<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are ignoring my point...the Whipple/Alfven paper is not referring to that part of the paper. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Um, from my perspective, you're sort of ignoring my point. Alfven is addressing the whole paper. In his paper, he's describing a "fundamentially" different way to view these same magnetosphere activities, in terms of circuits rather than simply magnetic fields. Parker does mention his brand of magnetic reconnection in the paper Alfven cited, and Alfven does in fact take a "particle" approach involving "circuits" in the very same places that Parker is refering to magnetic fields. They are both papers written about manetosphere activities from two different perspectives, the 'field" orientation in Parker's case, and a more "fundamental" particle/circuit orientation by Alfven. How can you not see that both papers refer to the exact same magnetospheric activity? This is exactly the same type of magnetic merging being proposed by the Themis team. Birn also mentions the current flow in his "magnetic lines'. Nothing presented by Birn is substantively different than the 'circuits" that Alfven desribes in his more 'fundamental" apporach to this energy exchange.</p><p>The only way you could even build an experiment to 'test" Birn's theories is to start with two flowing "circuits" inside plasma. Birn's model requires them to be there in order for them to 'reconnect'. I honestly cannot understand how you cannot see the direct connection between Parker's defintions and Alfven's definition of these magnetospheric activities. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
I agree with UFmbutler. I read the Parker paper a couple days ago. I don't get the sense that Alfven and Whipple's paper is referencing magnetic reconnection. There's also a couple lines in the later paper where the authors claim their vision is not yet soluable and it is self-described as "somewhat adhoc". Not sure if I would want to focus on such a preliminary paper. Do you have accessible papers that are a bit more rigorous? Ones that have solutions and are not self-described as ad hoc?<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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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?</DIV></p><p>This comment has nothing to do with my original request for you to show that they are powered by an external source. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm confident you're not going to explain those gamma rays and neutron caputure signatures in the solar corona too, A simple discharge in plasma is the obvious choice since that's what produces gamma rays and neutron capture processes here on Earth. Hoy! This conversation is bizarre. You don't care that Alfven took a "particle" viewpoint as it ralates to these 'reconnection" events between charged particles. You don't care the paper's "monopole" is an 'electron". You don't seem to care that magnetic fields never disconnect or reconnect. You don't seem to care that Guth supposedly "solved" your missing monopole problem with inflation. About all you seem to care about here is not admitting to the fact that electical circuits are "reconnecting" in these magnetic reconnection models.Alfven specifically and explicitly addressed Parker's brand of reconnection, and he explained it in terms of "ciruits' composed of moving charged particles. Birn's paper begins with two "magnetic lines" composed of flowing charged particles in two different "circuits'. The current flows determine the boundaries of both circuits. 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.You don't seem to want to address those neutron capture signates in the solar atmosphere. You don't really care to explain solar wind acceleration. You don't really care to address any of the other key "predictions' of Birkeland's model. Where do we go from here?I've done everything I can think of to demonstrate this connection for you. I've shown you Alfven's work where he equates Parkers reconnection theory with "circuits" and "particles". I've emailed Birn for clerification. I've done the right things here, by the book. Birkeland's experiments are *empirical* in nature. They "predicted" a whole host of observations we can observe in satellite images today. 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? Bruce certainly saw the connection. Alfven explained it mathematically. The satellite images demonstrate conclusively that Birkeland's predictions have scientific merit. What's left to chance here? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is a total redirection and has absolutely nothing to do with what I was commenting on. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree with UFmbutler. </DIV></p><p>Why am I not surprised? 
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I read the Parker paper a couple days ago. I don't get the sense that Alfven and Whipple's paper is referencing magnetic reconnection.</DIV></p><p>They are describing a more "fundamental' way to explain these same magnetospheric events! Instead of criticizng Parker's approach they simply set out to define a more "fundamental" (particle/circuit) way of explaining these exact same energy transfer processes. It's a complete rewrite of Parker's presentation based on a "circuit" model. </p><p>One gets the impression that they have no particular beef with the math that Parker presents, they just prefer a "particle" and "circuit" orientation to explain these energy exchanges. That's the whole point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's also a couple lines in the later paper where the authors claim their vision is not yet soluable and it is self-described as "somewhat adhoc". Not sure if I would want to focus on such a preliminary paper. Do you have accessible papers that are a bit more rigorous? Ones that have solutions and are not self-described as ad hoc? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>You could try Cosmic Plasma. It does a much more rigorous job of presentng these same ideas. There's nothing "ad-hoc" about "circuit reconnection". It was emprically demonstrated to work as predicted over 100 years ago. When was that ever done for "magnetic reconnection", or is it ad-hoc in terms of a lack of emprical support?</p><p>As far as I can tell, the only way we could even begin to put together a physical experiment to 'test" Birn's presentation of magnetic reconnection is to create two circuits in plasma. Birn specifically notes that charged particles are traversing the "magnetic line", so the only translation here is "magnetic line" to "circuit" and Birkeland's experiments justify either "circuit reconnection" or "magnetic reconnection" as Birn defines it. They are one and the same process folks. The difference is that the label "circuit reconnection" is scientifically congruent with Maxwell's equations which don't allow for magnetic lines to reconnect, it's also congruent with MHD theory as Alfven proposed it, and it's congruent with particle physics. </p><p>Everywhere where Parker used a "field", Alfven used a "circuit". Coincidence? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I read the Parker paper a couple days ago. I don't get the sense that Alfven and Whipple's paper is referencing magnetic reconnection.</DIV></p><p>They are describing a more "fundamental' way to explain these same magnetospheric events! Instead of criticizng Parker's approach they simply set out to define a more "fundamental" (particle/circuit) way of explaining these exact same energy transfer processes. It's a complete rewrite of Parker's presentation based on a "circuit" model. </p><p>One gets the impression that they have no particular beef with the math that Parker presents, they just prefer a "particle" and "circuit" orientation to explain these energy exchanges. That's the whole point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's also a couple lines in the later paper where the authors claim their vision is not yet soluable and it is self-described as "somewhat adhoc". Not sure if I would want to focus on such a preliminary paper. Do you have accessible papers that are a bit more rigorous? Ones that have solutions and are not self-described as ad hoc? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>You could try Cosmic Plasma. It does a much more rigorous job of presentng these same ideas. There's nothing "ad-hoc" about "circuit reconnection". It was emprically demonstrated to work as predicted over 100 years ago. When was that ever done for "magnetic reconnection", or is it ad-hoc in terms of a lack of emprical support?</p><p>As far as I can tell, the only way we could even begin to put together a physical experiment to 'test" Birn's presentation of magnetic reconnection is to create two circuits in plasma. Birn specifically notes that charged particles are traversing the "magnetic line", so the only translation here is "magnetic line" to "circuit" and Birkeland's experiments justify either "circuit reconnection" or "magnetic reconnection" as Birn defines it. They are one and the same process folks. The difference is that the label "circuit reconnection" is scientifically congruent with Maxwell's equations which don't allow for magnetic lines to reconnect, it's also congruent with MHD theory as Alfven proposed it, and it's congruent with particle physics. </p><p>Everywhere where Parker used a "field", Alfven used a "circuit". Coincidence? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p>IMO Yevaud was absolutely correct that this can be seen as simply a disagreement about semantics *provided* that two individuals first *agree* that they are one and the same idea. There is however a gigantic scientific confusion being created by the term "magnetic reconnection" which is evidenced by the fact that we cannot agree that they are the same process.</p><p>IMO Yevaud accurately assesed the situation, but drastically underestimated the confusion that is caused by this poor choice of terms. We all agree that magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect, so there is no logical or rational reason to call this process ""magnetic reconnection". The reconnection takes place at a more "fundamental" (than field) level, it takes place at the level of particle physics. It's simply a kinetic energy transfer process between two circuits of flowing plasma. Birkeland demonstrates that the basic concept has merit.</p><p>Likewise, our continued disagreement on this topic demonstrates that there is a huge problem created by the term 'magnetic reconnection". Magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect. Only particles and electrical circuits do disconnect and reconnect. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO Yevaud was absolutely correct that this can be seen as simply a disagreement about semantics *provided* that two individuals first *agree* that they are one and the same idea. There is however a gigantic scientific confusion being created by the term "magnetic reconnection" which is evidenced by the fact that we cannot agree that they are the same process.IMO Yevaud accurately assesed the situation, but drastically underestimated the confusion that is caused by this poor choice of terms. We all agree that magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect, so there is no logical or rational reason to call this process ""magnetic reconnection". The reconnection takes place at a more "fundamental" (than field) level, it takes place at the level of particle physics. It's simply a kinetic energy transfer process between two circuits of flowing plasma. Birkeland demonstrates that the basic concept has merit.Likewise, our continued disagreement on this topic demonstrates that there is a huge problem created by the term 'magnetic reconnection". Magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect. Only particles and electrical circuits do disconnect and reconnect. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are clearly scrambling here. Your argument style is incredibly predictable...faced with the prospect of being wrong, you try to spin it as the other side being unreasonable. The Whippel/Alfven paper does reference the Parker paper. They DO NOT address the entire paper. Go back and read where they actually referenced it, the thing I quoted. Notice anything about reconnection? I don't. We aren't agreeing magnetic=circuit reconnection because nobody, not you, not Alfven, not Whipple, has shown that this is the case except under certain very specific conditions. Please stop repeating your tired, and more importantly debunked, arguments in the attempt to hide the questions you can't answer. This is supposed to be a learning forum...I've certainly learned a lot in this thread through my own research...it seems as though you have learned nothing. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are clearly scrambling here. Your argument style is incredibly predictable...faced with the prospect of being wrong, you try to spin it as the other side being unreasonable. </DIV></p><p>Er, wrong about what? IMO you are being unreasonable. I've shown you side by side comparisons of magnetosphere activity defined in both the field and particle perspective. I've personally emialed Birn on this topic. What more can I possibly do?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Whippel/Alfven paper does reference the Parker paper. They DO NOT address the entire paper.</DIV></p><p>The Whippel/Alfven paper is specfically written on exactly the same topic as Parker, and uses the 'circuit" analogy! It does address the whole concept of what makes a magnetosphere tick.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Go back and read where they actually referenced it, the thing I quoted. Notice anything about reconnection? </DIV></p><p>Parker's paper certainly mentions reconnection. Both papers are on the exact same topic, the energy exchanges in the magnetosphere. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't.</DIV></p><p>You evidently don't want to. Parker certainly mentions reconnection in the paper Alfven cited. Alfven certainly takes a "circuit" oriented approach to the same exact processes that Parker describes from a 'field" orientation. I can cite you numerous quotes where Alfven discusses the topic of "magnetic reconnection" directly and he isn't kind about it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We aren't agreeing magnetic=circuit reconnection because nobody, not you, not Alfven, not Whipple, has shown that this is the case except under certain very specific conditions.</DIV></p><p>You haven't shown them to be different in *any* specific conditions! Why should I have to prove anything that Birkeland has already demonstrated? The same conditions you're claiming that reconnection happens to occur are the exact same scenarios that Birkeland's experiments tie back to "circuit reconnection", including coronal loops, surface discharges, jets, and aurora. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Please stop repeating your tired, and more importantly debunked, arguments in the attempt to hide the questions you can't answer.</DIV></p><p>Huh? I can and have answered all the questions put to me. I can't make you connect the dots here, but only one of our two ideas has actually been lab tested, and it's not magnetic reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is supposed to be a learning forum...I've certainly learned a lot in this thread through my own research...it seems as though you have learned nothing. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Actually that's not the case. I've learned quite a lot from this thread. One thing I've certainly learned is that all forms of magnetic reconnection involve "current flows" inside the two "magnetic lines". I've learned that old ideas die hard, even when the Nobel prize winning authors of that theory in question have spent considerable effort attempting to dubunk the idea. Like Alfven explained, not a single magnetic line is disconnected or reconnected. The only things that reconnect in plasma are charged particles and circuits. I've also learned that not every form of "magnetic reconnection" violates the laws of physics. Some of them simply describe current sheet transfers of energy from a field orientation. I've learned for certain that Alfven's explanation of these events is superior to even modern variations of this theory for exactly the reasons he specifies. I've also learned that not all authors of papers are forthcoming with answers to important questions. I've definitely learned a lot in this thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Whippel/Alfven paper is specfically written on exactly the same topic as Parker, and uses the 'circuit" analogy! It does address the whole concept of what makes a magnetosphere tick.</DIV></p><p>Repeating this over and over won't make it true. They both deal with the magnetosphere, and both may mention reconnection, however I've shown you that the paragraph you keep mentioning has nothing AT ALL to do with reconnection. Most people assume reconnection takes place primarily in the magnetotail...the paragraph you keep mentioning refers to the structure of the magnetopause. Surely you cannot believe that magnetic reconnection(or, circuit reconnection as you'd say) is not the only thing that makes a magnetosphere "tick". I am certainly not being unreasonable...I read your supposedly damning evidence of magnetic reconnection and saw an enormous hole...that being that the statement where the author says they are taking a "more fundamental approach" has little to nothing to do with reconnection...as I said, it deals with the structure of the magnetosphere(specifically, the magnetopause...go back and read it, please...you are making me wonder if you even understand what a magnetopause or a magnetotail are). Nothing in that part say anything whatsoever about particle acceleration or magnetic reconnection. Just because a paper references another paper does not mean they are referring to the entire paper. It is much much more often the case that they are just referring to as little as a single line in the paper, or a single figure. </p><p>This argument is futile. You will keep hurling the same arguments(verbatim) from atop your tower of copies of Cosmic Plasma, and we will keep knocking it down...the problem here is you will never take anything we say seriously. You will never agree that EU theory is incorrect, no matter how much evidence is thrown at you. Why do you even bother trying to convert people when you base your arguments on misinterpretations, or even outright lies(saying the Whippel paper says one thing when I showed you that it doesn't say that at all, for example)? Any true student of science will see through it all. I think it's clear to everyone else who has made a more convincing argument. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Repeating this over and over won't make it true. They both deal with the magnetosphere, and both may mention reconnection, however I've shown you that the paragraph you keep mentioning has nothing AT ALL to do with reconnection. </DIV></p><p>Have you heard the expression that one can't see the forest for all the trees? These are two entire *papers* on the same topic written from the perspective of both the particle and field perspectives. Why are you intentionally limiting either paper to a single sentence or paragraph?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Most people assume reconnection takes place primarily in the magnetotail...the paragraph you keep mentioning refers to the structure of the magnetopause. Surely you cannot believe that magnetic reconnection(or, circuit reconnection as you'd say) is not the only thing that makes a magnetosphere "tick".</DIV></p><p>I'm suggesting that both viewpoints are desribing the same events, one from a field orientation, and one from a more 'fundamental" particle physics perspective. At the fundamental level of particle physics, it is the charged particles that do the exchanges of kinetic energy. At the fundamental overview level, it is the ciruits which provide the necessary mass and energy to generate these kinetic energy echanges at the point of 'reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I am certainly not being unreasonable...I read your supposedly damning evidence of magnetic reconnection and saw an enormous hole...that being that the statement where the author says they are taking a "more fundamental approach" has little to nothing to do with reconnection...as I said, </DIV></p><p>I think you are being unreasonable by not taking a wider angle shot at this. Both of these papers are expressly related to auroral activity. One uses a field orientation (B orientation), whereas the other paper uses a particle/circuit (E) field orientation. Both of these are mathematically correct presentations. Both of them describe the same thing from two different perspectives. They are one and the same concepts. I've acknowledge the mathematical validity of Parker's work and Birn's work, whereas you seem unable and unwilling to accept that Alfven's viewpoint is equally valid and equally scientifically supported, even though Birkeland emprically supported Alfven's views.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>it deals with the structure of the magnetosphere(specifically, the magnetopause...go back and read it, please...you are making me wonder if you even understand what a magnetopause or a magnetotail are).</DIV></p><p>They are part of the same system of interlaced and interwoven "circuits" according to Alfven. IMO if you were being reasonable, you would see that and accept that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nothing in that part say anything whatsoever about particle acceleration or magnetic reconnection. </DIV></p><p>How about the rest of the parts? You're looking at only one tree in a whole forest of trees. Why?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just because a paper references another paper does not mean they are referring to the entire paper.</DIV></p><p>They are both addressing the "causes' of auroral activity, the thing you claim is related to 'magnetic reconnection' and that Alfven suggested were powered by "circuits".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is much much more often the case that they are just referring to as little as a single line in the paper, or a single figure. </DIV></p><p>But in this case that isn't the case. Alfven's paper explains these auroral events in terms of "circuits", whereas Parker is explicity trying to gain energy and power the aurora via "magnetic reconnection". They are one and the same idea presented in two specific ways, the field perspective and the particle perspective. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This argument is futile. You will keep hurling the same arguments(verbatim) from atop your tower of copies of Cosmic Plasma, and we will keep knocking it down.</DIV></p><p>But I didn't limit my arguments to one book now did I? It's only a difficult conversation because you won't make the obvious connection. There is a direct (circuit) connection between the coronal loops, auroras and "jets" and what Birn is descrbing as "magnetic reconnection'. All these models are predicated on the movement and flow of charged particles through plasma, where plasma is being constrained by the magnetic field into flowing "lines" of plasma. If you were being reasonable IMO, you would accept that they are all one and the same idea being presented from two different viewpoints (B and E). Birkeland's emprical experiments demonstrate that circuit reconnection works. I don't see why you can't see the connection then between Birn's approach and Alfven's approach. They are based on the same concepts.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.the problem here is you will never take anything we say seriously. </DIV></p><p>I've taken it seriously enough to read through at least a hafl dozen papers now on this topic. I can't even seem to get you to read and focus on a more than a single sentence of a single paper.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will never agree that EU theory is incorrect, no matter how much evidence is thrown at you. </DIV></p><p>What exactly is "incorrect" in your opinion, and what 'evidence' are you talking about?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why do you even bother trying to convert people when you base your arguments on misinterpretations, or even outright lies(saying the Whippel paper says one thing when I showed you that it doesn't say that at all, for example)? </DIV></p><p>I think you're letting your emotions get the better of you. I've not 'lied' about anything, certainly never intentially. If and when you get around to reading and dealing with *the rest* of both of these papers, you let me know. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Any true student of science will see through it all. </DIV></p><p>Any true student of science knows the value of real emprical experimentation like Birkeland performed with spheres in a plasma vacuum. I'm very confident that the true students of science will see the value of his experiments over time.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it's clear to everyone else who has made a more convincing argument. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>What argument have you actually made here? I haven't really seen you make any sort of actual arguement in the final analysis. You seem to refuse to address the key issues here (like what actually powers the aurora) and you keep sort of handwaving away the emprical value of Birkeland's work. You don't have any real emprical test of magnetic reconnection. Even the Princeton work *assumed* that the electric field remain constant *while in the middle of z-pinch process* no less. That whole z-pinch process requires *lots* of "current flow" and plenty of "circuits" to make it work, I assure you. </p><p>I've seen nothing even remotely like an emprical test of the magnetic reconnection concept that comes anywhere close to the calibur and scientifc excellence of Birkeland's work with spheres in a vacuum. How am I supposed to be "convinced' by an argument that doesn't even exist and has no empirical support? </p><p>What exactly *is different* between Birkeland's circuit reconnection experiments and Parker or Birn's concept of "magnetic reconnection"? Be specific. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you heard the expression that one can't see the forest for all the trees? These are two entire *papers* on the same topic written from the perspective of both the particle and field perspectives. Why are you intentionally limiting either paper to a single sentence or paragraph?</DIV></p><p>This is rich coming from you. Seriously, have you seen the way you respond to posts? I referred to it because that is the onyl thing you referred to UNTIL I told you that that sequence of sentences didn't say what you said it did. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm suggesting that both viewpoints are desribing the same events, one from a field orientation, and one from a more 'fundamental" particle physics perspective. At the fundamental level of particle physics, it is the charged particles that do the exchanges of kinetic energy. At the fundamental overview level, it is the ciruits which provide the necessary mass and energy to generate these kinetic energy echanges at the point of 'reconnection".</DIV></p><p>Particles may be more fundamental, but you can't just ignore the fields. This is what you are doing. You can't base a theory entirely on ONLY fundamentals. You need more advanced analysis to build upon these fundamentals. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you are being unreasonable by not taking a wider angle shot at this. Both of these papers are expressly related to auroral activity. One uses a field orientation (B orientation), whereas the other paper uses a particle/circuit (E) field orientation. </DIV></p><p>Not taking the fact that these are very old papers into consideration, you are extremely oversimplifying everything. The paragraph YOU referred to as the basis of your argument these last few pages deals ONLY with the structure of the magnetopause. Go back and read it. Seriously. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both of these are mathematically correct presentations. Both of them describe the same thing from two different perspectives. They are one and the same concepts.</DIV></p><p>You've gone from a respectable standpoint of trying to prove this to be correct to just making unfounded claims. Show us this math you speak of. We've shown you a set of two rigorous set of papers(Schindler, Hesse, Birn and Hesse, Schindler) that show you "our" math. Where is your backup? The foundation? Alfven did lay the foundation of MHD theory, but where is the foundation of SPECIFICALLY reconnection that you claim he has? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've acknowledge the mathematical validity of Parker's work and Birn's work, whereas you seem unable and unwilling to accept that Alfven's viewpoint is equally valid and equally scientifically supported, even though Birkeland emprically supported Alfven's views.</DIV></p><p>Alfven's viewpoints on many things were certainly valid...he won the Nobel Prize as you continue to remind us. However, you have not shown that his work actually says what you say it does. If it's in Cosmic Plasma, scan the pages and show us. We didn't require you to go out and purchase a 150 dollar book to participate in the argument. If you have the book and a scanner, this isn't too much to ask. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO if you were being reasonable, you would see that and accept that.How about the rest of the parts? You're looking at only one tree in a whole forest of trees. Why?</DIV></p><p>How so? I've looked at every "brand" as you put it of reconnection. I've looked at mathematical models(and understood) of the specific reconnection processes that allow for particle acceleration(Fermi acceleration). You, on the other hand, claim to understand reconnection papers but claim they are saying things that demonstrate that you didn't glean anything from them. You even STILL keep talking about the fact that magnetic field lines don't disconnect and reconnect. If you truly understood reconnection you would not feel the need to make such assertions. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But I didn't limit my arguments to one book now did I?</DIV></p><p>Then why do you only consider someone to have studied "EU "theory"" if they've read Cosmic Plasma? Myself, DrRocket, and I believe derek have read through Alfven's papers...DrRocket read through another one of Alfven's book. But you brush these off as not good enough. So yes, I believe you do limit your arguments to one book, and one experiment. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> All these models are predicated on the movement and flow of charged particles through plasma, where plasma is being constrained by the magnetic field into flowing "lines" of plasma. </DIV></p><p>Nobody has ever denied that current isn't flowing. Not you, not me, not derek, not DrRocket. Current flow does not mean the system can be described adequately with circuit theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you were being reasonable IMO, you would accept that they are all one and the same idea being presented from two different viewpoints (B and E). </DIV></p><p>It's easy for you to say that. But you would never agree with someone just because they say it is the reasonable thing to do...you'd require that they show you WHY it is reasonable. You have done nothing but convince me it is even more unreasonable. I tried talking to an old friend from MIT about this and he just laughed it off and said "why are you wasting your time talking to fools"...I tried not to be so dismissive and here we are. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland's emprical experiments demonstrate that circuit reconnection works.</DIV></p><p>That does not mean that is what is happening in the magnetosphere. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't see why you can't see the connection then between Birn's approach and Alfven's approach.</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Because I am only swayed by real science. Simulations, observations, data...you know, what modern science is based upon. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've taken it seriously enough to read through at least a hafl dozen papers now on this topic. I can't even seem to get you to read and focus on a more than a single sentence of a single paper.</DIV></p><p>First, I'd argue that you didn't read them at all. It is clear you didn't understand them even if you did read them. If you had understood them you wouldn't feel the need to change everything. </p><p>Again, this is extremely funny coming from you. You are the king of focusing on a single sentence and basing your entire argument upon that sentence. This is the reason I focused on that one sentence...because it is that same sentence you based your entire argument on in the past few pages. If you don't believe me, go back and read your own words. You continually referred to where he "mentioned Parker by name" and then in the next paragraph "proposes a more fundamental approach". This sequence of events ONLY happens in that paragraph, where they discuss the structure of the magnetopause, NOT magnetic reconnection. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What exactly is "incorrect" in your opinion, and what 'evidence' are you talking about?</DIV></p><p>The incorrectness lies in the assertion that circuit reconnection is an adequate replacement for magnetic reconnection. If you want to know what evidence I'm talking about, go back and read the thread since I joined the conversation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If and when you get around to reading and dealing with *the rest* of both of these papers, you let me know. </DIV></p><p>I did read it. It does nothing to support your argument. Both have valid points, but they certainly do not say what you say they do. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Any true student of science knows the value of real emprical experimentation like Birkeland performed with spheres in a plasma vacuum. </DIV></p><p>Science is getting to the point where many things are not empirically demonstrable. Try creating a neutron star, a black hole, or even just a star, in the lab and get back to me. Some systems are too complex to create with our technology. The only way we can study them is through observation and simulation. This is not mythos. This is not magic. This is what science has become. Empirical science will always reign supreme, but it is often quite limited in its application. Birkeland's experiments are fine, but you are wildly twisting his experiments into saying something they don't. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't have any real emprical test of magnetic reconnection. Even the Princeton work *assumed* that the electric field remain constant *while in the middle of z-pinch process* no less.</DIV></p><p>NO THEY DIDN'T. We told you this many times. Read the damn paper. It says they assume a constant current density. Regardless, their assumptions don't influence the outcome of the experiment. The experiment is what it is. If they assumed that unicorns are real, the end result would've still been the same. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That whole z-pinch process requires *lots* of "current flow" and plenty of "circuits" to make it work, I assure you. I've seen nothing even remotely like an emprical test of the magnetic reconnection concept that comes anywhere close to the calibur and scientifc excellence of Birkeland's work with spheres in a vacuum. How am I supposed to be "convinced' by an argument that doesn't even exist and has no empirical support? What exactly *is different* between Birkeland's circuit reconnection experiments and Parker or Birn's concept of "magnetic reconnection"? Be specific. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Stop lumping Parker's 40 year old definition of reconnection in with Birn's. Of course Birn drew from Parker's theories, but his theories are quite different if you actually read and understand them. </p><p>If you've read the papers and understood them, I don't need to be specific. They are specific enough, trust me. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After reading Arxiv.org for several years, and after participating on these astronomy oriented websites for the past few years, I've noticed a repeating pattern. Fortunately that pattern is not universal, and it does not apply to this particular message board IMO. I am therefore curious if the moderators (and everyone else for that matter) have noticed a similar problem in astronomy as a whole?The only nearly "forbidden" topic of astronomy turns out not to be it's spiritual implications, but rather it seems that the only truly forbidden topic of astronomy is "electricity". That pattern is certainly true in the publishing realm, where ideas like "black holes" (which Einstein did not believe existed) and "magnetic reconnection" (which Alfven blatently claimed was false) are published nearly every week. What is not published often if ever is anything related to electrical interactions between bodies in space. Where this glaring issue stick out like a sore thumb is the million degree corona. It's perfectly acceptable to discuss concepts like magnetic reconnection, even though Alfven himself claimed this was an electrical interaction, not a "magnetic' one. The "simplist" way to create million degree plasma is to run current through it. Los Alamos has recorded temperatures reaching into the "billions" (yes billions) of degrees Kelvin using this technique. Why then isn't anyone able to get an EM explanation published in the mainstream publications?This pattern actually plays out at many of the astronomy oriented websites. Websites like BAUT actually apply completely different (highly oppressive) rules on anything related to the topic of electricty flow in plasma. Why is the mainstream so reluctant to embrace "explanations" that are based on the flow of electrons through plasma, when plasma is known to the most effiencient state of matter for conducting electrical current? I don't get it. I do however see that there is a overwhemling bias against anything that mentions electrical energy as an energy source in astronomy related publications. That much is quite obvious. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Let us explore the possibility of fields. Each field gives us a new FRONTIER. I miss Turquoise.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cry.gif" border="0" alt="Cry" title="Cry" /> Used to be open to the travelers, now...? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I don't get it. I do however see that there is a overwhemling bias against anything that mentions electrical energy as an energy source in astronomy related publications. That much is quite obvious. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Let us explore the possibility of fields. Each field gives us a new FRONTIER. I miss Turquoise.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cry.gif" border="0" alt="Cry" title="Cry" /> Used to be open to the travelers, now...? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>I think I'm done with this conversation. It is leading nowhere. I've read a few of Michael's other threads in other forums and they are all patterned the same way. Unless you have something new to add, I have nothing left to say. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is rich coming from you. Seriously, have you seen the way you respond to posts? I referred to it because that is the onyl thing you referred to UNTIL I told you that that sequence of sentences didn't say what you said it did.</DIV></p><p>You keep missing the *point*. The whole paper is attempting to explain the same auroral activity in terms of "circuts' and particle flow! You're ignoring the whole intent of both papers, and fixating on a single sentence!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Particles may be more fundamental, but you can't just ignore the fields. This is what you are doing. </DIV></p><p>No, I'm not ignoring the field orientation, I'm suggesting that both of these mathematical model are describing the same process. You're the one *ignoring* the particle side of this process. At the fundamental level of particle physics the particles and circuits actually do the "reconnecting", not the magnetic fields, The magnetic topology changes as a direct result of these current flow reorientations.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can't base a theory entirely on ONLY fundamentals. </DIV></p><p>You have to base a theory on know phyiscs. It is "known' that magnetic lines do not "reconnect" and that particles and circuits do reconnect. The math works either way. The only 'issue" I have is what it's called. You're the one suggesting that one way of looking it is viable, while the other one is not. Why?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You need more advanced analysis to build upon these fundamentals. </DIV></p><p>Birkeland has already preformed "advanced emprical analysis" on these ideas. Each and every location where Birkeland's model created high energy discharges is now being associated with what you are calling "magnetic reconnection'. Coincidence? When was advanced lab analysis applied to "magnetic reconnection'" with spheres in a plasma vacuum?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not taking the fact that these are very old papers into consideration, you are extremely oversimplifying everything. The paragraph YOU referred to as the basis of your argument these last few pages deals ONLY with the structure of the magnetopause. Go back and read it. Seriously. You've gone from a respectable standpoint of trying to prove this to be correct to just making unfounded claims. </DIV></p><p>What unfounded claims? The only 'unfounded claim" is your idea that magnetic reconnection and circuit reconnection are not one and the same process. The rest of this stuff is trivial nonsense related to your nitpicking. You seem to ignore the whole intent of both papers and how they both relate to auroral activity and Birkeland's emprical experiments. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Show us this math you speak of. </DIV></p><p>I just did and you ignored it. Why? What's wrong with Alfven's presentation of magnetospheric activity?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We've shown you a set of two rigorous set of papers(Schindler, Hesse, Birn and Hesse, Schindler) that show you "our" math. </DIV></p><p>"Your math" is exactly based on exactly the 'same math' that Alfven already addressed in his magentosphere and coronal loop discharge papers. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where is your backup?</DIV></p><p>Besides Alfven, Bruce and Birkeland?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The foundation? </DIV></p><p>You mean like those emprical test done on 'circuit reconnection' in Birkeland's lab?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven did lay the foundation of MHD theory, but where is the foundation of SPECIFICALLY reconnection that you claim he has? </DIV></p><p>Both of the two papers I cited address the energy exchange processes of the same things you claim are related to 'magnetic reconnection'. He explained coronal loops as "discharges" through plasma and in terms of 'circuits". He explained auroral activity as the results of connecting "circuits' of energy. What more would you like me to do? These are the very same events you are associating with "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Alfven's viewpoints on many things were certainly valid...he won the Nobel Prize as you continue to remind us. However, you have not shown that his work actually says what you say it does. If it's in Cosmic Plasma, scan the pages and show us.</DIV></p><p>I did you better than that. I provided you with two specific papers on the very topics now being associated with 'magnetic reconnection' that specifically relate these activities to "circuits". These papers were written not by lil' ol me, but the guy that actually won the Nobel Prize on MHD theory. You're sort of handwaving away at them as though they are not directly realated to what you are calling 'megnetic reconnection", even though he mentioned Parker's presentations by name and by paper, and that paper invokes "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We didn't require you to go out and purchase a 150 dollar book to participate in the argument. </DIV></p><p>Nor did I make you purchase anything. I will however insist you actually respond to the two paper I provided and note that they deal with the same topics being attributed to 'magnetic reconnection', namely coronal loops and aruroal activity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you have the book and a scanner, this isn't too much to ask. </DIV></p><p>It's not too much to ask to ask you to read Birkeland's emprical experiments with spheres in a vacuum. I've provided links to his publicly available materials in this thread on numerous occuasions.</p><p>I'm going to skip all the redundant stuff. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It says they assume a constant current density.</DIV></p><p>But it's in the middle of a z-pinch process! That's a rediculously foolish assumption! How in the world do they get that idea when the filament itself is being "pinched"" into a smaller diameter during the process? That's not a valid assumption! I'm sure it was a "convenient" assumption if you're trying to chalk everything up to "magnetic reconnection", but without current flows and "circuits" that whole experiment wont' even function! It's a z-pinch process they are describing and there is no way on Earth that the current density is constant while the filament is changing shape!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Regardless, their assumptions don't influence the outcome of the experiment. </DIV></p><p>Boloney they don't. If the current density changes then the outcome is a direct result of the changes in current density, not "magnetic reconnection"!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The experiment is what it is.</DIV></p><p>The experiment was fine. The "interpretation" was not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If they assumed that unicorns are real, the end result would've still been the same. </DIV></p><p>But if they assume the current density changed, the results would not have been the same! Come on.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stop lumping Parker's 40 year old definition of reconnection in with Birn's. </DIV></p><p>How are they fundamentally any different? Doesn't Birn's model require that currents flow through the "magnetic lines"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course Birn drew from Parker's theories, but his theories are quite different if you actually read and understand them. If you've read the papers and understood them, I don't need to be specific. They are specific enough, trust me. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I'm specifically focusing on the fact that Birn's model also requries 'currents' to be "flowing" inside that "magnetic line/circuit". You keep ignoring this point. That magnetic line is also a 'circuit' in Alfven's lingo because there is currernt flowing inside that filament. No doubt it too is being "pinched" into filaments, just like the filaments in the Princeton experiments. </p><p>All of these ideas are focused on the same thing, specifically the transfer of energy in a changing topology between two "magnetic lines/circuits". There is nothing fundamentally different between Birn's MR model and Parker's MR model in the sense that both of them requires "current flow" in those 'lines', that Alfven calls "circuits". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think I'm done with this conversation. It is leading nowhere. I've read a few of Michael's other threads in other forums and they are all patterned the same way. Unless you have something new to add, I have nothing left to say. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Well, I will certainly keep adding to the thread as new information becomes available. I wish you would say some things about the cause of neutron capture signatures n the solar corona, or the cause of those gamma ray emissions in the solar atmosphere. We know for a fact that current flow generated z-pinches and electrical discharges in the Earth's atmospehre can generate similar events. Why you think these are not related to 'discharges" in the solar atmosphere is beyond me. I guess by never "talking about it", you don't have to deal with the important "evidence" to support Birkeland's ideas, but make no mistake, Birkeland's work did 'predict" high energy discharges to occur in exactly the same places you are now attributing to "magnetic reconnection'. All of his experiments however relied upon old fashion electricity and "circuit reconnection'. When he turned off the circuits the energy exchanges ceased. That's emprical science folks and it's part of our scientific history. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, I will certainly keep adding to the thread as new information becomes available. I wish you would say some things about the cause of neutron capture signatures n the solar corona, or the cause of those gamma ray emissions in the solar atmosphere. We know for a fact that current flow generated z-pinches and electrical discharges in the Earth's atmospehre can generate similar events. Why you think these are not related to 'discharges" in the solar atmosphere is beyond me. I guess by never "talking about it", you don't have to deal with the important "evidence" to support Birkeland's ideas, but make no mistake, Birkeland's work did 'predict" high energy discharges to occur in exactly the same places you are now attributing to "magnetic reconnection'. All of his experiments however relied upon old fashion electricity and "circuit reconnection'. When he turned off the circuits the energy exchanges ceased. That's emprical science folks and it's part of our scientific history. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Gamma rays are photons. Photons are emitted when excited electrons drop to a lower energy state. It doesn't matter how they reached the higher energy state, only that that the change in energy corresponds with the energy of the photon that is emitted. Of course in Birkland's experiment emissions stopped when he turned off the electricity. It was the only source of energy in the experiment -- if it had not stopped you would have violated conservation of energy and that would be big news.</p><p>There is quite a difference between quantitiative empirical science, backed up by sound physical theory and your brand of physics based on physical appearance, what something "looks like" in a laboratory. Just because you get gamma ray emissions under one set of circumstances does not mean that all gamma ray emissions are the result of that set of cirumstances. Some physicists are men. Not all men are physicists. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>This is ridiculous...you went from focusing on the sentence that you are now accusing me of "fixating" on, to saying you told me to read the whole paper. You based your whole argument on the fact that he mentioned Parker by name and then said something about a more fundamental approach...this ONLY occurs in that sequence of sentences, so it was clearly what you were referring to. I am not missing any point...I am trying to make a point that despite the fact that the Parker paper does address reconnection, the Whipple paper is not referring to that part. Tell me, how does the structure/shape of the magnetopause relate directly to reconnection? The magnetopause is an important part of magnetospheric physics, but it isn't really relevant to the subject of reconnection. </p><p>I'm sure you are going to "skip the redundant stuff" and not answer my question, but maybe if I ask it enough you will stop ignoring it. As I've said, if there is a paper that deals entirely with reconnection except for a paragraph about, say, sunspots, and I write a paper about sunspots and refer to this paper and what it says about sunspots, I'm not addressing reconnection. Thats not how references work. </p><p>I am not ignoring the papers or Birkeland's experiments. I read them, I read Alfven's papers, I read your website. The difference between you and I is that I require solid proof to convince me of something. I am not a fan of making huge leaps based on a single experiment or a single book. The problem is every successfully published paper you refer to is entirely valid, but you like to put your own spin on things. I've read them, and I can say with confidence that the papers I read do not say what you say they do. Just because something might sound more intuitively appealing does not make it valid physics. It was intuitively appealing that all planets follow circular orbits, or that the earth was the center of the universe, but science has shown us time and again that the majority of physical systems are extremely complex. You are trying to oversimplify the process. There is no reason to believe that the magnetosphere is a simple system. </p><p>I do not believe your only problem is "what they call it". You say this, and you say that you have no problem with the math of reconnection, but in the same post you criticize the physics of everyone who has done work on reconnection. You think every experiment done in a tokamak reactor is wrong(PPPL wasn't the only, or even best, one), you speak of Parker like a fool, etc. It is clear that your agenda is not for a clear name, but rather you seem to just want modern papers to use Alfven, Oliver, Manuel, Bruce, Peratt, et al. as their only references. There's a good reason why, with the exception of the first guy, most of these people find themselves outside of the mainstream(both in terms of respect and publications)... everybody that attaches themselves to EU theory has a persecution complex...oh poor me nobody will listen to me. The reason why the mainstream ignores these pleas for attention is because the claims they make are unfounded. Many people in the mainstream have no problem whatsoever with the majority of Alfven's work, but nobody really agrees with his later work(Cosmic Plasma). This is not an insult to his work...it is just a simple realization that he is not infallible and his later ideas were found not to be valid. Do you honestly think nobody from the mainstream has tried to make Alfven's later theories work? There is no bias against electric fields. I've said it before but you aren't getting it. Your persecution of the E field is entirely fabricated. There are plenty of papers dealing with it exclusively. The only thing that is being persecuted is EU's twisted interpretation of physics. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is ridiculous...you went from focusing on the sentence that you are now accusing me of "fixating" on, to saying you told me to read the whole paper. You based your whole argument on the fact that he mentioned Parker by name and then said something about a more fundamental approach...this ONLY occurs in that sequence of sentences, so it was clearly what you were referring to. I am not missing any point...I am trying to make a point that despite the fact that the Parker paper does address reconnection, the Whipple paper is not referring to that part. </DIV></p><p>IMO this is wishful thinking on your part. Both papers address the source of energy of the auroral events. One paper attributes the process to 'magnetic reconnection'. The other paper treats the energy source as "circuits". Alfven was clearly familiar with Parker's viewpoints of auroral activity and had a more "fundamental' way of viewing these events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Tell me, how does the structure/shape of the magnetopause relate directly to reconnection?</DIV></p><p>You should be asking yourself how reconnection directly relates to the shape of the aurora. That is what these papers attempt to explain.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The magnetopause is an important part of magnetospheric physics, but it isn't really relevant to the subject of reconnection.</DIV></p><p>Both papers take up the "cause" of auroral activity do they not? You're taking one line and presuming none of the rest of the content of either paper matters here. That's not so. Both men attempt to explain the same basic event in two different ways. One takes what Alfven calls a "field" oriented approach to explaining auroral activity, whereas the other paper uses a "particle/circuit" orientation to explain exactly the same activity. Come on. These are the same topics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'm sure you are going to "skip the redundant stuff" and not answer my question, but maybe if I ask it enough you will stop ignoring it. As I've said, if there is a paper that deals entirely with reconnection except for a paragraph about, say, sunspots, and I write a paper about sunspots and refer to this paper and what it says about sunspots, I'm not addressing reconnection. </DIV></p><p>Both papers are attempting to explain auroras, as was Birkeland when he set up physical experiments.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thats not how references work. I am not ignoring the papers or Birkeland's experiments. I read them, I read Alfven's papers, I read your website. The difference between you and I is that I require solid proof to convince me of something. </DIV></p><p>Huh? What "solid proof" is there that "magnetic reconnection" even works? Birkeland emprically demonstrated that 'circuit reconnection" will power an aurora around spheres in a vacuum. He demonstrated emprically that it will cause coronal loop activiy to occur at the surface of the conductive sphere. He demonstrated that it can cause "jets" and "Birkeland currents" to form in plasma. That's "proof", emprical style. Care to now explain how any of this was ever empicially "proven' to be related to "magnetic reconnection"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am not a fan of making huge leaps based on a single experiment or a single book. The problem is every successfully published paper you refer to is entirely valid, but you like to put your own spin on things. </DIV></p><p>There is an irony here from my perspective. I'm not basing my beliefs upon a single book or a single experiment. Rather I'm basing my beliefs upon *many* emprical experiments with real control mechanisms, many papers and books on this topic, and many satellite images as well. I'm not basing my opinions entirely upon some mathematical expression devoid of emprical support.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've read them, and I can say with confidence that the papers I read do not say what you say they do.</DIV></p><p>What exactly do they say in your opinion about the source of energy behind auroral activity and coronal loops? How does the term "circuit" apply in Alfven's explanation of these events?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Just because something might sound more intuitively appealing does not make it valid physics. </DIV></p><p>But some things are valid physics and therefore have an intuitively appealing truth to them. Plasma with current flowing through it has predictable qualities that are documented parts of plasma physics. They have an intuitive appeal because we can emprically "test" them in a lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It was intuitively appealing that all planets follow circular orbits, or that the earth was the center of the universe, but science has shown us time and again that the majority of physical systems are extremely complex. </DIV></p><p>Likewise space is more "complex" than astronomers currently imagine. They don't begin to comprehend the "circuits" of energy that power the unverse and the current flows that traverse the universe. It's not simply a "magnetic universe", rather it is a more complicated *electro*magnetic process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are trying to oversimplify the process. There is no reason to believe that the magnetosphere is a simple system. </DIV></p><p>Again, I believe you have this backwards. It is your side of the aisle that attempts to sterilize these events and turn them strictly into 'magnetic' events when in fact they are *electromagnetic* in nature. That's why your side of the aisle can't demonstrate any of this in a lab, nor actually *explain* solar wind acceleration, etc. There's much more going on than the mainstream realizes.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do not believe your only problem is "what they call it". You say this, and you say that you have no problem with the math of reconnection, but in the same post you criticize the physics of everyone who has done work on reconnection. </DIV></p><p>I am willing to accept that Yevaud was correct and that this can be considered an issue of semantics *only* if both parties agree that they are the same process. Since we can't agree on this point, there is a serious fundamental problem with the mainstream's position, or at least your understanding of the mainstream position. We should be able to agree that circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection are one and the same process. Since we cannot, there is a communication problem created by this naming convention. </p><p>My criticisms of various other papers on this topic are irrelevant to the fact that I am willing to accept that Birn made no serious errors in his presentation. There are "good" papers on any given topic and "bad" ones too, including papers that violate known laws of physics, and that make unfounded and unvalidated asesrtions. Birn's paper is not such a paper, though many papers on this topic are far less well written. This is true of *any* topic, and it is unrelated to this one topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You think every experiment done in a tokamak reactor is wrong(PPPL wasn't the only, or even best, one),</DIV></p><p>The experiment was not 'wrong', but the "interpretation' that the current density remained constant was not. I don't blame them for emprically experimenting with their idea, only their "assumption" about the current density.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you speak of Parker like a fool, etc. </DIV></p><p>I didn't speak of Parker that way. I was 'miffed' at Priests *one* paper for invoking monopoles, but I freely admitted that I've read better papers by Priest. I think you're confusing honest disagreement with a *specific* presentation with me believing people are 'fools'. There is no such thing happening here. I respect everyone, but not every paper or every presentation. I'm even plenty crititical of my own work. It's not personal, it's "science".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is clear that your agenda is not for a clear name, but rather you seem to just want modern papers to use Alfven,</DIV></p><p>Yes, this is true. I do wan't modern papers to use some of Alfven's work. Why wouldn't I? They use his work already, only they use it improperly. They call coronal loops "Alfven waves", when in fact they are "Birkeland currents". I just want them to use MHD theory as it was intented and as it was explained by the Nobel prize winning author that wrote it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oliver, Manuel, </DIV></p><p>His work is ultimately irrelvant to this particular thread and I have not gone out of my way to fixate on any solar model in this thread.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bruce,</DIV></p><p>Bruce's work is relevant to this thread and it's quality work. Why should I want his work to be published and built upon?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Peratt, et al. as their only references. </DIV></p><p>Oh no. Not as the *only* references, just as valid references of EU theory. You seem to be missing a key element here. The one thing I'm actually looking for is *any* mainstream recognition (based on printed material) of the validity fo EU theory as a viable astronomy theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's a good reason why, with the exception of the first guy, most of these people find themselves outside of the mainstream</DIV></p><p>So what? Galileo was alos "outside of the mainstream' at one point. You can't use that as any sort of barometer of "truthiness".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(both in terms of respect and publications)... everybody that attaches themselves to EU theory has a persecution complex.</DIV></p><p>The persecution is quite real in some cases. It's not actually "personal", it tends to be a bias related to toward individuals but related to a *specfic theory*.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..oh poor me nobody will listen to me. </DIV></p><p>It's more like "poor mainsstream", they are confused by everything important and significant and they won't listen to logic or reason or do any real empirical testing of important and key ideas.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The reason why the mainstream ignores these pleas for attention is because the claims they make are unfounded. </DIV></p><p>They are *well founded* in emprical testing. That's the whole point you seem to be ignoring. While the mainstream refuses to consider that electricity/circuit reconnection plays a role in coronal loops process, neutron capture signatures in the atmosphere, gamma ray emissions in the solar atmosphere, auroral activity, etc, these process have all been emprically related to 'electrical currents" in plasma. Period. The only thing that is actually "unfounded" is your belief that circuit reconection and magnetic reconnection are somehow different.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Many people in the mainstream have no problem whatsoever with the majority of Alfven's work, but nobody really agrees with his later work(Cosmic Plasma). </DIV></p><p>Yes, I've noticed. It's a pity too. Most of that is due to the fact that almost no astronomer I've ever met has even read the book. How sad.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is not an insult to his work...it is just a simple realization that he is not infallible and his later ideas were found not to be valid.</DIV></p><p>How were they "found" to be invalid? IMO you're speculating (negatively) about something for which there is ample emprical support. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Do you honestly think nobody from the mainstream has tried to make Alfven's later theories work?</DIV></p><p>Show me some papers printed by the mainstream where they tried (and failed) to make his theories work? I know his theories "work". Birkeland tested them in a lab. Whether they apply to space is another matter, but I know for a fact that they "work" as described.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no bias against electric fields. </DIV></p><p>Boloney. If there was no bias against the electric fields then they would stop being "surprised" by the behaviors of plasma around the sun. They wouldn't be "surprised" by solar wind acceleration or "surprised" by CME's. They wouldn't be "surprised" by atmospheric activity around the sun. Instead, they are constantly "surprised" by every new image of the sun and "surprised' by very simple behaviors like Birkeland currents in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've said it before but you aren't getting it. Your persecution of the E field is entirely fabricated. There are plenty of papers dealing with it exclusively. </DIV></p><p>Show me even one that was printed by the APJ or any other mainstream publication in the last three years.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only thing that is being persecuted is EU's twisted interpretation of physics. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Ironically, I actually agree with that statement. The "twist" is called a "Birkeland current". That "helix" shape they observe in solar plasma is directly related to the E field as well as the B field. They persecute the "twist" of electrical curents alright. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>The papers as a WHOLE are describing auroral activity, yes. But as I said, you referred to a part that isn't. You did not answer my question. What does the shape of the magnetopause have to do with reconnection? You can't answer it with another question. The part of the paper refers to Parker's description of the shape and structure of the magnetopause. Not reconnection. </p><p>I already showed you papers describing the role of the E field. Schindler Hesse and Birn are still quite active in the field and even very recently there have been papers explicitly dealing with E. Go search for it...I'm not going to be your "paper mommy". The papers are out there. If you know how to use ADS you will have no problem. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gamma rays are photons. Photons are emitted when excited electrons drop to a lower energy state. It doesn't matter how they reached the higher energy state, only that that the change in energy corresponds with the energy of the photon that is emitted. </DIV></p><p>See, this is where you cease to make any sense at all. Of *course* it matters *how* they reached these high energy states. We point Rhessi at Earth and observe gamma rays from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. We point the same gear at the solar atmosphere, observe these same gamma rays, and claim "magnetic reconnection did it". What?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course in Birkland's experiment emissions stopped when he turned off the electricity. </DIV></p><p>Hense "circuit reconnection' has already been emprically verified.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It was the only source of energy in the experiment -- </DIV></p><p>Likewise in Birn's presentation of "magnetic reconnection" it is the only actual energy source of "magnetic reconnection" too. Take away the current flow from inside those "magnetic lines" and nothing is going to happen.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is quite a difference between quantitiative empirical science, backed up by sound physical theory and your brand of physics based on physical appearance, what something "looks like" in a laboratory. </DIV></p><p>You don't even have *that much* going for you as it relates to "magnetic reconnection"! It wasn't even emprically demonstrated in the first place.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just because you get gamma ray emissions under one set of circumstances does not mean that all gamma ray emissions are the result of that set of cirumstances. </DIV></p><p>What kind of rationalization is that? We know that Birikeland's work required that all spheres in space experience "electrical discharges" in their atmosphere. We know that electrical discharges release gamma rays. We know that electrical discharges pinch free neutrons from plasma. We see gamma rays and neutron capture signarutes in the solar atmosphere in arrangments that Birkeland "predicted". The obvious *logical* explanation is that the solar atmosphere experience "electrical discharges" in it's atmosphere. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Some physicists are men. Not all men are physicists. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Alfven was also a "physicist" in the final analysis. He took the "particle" approach to current carrying plasma. </p><p>Here's the problem in nutshell. Birkeland's work *predicts* there to be "electrical discharges" in the solar atmosphere and in Earth's atmosphere. We know that he was right about the aurora. Why isn't he right about coronal loops too?</p><p>Birkeland's experiments have been amply verified by measurements from space. There is no doubt that "Circuits" power the aurora, and that "circuits" power electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere too. Those gamma rays and neutron capture signatures are dead give aways, as are those "jets" that Birkeland also "predicted". These are all known *emprically* to be associated with electrical discharges. The solar wind acceleration is also "predicted" in Birkeland's model. Bruce has already shown that the speed of propagation of solar events and the speed of discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. There is nothing here that has been left to chance. </p><p>All your other "could be's" were never actually "predicted" by any other *emprically demonstrated* theory. Magnetic reconnection has never been shown to be an independent power source that is capable of replacing "current flow" and "Circuit reconnection" in Birkeland's work. What you have here is a blind bias towards EU theory getting in the way of scientific progress. Birkeland would not have been "surprised" by solar wind accleration or 'jets", or "helix shapes" in plasma or CME's. All of these things were "predicted" by his emprical experimention.</p><p>What's sad IMO is that intelligent folks like you will seek *any* other solution, without even considering the most logical and viable option on the table.</p><p>Electricity is the forbidden topic of astronomy. Anyone who mentions it is shunned by the mainstream and no pro EU papers ever see the light of day in "mainstream" astronomy publications. As a result the mainstream is constantly at a loss to explain simple stuff like neutron capture events, and gamma ray events and accerlation events in plasma. It's really sad IMO. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Electricity is the forbidden topic of astronomy. Anyone who mentions it is shunned by the mainstream and no pro EU papers ever see the light of day in "mainstream" astronomy publications. As a result the mainstream is constantly at a loss to explain simple stuff like neutron capture events, and gamma ray events and accerlation events in plasma. It's really sad IMO. </DIV></p><p>You are making the mistake of associating any mention of electricity with EU. EU ist he forbidden topic of astronomy, not electricity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The papers as a WHOLE are describing auroral activity, yes. But as I said, you referred to a part that isn't.</DIV></p><p>Gah. I provided you with two complete papers that tackle specific events (auroras and coronal loops) that are specifically related to activities that you believe are related to "magnetic reconnection' that Alfven claimed were a result of "circuits". How can you ignore the point I'm trying to make here? There is a one to one correlation between the events you are attributing to "magnetic reconnection" and what Alfven attributed to "circuits". That's my point, not a single line, or a single sentence from either paper.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You did not answer my question. What does the shape of the magnetopause have to do with reconnection? You can't answer it with another question. </DIV></p><p>The shape is related to the particle flows in space and the 'circuits" that form around the Earth. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The part of the paper refers to Parker's description of the shape and structure of the magnetopause. Not reconnection.</DIV></p><p>So what? There was an attempt on their (both Authors) part to "explain" the aurora from a "particle' and from a "field" orientation. Alfven calls his explanation a more "fundamental" approach. Whereas the "field" orientation that Parker presents is one (generalize) way to look at the issue, Alfven takes a more 'detailed' approach that explains the particle physical processes that ultimately cause these events to occur. All I'm trying to get you to see is that Alfven's view is equally valid and explains these same auroal events as being powered by 'circuits'. I'm not denying the validity of the "field" orientation, whereas you seem to be denying the validity of the "particle/circuit" approach. That's a big sticking point between us.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I already showed you papers describing the role of the E field. Schindler Hesse and Birn are still quite active in the field and even very recently there have been papers explicitly dealing with E.</DIV></p><p>Yes, which was why I was encouraged and pleased with Birn's paper and that's why I emailed him about this topic. It's a pity he didn't respond because I think he could have saved us both a lot of grief.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Go search for it...I'm not going to be your "paper mommy". The papers are out there. If you know how to use ADS you will have no problem. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The problem with this logic is that I'm not denying the validity of Birn's (field) approach as you seem to be denying the validity of Alfven's (particle/circuit) approach. I'm not asking you to be my paper mommy and I'm not even disagreeing about the validity of Birn's approach. The only thing I'm asking you to do is to recognize that there is more than one way to view these same events. The field approach is valid (to a point), but the particle approach is equally valid and is a more "fundamental" approach in the sense that the "particles" are doing the actual transfer of 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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The shape is related to the particle flows in space and the 'circuits" that form around the Earth.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Could you be more vague, please? That doesn't answer my question anyways...you are answering the question "what does the shape of the magnetopause mean", whereas my question was "how does the shape of the magnetopause relate to reconnection". Ignoring and talking around my points isn't helping your case. </p><p>By the way, throughout this thread you have been repeatedly complaining that nobody understands or mentions Birkeland currents properly, and such things are never published. Well, in 10 seconds I've easily proved that you haven't even looked. All of these papers were published in 2008. </p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRA..11309220M</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRA..11300A08E</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008cosp...37.1362J</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008cosp...37...88A</p><p>Also, you seem to believe there is no mainstream explanation of events like CMEs. Here's one that does not need EU.</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ASPC..397...98M</p><p>You see, with just a little effort you can find answers to what you want. </p><p>I've said what I needed to say. The idea that I'm ignoring things or not reading the papers you post is completely false and constructed entirely by you. You refuse to address the key points in all of my recent posts and just talk around them. </p><p>It bears saying again: There is no bias against electricity, no bias against Alfven, no bias against Birkeland. The only bias is against bad science. You can argue for the rest of your life but this will never change. If the proponents of EU as defined by your website and many others can come up with solid proof of what they claim, then the mainstream will accept it. This hasn't happened and I am quite sure that it won't in my lifetime, or any time in the future for that matter. </p><p>Edit: To be clear, this is my "resignation letter" for this thread. There's no point in arguing with someone who won't give me the basic respect to address my arguments directly, without cutting the parts you can't answer out or twisting my words. If you look through the history of this thread you will see one thing: You, michaelmozina, constantly changing your position and contradicting yourself endlessly. First magnetic reconnection was a myth, then you set out to prove it was the same thing as circuit reconnection, then having failed that you just claim it has already been proven, now you are basing your argument on a paper that refers to Parker's description of the shape of the magnetopause and say that somehow proves your point about magnetic reconnection. It doesn't. </p><p>As I said back about 30 pages ago, the day sanity and good science wins out will be the day marking the death of EU theory. </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Could you be more vague, please? That doesn't answer my question anyways...you are answering the question "what does the shape of the magnetopause mean", whereas my question was "how does the shape of the magnetopause relate to reconnection".</DIV></p><p>This isn't related to "shape", but rather why it *exists* in the first place. The 'shape' is a function of particle flow into and through the Earth's electromagnetic field. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ignoring and talking around my points isn't helping your case. </DIV></p><p>I'm not trying to talk "around" your question, but rather I'm trying to get you to look at the "bigger picture" and notice that everywhere that Alfven uses "circuts", you are using the term "magnetic reconnection" to provide energy to the system. This is true of coronal loops, and true of auroral activities. It's true of jets too, and "Birkeland current helix shapes" as well. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>By the way, throughout this thread you have been repeatedly complaining that nobody understands or mentions Birkeland currents properly, and such things are never published. Well, in 10 seconds I've easily proved that you haven't even looked. All of these papers were published in 2008. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRA..11309220Mhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRA..11300A08Ehttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008cosp...37.1362Jhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008cosp...37...88AAlso, you seem to believe there is no mainstream explanation of events like CMEs. Here's one that does not need EU.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ASPC..397...98M</p><p></DIV></p><p>Well, the first one mentions "magnetic reconnection" as the "power source" no doubt, so I'm already skeptical of that one. The last one too looks to be fixated on "magnetic" aspects that are actually "electromagnetic" in nature.</p><p>The other papers looked very interesting based on their abstract, and I'll read them as I get time. Thanks.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You see, with just a little effort you can find answers to what you want. I've said what I needed to say. The idea that I'm ignoring things or not reading the papers you post is completely false and constructed entirely by you. </DIV></p><p>Well, some of the papers seem to concern themselves only with the "Birkeland currents" in the aurora, so I suppose I'll have to be more specific in my criticism. They won't apply these same principles to the *whole* energy echange system of the solar system. In other words, they seem to acknowledge Birkeland was right about the current flows into the polar regions of the Earth but refuse to apply his ideas to the entire solar system.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You refuse to address the key points in all of my recent posts and just talk around them. </DIV></p><p>I'm not trying to talk around them. I'm trying to acknowledge them but get you to look at the broader picture I'm presenting. Everywhere that you are using 'magnetic reconnection' to provide energy to a system, Birkeland and Alfven used 'circuits" to provide that same energy. Is that a coincidence in your opinion?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It bears saying again: There is no bias against electricity, </DIV></p><p>No bias perhaps in the aurora itself, but how about anything related to solar activity, or the power source of the aurora itself? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>no bias against Alfven, </DIV></p><p>Yes there is. There is certainly a bias about presenting his "electric sun" theories in mainstream publications. Alfven attributed coronal loops and high energy solar discharges to "current flows' that originated from outside the solar system, just like in Birkeland's emprical experiments. He did not attibute these things to "Alfven waves", nor "magnetic reconnection", but rather to current flows and circuits that are larger than a solar system.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>no bias against Birkeland. </DIV></p><p>Not as it relates to the downward flows of currents into the aurora, but as it relates to his "electric sun" theories, there is an *extreme* bias.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only bias is against bad science. </DIV></p><p>Birkeland's "electric sun' idea is not "bad science", it is "emprical science". His "predictions" of coronal loops, "jets", "Birkeland currents" and high energy discharges from the sun have all been verified by satellite. The bias here is recognizing that these solar activities are also related to "circuits" and "current flows" that do not originate inside this solar system.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can argue for the rest of your life but this will never change. </DIV></p><p>When astronomers start talking about "Birkeland currents" in the solar atmosphere and the currents that flow into our solar system from the heliosphere, you let me know. I'll know for sure at that point that real change has come to this industry. In the mean time, as an EU advocate, it looks like the mainstream has taken only the first "baby steps" (only the aurora) as it relates to understanding how our universe actually functions and how it's wired together. The 'current flow" coming into the aurora is not coming from "magnetic reconnection" but from the larger circuits around the Earth, around the heliosphere and around the galaxy. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the proponents of EU as defined by your website and many others can come up with solid proof of what they claim, then the mainstream will accept it. </DIV></p><p>If that were true then those gamma rays and neutron capture signatures should have already done the trick. Rhessi emprically demonstrated that electrical discharges release both gamma rays on Earth and gamma rays in the solar atmosphere. It also demonstrated that neutron capture signatures occur in these z-pinched "Birkeland currents"/Bennet pinch" type reactions in the solar atmosphere. Bruce's work would should have sufficed as well, as would Peratt's computer models. The mainstream doesn't want to apply Birkeland's theories beyond the Earth's auroras. It won't apply them "universally" as did Birkeland, and Alfven.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This hasn't happened and I am quite sure that it won't in my lifetime, or any time in the future for that matter. Edit: To be clear, this is my "resignation letter" for this thread. </DIV></p><p>Well, if you say so. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's no point in arguing with someone who won't give me the basic respect to address my arguments directly, without cutting the parts you can't answer out or twisting my words.</DIV></p><p>You know that works both ways here. I've specfiically asked you to address those neutron capture signature and gamma ray emissions for some time now. You sort of Waltz around them and never really address the question. How then can we have a productive conversation? If you won't look beyond a single sentence trivia, and look at the bigger picture, how can we have a productive conversation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you look through the history of this thread you will see one thing: You, michaelmozina, constantly changing your position and contradicting yourself endlessly. </DIV></p><p>No, you'll see that I have provided emprical support and mathematical support to demonstrate that what you are calling magnetic reconnection is also 'circuit reconnection". Others will notice that you're relentlessly drifting us away from the actual issue by focusing on trivia rather than the actual "issue". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First magnetic reconnection was a myth,</DIV></p><p>It was in fact at "myth" that Princeton emprically demonstrated 'magnetic reconnection" in a controlled test. It was in fact a "myth" that Priest's monopole paper was real physics. </p><p>I freely admit Birn's presentation on the topic changed my opinions on this topic. I made no secret about that fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>then you set out to prove it was the same thing as circuit reconnection,</DIV></p><p>I realized that Birn's presentation was also predicated upon 'current flow" inside of his magnetic lines. It was then a matter of simply "translating" what Alfven called a "circuit" to what Birn was calling a "magnetic line". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>then having failed that </DIV></p><p>Like it's my fault Birn never responded? You can't blame me for not trying to resolve this issue. I've provided you with plenty of evidence too in the form of Alfven's work which you refuse to fully look at or respond to at the brouder level. Instead you're fixated upon some triviality and you're ignoring the key point. Everywhere where Alfven used a "circuit" to provide energy to the system, you're using a "magnetic line" with "current" running through it. How can you not see that these are the same ideas?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you just claim it has already been proven,</DIV></p><p>Birkeland emprically demonstrated the Alfven's "circuit reconnection' model is viable and that it passes some "key' predictions. That has never been done for "magnetic reconnection" with spheres in a plasma vacuum. I'm willing to accept that Birn's "magnetic lines" with "current flow" are viable descriptions of "current flow" inside "circuits". I'm therefore willing to accept we could be arguing only about semantics, but alas you can't seem to accept that and I can't twist your arm, you have to willingly make that connection yourself and you wont. This demonstrates to me that there is a serious problem with calling this process 'magnetic reconnection'. It creates unnecessary confusion IMO. This should be very friendly and easy conversation, but for some reason it is not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>now you are basing your argument on a paper that refers to Parker's description of the shape of the magnetopause and say that somehow proves your point about magnetic reconnection. It doesn't. As I said back about 30 pages ago, the day sanity and good science wins out will be the day marking the death of EU theory. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Argh. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that everywhere that Parker used "magnetic reconnection' to power his process, Alfven used "circuits". I can't really force you to accept that Alfven's approach was more '"Fundamental', or force you to accept that the "particle/circuit" explanation is just as viable as the field oriented approach. I'm sorry we can't see eye to eye on this topic, but IMO it's not me that is confused here, rather it is you. You seem to believe we are talking about different things, but Birkeland's emprical experiments demonstrate that no now forms of 'reconnection" are required to explain aurora, coronal loops, CME's, jets, helix shaped "Birkeland currents" in the solar atmosphere, etc. Rhessi has demonstrated conclusively that Birkeland's work also applies to solar activity and that his 'electric sun' theories have merit. As long as the mainstream denies this, it will forever be mystified by the very things that Birkeland's models "predicted". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's no point in arguing with someone who won't give me the basic respect to address my arguments directly, without cutting the parts you can't answer out or twisting my words.</DIV></p><p>You know that works both ways here. I've specfiically asked you to address those neutron capture signature and gamma ray emissions for some time now. You sort of Waltz around them and never really address the question. How then can we have a productive conversation? If you won't look beyond a single sentence trivia, and look at the bigger picture, how can we have a productive conversation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you look through the history of this thread you will see one thing: You, michaelmozina, constantly changing your position and contradicting yourself endlessly. </DIV></p><p>No, you'll see that I have provided emprical support and mathematical support to demonstrate that what you are calling magnetic reconnection is also 'circuit reconnection". Others will notice that you're relentlessly drifting us away from the actual issue by focusing on trivia rather than the actual "issue". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First magnetic reconnection was a myth,</DIV></p><p>It was in fact at "myth" that Princeton emprically demonstrated 'magnetic reconnection" in a controlled test. It was in fact a "myth" that Priest's monopole paper was real physics. </p><p>I freely admit Birn's presentation on the topic changed my opinions on this topic. I made no secret about that fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>then you set out to prove it was the same thing as circuit reconnection,</DIV></p><p>I realized that Birn's presentation was also predicated upon 'current flow" inside of his magnetic lines. It was then a matter of simply "translating" what Alfven called a "circuit" to what Birn was calling a "magnetic line". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>then having failed that </DIV></p><p>Like it's my fault Birn never responded? You can't blame me for not trying to resolve this issue. I've provided you with plenty of evidence too in the form of Alfven's work which you refuse to fully look at or respond to at the brouder level. Instead you're fixated upon some triviality and you're ignoring the key point. Everywhere where Alfven used a "circuit" to provide energy to the system, you're using a "magnetic line" with "current" running through it. How can you not see that these are the same ideas?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you just claim it has already been proven,</DIV></p><p>Birkeland emprically demonstrated the Alfven's "circuit reconnection' model is viable and that it passes some "key' predictions. That has never been done for "magnetic reconnection" with spheres in a plasma vacuum. I'm willing to accept that Birn's "magnetic lines" with "current flow" are viable descriptions of "current flow" inside "circuits". I'm therefore willing to accept we could be arguing only about semantics, but alas you can't seem to accept that and I can't twist your arm, you have to willingly make that connection yourself and you wont. This demonstrates to me that there is a serious problem with calling this process 'magnetic reconnection'. It creates unnecessary confusion IMO. This should be very friendly and easy conversation, but for some reason it is not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>now you are basing your argument on a paper that refers to Parker's description of the shape of the magnetopause and say that somehow proves your point about magnetic reconnection. It doesn't. As I said back about 30 pages ago, the day sanity and good science wins out will be the day marking the death of EU theory. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Argh. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that everywhere that Parker used "magnetic reconnection' to power his process, Alfven used "circuits". I can't really force you to accept that Alfven's approach was more '"Fundamental', or force you to accept that the "particle/circuit" explanation is just as viable as the field oriented approach. I'm sorry we can't see eye to eye on this topic, but IMO it's not me that is confused here, rather it is you. You seem to believe we are talking about different things, but Birkeland's emprical experiments demonstrate that no now forms of 'reconnection" are required to explain aurora, coronal loops, CME's, jets, helix shaped "Birkeland currents" in the solar atmosphere, etc. Rhessi has demonstrated conclusively that Birkeland's work also applies to solar activity and that his 'electric sun' theories have merit. As long as the mainstream denies this, it will forever be mystified by the very things that Birkeland's models "predicted". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are making the mistake of associating any mention of electricity with EU. EU ist he forbidden topic of astronomy, not electricity. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>How are they any different in your mind? Evidently the mainstream is under the impression that some new form of "reconnection" is required to explain things that Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" model has already 'predicted". Evidently it's "ok" to talk about "Birkeland currents" in the Earth's atmosphere, but not in the solar atmosphere. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How are they any different in your mind? Evidently the mainstream is under the impression that some new form of "reconnection" is required to explain things that Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" model has already 'predicted". Evidently it's "ok" to talk about "Birkeland currents" in the Earth's atmosphere, but not in the solar atmosphere. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Other than in your posts and in your mind, where in all the literature of plasma physics is there any discussion of "circuit reconnection"?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
Silo' Season 2 Episode 6: How far will Bernard go to maintain control?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram