Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Who would that be?&nbsp; And go look at the thread I started before you defend him. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>If you've been keeping up with this thread you know very well who I think it is.&nbsp; The other thread is irrelevant.&nbsp; Everything DrRocket has posted in this thread has been fine.&nbsp; If you have a problem with him in another thread, keep it to that other thread.&nbsp; We have enough garbage cluttering up this thread as it is.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you've been keeping up with this thread you know very well who I think it is.&nbsp; The other thread is irrelevant.&nbsp; Everything DrRocket has posted in this thread has been fine.&nbsp; If you have a problem with him in another thread, keep it to that other thread.&nbsp; We have enough garbage cluttering up this thread as it is.&nbsp; <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />Fair enough. <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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you've been keeping up with this thread you know very well who I think it is.&nbsp; The other thread is irrelevant.&nbsp; Everything DrRocket has posted in this thread has been fine. </DIV></p><p>Except his "resistance" to "circuits' in plasma you mean?&nbsp; Except for the fact he won't explain anything relevant or answer any relevant questions being put to him?&nbsp; What causes those neutron capture signatures to occur in the solar atmosphere?&nbsp; What causes those gamma rays to occur at the base of coronal loops?&nbsp; What *is* a coronal loop and why does it reach and sustain millions of degrees *without* magneticly reconnecting with other loops for hours on end?</p><p>All of these observations were logical "predictions' from Birkelands orignal solar system model.&nbsp; All his work is based on the flow of electrons into our solar system and the "predictions' he made were a direct result of that sustained flow of external energy. &nbsp; The consequences of these current flows into the solar system were emprically demonstrated.&nbsp; It causes "loops" to appear in the atmosphere of any positively charged physical surface.&nbsp; It causes strong powerful discharges to occur in these looping configurations.&nbsp; It causes "jets" to blow off the surface.&nbsp; It causes pariicle accleration from the sphere.&nbsp; It causes all the same processes we observe in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; Indeed we see powerful electrical discharges in it's atmosphere that "pinch" free neutrons from the plasma atmosphere.&nbsp; Indeed we obserse those same gamma rays in it's atmosphere like we observe gamma rays from discharges in our own atmosphere.&nbsp; We observe powerful x-ray emissions from these loops due to that current flow through the loop.</p><p>All of these observation are consistent with Birkeland's original experiments with "electricity" and "circuit reconnection",&nbsp; The moment he broke the external circuits, and terminated the circuit energy that was flowing through the circuit, the light show ended.&nbsp; These are all "predicted" outcomes of EU theory as Birkeland himself defined it.&nbsp; There is no mystery here.&nbsp;&nbsp; The only real mystery is why the mainstream ignores all but his work on the aurora?&nbsp; The rest of his predictions, particularly and especially his solar predictions have all been verified by satellite images. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/cosmic.htm</p><p>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1946Obs....66..263B</p>http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/bruce-1960.htm<p>Dr. Charles Bruce was one individual that "got it" as it relates to the role of electricity in space and the role of electrical currents in the activites of the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; His work is also first rate, and some of his students have continued in his footsteps. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983P%26SS...31.1187H</p><p>FYI, this seems to be another good presenation of the "circuit/dynamo" concept and how it applies to planets. </p><p>http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Homopolar_generator</p><p>You should also be aware that this process plays out at the galactic lavel, all the way down to the solar system level.&nbsp; The spin energy of moving bodies is converted to electrical current over time. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p>Just fyi, part of Cosmic Plasma is actually scanned in here http://books.google.com/books?id=ZjwoGlIxvLUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cosmic+plasma+alfven#PPP15,M1</p><p>Most of chapter 2 and the beginning of the third chapter, which happen to be the main parts we've been discussing, are there.&nbsp; There isn't much to go on though in terms of math.&nbsp; Not surprisingly(to me), the parts there don't sound anything like your arguments.&nbsp; I'm still not shelling out the 153 dollars, but reading some is better than nothing.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just fyi, part of Cosmic Plasma is actually scanned in here http://books.google.com/books?id=ZjwoGlIxvLUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cosmic+plasma+alfven#PPP15,M1Most of chapter 2 and the beginning of the third chapter, which happen to be the main parts we've been discussing, are there.&nbsp; There isn't much to go on though in terms of math.&nbsp; Not surprisingly(to me), the parts there don't sound anything like your arguments.&nbsp; I'm still not shelling out the 153 dollars, but reading some is better than nothing.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Cool!&nbsp; Two chapters are better than nothing.&nbsp; Read the top of page 9.&nbsp; FYI, notice that Chapter 3 is entitled "circuits".&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cool!&nbsp; Two chapters are better than nothing.&nbsp; Read the top of page 9.&nbsp; FYI, notice that Chapter 3 is entitled "circuits".&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Actually, it's not even two full chapters.&nbsp; That is unfortunate actually since all the basic theory and circuit comparisons are layed out in Chapter 2.&nbsp; The rest of the book is the mathematical expression in terms of the full circuit energy and his&nbsp; explanation of how things are wired together. There is plenty of math in the rest of the book, I assure you.&nbsp; It's there in full detail.&nbsp; Whether you buy the book or not, there can be no doubt that Alfven approached current carrying plasma in terms of circuit energy and particle interactions at the "particle physics" level.&nbsp; He does explain that MHD theory has both a "field" and a "particle" perspective, and he talks about the boundary conditions in these opening chapters and the necessity of including the *total circuit energy* particularly inside of exploding double layers.</p><p>The basics are there, but most of the mathematical and physicsl presentations are not included in those few pages.&nbsp; Even still his theoretical explanation of the need to view these interactions in terms of particles and circuits is carefully spelled out pretty clearly in those opening pages.&nbsp; That should be enough for us to proceed actually, although the mathetical presentation is limited in the opening pages as he focuses more on the theoretic underpinnings of MHD theory, and describes the particle and field perspectives and where one must pay careful attention to the boundary conditions.</p><p>From a theoretical point of view, all of Alfven's core beliefs are spelled out in those opening pages. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cool!&nbsp; Two chapters are better than nothing.&nbsp; Read the top of page 9.&nbsp; FYI, notice that Chapter 3 is entitled "circuits".&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Look at section II.8 on page 37.&nbsp; Alfven describes there a conversion of energy in the magnetic field (1/2 L i^2) into kinetic energy of the plasma gas.&nbsp; That strikes me as basically a description of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; Note that Alfven specifically talks to the conversion of "part of" the magnetic energy to kinetic energy of the plasma and DOES NOT talk about the magnetic field energy as arising from the kinetic energy of the plasma -- consistent with standard physics.</p><p>Note also that what Alfven is doing is using field theory to construct a circuit analogy.&nbsp; He is not applying classical circuit theory directly to the plasma, but is fundamentally recasting classical field theory in the language of circuits.&nbsp; It is the field theory that is fundamental, and the circuit analogy is subservient to the more fundamental description provided by Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; For instance the "L" (inductance) is not a fundamental and physically identifiable element in the plasma but is a manifestation of the more fundamental B field and the energy density associated with that field.</p><p>Alfven clearly understands that Maxwell's equations combined with fluid mechanics (magnetohydrodynamics) describe the governing physics and that the terminology of circuits, while useful in providing insight, can only be applied within the boundaries imposed by field theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is the application of field theory and appropriate boundary conditions to the charged particles of the plasma that results in the circuit terminology, and not application of classical circuit theory directly.&nbsp; Understanding of the basic physics of electric and magnetic fields must precede the application of the circuit analogy.&nbsp; Once that understanding has been gained, the ciruit analogy then serves as a useful tool to illuminate the effects of the boundary conditions and the implications of the field theory -- see sectin 1.3 in which the flow of charged particles (current) is explicitly related to the imposed fields.&nbsp; Note also the application of field theory in 11.7. and the relationship of the types of current flows that he considers to the magnetic field in III.1.2 </p><p>Note also that Alfven on page 6 recognizes the value of computer simulations if they are based on solid physical principles.&nbsp; He basically recognizes that fundamental principles can be demonstrated in the laboratory under controlled conditions but that the description of large-scale phenomena and complex phenomena requires more than simple laboratory demonstrations based on shallow "looks like" criteria. His caution that good simulations require good physics is well-taken and is how modern physicists use computer simulations.</p><p>So basically, the Alfven description of physics and the Mozina description of the same situations seem to disagree in content and agree only on a semantic level.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Look at section II.8 on page 37.&nbsp; Alfven describes there a conversion of energy in the magnetic field (1/2 L i^2) into kinetic energy of the plasma gas.</DIV></p><p>Here's the quote:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>II .8 . An Expanding<strong> Circuit</strong><br />There is also another important way in which the energy 1LI2 <strong>of the circuit</strong> can be<br />dissipated . If an e<strong>lectric current flows in a circuit</strong>, it exerts an<strong> electrodynamic pressure</strong><br />such that the<strong> circuit loop has a tendency to expand</strong> . In cosmic plasmas, this pressure<br />is usually balanced by other forces (e .g., other electromagnetic effects, gravitation, gas<br />pressure) . If the current increases above a certain value its <strong>electromagnetic pressure may<br />be so large that the balancing effects do not suffice and the current loop may explode</strong>.<br />An example of this is the rising prominences . In this case part of the<strong> circuit energy is<br />converted into kinetic energy</strong>.</DIV></p><p>Is that the paragraph you mean?&nbsp; What is "I" DrRocket, and what is generating this electromagnitic pressure? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That strikes me as basically a description of magnetic reconnection. </DIV></p><p>He calls it an exploding double layer.&nbsp; in his paper on double layers he is particularly harsh in his criticism of 'magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; The *total circuit energy* determines the explosive force at the point of 'reconnection'.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Note that Alfven specifically talks to the conversion of "part of" the magnetic energy to kinetic energy of the plasma and DOES NOT talk about the magnetic field energy as arising from the kinetic energy of the plasma --</DIV></p><p>What do you figure he's talking about when he talks about the elecrtromagnetic pressure?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>consistent with standard physics.Note also that what Alfven is doing is using field theory to construct a circuit analogy.&nbsp; He is not applying classical circuit theory directly to the plasma, but is fundamentally recasting classical field theory in the language of circuits. </DIV></p><p>That's been my whole POINT!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is the field theory that is fundamental,</DIV></p><p>This is pure denial on your part.&nbsp; The particle approach is more fundamental in the sense that it is the particles that collide and provide the "circuit energy" that is being dissipated.&nbsp; You're ignoring the particle physical processes in play!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and the circuit analogy is subservient to the more fundamental description provided by Maxwell's equations.</DIV></p><p>Those equations show that there is a fundamental cause and effect relationship, and your denial of the importance of the circuit energy is making you look ridiculous.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> For instance the "L" (inductance) is not a fundamental and physically identifiable element in the plasma but is a manifestation of the more fundamental B field</DIV></p><p>No, it's a manifestation of the *circuit energy* and circuit processes.&nbsp;&nbsp; Your ignoring that these are physically related to the circuit energy!</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and the energy density associated with that field.</DIV></p><p>The "energy density"" you're talking about is in ther form of "current flow" inside the "magnetic line".&nbsp; The fundamental force of nature is kinetic movement of charged particles DrRocket.&nbsp; The magnetic field simply "pinches' the current into a current carrrying "rope" and acts to constrict the plasma flow into a small area.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven clearly understands that Maxwell's equations combined with fluid mechanics (magnetohydrodynamics) describe the governing physics and that the terminology of circuits, while useful in providing insight, can only be applied within the boundaries imposed by field theory.</DIV></p><p>The boundary conditions are not only related to the "field theory".&nbsp; The boundary conditions are determined by the flow of particles as well as the field itself.&nbsp; You're again ingoring the *particle kinetic energy* inside the "magnetic line".</p><p>There are plenty of examples in that book (I assume you now have it) that show where Alfven explicitly deals with the idea of "magnetic merging/reconnection" and goes out his way to reject it in favor of a "particle" appoach to this issue.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES<br />What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume<br />only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field<br />description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume<br />only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface.<br />All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy<br />this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention . </DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1I .6 .3. ENERGY RELEASE IN DOUBLE LAYERS<br />If a double layer has been formed by a current I, energy at a rate<br />is released in the double layer . This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles<br />. A small fraction is usually dissipated as noise . Of course, the accelerated particles<br />interact with the plasma and produce a number of secondary effects so that the released<br />energy fmally is dissipated as heating and radiation . Again, it should be mentioned that<br />there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of ',nagnetic<br />merging' or of magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which<br />implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration (II.33, II.53). In the<br />region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is<br />almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects<br />of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).<br />I1 .6 .4. EXPLODING DOUBLE LAYERS<br />As we have seen, plasma phenomena depend in a decisive way on the properties of the<br /><strong>whole electric circuit</strong>.</DIV></p><p>Why do you keep insisting on ignoring the *whole* circuit energy since is directly related to events at the point of "reconnection"? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...There are plenty of examples in that book (I assume you now have it) that...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Bad assumption.&nbsp; I have only the very limited portions available at the Google Book web site. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> There are plenty of examples in that book (I assume you now have it) that show where Alfven explicitly deals with the idea of "magnetic merging/reconnection" and goes out his way to reject it in favor of a "particle" appoach to this issue.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I think you are exaggerating what Alfven actually said.&nbsp; In the section on merging/reconneciton theories that's in the preview I posted, he says merging/reconnection theories that violate the condition that the perpendicular component of the curl must be 0 should be ignored.&nbsp; He says in the next sentence that there are good and useful papers on these theories, and I'm pretty sure he'd say Schindler/Hesse/Birn's definition is one of them.&nbsp; Whether they are analogous to circuits or not is another question...the fact that Alfven has a chapter in his book called circuits and he mentions circuits a lot doesn't do it for me.&nbsp; I need to see the math proving it.&nbsp; I simply cannot and will not just take your word for it.&nbsp; Even with a physical copy of the book, I am pretty confident I'd find that Alfven actually says something quite different from what you've been telling us he says.&nbsp; That is just conjecture though, but I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption...&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you are exaggerating what Alfven actually said.&nbsp; In the section on merging/reconneciton theories that's in the preview I posted, he says merging/reconnection theories that violate the condition that the perpendicular component of the curl must be 0 should be ignored.&nbsp; He says in the next sentence that there are good and useful papers on these theories, and I'm pretty sure he'd say Schindler/Hesse/Birn's definition is one of them. </DIV></p><p>In the sense that it is actually a synonym for "circui reconnection", i actually agree with you on this point.&nbsp; I think he would have simply looked at it as I do.&nbsp;&nbsp; I fail to see how you think I'm exaggerating when I quote him directly.&nbsp; Believe me when I tall you he's more harsh in other quotes on this topic.&nbsp; He clearly believes that it is the "circuits" that provide the energy and do the particles do the work at the point of "reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Whether they are analogous to circuits or not is another question..</DIV></p><p>IMO it's really the *whole* question.&nbsp; Alfven mentions someone named Hill that used the term 'megnetic reconnection" as a synonym of current sheet acceleration and he does in fact personally make that comparison. &nbsp; In other words he suggests that these terms are synonymns depending on the specific definition.&nbsp; I was really hoping to get a response from Birn on this topic because I do in fact believe we could be arguing pure semantics rather than having a debate about whether or not these are the same things.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.the fact that Alfven has a chapter in his book called circuits and he mentions circuits a lot doesn't do it for me.&nbsp; I need to see the math proving it. </DIV></p><p>If you don't read it, you simply deprive yourself from what you claim to seek.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I simply cannot and will not just take your word for it.</DIV></p><p>I'm not asking you to do that.&nbsp; I'm asking you to take Alfven's word for it because he wrote MHD theory, he was an electrical engineer by trade, and he certainly knew what he was talking about. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Even with a physical copy of the book, I am pretty confident I'd find that Alfven actually says something quite different from what you've been telling us he says.&nbsp; That is just conjecture though, but I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption...&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Your personal lack of distrust is not my problem, just yours.&nbsp; I didn't write EU theory. Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven did that.&nbsp; You can distrust me all you like but all three of them spoke about "circuits" and the electrical energy processes of the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; I'm not making this stuff up.&nbsp; In in the public domain and you are welcome to read it anytime you wish.&nbsp; Even the top of page 9 says precisely what I've been telling you all along.&nbsp; The "total circuit energy" will determine the outcome at the point of "Reconnection", and both "magnetic lines" can be mathematically modelled as "circuits".&nbsp; You can't change history.&nbsp; You can doubt me all you like, but it's not going to change the books that exist, nor any of the papers they have written on this topic. I certainly didn't just "make it up".&nbsp; I've been studying these ideas from Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven, and all three of them relied upon "circuits" to express and demonstrate their ideas.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bad assumption.&nbsp; I have only the very limited portions available at the Google Book web site. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You must realize by now that we would both enjoy this conversation a lot more if you actually sat down and read the book.&nbsp; I shouldn't have to demonstrate the validity of treating current carrying plasma in terms of "circuits and particles".&nbsp; These things should be obvious to you.&nbsp; The only reason you keep making these goofy statements is because you refuse to actually study his work in earnest.&nbsp; I didn't write the book on Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; Alfven did that.&nbsp;&nbsp; His work is noteworthy, even among your peers.&nbsp; Why you wouldn't invest a few bucks in educating yourself to his work, but blow all this time with me on this thread is beyond me.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's absurd that you make me cut and paste this stuff for you and then ignore everything he said only because you don't 'believe" me about what he said.&nbsp; Gah!&nbsp; It's so tedious and so unnecessry! </p><p>Circuits and particle physics viewpoints are an integral part of MHD theory.&nbsp; You can't ignore them only because you don't like the idea. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You must realize by now that we would both enjoy this conversation a lot more if you actually sat down and read the book.&nbsp; I shouldn't have to demonstrate the validity of treating current carrying plasma in terms of "circuits and particles".&nbsp; These things should be obvious to you.&nbsp; The only reason you keep making these goofy statements is because you refuse to actually study his work in earnest.&nbsp; I didn't write the book on Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; Alfven did that.&nbsp;&nbsp; His work is noteworthy, even among your peers.&nbsp; Why you wouldn't invest a few bucks in educating yourself to his work, but blow all this time with me on this thread is beyond me.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's absurd that you make me cut and paste this stuff for you and then ignore everything he said only because you don't 'believe" me about what he said.&nbsp; Gah!&nbsp; It's so tedious and so unnecessry! Circuits and particle physics viewpoints are an integral part of MHD theory.&nbsp; You can't ignore them only because you don't like the idea. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't know about DrRocket, but to me 153 dollars is more than just a "few bucks".&nbsp; I don't think it would even help this argument though, because even when DrRocket formed an argument based on Cosmic Plasma it's still not good enough.&nbsp; Nothing will be good enough until we agree with you in your mind.&nbsp; Part of science is having your beliefs challenged.&nbsp; When you give a scientific talk at a conference or something, people will ask you to defend your assertions.&nbsp; Telling them to go read a book or a paper is not acceptable.&nbsp; They want an answer when they ask the question, not months in the future.&nbsp; Buying this book would be an expensive distraction from my work.&nbsp; As the "asserter" it is your responsibility in a scientific discussion to defend what you say. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You must realize by now that we would both enjoy this conversation a lot more if you actually sat down and read the book.&nbsp; I shouldn't have to demonstrate the validity of treating current carrying plasma in terms of "circuits and particles".&nbsp; These things should be obvious to you.&nbsp; The only reason you keep making these goofy statements is because you refuse to actually study his work in earnest.&nbsp; I didn't write the book on Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; Alfven did that.&nbsp;&nbsp; His work is noteworthy, even among your peers.&nbsp; Why you wouldn't invest a few bucks in educating yourself to his work, but blow all this time with me on this thread is beyond me.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's absurd that you make me cut and paste this stuff for you and then ignore everything he said only because you don't 'believe" me about what he said.&nbsp; Gah!&nbsp; It's so tedious and so unnecessry! Circuits and particle physics viewpoints are an integral part of MHD theory.&nbsp; You can't ignore them only because you don't like the idea. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The reason that we keep having these disagreements is because I actually understand both field theory and circuit theory.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The reason that we keep having these disagreements is because I actually understand both field theory and circuit theory. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>So did Alfven, and he used circuits and particles to explain these events.&nbsp; Whom shall I believe, the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory or some guy I met in cyberspace? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know about DrRocket, but to me 153 dollars is more than just a "few bucks". </DIV></p><p>Compared to some of the programming books I purchase every year, and compared to what I spent on college, it's not that bad.&nbsp; There is always the public library.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think it would even help this argument though, because even when DrRocket formed an argument based on Cosmic Plasma it's still not good enough.&nbsp; Nothing will be good enough until we agree with you in your mind. </DIV></p><p>It's not a question of agreeing with me, but rather whether or not your opinions agree with Alfven's opinions on the topic of MHD theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Part of science is having your beliefs challenged.&nbsp; When you give a scientific talk at a conference or something, people will ask you to defend your assertions.&nbsp; Telling them to go read a book or a paper is not acceptable.</DIV></p><p>It is acceptable if the book is by the author of a scientific topic.&nbsp; It's the only rational starting point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They want an answer when they ask the question, not months in the future.</DIV></p><p>But I've already provided you with the answers and the quotes, but you still refuse to believe me. What would you like me to do?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Buying this book would be an expensive distraction from my work.&nbsp; As the "asserter" it is your responsibility in a scientific discussion to defend what you say. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I've done that already.&nbsp; You simply don't believe me at this point and I can't make you do that.&nbsp; Only Alfven or Birkeland or Bruce of one of those folks might do that, but I don't have the kind of credibility with you evidently and therefore I can't do much more to help you.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Compared to some of the programming books I purchase every year, and compared to what I spent on college, it's not that bad.&nbsp; There is always the public library.It's not a question of agreeing with me, but rather whether or not your opinions agree with Alfven's opinions on the topic of MHD theory.It is acceptable if the book is by the author of a scientific topic.&nbsp; It's the only rational starting point.But I've already provided you with the answers and the quotes, but you still refuse to believe me. What would you like me to do?I've done that already.&nbsp; You simply don't believe me at this point and I can't make you do that.&nbsp; Only Alfven or Birkeland or Bruce of one of those folks might do that, but I don't have the kind of credibility with you evidently and therefore I can't do much more to help you. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No, it's not acceptable.&nbsp; I am giving a talk in a few weeks in Daytona Beach and if I told anyone who asked questions afterward to go read a book on the interstellar medium it would not go over well at all.&nbsp; If you assert something scientifically, it is assumed you know it inside and out.&nbsp; Meaning you can defend it on your own. &nbsp; If I gave an answer like that after my talk, I would instantly lose any credibility the talk built up for me.&nbsp; People would leave wondering why they wasted their 25 minutes listening to me.&nbsp; That's just how science works.&nbsp; You have posted quotes, but the ones you have posted are not the whole story.&nbsp; Even you admit that.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Right now, the only reason I'd buy Cosmic Plasma or take a week to sit in the library to read through it would be to win an argument on the internet.&nbsp; I am training to become an interstellar medium theorist, so naturally buying this book isn't on the top of my priority list, considering I just spent hundreds of dollars on books on star formation and radiative transfer and am not made of money.&nbsp; I really don't think reading Cosmic Plasma is necessary to argue about your assertions.&nbsp; Someone can still argue about the theory of star formation without reading the original work.&nbsp; All that is required is someone to assert what it is saying, and someone to challenge it.&nbsp; We have challenged it, but you aren't giving us much to go on.&nbsp; I don't want you to type out the whole book for us.&nbsp; If Alfven says what you say he does, there should be a page or two of equations proving it.&nbsp; It is not too much to ask to at least type out the equations or even just explain them in physics terms(not semantical terms like bolding every mention of the word circuit).&nbsp; You have certainly spent more time and words on picking our posts apart sentence by sentence throughout this thread.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, it's not acceptable.&nbsp; I am giving a talk in a few weeks in Daytona Beach and if I told anyone who asked questions afterward to go read a book on the interstellar medium it would not go over well at all. </DIV></p><p>How many questoins of yours have I already answered so far?&nbsp; How many have you two collectively avoided thus far?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you assert something scientifically, it is assumed you know it inside and out.&nbsp; Meaning you can defend it on your own.</DIV></p><p>And I have done that.&nbsp; I've shown you the emprical tests of concept.&nbsp; I shown you the books and papers where Alfven uses a "circuit' orientation to explain solar atmospheric activity and Earth's magnetospheric activity.&nbsp; I've shown you satellite evidence of neutron capture signatures and gamma ray in the solar atmosphere and I've shown how these are linked to electrical discharges in plasma. &nbsp; I can defend it just fine, but you must also be willing to "learn" and to "grow" and to do some reading as well.&nbsp; If you expect to understand MHD theory, it's going to take some time.&nbsp; It's certainly taken me some time and I'm not in Alfven's league yet.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can however explain the basic concepts and point you in the right direction. &nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I gave an answer like that after my talk, I would instantly lose any credibility the talk built up for me. </DIV></p><p>I'm not giving you that kind of answer however.&nbsp; I've posted the relevant content from Alfven's papers and provided you with links to his work and other peoples work on 'circuits' in space.&nbsp; That's about all I can really do isn't it?&nbsp; What exactly are you expecting of me that Alfven or Birkeland could not explain to you in their own words?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>People would leave wondering why they wasted their 25 minutes listening to me.&nbsp; That's just how science works.</DIV></p><p>Science doesn't work by requiring lil Ol; Michael to explain the entire process to you from start to finish.&nbsp; I didn't make you explain every sentence of Birn's work did I?&nbsp; You gave me a reference and I responded to it logically and methodically and I even emailed him personally.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have posted quotes, but the ones you have posted are not the whole story. </DIV></p><p>I never claimed it was the whole story.&nbsp; In fact I specifically cited better matierials on this topic.&nbsp; There is Birkland's work for you to read, Bruce's work for you to read, Alfven's work for you to read, Perratt's work for you to read, etc.&nbsp; I need not provide you with every single idea or ever single math formula.&nbsp; That's not how it works.&nbsp; If you want the "whole story", you'll have to do your own homework.&nbsp; I can't do it for you, I can only do it for myself.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even you admit that.&nbsp;&nbsp;Right now, the only reason I'd buy Cosmic Plasma or take a week to sit in the library to read through it would be to win an argument on the internet.</DIV></p><p>Did it ever occur to you that Alfven (and Birkeland) could be right about how the universe actually works?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I am training to become an interstellar medium theorist,</DIV></p><p>Don't you think you'd benefit from Alfven's views on that topic, irrespective of the outcome of this particular conversation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>so naturally buying this book isn't on the top of my priority list,</DIV></p><p>Considering what you're intenting to specialize in, it should be on the top of your priority list IMO.&nbsp; I was no accident that he won the Nobel prize in MHD theory, and there is no doubt his work applies to your intended field of experise.&nbsp; I would think it would be a priority to you.&nbsp; The guy did write the book on plasma physics after all and he explained how he personally applied MHD theory to this topic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>considering I just spent hundreds of dollars on books on star formation and radiative transfer and am not made of money.</DIV></p><p>Then budget your funds and read through the first pages you find online and respond to the points he makes.&nbsp; I seroiusly doubt you'll need to read the whole book for you and I to come to a better understanding.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really don't think reading Cosmic Plasma is necessary to argue about your assertions.</DIV></p><p>You will have to 'accept' that the "particle" description of MHD theory is at least as valid as the "field" orientation.&nbsp; You need not read the whole book for you to agree to that, but you must at least read Alfven's words on this topic and respond to my points in a meaningful way.&nbsp; You can't just ignore the fact he's using "circuits" and the total circuit energy to explain the events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Someone can still argue about the theory of star formation without reading the original work.&nbsp; All that is required is someone to assert what it is saying, and someone to challenge it.</DIV></p><p>What exactly have you "challenged" from Alfven's own words on this topic?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We have challenged it, </DIV></p><p>How exactly did you do that?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but you aren't giving us much to go on. </DIV></p><p>For crying out loud.&nbsp; You gave me one "good" paper on the topic of reconnection, and a lot of other "not so good" material as well.&nbsp; I gave you *excellent* material (from a Nobel Prize winning author) yet you don't want to read it.&nbsp; Come on.&nbsp; Be reasonable.&nbsp; At least read and respond to the pages you can access for free.&nbsp; That should do it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't want you to type out the whole book for us.</DIV></p><p>How about responding to the points and quotes I've already made.&nbsp; Why exactly do you reject the particle/circuit orientation of MHD theory as Alfven explains it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If Alfven says what you say he does,</DIV></p><p>I quoted him for you.&nbsp; I cited papers from him on this very topic, papers that mention Parkers work by name.&nbsp; How can you possibly doubt what he says?&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>there should be a page or two of equations proving it.</DIV></p><p>There's books or two that prove it.&nbsp; Why do you expect me to provide you with more pages than the ones from Alfven that I have already provided you with?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is not too much to ask to at least type out the equations or even just explain them in physics terms(not semantical terms like bolding every mention of the word circuit).&nbsp; You have certainly spent more time and words on picking our posts apart sentence by sentence throughout this thread.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I'm doing my best to explain the terms and to enlighten you to Alfven's work.&nbsp; It would be easier if you read the whole book, but the first 10 pages should do.&nbsp; There is no doubt that Alfven used "circuits' and "particle" explanations in these energy exchange locations. &nbsp;</p><p>Keep in mind that I have not rejected Birn's work and Alfven acknowledge that there were some definitions of "magnetic reconnection" that were synonyms for current sheet acceleration.&nbsp; IMO that is the case in Birn's work too.&nbsp; His definition requires two "circuits' of flowing particle streams.&nbsp; They require that the currents streams intersect and interact.&nbsp; There's nothing fundamentially different in Birn's approach that changes the basic argument.</p><p>The concept of circuits can and has been applied to these double layer accleration events.&nbsp; The total circuit energy is important.&nbsp; Alfven prefered to use a "particle" approach to these energy exchange, particularly in current carrying, light plasma.&nbsp; The circuit energy has a greater affect than the fluid properties of plasma or the gravitational influences. </p><p>Keep in mind that Birkeland personally demonstrated all these points over 100 years ago.&nbsp; He created emp;rical experiments that "predicted" solar wind acceleration, that "predicted" coronal loop activity, that "predicted" auroral activities, that "predicted" jets, and it predicted "helix shapes" in plasma.&nbsp; All of Birkeland's key solar system "predictions" has been verified by satellites.&nbsp; None of these observations would have been the least "mysterious" to Birkeland.</p><p>If you believe that magnetic reconnection is uniquely different from the ordinary circuit reconnection used by Birkeland, and it can produce all the same exact high energy discharge type activities, let's see your emprical experiments to verify this claim!&nbsp; I can accept that Birn's math can rightfully also be called "circuit reconnection' and thereby be a form of emprical physics. &nbsp; Magnetic lines however do not "disconnect" or "reconnect" and that's never going to happen in nature. Only circuits and particles "reconnection". Birn's desriptions *requires* two flowing "circuits' of current flow.&nbsp; It requires these current flows to interact at the particle level.&nbsp; There is no fundamental difference between what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and what Birkeland created with "circuit reconnection".&nbsp; They are one and the same thing and they both require the flow of electrons through current carrying plasma. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081001-magnetic-galaxy-surprise.html</p><p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;<span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">[/QUOTE]Astronomers have long thought that magnetic fields grow very gradually from slowly rotating galaxies over 5 billion to 10 billion years, but the strong field finding may force some rethinking. Detected in a distant protogalaxy, it measures at least 10 times greater than the average magnetic field in the Milky Way.</span></p><font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">"This was a complete surprise," said Arthur Wolfe, a physicist at the University of California, San Diego, who headed the team that hailed from several UC campuses. "The magnetic field we measured is at least an order of magnitude larger than the average value of the magnetic field detected in our own galaxy."[/QUOTE]</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Of course in EU theory, the average magnetic field of a galaxy is directly related to the amount of electrical current running through it, so an older galaxy may indeed posses a stronger magnetic field than our own galaxy.&nbsp; It's not really that mysterious as long as we don't assume that all galaxies&nbsp; carry the same amount of current, or that the current flow has remained constant over time. </p></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So did Alfven, and he used circuits and particles to explain these events.&nbsp; Whom shall I believe, the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory or some guy I met in cyberspace? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You ought to be able to believe both of us.&nbsp; So far I have no particular bones to pick with what Alfven has said.&nbsp; It is your interpretation of what Alfven said with which I disagree.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How many questoins of yours have I already answered so far?</DIV></p><p>Zereo</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;How many have you two collectively avoided thus far?And I have done that.&nbsp; Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Zero<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Considering what you're intenting to specialize in, it should be on the top of your priority list IMO.&nbsp; I was no accident that he won the Nobel prize in MHD theory, and there is no doubt his work applies to your intended field of experise.&nbsp; I would think it would be a priority to you.&nbsp; The guy did write the book on plasma physics after all and he explained how he personally applied MHD theory to this topic.</DIV></p><p>There are more comprehensive books out there that are a little more useful to me.&nbsp; Of course they all incorporate and mention Alfven's early work.&nbsp; However, none of them treat things in terms of circuits.&nbsp; What my work will focus on is developing the physics involved in cold, dense star forming regions.&nbsp; This has more to do with radiative transfer and chemistry(i.e. atomic->molecular gas transition, cooling curves, etc) than E&M.&nbsp; B fields do have a large effect on structuring the regions, so of course there will be some.&nbsp; My intended implication was not that reading Alfven's entire body of work would not be useful, just that there are better, more modern and applicable books for what I will be studying.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You ought to be able to believe both of us.&nbsp; So far I have no particular bones to pick with what Alfven has said.&nbsp; It is your interpretation of what Alfven said with which I disagree.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Which "particular" (be specific) "interpretation" are you talking about?&nbsp; Are you ever going to address those neutron capture signatures or the gamma ray issue? </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>