Yes I've checked ADS in the past and I read Arxiv constantly, but.......
Well, I did in fact miss that second paper on solar atmospheric activity which is why I'm so excited to read it. I suppose I do deserve some of that criticism related to "sloppiness" on my part. Of course you could really demonstrate your point by finding a couple dozen such papers related to circuits in solar physics for us.
Do your own dirty work Mozina, type in the correct words in ADS and you get a whole list. You have *NEVER* "EVER" searched on ADS. Take the solar paper, and click on "references in the paper" or on "citations to the paper." Is it that frakking hard to do? NO, but you rather stay in your dream world where everyone hates Alfven and nobody believes in currents. Your such a loser.
I think a single exception is hardly going to suffice if you expect me to believe you don't have an "anti-circuit" bias going on.
It is even part of the plasmaastrophysics course, at least where I was taught.
I'll need a wee more evidence than that to demonstrate you don't have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse.
You *DON'T*
WANT evidence, because that would shatter your fantasy world in which you are right and every body *ACTUALLA* working in the field is a fraud and a lier.
I admit I missed that *ONE* paper, but a single exception isn't exactly evidence of open mindedness inside your industry.
One, 1, REALLY, I quoted three recent ones for you, and that was just the beginning. A single exception, you gotta be kidding, wanna buy a bridge?
You personally still seem to believe in 'magnetic reconnection" as I recall but you can't explain how that particular release of energy is different from A) induction or B) ordinary particle collisions in plasma. The bottom line is that kinetic energy can only be passed by particles of light (quantized carrier particles of the EM field), or particles of plasma. It has to be one or the other.
Ah, so you can't get yours on the circuit board, so you just switch topics, nice and clever, Mozina.
Yes, reconnection exists and happens and no it is not induction because induction is a totally different phenomenon, which has been explained to you till everybody got sick of it.
You still have not presented any evidence that you have such a "*INDUCTION"* model and how it can be used to describe to
topological (difficult word, you might want to look it up in a dictionary) changes in the Earth's magnetotail or in a solar flare on the Sun.
Next to that you also have no working knowledge about electrodynamics, that is why you are so gung-ho on circuit theory.
Since magnetic fields can only form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning or end, they are incapable of disconnecting or reconnecting to individual lines.
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? a complete and full continuum?
There are all kinds of ways that magnetic fields can change topology and the easiest way to describe it is by using magnetic field lines, however if you would dive a little deeper into the electrodynamics and for example the modeling of the processes that we normal people call reconnection you would find that it all is based on the
vector potential of which the magnetic field is only the derivative. What kind of effects has that, please describe it, and at the same time explain to us the significance of the vector potential.
The topology of the circuits change over time and therefore the topology of the magnetic field follows, but again, it's a form of "circuit" energy" and/or "induction" that accelerates the particles, not "magnetic reconnection".
You don't know what *TOPOLOGY* means, Mozina, and why is it impossible to describe magnetic reconnection through circuit theory? I have already explained that to you before.
The particle acceleration comes from the tension of the magnetic field which is released. It was unequivocally shown in 2001 that there is tension in the magnetic field in the Earth's magnetotail through the specially designed mission Cluster, where throught the tetrahedron shape of the 4 spacecraft one can measure magnetic field gradients in all 3 coordinates and thus calculate all these interesting quatities like curl(B) and tension etc etc.
Induction is *UNCAPABLE* of accelerating (really accelerating up to the Alfven velocity) plasma
perpendicular to the local magnetic field. But I would gladly be proved wrong by you, just give me the derivation.
How many papers might I find on ADS on "magnetic reconnection"? Tell me you don't have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse?
There are lots of papers on magnetic reconnection as there a lots of papers of equivalent circuit representations or papers on auroral processes etc. etc. etc. But if you don't look for them then you will never find them.
And usually I take the electromagnetic horsecart, as I then can decide wheter it is more appropriate to transform away the magnetic or the electric field in the problem. Sometimes I look at v and B (like looking at dipolarization of the magnetotail) and sometimes I look at j and E (like looking at the acceleration region above the aurora). Most often though, you will find in my papers that I look at v, B and j.
It seems to me that your burying yourself in an empirical hole here. The control mechanisms for an empirical test of evolutionary theory does not *HAVE* to be directly related to DNA. That seems to be the glaring flaw in your logic, along with the fact that you're ignoring the obvious difference between theories related to empirically tangible things (in this case lifeforms on Earth) to inflation which is NEVER been seen on Earth. IMO it's sad that you *refuse* to see these clear distinctions.
