<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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 /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br />http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JA000237.shtml</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>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JA000237.shtml <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>OK...since this is an actual paper I'll respond. I see the word circuit, and I see the word reconnection and they happen to be pretty close to each other. However, based only on the abstract(UF doesn't have an AGU subscription), they don't appear to talk about your "circuit reconnection". They appear to be claiming that standard reconnection can be explained using circuit theory IF there is a dynamo powering it. They even say there isn't much observational evidence backing this claim up. It works in simulations, but as I've said before, a simulation by itself isn't very useful, until you get observational backup. I find it kind of funny that you are so adamantly against the idea of simulations but you quote to us a paper that is based almost entirely on simulation. Also, again this paper talks about magnetopause reconnection. If you actually read the THEMIS paper, they believe auroral electrons are accelerated by reconnection in the magnetotail. If reconnection is indeed powered by a dynamo, then it is reasonable to expect reconnection to behave differently in different parts of the magnetosphere(based on the assumption that the strength of the dynamo will vary throughout the magnetosphre). Regardless though, no dynamos to my knowledge are observed in reconnection regions, and until they are, this is pure theory. Pure theory is great, as long as there isn't an alternate theory that is better supported by observation, which is the case we have here. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK...since this is an actual paper I'll respond. I see the word circuit, and I see the word reconnection and they happen to be pretty close to each other. However, based only on the abstract(UF doesn't have an AGU subscription), they don't appear to talk about your "circuit reconnection". They appear to be claiming that standard reconnection can be explained using circuit theory IF there is a dynamo powering it. They even say there isn't much observational evidence backing this claim up. It works in simulations, but as I've said before, a simulation by itself isn't very useful, until you get observational backup. I find it kind of funny that you are so adamantly against the idea of simulations but you quote to us a paper that is based almost entirely on simulation. Also, again this paper talks about magnetopause reconnection. If you actually read the THEMIS paper, they believe auroral electrons are accelerated by reconnection in the magnetotail. If reconnection is indeed powered by a dynamo, then it is reasonable to expect reconnection to behave differently in different parts of the magnetosphere(based on the assumption that the strength of the dynamo will vary throughout the magnetosphre). Regardless though, no dynamos to my knowledge are observed in reconnection regions, and until they are, this is pure theory. Pure theory is great, as long as there isn't an alternate theory that is better supported by observation, which is the case we have here. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The most difficult part of this discussion is the fact that the both of you place little or no value on emprical scientific experimentation, complete with control mechanisms. Birkeland's work *proves* that circuit reconnection will:</p><p>1) produce "jet" from the surface of the sphere.</p><p>2) produce "loops" in the atmosphere of the sphere.</p><p>3) produce aurora around spheres</p><p>4) produce rings around spheres.</p><p>5) produce high energy electrical dishcarge activity around the atmosphere of spheres</p><p>Furthermore, ground and space based technologies have demonstrated that:</p><p>6) gamma rays in the Earth's atmsophere are caused by "electrical discharges"</p><p>7) electrical discharges can pinch free neutrons from plasma and we observe such processes in the solar atmosphere.</p><p>Occum's razor insists that I do not need any sort of special "reconnection" to produce these effects around spheres in a vacuum. A little electricity and "circuit reconnection' has been shown to work quite nicely.</p><p>I've shown you Alfven's mathematical models that approach these high energy interactions at the "particle' physics level and at the level of circuits. I've shown you papers on this topic from other authors that also make this 'connection' in event in the Earth's magnetosphere.</p><p>Now both of you seem to believe that we are discussing different things here, yet neither of you has an emprical test that actually supports your case. Neither of you can cite any sort of experimention with spheres in a vacuum using "magnetic reconnection". Neither of you can actually explain the differnce between Birn's "field" orientation and Alfven's "particle/circuit" orientation and explain how these interactions are somehow "unique".</p><p>I really don't know what more I can say or do on this topic. I've emailed Birn to no avail, and I"ve shown you Alfven's work on the "particle" side of MHD theory, and shown you papers where he explained these same events you attribute to "magnetic reconnection" in terms of 'circuits" and "particles". </p><p>I can't make you agree with me, nor can I get you to provide emprical evidence to support your case. There isn't any emprical evidence of this concept. The one real 'experiment' done on this idea involved "current flow", "ciruits" and lots of high energy electrons. The conclusion they came to was a direct result of the *assumption* they made about the current density remaining constant during the "pinch" and they never demonstrated it was actually constant.</p><p>About all I can say now is that I've done my part. I can't make you see these as the same things, even though Parker's work was well understood by Alfven and Alfven consistently rejected the idea that 'magnetic reconnection' was a unique type of energy transfer process. He consistently treated current carrying plasma in terms of particles and circuits for obvious reasons since he was an electrical engineer by trade.</p><p>Birn's work is also predicated on the "flow' of charged particles inside those "magnetic lines". That's called a "current carrying plasma filament", the same sort of filament we find in an ordinary plasma ball. It's existence is predicated upon the flow of energy through the 'circuits" that provide it with power. The moment we cut the "circuit' the light show is over. </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>I can't make you read your own papers.</p><p>I can't make you hear me when I say there are many more than "one real experiment".</p><p>I can't make you respond to my criticisms when something you post to support your argument(see: last post) and it doesn't say what you think it does.</p><p>I can't make you give us a paper that actually addresses the idea of circuit reconnection.</p><p>I can't make you stop jumping on sources that mention certain buzzwords(the last post is a perfect example. You posted that to show DrRocket that circuit reconnection is mentioned, but although it does use those two words, it doesn't use them together and is in fact about standard reconnection powered by dynamo effects, an idea not even supported by observation).</p><p>I can't make you stop repeating the same arguments and somehow declare victory because we are all sick of hearing you say them. </p><p>I can't answer you why Birn did not respond, though I am quite sure it is in the way you asked the question. </p><p>I can tell you that throughout the course of this thread, we've provided you with the foundation, the theoretical development, the observational evidence, and MULTIPLE experiments dealing with reconnection.</p><p>I can tell you that we've also given you a theory regarding how reconnection can accelerate electrons(magnetic islands)</p><p>I can tell you that you've ignored the main point of every single article, choosing instead to focus on what they call it.</p><p>I can tell you that in every single post you create "strawmen" as you like to call them, implying that the mainstream does not believe current flow is occurring and that electric fields have nothing to do with the process.</p><p>Read the book on reconnection by Birn and Priest. Read the literature you claim to understand. Read about the physics you claim to understand. If you still hold these wild beliefs then it is clear that you are too stubborn to learn, and are therefore not worth the time and trouble to educate you. The material is out there though if you ever change your mind. Don't even bother saying the exact same thing to me like I know you will. Alfven was a great scientist, but one book that is based on questionable ideas written well after his Nobel prize-winning work is not going to convince me, since it clearly hasn't convinced you. If you truly were confident in your beliefs, you would not shy away from all direct challenges and constantly remain on the offensive. Answering questions with other questions in a debate is a sign of weakness. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The most difficult part of this discussion is the fact that the both of you place little or no value on emprical scientific experimentation, complete with control mechanisms. Birkeland's work *proves* that circuit reconnection will:1) produce "jet" from the surface of the sphere.2) produce "loops" in the atmosphere of the sphere.3) produce aurora around spheres4) produce rings around spheres.5) produce high energy electrical dishcarge activity around the atmosphere of spheresFurthermore, ground and space based technologies have demonstrated that:6) gamma rays in the Earth's atmsophere are caused by "electrical discharges"7) electrical discharges can pinch free neutrons from plasma and we observe such processes in the solar atmosphere. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Even though it is a little like arguing with a boulder....</p><p>So what if Birkeland showed all of the above. Since there is NO MEANINGFUL CURRENT FLOW into the sun (no, the background radiation is not meaningful) that can be detected, Birkelands experiments relative to the sun are just a curiosity. There <em>is</em> validity to his experiments concerning the earth because of course there is a stream of charged particles coming from the sun and interacting with the earths magnetic field.</p><p>I can place a large bar magnet in a hollow sphere and duplicate the magnetic field seen on the earth. That does not mean there is a big bar magnet in the earth, even though I can do wonderful empirical experiments using that set up. <br /><br />There is a large 'current loop' in the Atlantic ocean, it is called the gulf stream. The ocean is very conductive because of the large number of ions in it. This situations is somewhat analogous to plasma. I have no doubt that it would be possible to replicate the flow of the gulf stream using an electrical field. That would be some great empirical evidence as far as you would be concerned that the gulf stream is electrical in nature. </p><p>Do you see the difficulty of relying on an experiment that looks like what is happening even though all of the other empirical evidence is against that hypothesis? No, well I tried.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JA000237.shtml <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The abstract is intriguing. Do you happen to have access to a copy of the paper itself? It would be interesting to see more detail as to what is going on here.</p><p>I don't know if I will be able to get a response, but I sent an e-mail to the address of a gentleman who would have been failrlyhigh up in the technical management of the lead autor. That may or may not produce more detail -- the target of my e-mail might well have retired in the last year or two. </p><p>I am a bit surprised that you have not made earlier reference to this paper. From the title and abstract it would appear to be germane to recent discussions in this thread.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even though it is a little like arguing with a boulder....So what if Birkeland showed all of the above. </DIV></p><p>It shows that no new forms of "reconnection" are required to explain on the high energy discharges we observe in the solar atmosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since there is NO MEANINGFUL CURRENT FLOW into the sun</DIV></p><p>What? How do you *know* that exactly?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[(no, the background radiation is not meaningful) that can be detected,</DIV></p><p>I "detect" high energy discharges in the solar atmosphere just where Birkeland "predicted" they would be found. I detect/observe constant solar wind acceleration just as Birkeland "predicted". I detect those "jets" as Birkeland predicted. I detect those neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere. What do you mean we don't meaningfully "detect" this current flow?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkelands experiments relative to the sun are just a curiosity.</DIV></p><p>Again, how do you know that? Have you even read it, or weren't you personally that curious?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is validity to his experiments concerning the earth because of course there is a stream of charged particles coming from the sun and interacting with the earths magnetic field.</DIV></p><p>So explain to us what causes that acceleration and explain how that constant stream of charged particles is being accelerated in the first place?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can place a large bar magnet in a hollow sphere and duplicate the magnetic field seen on the earth. That does not mean there is a big bar magnet in the earth, even though I can do wonderful empirical experiments using that set up.</DIV></p><p>But by doing so, we can "simulate" conditions of spheres in space. We can get a reasonable idea of the affects from a magnetic field around a planet or a sun might have on plasma in this manner. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> There is a large 'current loop' in the Atlantic ocean, it is called the gulf stream. The ocean is very conductive because of the large number of ions in it. This situations is somewhat analogous to plasma. I have no doubt that it would be possible to replicate the flow of the gulf stream using an electrical field. That would be some great empirical evidence as far as you would be concerned that the gulf stream is electrical in nature. Do you see the difficulty of relying on an experiment that looks like what is happening even though all of the other empirical evidence is against that hypothesis? No, well I tried. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>You're missing the point entirely. No *new* forms of "reconnection" are required to explain high energy discharge events around spheres in a vacuum. It's already been done with "electricity" and "circuit reconnection". Unless you have some viable evidence that some new form of energy exchange is required or justified, I see no difference between what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and the "circuit reconnection" that Birkeland experimented with in his lab. Both of these things *require* "current flow" to operate, and without current flow through the plasma, nothing is going to occur.</p><p>Plasma is an excellent conductor of electrical current and it has "predictable" qualities that Birkeland wrote about quite extensively. All of the events being attributed to "magnetic reconnection" were already 'predicted" in Birkeland's "circuit reconnection' experiments. </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 can't make you read your own papers.</DIV></p><p>Er, which one(s) might those be? The one that explains auroral activity in terms of "circuits", or the one that explained coronal loops in terms of "circuits"? Which one did I not pay attention to?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't make you hear me when I say there are many more than "one real experiment".</DIV></p><p>Which *other* real emprical experiment on this idea of magnetic reconnection are you referring to besides the PPPL stuff? We've been through the z-pinch experiments and they require "current flow" to operate, just like Birkeland's experiments and just like Birn's presenation. That seems to be the common denomenator in all these events. Alfven describe all current carrying events in plasma in terms of "circuits" and "particles". I can't make you accept the particle perspective of MHD theory. I've accepted that the "field" orientation has mathematical merit, but no magnetic lines ever "reconnect" in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't make you respond to my criticisms when something you post to support your argument(see: last post) and it doesn't say what you think it does.</DIV></p><p>What exactly do you think it says to support your beliefs?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't make you give us a paper that actually addresses the idea of circuit reconnection.</DIV></p><p>I have already provided you with a whole volume done by Birkeland himself, which I'm sure you're not read. He already emprically demonstrated all the things you attribute to "magnetic reconnection" are directly relatecd to the "circuit reconnection" that he did with his experiments. When he turned off the circuts, the light show was over. By turning on the circuits, the light show was created. Circuit reconnection has been emprically demonstrated to work, and it's been applied to spheres in a vacuum. That is light years ahead of where the mainstream seems to be with 'magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't make you stop jumping on sources that mention certain buzzwords(the last post is a perfect example. You posted that to show DrRocket that circuit reconnection is mentioned,</DIV></p><p>Yes, since that is what he asked me for. He specifically asked me for a reference to a paper that explained this idea and I did. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but although it does use those two words, it doesn't use them together and is in fact about standard reconnection powered by dynamo effects, an idea not even supported by observation).</DIV></p><p>Oh for crying out loud. Have you read the paper or just the abstract?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't make you stop repeating the same arguments and somehow declare victory because we are all sick of hearing you say them. </DIV></p><p>First of all, this isn't about "victory" from my perspective, it's about "science". I could care less for any sort of ego victory. That would be quite hollow in fact. I'm looking for emprical scientific truth. Period. It has nothing to do with individuals or victories. </p><p>[QUOTE[I can't answer you why Birn did not respond, though I am quite sure it is in the way you asked the question. </DIV></p><p>Sure, it must be all my fault he won't respond....ya right.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can tell you that throughout the course of this thread, we've provided you with the foundation, the theoretical development, </DIV></p><p>And I've shown you how Alfven dealt with these same ideas in terms of 'circuits' rather than magnetic reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the observational evidence,</DIV></p><p>What "observation evidence" do you have that doesn't also support "circuit reconnection" and wasn't predicted by Birkeland himself?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and MULTIPLE experiments dealing with reconnection.</DIV></p><p>Are you talkilng about multiple z-pinch experiments or something other than the PPPL approach that *assume* contant current densities during a z-pinch? Did you notice that thoses experiments require a lot of "electricity" and external "circuits" in order to create these z-pinch processes in plasma?</p><p>[QUOTEI can tell you that we've also given you a theory regarding how reconnection can accelerate electrons(magnetic islands)</DIV></p><p>And I've explained how those two dimensional 'islands" can be seen as a simple cross section of an ordinary current carrying plasma loop. That's all it is. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can tell you that you've ignored the main point of every single article,</DIV></p><p>That's rich considering you're ignoring the fact that Alfven explained the same processes you attribute to 'magnetic reconnection' in terms of 'circuits' and particles and you utterly refuse to acknowledge the validity of the particle approach to plasma physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>choosing instead to focus on what they call it.I can tell you that in every single post you create "strawmen" as you like to call them, implying that the mainstream does not believe current flow is occurring and that electric fields have nothing to do with the process.Read the book on reconnection by Birn and Priest. </DIV></p><p>If Birn cannot be bothered to even respond to a single email, why should I bother to read a whole book that *assumes* from the start that the magnetic lines contain "current flow"? I won't learn anything new that I don't already know from the paper as it relates to that subject and that is the key subject.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Read the literature you claim to understand. </DIV></p><p>I did. I went through it with you and showed you where errors were made in some presentation and where I agreed with other presentations. What do I not 'understand" exactly?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Read about the physics you claim to understand. </DIV></p><p>But that's the whole thing, I have, and you have not. You've read Birn's presentation, but you refuse to acknowledge Alfven's presenation of these events from the "particle' perspective rather than from the field perspective. I do understand that these are the same processes. You haven't really acknowledge Alfven's particle approach to MHD theory so it's not me that doesn't "understand", it's you.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you still hold these wild beliefs then it is clear that you are too stubborn to learn, and are therefore not worth the time and trouble to educate you. </DIV></p><p>Ah, I see. If after reading your references I don't agree with you, it must be me that is wrong? is that how you see it? Of course you seem to require nothing of yourself in this process. You don't require yourself to read Cosmic Plasma, or to seriously study Birkeland's emprical experiments. Nice rationalization, but not very "scientific" if you ask me.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The material is out there though if you ever change your mind. Don't even bother saying the exact same thing to me like I know you will. Alfven was a great scientist, but one book that is based on questionable ideas written well after his Nobel prize-winning work is not going to convince me, since it clearly hasn't convinced you. If you truly were confident in your beliefs, you would not shy away from all direct challenges and constantly remain on the offensive. Answering questions with other questions in a debate is a sign of weakness. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>FYI, what actually "convinced' me was not Alfven's work, but Birkelands emprical experiments. As I explained to you at the beginning of our conversation, I'm more of a "show me" sort of individual and emrpical testing is worth a thousand expert opinions IMO. Alfven's work helped me to understand the "big picture" (outside the solar system) a bit better, but the satellite images and Birkeland's work were the things that convinced me of the validity of EU theory.</p><p>I don't really expect you to understand where I'm coming from because you haven't actually been through all the materials I've read. I understand that you remain skeptical, and I can't force you to change your mind. About all we can do then is agree to disagree and let it go.</p><p>The thing I find quite sad about your last response is how little respect you also show Alfven. I can understand and appreciate your concerns about me personally, but Alfven's work is first rate by anyone's standards and the mainstream is still using his work to support their views. </p><p>It's also a sign of weekness IMO that none of you have addressed those gamma ray emissions or those neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere. These are easily both shown to be directly related to electrical discharges. There's your "sign".</p><p>I will say one more thing about this that I believe is highly important. While I believe that it is possible for two individuals to agree that magnetic reconnection and circuit reconnection are the same process, and thereby have the arguement become one of semantics, that is clearly not the case here. The fact we can't even agree that these are the same processes demonstrates the importance of naming conventions and the effect it has on conceptual understanding. No such thing as "magnetic reconnection" occurs in nature because magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect. The fact you can't accept that these are ultimately two circuits that "reconnect" shows that the name attached to a process can be highly misleading in important scientific ways. Our continued disagreement on this point demonstrates that there is a fundental problem with calling this process "magnetic reconnection" besides just the fact that magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect. There is a serious conceptual problem introduced by this specific term. </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'>Oh for crying out loud. Have you read the paper or just the abstract?<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Have you even read the abstract? The ONLY interesting thing it says is the language of the MHD simulations can be translated to the language of circuit theory. Meaning that in circuit theory, for reconnection to be able to occur, a dynamo is needed as a form of power source. Do you even know what a dynamo is? How can you reconcile the fact that we don't see any dynamos in reconnection regions? Are dynamos required by Birn? How can you explain your sudden flip-flop on how you value simulations? </p><p>As for the rest of the garbage, you are only proving my point. As I said, I've looked at both sides...mine and yours. As a student of science, I have to make a judgement on which is more valid, and the amount of supposed "evidence" for EU pales in comparison to the alternative. All you are doing is putting your hands over your ears and repeating the same post over and over. Go back and read your posts from page 1-20ish if you don't believe me. </p><p>Call me elitist, closed-minded, anything you want. But I refuse to waste any more of my time on someone who isn't even TRYING to learn. How is your statement that you'll understand everything in Birn's book any different from my statement that I don't believe Cosmic Plasma will say what you say it does? Both are assumptions. People in the mainstream have read Cosmic Plasma. The fact that you assert that they haven't is meaningless considering you aren't even part of academia. A few professors and scientists here and there that haven't is hardly an adequate or meaningful sample. If there were something that overturns current theory in that book, EU would have more supporters than a handful of crackpots on the internet and one or two discredited professors. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>I keep saying I won't read this pointless thread, but like any good slo-mo train wreck, you just can't tear your eyes away....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you even read the abstract? The ONLY interesting thing it says is the language of the MHD simulations can be translated to the language of circuit theory. </DIV></p><p>Gah! That's my point!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Meaning that in circuit theory, for reconnection to be able to occur, a dynamo is needed as a form of power source.</DIV></p><p>Alfven explained that in terms of "unipolar induction".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Do you even know what a dynamo is? How can you reconcile the fact that we don't see any dynamos in reconnection regions? </DIV></p><p>Do you recognize the fact that this is only *one possible* explanation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are dynamos required by Birn?</DIV></p><p>How exactly is he getting current to flow inside those magnetic lines?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can you explain your sudden flip-flop on how you value simulations?</DIV></p><p>I'm not. I'm simply not relying *only* upon mathematical simulations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As for the rest of the garbage, you are only proving my point. As I said, I've looked at both sides...mine and yours. As a student of science, I have to make a judgement on which is more valid, and the amount of supposed "evidence" for EU pales in comparison to the alternative. All you are doing is putting your hands over your ears and repeating the same post over and over. Go back and read your posts from page 1-20ish if you don't believe me. Call me elitist, closed-minded, anything you want. But I refuse to waste any more of my time on someone who isn't even TRYING to learn.</DIV></p><p>You know, that's utterly and completely unfair. I specfically have been through the papers that you and DrRocket and Derek have provided, quite a few of them in fact. I have provided you with ton's of free material by Alfven and others to support my case, and Birkeland's emrpical experiments to support my case. I've emailed Birn on this topic. I've done things by the book and made every effort to see things "your way". You however won't budge a single inch. You refuse to accept that a "particle/circuit" perspective is also valid. You refuse to learn from Alfven's work on this topic. You refuse to acknowledge the validity off the particle side of MHD theory. It's you that refuse to learn, not me. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How is your statement that you'll understand everything in Birn's book any different from my statement that I don't believe Cosmic Plasma will say what you say it does? Both are assumptions.</DIV></p><p>My assumptions are based upon Birn's own statements, whereas Alfven explicitly rejected magnetic reconnection theory in favor of a particle physics approach which he suggested was a more "fundamental" approach. Alfven's approach is also congruent with Birkeland's emprical experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>People in the mainstream have read Cosmic Plasma. </DIV></p><p>I have yet to personally meet a single astronomer online that has ever read that book. Who's read that book? Certainly not you, Derek or DrRocket.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact that you assert that they haven't is meaningless considering you aren't even part of academia.</DIV></p><p>Pure appeal to aurhority. Alfven was also part of academia.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> A few professors and scientists here and there that haven't is hardly an adequate or meaningful sample. </DIV></p><p>This seems to be a cross between an appeal to authority fallacy combined with an appeal to popularity fallacy.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If there were something that overturns current theory in that book, EU would have more supporters than a handful of crackpots on the internet and one or two discredited professors. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Birkeland's work has never been discredited. Alfvens' work has never been discredited. Bruce's work has never been discredited. It never will be discredited either because it is all based on emprical physical science, not simply computer models and blind speculation.</p><p>The fact you refuse to look beyond the label of "crackpot" only demonstrates your extreme bias. You've not even read Alfven's book on this topic so you have no idea if his ideas have merit or they do not. Calling a Nobel winning author a "crackpot" however isn't making your case any stronger, and everyone can see right through that nonsense.</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'>I keep saying I won't read this pointless thread, but like any good slo-mo train wreck, you just can't tear your eyes away.... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I know exactly how you feel. From my perspective it's more like watching a slo-mo lightning bolt strike someone. I can't quite tear my eyes away, even though I can see it coming and I can see those gamma rays and neutron capture signatures headed their way. 
</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'>Calling a Nobel winning author a "crackpot" however isn't making your case any stronger, and everyone can see right through that nonsense.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>I'm not calling him a crackpot...note I said "on the internet"...meaning you. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'm not calling him a crackpot...note I said "on the internet"...meaning you. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>EU theory is built upon the work of Birkeland, Bruce, and Alfven. It's not personal at all, and I'm not the only one to rejects "magnetic reconnection" theory. Alfven did that as well. </p><p>As I said before, I've bent over backwards trying to see things "your way". Not once have you made any real effort to see things from the perspective of particles and circuits. As a result we're having a tough time communicating. That's not my fault and it doesn't make me a "crackpot". All of my personal beliefs enjoy emprical support. That's a lot more than can be said of 'magnetic reconnection" unless you agree with me that magnetic reconnection and circuit reconnection and one and the same idea. Alfven looked at MHD theory from two different perspectives, the 'field" orientation and the "particle' orientation, prefering the latter orientation in any sort of current carrying plasma. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>I was trying to find info on EU theory to find out more. </p><p>http://www.holoscience.com/index.php</p><p>When I came upon this http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=3</p><p><font color="#000000">"Modern comets simply do not fit the descriptions from the past. Nor can they account for abundant evidence of fresh looking planetary cratering and scarring. Besides, in an Electric Universe comets are not the apocalyptic threat to the Earth imaginatively portrayed by artists. Such pictures are entirely fanciful because a comet would be disrupted electrically by a cosmic thunderbolt before it hit the Earth. The only visible evidence remaining would be an electric arc crater like Meteor Crater in Ari</font><font color="#000000">zona. "</font></p><p><font color="#000000">An immediate question comes to mind. Doesn't the recent impact of comet Shoemaker-Levy with Jupiter disprove this?</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was trying to find info on EU theory to find out more. http://www.holoscience.com/index.phpWhen I came upon this http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=3"Modern comets simply do not fit the descriptions from the past. Nor can they account for abundant evidence of fresh looking planetary cratering and scarring. Besides, in an Electric Universe comets are not the apocalyptic threat to the Earth imaginatively portrayed by artists. Such pictures are entirely fanciful because a comet would be disrupted electrically by a cosmic thunderbolt before it hit the Earth. The only visible evidence remaining would be an electric arc crater like Meteor Crater in Arizona. "An immediate question comes to mind. Doesn't the recent impact of comet Shoemaker-Levy with Jupiter disprove this? <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>I don't even understand why the author thinks that Meteor Crater is an 'arc crater". I've seen the hole up close and personal. It looks like like it "hit" the planet to me. There may be some arcing involved perhaps, but I doubt that's going to keep the majority of the meteor from striking the planet in every single case. Tunguska comes to mind as the exception, and probably not the rule of things that "blew" before striking the ground and even that event may be tied to lakes in the region. </p><p>It seems to me that size matters. </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 don't even understand why the author thinks that Meteor Crater is an 'arc crater". I've seen the hole up close and personal. It looks like like it "hit" the planet to me. There may be some arcing involved perhaps, but I doubt that's going to keep the majority of the meteor from striking the planet in every single case. Tunguska comes to mind as the exception, and probably not the rule of things that "blew" before striking the ground and even that event may be tied to lakes in the region. It seems to me that size matters. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Yeah, that's abunch of hooey. Meteor crater is a classic simple crater caused by a (relatively) small impactor.</p><p>I have a piece of the parent object in my hand right now.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p>http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma-Universe.com</p><p>I agree with Wayne. FYI, If you're looking for accurate info related to Alfven's work on EU theory, you might start with the link above. </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>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah, that's abunch of hooey. Meteor crater is a classic simple crater caused by a (relatively) small impactor.I have a piece of the parent object in my hand right now. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Boy I sure hope your shades are pulled down lol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Boy I sure hope your shades are pulled down lol <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>IMO there is a lot of good as well as bad information about EU theory floating around out there, as is true of almost every subject. Alfven's work is first rate, as is Birkeland's work. Perratt (one of Alfven's students) has published some excellent work on this topic as well. Dr. Charles Bruce and his students have also done some remarkable work on this topic. Much of the rest is pretty hit and miss IMO. Buyer beware, the internet is full of misinformation. </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>Let's try this one more time. Does anyone have more than just the abstract to this paper ?</p><p>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JA000237.shtml</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let's try this one more time. Does anyone have more than just the abstract to this paper ?http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JA000237.shtml <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>If I was still at LANL I could, but unfortunately we don't have the subscription...I emailed the astro librarian to see if there was some other way I could get it. If she replies back positively I'll post it here. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let's try this one more time. Does anyone have more than just the abstract to this paper ?http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JA000237.shtml <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Why? Are you looking for another opportunity to misquote someone elses work? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why? Are you looking for another opportunity to misquote someone elses work? <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>There's only one person here misquoting other peoples' work here and it certianly isn't DrRocket... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's only one person here misquoting other peoples' work here and it certianly isn't DrRocket... <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />Who would that be? And go look at the thread I started before you defend him. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram