supplant magnetic reconnection theories because the mainstream cannot ever admit they've just understimated the importance of electricity in space.&nbsp; Eventuallly the mainstream will have to come clean and admit that "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection" are one and the same thing.</p><p>At that point we might actually start to learn a few things about how all the "circuits" are wired together and how they all work collectively.&nbsp; Plasma does unusual and unpredicted things in the presense of electrical current, but the first step in that journey of discovery is noticing that electricity plays a vital role in these processes.&nbsp; It's not just about the "magnetic" field, it's about the *electro*magnetic field.</p><p>IMO the only reason the mainstream is dragging their feet is due to the fact that there is an outrageous and extreme bias towards EU theory in general.&nbsp; Anything Alfven wrote about it is essentually ignored.&nbsp; No one reads it.&nbsp; No one comments on it.&nbsp; No one wants to print anything related to his EU ideas. &nbsp;</p><p>The other thing that is quite obvious from the perspective of a skeptic is that while Birkeland by himself has no trouble created auroras, coronal loops and jets from spheres in a vacuum, the whole collective mainstream in unable to duplicate his work using "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Coincidence?&nbsp; I don't think so.&nbsp; I don't think they actually "understand" what's going on because they didn't "experiment" like Birkeland did.&nbsp; They keep relying upon computer models rather than emprical tests of concept.&nbsp; That's a bad and confusing idea and the fact you and I can't agree that magnetic reconnection and circuit reconnect are one and the same process only demonsrates how confusing that process has become.&nbsp; The electrical field creates movement of the particles which in turn creates "magnetic lines" in the plasma.&nbsp; The "particles"" and the larger "circuits" reconnect, but as Alfven explained, "not a single magnetic lines is disconnected or reconnected to any other magnetic line". &nbsp; You and I should be in agreement here that circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection are one and the same phenomenon.&nbsp; The fact we can't agree is only evidence of how confused the mainstream has become due to their lack of emprical testing. </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>

 

[UFmbutler]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><br /><p>At that point we might actually start to learn a few things about how all the "circuits" are wired together and how they all work collectively.&nbsp; Plasma does unusual and unpredicted things in the presense of electrical current, but the first step in that journey of discovery is noticing that electricity plays a vital role in these processes.&nbsp; It's not just about the "magnetic" field, it's about the *electro*magnetic field.</p><p>IMO the only reason the mainstream is dragging their feet is due to the fact that there is an outrageous and extreme bias towards EU theory in general.&nbsp; Anything Alfven wrote about it is essentually ignored.&nbsp; No one reads it.&nbsp; No one comments on it.&nbsp; No one wants to print anything related to his EU ideas.&nbsp; </p><p> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p><br />Are you serious? &nbsp;The modern definition of magnetic reconnection, the one everyone in the mainstream follows, has quite a large section about E_parallel. &nbsp;The mainstream certainly recognizes the importance of electric fields. &nbsp;Nobody is dragging their feet. &nbsp;Alfven's views have been addressed as they relate to reconnection...I even quoted for you a paper that quotes his arguments directly and addresses them directly. &nbsp;It's funny how you conveniently ignore everything that contradicts the arguments you keep making. &nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They keep relying upon computer models rather than emprical tests of concept.&nbsp; That's a bad and confusing idea and the fact you and I can't agree that magnetic reconnection and circuit reconnect are one and the same process only demonsrates how confusing that process has become. </DIV></p><p>It's only confusing to one of us.&nbsp; You don't understand what goes into computer models.&nbsp; It is not just a bunch of magic.&nbsp; It is thousands, hundreds of thousands of lines of physics.&nbsp; Valid physics.&nbsp; No conjuring of anything imaginary.&nbsp; You start with initial conditions, and solve the physics equations at every time step.&nbsp; It isn't like making a video game.&nbsp; A properly coded simulation can explain things sometimes better than a simple demonstration.&nbsp; For example, dropping a ball off a table may demonstrate gravity empirically, but there is not as much insight to gain from such ane xperiment as say, a simulation of a galaxy forming.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Despite the fact that these are heavily loaded questions, I will answer them...again. &nbsp;I don't care if Birkeland predicted them or not(I have a feeling you are just assuming he would have predicted them)</DIV></p><p>But IMO you *should* care that Birkeland predicted these events.&nbsp; He did actually "predict" them and he actually "simulated" them in his experiments.&nbsp;&nbsp; The whole "test" of any theory is how well it "predicts" observations.</p><p>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg</p><p>He certainly "predicted" coronal loops. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...his experiment did not address the "why" part of the question. &nbsp;As in, why does current get accelerated? &nbsp;Since he started with a cathode ray, he was just assuming that there was a flow of charged particles...a correct assumption, but it does not address how the particles are accelerated. </DIV></p><p>Technically the "how" part is not even relevant.&nbsp; The fact that they "are" accelerated leads to a host of observations and predictions that become possible to make.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Empirical experiments are great for demonstrating ideas, but not so much for explaining the actual mechanism.</DIV></p><p>That depends on what you mean by "explain".&nbsp; If you mean explain the math, no experiments can't always do that.&nbsp; If by "explain" you mean can we fundamentally understand that electricity is responsible for this activity, then experiments do "explain' things that cannot be explained any other way. &nbsp; If you want to "explain" why coronal loops exist in the first place, you have to understand that they are electrically driven events.&nbsp; You can't "explain" such things with just a math formula. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You need theory for that. &nbsp;That's where reconnection comes in.</DIV></p><p>But "reconnection" at this point is simply a series of math formulas that have yet to be "put to the test".&nbsp; You can't demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" causes coronal loops until you can create them in an emprical test using "magnetic reconnection" as the energy source.&nbsp; When someone tries that in a lab let me know.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So I'm not sure what you mean by coincidence...it's just the natural extension of his experiments. &nbsp;He showed us that current flow can produce events like aurorae, people came up with reconnection to explain why we have accelerated electrons to begin with.</DIV></p><p>But you're making assumptions that have yet to be verified.&nbsp; When do we see an emprical test of concept?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is your answer to the other question, provided quite clearly in the abstract of the paper you claim to agree with.</DIV></p><p>Well, there's still a problem.&nbsp; If you agreed with me that "magnetic reconnection' and "circuit reconnection" were the same concept, then we'd be on the same page here.&nbsp; We evidently are not on the same page here because while I connect the two ideas, you do not.&nbsp; You evidently see no apparent correlation between Birkeland's experiments with "circuit reconnection" and what Birn describes as "magnetic reconnection". &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Did Alfven criticize parallel electric fields? &nbsp;Did he criticize the idea of a changing magnetic helicity? &nbsp;Do you even realize what these terms mean?</DIV></p><p>Yes, I undertstand what these terms mean because I've read his books.&nbsp; Not just one book, both books.&nbsp; I've also read many if not most of his papers.&nbsp; That heliciy you refer to is called a Birkeland current.&nbsp; Birkeland also described them and commented on them based on his experimentation with circuit reconnection.&nbsp; Alfven explained how and why the electric and magnetic fields form these helix shapes in plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just because they refer to the word "electric" does not mean they are talking about circuits. </DIV></p><p>When they talk about current flow in the magnetic lines, they are talking about "circuits" in Alfven's lingo.&nbsp; He even mentioned Parker by name.&nbsp; I can't really provide you with any "better" comparison between how Alfven viewed these events vs. how Parker explained these events.&nbsp; Alfven clearly explained these events and explained how he viewed such events. &nbsp; He most certainly did look at 'magnetic reconnection' as one and the same idea as 'circuit reconnection".&nbsp; He used a more "fundamental" approach in MHD theory so that MHD theory would remain consistent with electrical engineering principles and particle physics.&nbsp;&nbsp; What you are calling "magnetic reconnection" is simply the "field" description, whereas Alfven's description is a "particle" description.&nbsp; Alfven's method is "better" IMO because it deals with the actual physical objects that "reconnect".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is current flow, yes, and obviously, yes, it does generate a magnetic field. </DIV></p><p>It's like a current thread in an ordinary plasma ball.&nbsp; The "birkeland current" that forms in the plasma creates a magnetic field that runs more or less parallel to the electric field and pinches the current flow into tight filaments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, the idea that it must flow in distinct lines in closed circuits is not required and I have seen nothing suggesting such a thing.</DIV></p><p>How could they not be "closed circuits"?&nbsp;&nbsp; They must have distict "border" regions of some sort.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Michael, you are basically asking us to do what it is you said you would do yourself. &nbsp;I can't think of a way of explaining reconnection using circuits, and neither can you apparently.</DIV></p><p>I cited you papers where Alfven did exactly this.&nbsp; The fact you seem to think I need to do more is quite fascinating, but also very misguided.&nbsp; Alfven most certainly did take Parkers original "magnetic' views and he personally converted them to a particle perspective and a circuit perspective.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And by explain I mean using physics equations, not just saying it is. &nbsp;A lot of things require current flow. &nbsp;It doesn't mean they are all the same thing.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>What exactly was wrong with Alfven's physics equations?</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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p>How can you say the "how" is not relevant?&nbsp; If all we cared about was the end result, nobody would have cared about fusion going on in the sun(or, EU people wouldn't care about the sun being plugged in to some magical current), they would just care that it's a big ball that provides energy for us.&nbsp; The how is perhaps the MOST relevant part of any physical problem.&nbsp; The fact that you can't recognize this is more evidence that you only care about appearances and semantics. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I cited you papers where Alfven did exactly this.&nbsp; The fact you seem to think I need to do more is quite fascinating, but also very misguided.&nbsp; Alfven most certainly did take Parkers original "magnetic' views and he personally converted them to a particle perspective and a circuit perspective.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The only fascinating thing is that you are saying the very same idea you tried and failed to do is "misguided".&nbsp; Need I go back and quote where you said you intend to prove this?&nbsp; Why would you have said that if Alfven already did such work? &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can you say the "how" is not relevant?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Well, that was probably not the best choice of words on my part.&nbsp; I don't however have to understand exactly how cathode ray (or the universe) accelerates particles to understand that it does accelate electrons.&nbsp; I can use the fact that it does accelerate electrons to "predict" a whole host of observed pheonomen.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If all we cared about was the end result, nobody would have cared about fusion going on in the sun(or, EU people wouldn't care about the sun being plugged in to some magical current), they would just care that it's a big ball that provides energy for us.&nbsp; The how is perhaps the MOST relevant part of any physical problem.&nbsp; The fact that you can't recognize this is more evidence that you only care about appearances and semantics.</DIV></p><p>Ya, but if you notice, I'm willing to admit that I do care about the physics and my choice of words was less than ideal.&nbsp; On the other hand, the fact you and I can't see eye to eye on this subject demonstrates that there is more than just a question of semantics at stake here.&nbsp; There is a conceptual understanding difference/problem between us.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only fascinating thing is that you are saying the very same idea you tried and failed to do is "misguided".&nbsp; Need I go back and quote where you said you intend to prove this?&nbsp; Why would you have said that if Alfven already did such work? &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The only thing I "intended' to do that I never did was to convert Priest's presentation to an electrical oriented perspective.&nbsp; Alfven however already took the time to convert Parkers presentation of magnetic reconnection into "circuits" and "particles".&nbsp; I should not have to duplicate his work in the first place, and it is not my fault that Priest used particles/fields that do not exist in nature and violate known laws of physics.&nbsp; I can't mathmatically covert monopoles to electrons because none of Maxwell's equations allow me to do so.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only thing I "intended' to do that I never did was to convert Priest's presentation to an electrical oriented perspective.&nbsp; Alfven however already took the time to convert Parkers presentation of magnetic reconnection into "circuits" and "particles".&nbsp; I should not have to duplicate his work in the first place, and it is not my fault that Priest used particles/fields that do not exist in nature and violate known laws of physics.&nbsp; I can't mathmatically covert monopoles to electrons because none of Maxwell's equations allow me to do so.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That may or may not be true, as I have not seen Alfven's work on the subject, but even so, the modern definition is not the Parker definition.&nbsp; I'm sure even Alfven would agree that parts of the Sweet-Parker method, or any of the other varieties, are correct.&nbsp; The definition we have now is a combination of all the parts that work, ranging from fast reconnection to finite-B reconnection.&nbsp; All of them are applicable under various conditions.&nbsp; As you HAVE to know by now, nobody believes in magnetic field lines reconnecting.&nbsp; All of this is just a misunderstanding by you of what reconnection truly is.&nbsp; Some parts of reconnection may behave similarly to circuit models, however, a circuit model is inadequate to describe the whole thing.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That may or may not be true, as I have not seen Alfven's work on the subject, but even so, the modern definition is not the Parker definition.</DIV></p><p>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A%20Three%20Ring%20Circuit%20Model%20OfThe%20Magnetosphere.pdf</p><p>In that paper he mentions Parker by name and then proceeds to describe a more "fundamental" approach to this "reconnection" process and uses a circuit analogy.&nbsp; If there is something specficially unique to Birn's brand of "reconnection" that invalidates Alfven's arguement, please explain.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sure even Alfven would agree that parts of the Sweet-Parker method, or any of the other varieties, are correct. </DIV></p><p>It's clear that he did recognize that some forms of energy exchanges refered to as "magnetic reconnection' were essentially correct mathematically, but the name (and concept) "magnetic reconnection" was misleading.&nbsp; That's pretty much how I see it too.&nbsp; He mentioned someone named Hill in the particular quote I'm thinking of, but it seems to apply to Parker's definition as well.&nbsp; The problem however is that while he saw these as being "circuit" reconnection type events, as do I, you do not seem to see things that way.&nbsp; I was hoping Birn might shed some additional light on this topic, but alas that doesn't seem to be an option.&nbsp; There isn't really more than I can do here than I have done.&nbsp; I've demonstrated the Sweet-Parker's definition of "magnetic reconnection" has been "translated" to a particle/circuit perspective, and I've emailed Birn to see if he agreed that they are one and the same concept.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't see anything fundamentally unique about Birn's approach </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The definition we have now is a combination of all the parts that work, ranging from fast reconnection to finite-B reconnection.</DIV></p><p>They are still all "reconnection" events between two "circuits" as Alfven defined them.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether it's a fast or slow reconnection process is pretty much irrelevant.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are still two "circuits" in Alfven's lingo and the "particles" are still the things that do the reconnecting. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> All of them are applicable under various conditions. </DIV></p><p>They all require *current flow* inside the magnetic lines/circuits.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As you HAVE to know by now, nobody believes in magnetic field lines reconnecting.</DIV></p><p>Yes, which is why that particular name is ridiculous IMO.&nbsp; That's why we can't seem to agree on terms here and the silly name creates much bigger communication problems.&nbsp; We shouldn't even be having this discussion.&nbsp; It should have been called "circuit reconnection" from the start and then it would be congruent with Alfven's version of MHD theory, electrical theory and particle physics theory, and we'd all be in total agreement.&nbsp; As it stands I can see the connection between circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection but the three of you refuse to believe me, even when Alfven explicity says so in the paper I provided you with.&nbsp; He takes a paticle approach to this "reconnection" event. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> All of this is just a misunderstanding by you of what reconnection truly is.&nbsp; Some parts of reconnection may behave similarly to circuit models, however, a circuit model is inadequate to describe the whole thing.&nbsp; </p><p> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Circuit reconnection adequately explains the "whole" process.&nbsp; You seemed to be fixated on some mechanical details, but the whole thing is powered by "circuits" composed of moving plasma.&nbsp; The reconnection rate and mass output of the reconnection process will be directly related the circuit energy. </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>

 

[Aaupaaq]

Is magnetic reconnection is like the sun is throwing light particles, which are magnetic, and when this light, which is still going, because of enertia, when it hits a magnetic field, the light particle reignite? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is magnetic reconnection is like the sun is throwing light particles, which are magnetic, and when this light, which is still going, because of enertia, when it hits a magnetic field, the light particle reignite? <br /> Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>NO&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is magnetic reconnection is like the sun is throwing light particles, which are magnetic, and when this light, which is still going, because of enertia, when it hits a magnetic field, the light particle reignite? <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV><br /><br />That pap makes even less sense than the rest of this discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>Hey Wayne, did you ever get an answer about that large, blue Hinode image and why the photosphere is moving relative to the rest of the image?&nbsp; I'm assuming that this is an overlay artifact, but there does seem to be a distinct correlation between a decrease in intensity of the coronal loop activity and the "shrinking" effect seen in the photosphere movement.&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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hey Wayne, did you ever get an answer about that large, blue Hinode image and why the photosphere is moving relative to the rest of the image?&nbsp; I'm assuming that this is an overlay artifact, but there does seem to be a distinct correlation between a decrease in intensity of the coronal loop activity and the "shrinking" effect seen in the photosphere movement.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Not yet, sorry, haven't had time yet.</p><p>Still processing meteor observations from AUg 31 that I need to get reported.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not yet, sorry, haven't had time yet.Still processing meteor observations from AUg 31 that I need to get reported. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Take your time.&nbsp; I am curious, but it can wait. </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm going to work at your post one concept at a time, starting with the monopole thing.</DIV></p><p>As you wish.&nbsp; I see you have still yet to provide any evidence that the sun is being powered by anything but internal fusion.&nbsp; I'll go ahead and drop the request as I am confident that you can not.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As best as I can tell from your citied paper the subatomic world of 'leptons" seems to be "monopole" region.&nbsp; Of course if we look at plasma as ask ourselves where we might find free moving leptons, we'd immediately see the connection between moving electrons (leptons) and such an idea.</DIV></p><p>I specifically directed you to section 3 of that paper simply to corroborate the history presented.&nbsp; That history being that Birkeland and Poincare, over 100 years ago, were modelling particle trajectories using the monopole concept.&nbsp; Personally, I could care less how the author of the paper interprets monoples as a particle... that wasn't the reason I posted it.&nbsp; I was hoping that if you saw Birkeland's name in the same paragraph along with the word 'monopole', something might click that they are not talking about particles, but alas... apparently not. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/lepton.html</DIV></p><p>I'm aware of what a lepton is, thanks.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The other interesting point I'd make here is that during another thread I asked another individual how subatomic particles might be composed of "pairs and spares of electrons and positrons", at which time you handed me collider experiments that showed that there may in fact be merit to this sort of concept. &nbsp; If that is so, then all the subatomic wold might be composed of moving leptons.&nbsp; This is simply kinetic energy of charged particles in motion at that point.</DIV></p><p>None of this makes any sense.&nbsp; I'm not sure how you are corelating experiments at the LEP with haveing merit to whatever concept you are referring to.&nbsp; What concept are you referring to?&nbsp; And your notion that all the subatomic world might be composed of moving leptos is ridiculous.&nbsp; We couldn't exist without fermions and bosons. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are no such things as "magnetic monopoles".&nbsp; They do not exist in nature.</DIV></p><p>Did you write a software programs that recognizes key words and phrases that offers trained responses?&nbsp; I'll bet if I started a thread about monopole antennae, I would get the same response.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand why Priest invoked them since he needed a magnetic side kick to do the kinetic energy transfer process due to the fact that he specifically *excluded* the electric field.&nbsp; IMO it was a highly confusing and rather misleading concept of the real "physics" going on inside the plasma.</DIV></p><p>No, you don't understand since you still think he is talking about particles.&nbsp; I give up on the monopole issue.&nbsp; Think what you want.&nbsp; Despite handing you this information on a platter, you still don't get the concept and apparently are incapable of it.&nbsp; Whether that is through a personal choice or it is inherent in your nature, I don't know. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven deals with the phsical processes associated with double layer transfers of energy.&nbsp; He names Parker and proceeds to discuss a more "fundamental" method to begin to understand these "reconnection" events involving moving charged particles.&nbsp; He switches to a particle perspective and a circuit orientation, and makes it clear that the whole "circuit" energy has to be accounted for in such interactions.What I find most interesting is that you aren't on my side of this naming dabate thing.&nbsp; In other words I would expect that you of all people would be able to see the direct correlation here between Priests "lepton" reconnection, process and Alfven's "particle/electron" reconnection process.&nbsp; These are fundamentally the same idea.&nbsp; Why aren't you noting that they are the same ideas?IMO that is due to the fact that astronomers have chosen a very poor name for what is otherwise a very easy to understand process.&nbsp; No magentic lines "reconnect", just charged particles and larger circuits.&nbsp;&nbsp; The fact you aren't on my side of this circuit reconnection/magnetic reconnection debate shows just how confusing that label is.&nbsp; You of all people should be able to see this, but evidently you don't.&nbsp; It's fascinating from my perspective, but also quite sad IMO.&nbsp; We should be "communicating" on this point, but we are not.&nbsp; FYI, I'm not actually "condemning" Priest, I'm just sticking with Alfven' explanation since it's a more "fundamental" way of looking at this "lepton reconnection" process. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>What does any of this have to do with the monopole issue?&nbsp; What the heck is "lepton" reconnection and why would I, "of all people" see the direct correlation?&nbsp; I've never heard of "lepton" reconnection.&nbsp; The only correlation is see is that lepton=electron=particle.&nbsp; What ever has led you to believe that I should be on your side?&nbsp; The only thing I have said that might lead you to that conclusion was a statement I made quite some time ago.&nbsp; </p><p>It was something to the effect that I read somewheere that you could mathematically solve for the electric field in magnetic reconnection. IIRC I believe the conclusion was that this method is overly complicated, time consuming and, ultimately, unnecessary as the end result is the same.&nbsp; The end result being that the topology of the magnetic field changes in such a way that particle acceleration occurs.&nbsp; It may have been a statement by Tusenfem, but don't quote me on that.<br /> </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As you wish.&nbsp; I see you have still yet to provide any evidence that the sun is being powered by anything but internal fusion.</DIV></p><p>You mean except for those million degree coronal loops, the acceleration of the solar wind and the "jets" that Bireland's model predicted which blow off into space?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll go ahead and drop the request as I am confident that you can not.</DIV></p><p>I'm confident you're not going to explain those gamma rays and neutron caputure signatures in the solar corona too,&nbsp; A simple discharge in plasma is the obvious choice since that's what produces gamma rays and neutron capture processes here on Earth. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I specifically directed you to section 3 of that paper simply to corroborate the history presented.&nbsp; That history being that Birkeland and Poincare, over 100 years ago, were modelling particle trajectories using the monopole concept.&nbsp; Personally, I could care less how the author of the paper interprets monoples as a particle... that wasn't the reason I posted it.&nbsp; I was hoping that if you saw Birkeland's name in the same paragraph along with the word 'monopole', something might click that they are not talking about particles, but alas... apparently not. I'm aware of what a lepton is, thanks.</DIV></p><p>Hoy!&nbsp; This conversation is bizarre.&nbsp; You don't care that Alfven took a "particle" viewpoint as it ralates to these 'reconnection" events between charged particles.&nbsp; You don't care the paper's "monopole" is an 'electron".&nbsp; You don't seem to care that magnetic fields never disconnect or reconnect.&nbsp; You don't seem to care that Guth supposedly "solved" your missing monopole problem with inflation.&nbsp; About all you seem to care about here is not admitting to the fact that electical circuits are "reconnecting" in these magnetic reconnection models.</p><p>Alfven specifically and explicitly addressed Parker's brand of reconnection, and he explained it in terms of "ciruits' composed of moving charged particles. &nbsp; Birn's paper begins with two "magnetic lines" composed of flowing charged particles in two different "circuits'. &nbsp; The current flows determine the boundaries of both circuits.&nbsp; When they come into close proximity they might "reconnect", but it's not the "magnetic lines' that reconnect, just the particles and the two circuits.</p><p>You don't seem to want to address those neutron capture signates in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; You don't really care to explain solar wind acceleration.&nbsp; You don't really care to address any of the other key "predictions' of Birkeland's model. &nbsp; Where do we go from here?</p><p>I've done everything I can think of to demonstrate this connection for you.&nbsp; I've shown you Alfven's work where he equates Parkers reconnection theory with "circuits" and "particles".&nbsp; I've emailed Birn for clerification.&nbsp; I've done the right things here, by the book.&nbsp; Birkeland's experiments are *empirical* in nature.&nbsp; They "predicted" a whole host of observations we can observe in satellite images today.&nbsp;&nbsp; How can you possibly not see the connection between Birkeland's circuit reconnection experiments and all the high energy discharge processes we observe in the solar atmosphere?&nbsp; Bruce certainly saw the connection.&nbsp; Alfven explained it mathematically.&nbsp; The satellite images demonstrate conclusively that Birkeland's predictions have scientific merit. &nbsp;&nbsp; What's left to chance here? </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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A%20Three%20Ring%20Circuit%20Model%20OfThe%20Magnetosphere.pdfIn that paper he mentions Parker by name and then proceeds to describe a more "fundamental" approach to this "reconnection" process and uses a circuit analogy.&nbsp; If there is something specficially unique to Birn's brand of "reconnection" that invalidates Alfven's arguement, please explain.It's clear that he did recognize that some forms of energy exchanges refered to as "magnetic reconnection' were essentially correct mathematically, but the name (and concept) "magnetic reconnection" was misleading.&nbsp; That's pretty much how I see it too.&nbsp; He mentioned someone named Hill in the particular quote I'm thinking of, but it seems to apply to Parker's definition as well.&nbsp; The problem however is that while he saw these as being "circuit" reconnection type events, as do I, you do not seem to see things that way.&nbsp; I was hoping Birn might shed some additional light on this topic, but alas that doesn't seem to be an option.&nbsp; There isn't really more than I can do here than I have done.&nbsp; I've demonstrated the Sweet-Parker's definition of "magnetic reconnection" has been "translated" to a particle/circuit perspective, and I've emailed Birn to see if he agreed that they are one and the same concept.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't see anything fundamentally unique about Birn's approach They are still all "reconnection" events between two "circuits" as Alfven defined them.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether it's a fast or slow reconnection process is pretty much irrelevant.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are still two "circuits" in Alfven's lingo and the "particles" are still the things that do the reconnecting. They all require *current flow* inside the magnetic lines/circuits.Yes, which is why that particular name is ridiculous IMO.&nbsp; That's why we can't seem to agree on terms here and the silly name creates much bigger communication problems.&nbsp; We shouldn't even be having this discussion.&nbsp; It should have been called "circuit reconnection" from the start and then it would be congruent with Alfven's version of MHD theory, electrical theory and particle physics theory, and we'd all be in total agreement.&nbsp; As it stands I can see the connection between circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection but the three of you refuse to believe me, even when Alfven explicity says so in the paper I provided you with.&nbsp; He takes a paticle approach to this "reconnection" event. Circuit reconnection adequately explains the "whole" process.&nbsp; You seemed to be fixated on some mechanical details, but the whole thing is powered by "circuits" composed of moving plasma.&nbsp; The reconnection rate and mass output of the reconnection process will be directly related the circuit energy. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;I went ahead and read the part of this paper you refer to.&nbsp; If you actually read the paragraph where he "mentions Parker by name", he isn't talking about reconnection:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The magnetic field lines are picturesquely thought of as being carried along with the plasma flow and draped around the magnetospheric cavity.&nbsp; This picture is intuitively appealing and appears to have been quite successful in explaining such things as the existence, shape, and position of the sunward magnetopause (e.g. Parker, 1969).</DIV></p><p>Nowhere does he mention reconnection.&nbsp; And I know this is the paragraph you are talking about because right after, they say something about there being a "more fundamental viewpoint needed."&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection is not related directly to the position of the magnetopause.&nbsp; The shape, existence, and position of the magnetopause have nothing to do with reconnection.&nbsp; Reconnection is mainly believed to occur near the magnetotail.&nbsp; Once again you saw certain buzzwords and twisted what they say, assuming noone will read the source.&nbsp; So yes, Parker's name was mentioned...but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I went ahead and read the part of this paper you refer to.&nbsp; If you actually read the paragraph where he "mentions Parker by name", he isn't talking about reconnection:Nowhere does he mention reconnection. </DIV></p><p>Here's a free link to the original paper by Parker that Alfven is refering to:</p><p>http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v007/i001/RG007i001p00003/RG007i001p00003.pdf </p><p>Here's what Parker says: </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Finally we come to the question of field line merging and the mutual annihilation of oppositely direected fields. The question is whether field annihilalion can be as stormy in space as some of The scientific debates to which it has lead on the surface of &bull;he earth. The possibility that oppositely directed magnetic fields might annihilate and mergea at a high rate when pressed together as first suggested by Dungey [1958, 1061]. The idea has since been developed and elaborated by a number of authors and applied to the solar flare as well as to the geomagnetic field.</p><p>In the conyext of the geomagnetic field, there is the possibility for merging when (a) the magnetic field in the solar wind pressed against the sunward magnetopause has a southward component; (b) the interplanetary field pressed against the geomagnetitc tail has a component directed either toward or away from the sun; and (c) there exists a component of the field across the neutral sheet between the two halves of the geomagnetic tail at any time.</p><p></DIV></p><p>Clearly Parker does mention and discuss mangnetic reconnection/merging theories in this paper and it explicitly talks about the same kind of "reconnection" mentioned in the original Themis paper that I took exception to in the Earth's magnetotail.&nbsp; These comments by Parker are *directly* related to my original criticisms of the Themis paper, and the topic of magnetic reconnection. </p><p>Alfven does go on to explain in his description of the Earth's magnetosphere a more "fundamental" approach that involves "circuits" and moving charged particles.&nbsp; These are one and the same ideas being discussed from two different perspectives.&nbsp; Parker is discussing magnetic merging from the "field" perspective, whereas Alfven is noting that these are 'circuits" and "particle" collisions.&nbsp; He does exactly the same thing for solar flares which are also being attributed to 'magnetic reconnection".</p>These papers are directly related and present two different viewpoints about the same processes that go on in the Earth's magnetosphere (and solar flares).&nbsp; They are one and the same idea being presented from two different perspectives, the field perspective in Parkers case, and the 'circuit" perspective in Alfven's case. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here's a free link to the original paper by Parker that Alfven is refering to:http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v007/i001/RG007i001p00003/RG007i001p00003.pdf Here's what Parker says: Clearly Parker does mention and discuss mangnetic reconnection/merging theories in this paper and it explicitly talks about the same kind of "reconnection" mentioned in the original Themis paper that I took exception to in the Earth's magnetotail.&nbsp; These comments by Parker are *directly* related to my original criticisms of the Themis paper, and the topic of magnetic reconnection. Alfven does go on to explain in his description of the Earth's magnetosphere a more "fundamental" approach that involves "circuits" and moving charged particles.&nbsp; There are one and the same ideas being discussed from two different perspetives.&nbsp; Parker is discussions magnetic merging from the "field" perspective, whereas Alfven is noting that these are 'circuits" and "particle" collisions.&nbsp; He does exactly the same thing for solar flares which are also being attributed to 'magnetic reconnection".These papers are directly related and present two different viewpoints about the same processes that go on in the Earth's magnetosphere (and solar flares).&nbsp; They are one and the same idea being presented from two different perspectives, the field perspective in Parkers case, and the 'circuit" perspective in Alfven's case. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are ignoring my point...the Whipple/Alfven paper is not referring to that part of the paper.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>