ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 22nd April 2011, 12:53 PM   #361
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
It's likely Alfvén wrote exactly zero papers on breeding sheep, too.
Um his Nobel Prize was for developing MHD theory and the science of plasma physics, not for raising sheep. Wow. I've seen desperate, useless and less than brilliant comments before, but that one really takes the cake.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2011, 01:05 PM   #362
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Michael Mozina has been telling us that Alfvén's books and papers say absolutely nothing about magnetic reconnection. Here, however, he claims to have educated himself about magnetic reconnection by reading Alfvén's books and papers. That's a nonsensical argument.
Of course it is because you have a short memory. I've explained that I "came to accept' the basic concept of MR theory at space.com several years ago. I outright rejected the first few papers that I was asked to read based on their use of "monopoles" to transfer energy.

I was however eventually presented with a paper by Birn that clearly explained the "moving particles" and "current" in the "magnetic lines". It did not use monopoles to transfer energy and it used only Maxwell's equations. It was very clear to me that what he was describing was essentially "circuit reconnection", not "magnetic reconnection', but otherwise the math looked *FABULOUS* IMO. I had to "come to terms" with the idea that a B oriented math approach was mathematically valid, even if the name they assigned to the physical process was goofy.

Quote:
Why, then, is Michael Mozina unable to compute the curl of a vector field?
It would be absolutely pointless for me to bark math on command around here. All you would do is look for *any* flaw as an opportunity to ridicule me personally rather than to stay on topic. Onel, Mann, Alfven, Peratt Dungey, Bruce and a whole host of other authors that I have presented on this forum have done math for you. None of you have found any flaws in Alfven's circuit orientation to plasma physics. The perceived 'limitations' of circuit theory seem to be more limits in your imagination than limits of the theory itself.

Fortunately for everyone, GR theory does not rise or fall on my personal math skills. Neither does circuit theory. Get over it. No amount of bashing me is going to resolve your problem with Alfven's claim that MR theory was pseudoscience. It won't change the fact that he wrote HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of circuits in space and *ZERO* papers on *ANY* brand of MR theory. Deal with it.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 22nd April 2011 at 01:10 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2011, 01:59 PM   #363
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It won't change the fact that he wrote HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of circuits in space and *ZERO* papers on *ANY* brand of MR theory. Deal with it.

So we'd be idiots to think we can learn anything about magnetic reconnection from someone who never wrote a single paper on the subject?
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2011, 01:48 PM   #364
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
So we'd be idiots to think we can learn anything about magnetic reconnection from someone who never wrote a single paper on the subject?
I can see that you really don't get it. If magnetic reconnection isn't mentioned in the sacred texts, then it must not exist.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2011, 02:08 PM   #365
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I can see that you really don't get it. If magnetic reconnection isn't mentioned in the sacred texts, then it must not exist.
You missed the point entirely (again). Mr. Clinger claimed that I somehow misrepresented or misunderstood Alfven on this topic, suggesting that Alfven didn't actually reject MR theory. Were any of you actually willing to *READ* his work for yourself, he's quite clear about why he rejects the idea, and he consistently does so.

If Mr. Clinger's accusation were accurate, and I did in fact misrepresent Alfven on this topic, one of you surely would have been able to produce a few papers by Alfven on this topic.

You can blame Alfven for rejecting MR theory all you like, but blaming me for misunderstanding him, or misrepresenting Alfven isn't an option, at least it's not an *HONEST* option.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2011, 02:30 PM   #366
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You missed the point entirely (again). Mr. Clinger claimed that I somehow misrepresented or misunderstood Alfven on this topic, suggesting that Alfven didn't actually reject MR theory. Were any of you actually willing to *READ* his work for yourself, he's quite clear about why he rejects the idea, and he consistently does so.

If Mr. Clinger's accusation were accurate, and I did in fact misrepresent Alfven on this topic, one of you surely would have been able to produce a few papers by Alfven on this topic.

It doesn't appear that Alfvén wrote any papers on animal husbandry. Applying clear thought and rational judgement to that, it would be foolish to suggest that he considered animal husbandry pseudo-science because he didn't write anything about it. It's an irrational leap.

Quote:
You can blame Alfven for rejecting MR theory all you like, but blaming me for misunderstanding him, or misrepresenting Alfven isn't an option, at least it's not an *HONEST* option.

W.D.Clinger's analysis of Alfvén's comments seems to be contradictory to the claim that Alfvén outright rejected magnetic reconnection. I recall Tim did a similar analysis as did tusenfem, Ziggurat, Reality Check, and others. From these objective and informed explanations, it appears any claims about Alfvén's total rejection of magnetic reconnection are unevidenced assertions. Of course even if Alfvén did believe magnetic reconnection was, on the whole, pseudo-science and contrary to physical reality, the fact that it does occur would go to show that on that issue, he was simply wrong.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2011, 02:59 PM   #367
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Quote:
Of course even if Alfvén did believe magnetic reconnection was, on the whole, pseudo-science and contrary to physical reality, the fact that it does occur would go to show that on that issue, he was simply wrong.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2011, 03:25 PM   #368
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You missed the point entirely (again). Mr. Clinger claimed that I somehow misrepresented or misunderstood Alfven on this topic, suggesting that Alfven didn't actually reject MR theory.
Wrong: Perpetual Student gets the point that you do not.
Alfven never rejected MR entirely. He thought that it was misapplied as in the handful of papers he wrote on magnetic reconnection, e.g.
On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 81, Aug. 1, 1976, p. 4019-4021)
Quote:
The concepts of 'frozen-in magnetic field lines' and 'field-line reconnection', which are frequently used in discussions of the theory of the magnetosphere, have been criticized by Alfven and Falthammar (1971), by Heikkila (1973), and by Alfven (1975). In the present paper, it is demonstrated that both concepts are unnecessary and often misleading. The frozen-in concept is shown to belong to the pseudo-plasma formalism which is useful only in special cases.
ETA: Cited just 10 times in 36 years!

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Were any of you actually willing to *READ* his work for yourself, he's quite clear about why he rejects the idea, and he consistently does so.
Are you capable of understanding that many of us have actually been willing to *READ* his work for ourselves. We see that he is quite clear about why he rejects the idea aand that the idea is not your fantasy of all of magnetic reconnection. The idea is the misapplication of MR theory.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
If Mr. Clinger's accusation were accurate, and I did in fact misrepresent Alfven on this topic, one of you surely would have been able to produce a few papers by Alfven on this topic.
See above.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You can blame Alfven for rejecting MR theory all you like, but blaming me for misunderstanding him, or misrepresenting Alfven isn't an option, at least it's not an *HONEST* option.
We do not "Alfven for rejecting MR theory".
We blame you for lying about what Alfven actually states. He never rejected MR theory. He rejected the frozen-in field approximation except in special cases.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th April 2011 at 03:32 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2011, 07:38 PM   #369
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wrong: Perpetual Student gets the point that you do not.
Alfven never rejected MR entirely. He thought that it was misapplied as in the handful of papers he wrote on magnetic reconnection, e.g.
On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 81, Aug. 1, 1976, p. 4019-4021)
Huh? In that paper, he's criticizing ALL papers on the topic RC, not papers that HE personally wrote on this topic. Which paper that supports MR theory are you claiming that HE wrote on this subject?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2011, 08:37 PM   #370
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Huh? In that paper, he's criticizing ALL papers on the topic RC, not papers that HE personally wrote on this topic. Which paper that supports MR theory are you claiming that HE wrote on this subject?
Huh? That is a paper he wrote on MR theory, i.e. criticizing the misapplication of MR theory not ALL papers on the topic. HE wrote that paper personally. He cites an earlier paper HE wrote along with Falthammar (1971) . The subject is MR theory and its misapplication in the context of the magnetosphere.

This is a paper that Alfven wrote that
  1. supports the appropriate use of the frozen-in field approximation of MR theory and
  2. criticizes the inappropriate use of frozen-in field approximation of MR theory.
This is the paper that supports MR theory that HE wrote on this subject.

The fact that this paper by a Nobel prize wining scientist has been essentially ignored over the last 36 years indicates that he was stating the obvious. Plasma physicists knew 36 years ago that the frozen-in field approximation was an approximation ! They have sepent the last 36 years removing that approximation. They continue to work on MR theory. That is what happens in science.

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th April 2011 at 08:41 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 06:42 AM   #371
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Alfvén acknowledged magnetic reconnection

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Alfven never rejected MR entirely. He thought that it was misapplied as in the handful of papers he wrote on magnetic reconnection, e.g.
On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 81, Aug. 1, 1976, p. 4019-4021)
http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/...Lines_1976.pdf

The first four sections of that short paper describe a gedanken experiment in which the magnetic field is stationary. With a stationary magnetic field, there is obviously no magnetic reconnection.

In section 5, however, Alfvén explicitly acknowledges the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection in non-stationary fields:
Originally Posted by Alfvén
In case the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to speak of a `field-line reconnection.' We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism may be applicable, but this remains to be proved.
That passage confirms my interpretation of Alfvén's remarks in his keynote address, while refuting Michael Mozina's interpretation of those same remarks. Alfvén acknowledged the physics of magnetic reconnection, and acknowledged the "possibility" that magnetic reconnection "may be applicable" to the scientific problems that concerned him, but he was skeptical about its applicability.

As tusenfem and Tim Thompson have pointed out, magnetic reconnection has been observed in space. The relevance of those observations to the problems that interested Alfvén may not be entirely clear even today, but pseudo-scientists who reject magnetic reconnection out of hand or deny its potential relevance cannot support those prejudices by appeal to Alfvén's authority.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
We blame you for lying about what Alfven actually states. He never rejected MR theory. He rejected the frozen-in field approximation except in special cases.
That rejection is explicit in section 6 of the paper:
Originally Posted by Alfvén
In Cosmical Electrodynamics [Alfvén, 1950] I pointed out that under certain conditions the frozen-in picture was useful. However, the theory of magnetic storms which was summarized in the same monograph contains Bierkeland currents and magnetospheric convection (although in the wrong direction) and other concepts contrary to the frozen-in concept. From the observational evidence available already at that time it was evident that the frozen-in concept was not applicable to the magnetosphere, but the reasons for this did not become clear before space research had supplied us with relevant observational data. Later Alfvén and Fälthammar [1963, 1971] strongly warned against a general use of the frozen-in concept. It is increasingly evident that this concept belongs to the pseudo-plasma formalism which is useful only in special cases.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 07:50 AM   #372
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/...Lines_1976.pdf

The first four sections of that short paper describe a gedanken experiment in which the magnetic field is stationary. With a stationary magnetic field, there is obviously no magnetic reconnection.

In section 5, however, Alfvén explicitly acknowledges the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection in non-stationary fields:

That passage confirms my interpretation of Alfvén's remarks in his keynote address, while refuting Michael Mozina's interpretation of those same remarks. Alfvén acknowledged the physics of magnetic reconnection, and acknowledged the "possibility" that magnetic reconnection "may be applicable" to the scientific problems that concerned him, but he was skeptical about its applicability.

As tusenfem and Tim Thompson have pointed out, magnetic reconnection has been observed in space. The relevance of those observations to the problems that interested Alfvén may not be entirely clear even today, but pseudo-scientists who reject magnetic reconnection out of hand or deny its potential relevance cannot support those prejudices by appeal to Alfvén's authority.

That rejection is explicit in section 6 of the paper:

Thanks, W.D.Clinger, for showing once again that arguments like these...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Oh, I've posted what Alfven wrote about "magnetic reconnect" theory. He called it pseudoscience and claimed all DL's put another nail in it's coffin. He claimed that all MR theories in plasmas with current running through them were "misleading". They were better looked at as 'circuits' and "double layers". He wrote *HUNDREDS* of papers on the topic of 'circuits' and double layers. You collectively can't come up with even *ONE* paper that he wrote on the topic of MR theory.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The problem here is really quite simple. Alfven outright rejected and never once wrote about MR theory. He wrote HUNDREDS of papers and a whole book on the topic of "circuits" in space. That paper by Mann and Onel demonstrates that a 'circuit" orientation related to coronal loop activity works as well as any other orientation. When two or more "circuits/loops" do their "reconnection' process, it's simply "circuit reconnection". The moment you admit that the circuit orientation to plasma physics is valid, you lose this debate, not to me but to Alfven himself.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You accused me of *MISREPRESENTING* Alfven on this topic, or not UNDERSTANDING Alfven on this topic. You however have provided absolutely *NO* evidence to support that accusation, not even a single paper on the topic. IMO you owe me an apology.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
So you have crystal clear evidence that I have never misrepresented Alfven on this topic, not ever! He consistently preferred a "circuit" orientation to such events. Whatever "reconnection" happens, happens between two "circuits" according to Alfven, not just two "magnetic lines". You folks have essentially mathematically "dumbed down" a current carrying Bennett Pinch "circuit" to a "magnetic line" so that you can call it 'magnetic reconnection'.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Fortunately for everyone, GR theory does not rise or fall on my personal math skills. Neither does circuit theory. Get over it. No amount of bashing me is going to resolve your problem with Alfven's claim that MR theory was pseudoscience. It won't change the fact that he wrote HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of circuits in space and *ZERO* papers on *ANY* brand of MR theory. Deal with it.

... are nonsense, demonstrably wrong, apparently based on ignorance rather than knowledge, and in many cases completely fabricated falsehoods.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 09:14 AM   #373
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Thanks, W.D.Clinger, for showing once again that arguments like these...

... are nonsense, demonstrably wrong, apparently based on ignorance rather than knowledge, and in many cases completely fabricated falsehoods.
As I have pointed out many times, these are the consequences of trying to read scientific papers without the scientific training and knowledge to understand them. Mozina would be well served by listening to those who have read these papers and have knowledge of plasma physics.
Dealing with income tax computer programs has nothing to do with plasma physics.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 01:13 PM   #374
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
I've seen denial before, but this group is in a class by itself. You picked ONE LINE from ONE PAPER that claimed it "remained to be proven" at best case, and ignored the fact he called it pseudoscience 7 times, 10 years later at a conference for plasma physicists where he presented a paper on double layers. In the same speech he claimed that any double layer put another nail in the coffin of MR theory so clearly he thought the theory DESERVED to be buried by 1986. You could not come up with a SINGLE paper he wrote on this topic, yet you insist he somehow supported it anyway. What a crock.

The worst part is that you're denying the legitimacy of a circuit oriented approach even though Alfven himself wrote *HUNDREDS* of papers on that topic, and zero papers on the topic of MR theory. Not a single one of you (Clinger/PS/GM/RC) have actually read his book. Evidently the only thing that you could even dig up from Alfven on this topic to support you position is a single line from a single paper from 10 years earlier that said it REMAINED UNPROVEN.

Not one of you have yet to cite *ANY* flaw in a circuit oriented paper on magnetopheric activity, or flares. Not one of you have found a single paper where Alfven actually *SUPPORTED* MR theory. The best you could evidently come up with was a paper from 12 years *PRIOR* to his "pseudoscience" speech, where he claimed it remained to be proven. You're still in total denial of what he then said about that same theory 10 years later. How sad.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 28th April 2011 at 01:17 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 01:20 PM   #375
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Huh? That is a paper he wrote on MR theory, i.e. criticizing the misapplication of MR theory not ALL papers on the topic. HE wrote that paper personally. He cites an earlier paper HE wrote along with Falthammar (1971) . The subject is MR theory and its misapplication in the context of the magnetosphere.
Yet that is *EXACTLY* where you're trying to use it anyway!

Note that not one of you could come with even a single paper where Alfven actually promoted the concept and you're in total denial of the fact the he explained these exact same events using "circuit" theory.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 01:35 PM   #376
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
As I have pointed out many times, these are the consequences of trying to read scientific papers without the scientific training and knowledge to understand them. Mozina would be well served by listening to those who have read these papers and have knowledge of plasma physics.
Pfft. Clinger found only a SINGLE line from ONE paper where Alfven claimed that MR theory had not been proven to that point in time, and he utterly ignored he speech from 10 years later where he called it pseudoscience more than a 1/2 dozen different times. The whole lot of you can't even come up with A SINGLE SUPPORTING PAPER written by Alfven. As a group, you have yet to find any flaw in any of his circuit oriented papers related to these very same topics where you claim that MR theory applies.

I don't listen to ignorant people that are scientifically lazy, who refuse to read the appropriate materials, and who refuse to do their homework. If he actually supported MR theory, where's Alfven's paper on this topic? There isn't one!
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 01:40 PM   #377
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
I noticed that you all have refused to acknowledge any of the scientific criticisms that Alfven leveled at the whole MR concept and you ignored the fact he ruled out that concept *EVERYWHERE* inside the solar system. he did that because there is nowhere inside this solar system where current does not flow. You essentially don't even care what he wrote, you're going to believe what you want to beleive even though you can't find even ONE supporting paper on this topic written by Alfven. It's like me claiming that Einstein supported EU theory, but not being able to come up with a single supporting document to support such a claim. The fact he hadn't ruled out MR theory entirely n 1976 does not mean he had not ruled it out in 1986 when he called it "pseudoscience" in a room full of his peers.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 28th April 2011 at 01:41 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 02:18 PM   #378
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Exclamation Alfvén acknowledged magnetic reconnection and used circuit models

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Note that not one of you could come with even a single paper where Alfven actually promoted the concept and you're in total denial of the fact the he explained these exact same events using "circuit" theory.
You are wrong yet again, Michael Mozina:
Alfvén acknowledged magnetic reconnection

And stop lying:
I and other posters have told you time and time again that Alfven did explain solar flares (for example) using circuit models.
We have also pointed out that circuit models are an even bigger approximation than the frozen-in field approximation that Alfven advocates as useful in special cases. Circuit models totally ignore the details of what is happening by absorbing them into a few parameters (resistivity, inductance, etc.). As an example, in circuit models Alfven waves do not exist!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 02:29 PM   #379
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I noticed that you all have refused to acknowledge any of the scientific criticisms that Alfven leveled at the whole MR concept and you ignored the fact he ruled out that concept *EVERYWHERE* inside the solar system. he did that because there is nowhere inside this solar system where current does not flow.

You are persisting in your delusions
  1. We have acknowledged Alfven's 36 year old scientific criticisms of the MR concept, e.g. Alfvén acknowledged magnetic reconnection
    and many other posts.
  2. He never ruled out that concept *EVERYWHERE* inside the solar system. If I am wrong then quote him stating this.
  3. Electric current flows eveywhere in the universe.
    This has nothing to do with the critera that he uses (Why Alfven Was Wrong). That criteria is that there is no electric current passing through the surface of a finite volume, not that electric current does not exist. Magnetic fields can prevent electric currents from flowing through finite volumes of plasma by simply guiding them away from that volume!

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th April 2011 at 02:31 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 04:50 PM   #380
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Not one of you have found a single paper where Alfven actually *SUPPORTED* MR theory.

If nobody could find a single paper where Alfvén actually supported plate tectonics, it would be absurd to suggest that consequently he rejected it. Absolutely, unequivocally absurd. So absurd it's not even wrong. It doesn't matter what Alfvén didn't write about magnetic reconnection. It's irrelevant. This sort of dishonest contortion of logic only gets more ridiculous each time it's used as an argument.

But the fact is, Alfvén did apparently understand and acknowledge the existence of magnetic reconnection, as pointed out several times by Reality Check and others. To claim he didn't would be untrue and/or the result of ignorance of the preceding 10 pages of discussion.

Quote:
The best you could evidently come up with was a paper from 12 years *PRIOR* to his "pseudoscience" speech, where he claimed it remained to be proven.

So Alfvén said something, then 10 years later said something else that allegedly overruled his earlier comments, yet all research and acquired knowledge in the field of plasma physics since then can be discarded because, well, it wasn't Alfvén! Again, the depth of the illogic in these Alfvén-was-omniscient arguments is abysmal.

Quote:
You're still in total denial of what he then said about that same theory 10 years later. How sad.

A speech isn't a paper. It's a speech. But of course a dishonest and/or unqualified misinterpretation is still dishonest and/or unqualified whether the criticism is of a speech or a scientific paper. Also, accusing the participants in this thread of being in denial when most of us clearly acknowledge and understand Alfvén's position, with a few who are actual experts in fields of physics, astrophysics, and/or plasma physics even, is both a personal attack and a lie.

Last edited by GeeMack; 28th April 2011 at 04:56 PM.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2011, 05:40 PM   #381
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
This whole discussion about what Alfven said, when he said it, how many times he said it, etc. sounds like a religious debate about sacred texts. The only point that is relevant is whether the science supports the claims made, regardless of what Saint Alfven might have said.
Modern plasma physics accepts and deals with this process called magnetic reconnection on a routine basis: LINK. I, for one, could not give a rat's rectum about what Alfven said. If the thing exists and physicists throughout the world accept that fact and deal with it, that's the end of the discussion! Mozina's religious views on the subject have no meaning and are of no consequence!
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 28th April 2011 at 06:41 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2011, 12:29 AM   #382
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
The whole problem with the model that Alfvén is using, the coils and all, is that he claims to be making a stationary solution, whereas I see it more as a static solution, and there is a difference. He puts in the coils for the solar wind and the Earth's field and the tail and puts in condensator plates to mimic the electric field on the magnetopause. Then he puts in particles, first test particles, than many whist reducing the currens in the coils and the voltage in the condensor.

This, IMHO, does not create the same as the interaction of the solar wind with the Earth's magnetosphere. Alfvén creates a stationary/static situation, I do not see how he gets the solar wind to flow past the Earth. Naturally, in this kind of situation, one can describe all with an overall view and nothing changes. He also does not want to label his magnetic field lines (which are the Maxwellian type of field lines, he says, which show the local direction of the field, as if there are any other field lines). However, as e.g. Fälthammar says in his EOS paper, when the assumption of ideal MHD can be made (which is very often the case for the solar wind) then one can label field lines, and then the whole story of the sationary/static model is no longer valid.

We observe that magnetic structures, e.g. rotations of the magnetic field in the solar wind (see my upcoming paper Interplanetary magnetic field rotations followed from L1 to the ground: The response of the Earth's magnetosphere as seen by multi-spacecraft and ground-based observations) are transported through interplanetary space at the solar wind speed. This means that there are changes in the model that Alfvén wants to look at. Alfvén looks at snapshots of the whole system, and when nothing changes in the solar wind then every snapshot will look the same and you could get the impression that nothing is happening. However, it is clear from the Dungey cycle (presented 20 years! before Alfvén's paper) that just looking at that snapshot is not enough, there are dynamical processes taking place in the whole system.

Then Alfvén agrees that when something "dynamic" happens, reconnection may be applicable, though he prefers the old Boström model of "current disruption." What we see (see e.g. Trattner) though, in the magnetosphere near the cusp region, is that field lines that were closed (clearly from the kind of plasma that is on them) suddenly show solar wind plasma, which means that that region has been opened up. Indeed, this happens when the solar wind magnetic field is favourable for high latitude reconnection. All kinds of things that cannot be modeled by Alfvén's snapshot stationary/static coils model.

Since publication of said paper in 1976 we have 35 years (!) of development of magnetospheric physics, much (much) better observations of all the processes going on than Alfvén ever could imagine we could have, e.g. multiple satellite missions that scan the magnetosphere at separation distances from tens to hundreds of km. We are getting so much detail of what is happening in space plasmas, and everything we measure is in agreement with what is expected from magnetic reconnection, i.e. the behaviour of the magnetic field, of the plasma, of the currents. Luckily, in 2013 we will even be able to investigate the electron diffusion region around X-lines with the upcoming MMS mission. Too bad Alfvén is no longer there to witness all this progress.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2011, 09:10 AM   #383
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Real Plasma Physics & the Art of Denial

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I don't listen to ignorant people that are scientifically lazy, who refuse to read the appropriate materials, and who refuse to do their homework.
Then you should stop listening to yourself, as the self portrait you provide is stunningly accurate.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I've seen denial before, but this group is in a class by itself.
Surely one of the great ironies of all time is Mozina applying the word "denial" to anyone other than himself.

To begin with, we have Mozina on record as denying the fundamental validity of the scientific method at its core. Mozina maintains consistently that only controlled laboratory experiments produce results that are scientifically meaningful. So in one fell swoop he denies the validity of all sciences that rely on field observations for their data; natural scientists, such as zoologists, observing creatures in the wild, meteorologists, geologists, archeologists, astronomers, & etc. In Mozina's mind, none of these disciplines have any legitimate claim to be "science".

I have repeated this fact several times for well over a year, and Mozina has yet to even acknowledge the existence of the posts, let alone actually respond. The following is from February 1, 2010.

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?
Certainly, this level of denial should exclude Mozina from any intelligent discussion before it even begins. The evidence from these pages indicates that this idea is valid.

Next, we have the significant hypocrisy of Mozina demanding that only controlled laboratory experiments will do, but then denying the existence of phenomena we can actually see happen in real plasma, once the desired experiments are brought forth. I first posted a small list of papers referring to laboratory experiments demonstrating magnetic reconnection, and links to laboratory experiments with webpages, in 2009 ...

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection).
{ ... }
Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon verified by controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments. See, for instance, the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory. MRX has been measuring magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma since 1995, but there are experimental observations of reconnection that predate that.
{ ... }
Magnetic reconnection, as a physical phenomenon, regardless of the argument over words, is an integral & fundamental aspect of plasma physics. Denying the validity of magnetic reconnection is quite the same as simply denying the validity of laboratory plasma physics altogether.
At no time has Mozina ever commented on a single experiment beyond the level of saying that the experimental results must be impossible because Alfven said so. Not one single reference to actual experimental data anywhere, ever. The list I have shown above is by no means exhaustive, as there are more detailed descriptions available in texts & papers. But we can be assured that Mozina will deny them one & all, and do so without bothering ever to actually examine the experiments in any scientific sense. So I refer to the Mozina self portrait above on the matter of "scientific laziness".

And, as we see from the comment above, we can add to this a peculiar form of denial, namely Mozina's denial that it is possible for Hannes Alfven ever to have been wrong about anything, as if he were God incarnate. How can anyone be expected to take such an attitude seriously?

The plain, simple, and very obvious truth is that Alfven was wrong. He was certainly not the first Nobel prize winner to make mistakes, and he certainly won't be the last. He was certainly not infallible, and when it comes to magnetic reconnection he blew it. We have an entire scientific discipline of plasma physics in the world today which proves that fact beyond any shadow of a doubt. The only denial going on here is Mozina's tragic denial of reality itself.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2011, 09:47 AM   #384
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Then you should stop listening to yourself, as the self portrait you provide is stunningly accurate.
In the sense that you personally have actually read Alfven's materials for yourself, I suppose you have a right to your own opinion on that topic. In the sense that only three of us to my knowledge have every read Alfven's work for themselves, I could care less about the opinion of anyone else involved in this topic.

Having said that, I see no evidence whatsoever that this problem is in any way related to my math skills, or lack thereof. In fact I see *overwhelming* evidence that this is *conceptual* problem that you and tusenfem have with a whole "circuit" orientation of plasma physics.

It does have a direct physical consequence as it relates to "cause/effect" relationships as well. Alfven's circuit oriented approach put the electric horse before the magnetic cart. He used *charge separation* to drive the parade, whereas standard theory attempts to ignore the charge separation aspect entirely, and fixates strictly on a magnetic field orientation.

Ultimately I'm quite sure in fact that this issue is in no way related to my personal math skills. No scientific theory rises or falls on the math skills of yours truly. Get over it. I did however put in the time to research MR theory well enough to accept that the approach was "mathematically sound", even if they attempted to *ignore* the particle physics, and quantum physics sides of the argument and give it a really horrific title.

I therefore accepted that their "circuit reconnection" (with a bad name) orientation were valid if one were attempting to "dumb down" the whole process to a B orientation.

Alfven rejected that approach, and wrote exactly zero papers on MR theory that were positively skewed. In fact he specifically wrote hundreds of papers on a circuit oriented approach.

As I see things Tim, you got yourself involved in this topic with Don *long* before I even got involved in EU theory or had read any of Alfven's work for myself. I think your own "dislike" of the "EU movement" as you see it has prevented you from accepting the circuit oriented approach. It's not serving you IMO.


Quote:
Surely one of the great ironies of all time is Mozina applying the word "denial" to anyone other than himself.
That's because I'm not *denying* the B orientation they way Alfven did, nor I am denying the validity of the E orientation the way you and tusenfem are insisting on doing.

Where does that ultimately leave us? Well, we could look to the empirical physical level and you can explain to me how the kinetic energy transfer process takes place and how it's fundamentally different from induction and or particle collisions in plasma?

Care to give it a whirl, or did you just intend to deny the E orientation forever an ever over your disagreements with Don Scott, not Hannes Alfven, or Michael Mozina.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2011, 11:59 AM   #385
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Someone define

a) Reconnection rate (In relation to physically measurable phenomenon)
b) Magnetic tension (In relation to physically measurable phenomenon)
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2011, 12:00 PM   #386
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
[** Lots of words with no substantive comment on some alleged problems with magnetic reconnection snipped. **]

It appears there may never be a discussion of the empirical experiments which show that magnetic reconnection is a real, verifiable, genuine physical phenomenon. It appears that this...

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
At no time has Mozina ever commented on a single experiment beyond the level of saying that the experimental results must be impossible because Alfven said so. Not one single reference to actual experimental data anywhere, ever. The list I have shown above is by no means exhaustive, as there are more detailed descriptions available in texts & papers. But we can be assured that Mozina will deny them one & all, and do so without bothering ever to actually examine the experiments in any scientific sense. So I refer to the Mozina self portrait above on the matter of "scientific laziness".

... is one of the more germane, reasonable criticisms of the against-the-mainstream position. If the magnetic reconnection scoffers continue to intentionally avoid learning and addressing contemporary science, it seems likely they will never have a legitimate argument against it. And never is a very, very long time.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2011, 01:43 PM   #387
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
At no time has Mozina ever commented on a single experiment beyond the level of saying that the experimental results must be impossible because Alfven said so. Not one single reference to actual experimental data anywhere, ever. The list I have shown above is by no means exhaustive, as there are more detailed descriptions available in texts & papers. But we can be assured that Mozina will deny them one & all, and do so without bothering ever to actually examine the experiments in any scientific sense. So I refer to the Mozina self portrait above on the matter of "scientific laziness".
From your own first link Tim:

Quote:
Each 2.5~cm LaB6 cathode can produce current densities of 5-20 A/cm2 and Δ B/B ~ 10%. The background plasma (n ~ 2 × 1012 cm-3, d ~ 60 cm, L ~ 18 m, and τrep= 1 s) is produced with a DC discharge using a pulsed barium oxide-coated cathode. The two current channels are created by biasing the LaB6 cathodes with respect to a grid anode at the opposite end of the chamber. They are emitted parallel to each other and the background B field. J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact. Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents.
Emphasis mine. Alfven explicitly rejected the concept of "reconnection" in currents. Your experimenters are using *CATHODES* to produce *CIRCUITS* of flowing current. So what? That isn't "magnetic reconnection" it's "circuit reconnection" and the rate of reconnection is directly related to the CIRCUIT ENERGY of the two CIRCUITS.

I'm still waiting for either you or tusenfem to explain the unique kinetic energy exchange that is "magnetic reconnection". The transfer of particle kinetic energy to particle kinetic energy is not magnetic reconnection. The transfer of photon kinetic energy into charged particle kinetic energy is also not "magnetic reconnection", it's *INDUCTION*. What is the unique kinetic energy transfer process that makes magnetic reconnection so "special"?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 1st May 2011 at 01:45 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2011, 02:37 PM   #388
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Someone define

a) Reconnection rate (In relation to physically measurable phenomenon)
b) Magnetic tension (In relation to physically measurable phenomenon)
a) In relation to any magnetic reconnection events, Reconnection rate = the rate of magnetic reconnection events, e.g. X events per second. IN ralation to any magnetic reconnection events
b) IN rtelation to any maeasurable magnteic field, Magnetic tension = the tension of magnetic fields (this is a component of the Lorentz force).

Why do you ask?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2011, 04:20 PM   #389
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
I'm not sure if this is laughably ridiculous or ridiculously laughable. Tim points out here that the criticism of magnetic reconnection doesn't amount to anything more than a continuous bleating of, "Alfvén said it isn't so"...

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
At no time has Mozina ever commented on a single experiment beyond the level of saying that the experimental results must be impossible because Alfven said so. Not one single reference to actual experimental data anywhere, ever. The list I have shown above is by no means exhaustive, as there are more detailed descriptions available in texts & papers. But we can be assured that Mozina will deny them one & all, and do so without bothering ever to actually examine the experiments in any scientific sense. So I refer to the Mozina self portrait above on the matter of "scientific laziness".

And the direct response to Tim's comment is this...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
From your own first link Tim:

Quote:
Each 2.5~cm LaB6 cathode can produce current densities of 5-20 A/cm2 and Δ B/B ~ 10%. The background plasma (n ~ 2 × 1012 cm-3, d ~ 60 cm, L ~ 18 m, and τrep= 1 s) is produced with a DC discharge using a pulsed barium oxide-coated cathode. The two current channels are created by biasing the LaB6 cathodes with respect to a grid anode at the opposite end of the chamber. They are emitted parallel to each other and the background B field. J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact. Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents.
Emphasis mine. Alfven explicitly rejected the concept of "reconnection" in currents. [...]

Tim was exactly correct in his assessment of the scientific laziness and complete lack of legitimate criticism that comprises virtually the entire "problems with magnetic reconnection" argument. When the whole argument is just a droning repetition of, "Alfvén says it isn't so," the argument has failed.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2011, 07:38 PM   #390
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
I have no doubt that Alfven would be appalled if he could see the above exchange and witness how his work has been tortured and misrepresented.
The above exchange amply demonstrates that this is not science for Mozina; it is religion: Alfvenism?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2011, 09:23 AM   #391
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Tim was exactly correct in his assessment of the scientific laziness and complete lack of legitimate criticism that comprises virtually the entire "problems with magnetic reconnection" argument.
Sorry to burst your bubble but most of the critics of MR theory have at least read a fair amount of materials on the topic, unlike you and Alfven's circuit theories.

Quote:
When the whole argument is just a droning repetition of, "Alfvén says it isn't so," the argument has failed.
But nobody is doing that. I don't take a "hard line" position as Alfven did, I simply see why he rejected it. There's absolutely no logical 'emotional or scientific need' for "magnetic reconnection' as a unique kinetic energy exchange in plasma. Alfven's double layer paper does it with particle kinetic energy and simple induction.

Like I said, I simply accept the legitimacy of circuit theory as it relates to these exact same events. Your blind ignorance of circuit theory due to your refusal to educate yourself to circuit theory is no skin of my nose. Onel and Mann explained flares *beautifully* using circuit theory, and you've never found any sort of flaw in any serious work on this topic. EPIC fail.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2011, 09:28 AM   #392
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I have no doubt that Alfven would be appalled if he could see the above exchange and witness how his work has been tortured and misrepresented.
But not by you of course because you haven't said a word about his actual writings, his formulas, his papers, his books, etc. The only game you know is "bash the messenger".

Quote:
The above exchange amply demonstrates that this is not science for Mozina; it is religion: Alfvenism?
No, it's called an appreciation for empirical physics and the importance of circuit theory to *all* branches of physics, including astronomy. I'm sure Alfven agrees that circuit theory is vital to our understanding of space because, unlike you, I've personally taken the time to read his book on this topic. That's true of only three individuals participating in this thread. I haven't heard either of the other two level a legitimate criticism at Mann/Onel's work let alone Alfven's work with circuit theory.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2011, 10:40 AM   #393
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
But nobody is doing that. I don't take a "hard line" position as Alfven did, I simply see why he rejected it.

As has been shown many times in this thread, Alfvén didn't reject magnetic reconnection. To say he did would be a lie or an argument from ignorance.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2011, 11:44 PM   #394
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Real Plasma Physics & Magnetic Reconnection

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Alfven explicitly rejected the concept of "reconnection" in currents.
But Alfven was wrong to do so.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Your experimenters are using *CATHODES* to produce *CIRCUITS* of flowing current.
Actually, for the most part, no they do not. There are no cathodes involved. Currents yes, cathodes no.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That isn't "magnetic reconnection" it's "circuit reconnection" and the rate of reconnection is directly related to the CIRCUIT ENERGY of the two CIRCUITS.
Of course it is magnetic reconnection, because the reconfiguration of the topology of the magnetic field is the direct source of the kinetic energy of the particles. This is a fact proven in the experiments, which you know so little about you cannot even describe them properly, You certainly have never examined the data from any of them. It is just as I said before, you have nothing to offer except "Alfven said so". But of course Alfven was just plain wrong.

As for "circuit reconnection", you are conveniently ignoring the fact that I have already proven such things to be physically impossible.
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Magnetic reconnection only happens when the electric currents are flowing in opposite directions. That means, in your "circuit reconnection" fantasy, the currents bash into each other head on. Head on. So why don't you describe the physics for us, how these two currents manage to merge into another current, gaining energy despite colliding head on. And if that's not enough, how about conservation of energy? How do you explain the final current carrying more energy than the sum of the energies of the input currents? Where does all that extra energy come from (ignoring for a moment the head on collision of the currents)?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I'm still waiting for either you or tusenfem to explain the unique kinetic energy exchange that is "magnetic reconnection".
Ah, the infamous Mozina "I'm still waiting" game, conveniently ignoring the fact that this was done long ago, and has been done many times since. Magnetic reconnection is unique because it involves a fast reconfiguration of the topology of the magnetic field from a higher to a lower energy state, accompanied by a transfer of that energy lost by the field to the charged particles as kinetic energy. Induction cannot do that because (a) it cannot operate on such short time scales and (b) it does not involve a change in the topology of the magnetic field. Circuit reconnection cannot do that because (a) nobody knows what "circuit reconnection" is and (b) if you try to naively "reconnect" circuits that are running into each other head on they tend to collide and stop, not join and speed up.

I have spent the last few days, and will spend tomorrow, at the April Meeting of the American Physical Society. It has been hard to choose which sessions to attend, especially when I would like to sit in on several simultaneous meetings. However, one particularly interesting Sunday morning session was Laboratory Plasma Astrophysics, which included Laboratory Studies of Magnetic Reconnection by Hantao Ji from the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (co-author of the recent review paper Magnetic Reconnection, Reviews of Modern Physics 82(1): 603-664, Jan-Mar 2010). He reviewed the experimental advances recently achieved at the PPPL Magnetic Reconnection Experiment. It's just like I said. First, the magnetic field reorganizes, then the plasma accelerates. The magnetic field configuration is measured directly in the plasma and can be duplicated by theory. All of the peculiar details predicted by the theory are seen. On the other hand, there is no sign of currents running headlong into each other and magically "reconnecting".

Whatever "circuit reconnection" is supposed to be, one thing it certainly cannot be, is an excuse to avoid magnetic reconnection, which goes forth beyond doubt, in controlled laboratory plasma experiments.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2011, 03:16 AM   #395
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
I am sitting right across the room here from Joachim Birn. Maybe I should tell him "hi" from you, Mikey?
He is showing lots and lots of magentic reconnection in the Earth's magnetotail and other tails.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2011, 07:22 AM   #396
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
a) In relation to any magnetic reconnection events, Reconnection rate = the rate of magnetic reconnection events, e.g. X events per second. IN relation to any magnetic reconnection events

Define magnetic reconnection events without using the word "magnetic reconnection" twice.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2011, 08:42 AM   #397
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
I am sitting right across the room here from Joachim Birn. Maybe I should tell him "hi" from you, Mikey?
Sure, by all means. I still think his paper was one of the best I've ever read on the topic of (circuit) "reconnection".

Quote:
He is showing lots and lots of magentic reconnection in the Earth's magnetotail and other tails.
You mean that the current flow topology changes over time, and therefore so does the magnetic field topology. That's not "magnetic reconnection", but you can go ahead and call it anything you like as long as you acknowledge that current flow inside the line as did Dr. Birn.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2011, 09:03 AM   #398
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
But Alfven was wrong to do so.
No Tim, he wasn't wrong to do so because he could see a "simpler" way to explain the events inside of current carrying double layer without evoking additional (metaphysical) energy exchanges. It's pure plasma physics as explained by his double layer paper at that point.

Quote:
Actually, for the most part, no they do not. There are no cathodes involved. Currents yes, cathodes no.
The moment the currents were introduced Alfven automatically switched to the E/circuit/particle orientation, an orientation that is congruent with all other branches of empirical physics.

Quote:
Of course it is magnetic reconnection, because the reconfiguration of the topology of the magnetic field is the direct source of the kinetic energy of the particles.
That "topology" change you refer to is the change in the direction of the current, and is the result of a topology change related to the current, not simply the "magnetic line". The current is like the water and it's doing the real work. The topology change is like the riverbed change that results as a result of the change in the topology of the "flow" of charged particles.

Quote:
This is a fact proven in the experiments, which you know so little about you cannot even describe them properly, You certainly have never examined the data from any of them.
That is pure boloney. I've read *DOZENS* of them if not a hundred by now. At space.com I even picked out a few errors/"assumptions" used to justify the claim in PPPL papers, specifically when they "assumed" that the electric field remained constant even while the filament changed in diameter over that same time frame.

Quote:
It is just as I said before, you have nothing to offer except "Alfven said so". But of course Alfven was just plain wrong.
Nope. I can "sort of" see both sides of the argument, certainly from the standpoint of math. Maxwell's equations allow us to simplify for E or for B if we like. At the level of particle physics however, I completely understand why Alfven preferred a "circuit/E" oriented approach. You keep insisting on putting the magnetic cart in from of the electrical horse.

This is best exemplified IMO by the Onel and Mann paper where they used Alfven's basic approach in terms of "charge separation" being the motive force. It allows for 'currents' to heat up the *ENTIRE* loop, Bennett Pinches to occur, etc. Their paper also demonstrates a simple way to extend the basic circuit to include multiple resistors, multiple "lines", etc.

At the level of physics however, the "circuit" orientation makes more sense because it is the charge separation that drives the parade, not just the magnetic line that forms (sometimes briefly) during the discharge. Remember that white light image from Trace Tim? That's a "discharge".

Quote:
As for "circuit reconnection", you are conveniently ignoring the fact that I have already proven such things to be physically impossible.
You couldn't even hope to do that. Short circuit and change the wiring topology of any "short circuit" in two wires and you can essentially demonstrate "circuit reconnection". You're conveniently ignoring physics again.

Quote:
Ah, the infamous Mozina "I'm still waiting" game, conveniently ignoring the fact that this was done long ago, and has been done many times since. Magnetic reconnection is unique because it involves a fast reconfiguration of the topology of the magnetic field from a higher to a lower energy state, accompanied by a transfer of that energy lost by the field to the charged particles as kinetic energy. Induction cannot do that because (a) it cannot operate on such short time scales and (b) it does not involve a change in the topology of the magnetic field.
You keep parroting the same false claim over and over again and ignoring the implications of circuit theory *entirely*. Once the circuit is interrupted the *entire* circuit energy is released along the WHOLE CIRCUIT. You keep ignoring physics Tim. You also failed to explain the unique energy exchange mechanism. Particle collisions are not "magnetic reconnection' but they happen in plasma. Induction is the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy and that isn't "magnetic reconnection". What is the particle that carries the kinetic energy from the magnetic field to the charged particles Tim? Please don't tell me it's the photon because that is *INDUCTION*, not "magnetic reconnection' and it already has a proper scientific term.

Quote:
Circuit reconnection cannot do that because (a) nobody knows what "circuit reconnection" is and (b) if you try to naively "reconnect" circuits that are running into each other head on they tend to collide and stop, not join and speed up.
Onel and Mann demonstrated a way to release "some" (limited) circuit energy Tim. Did you not read their work?

Quote:
First, the magnetic field reorganizes, then the plasma accelerates.
How does it do that Tim? Physically explain the process in terms of actual particle physics and kinetic energy transfers.

Quote:
The magnetic field configuration is measured directly in the plasma and can be duplicated by theory.
With or without current?

Quote:
Whatever "circuit reconnection" is supposed to be, one thing it certainly cannot be, is an excuse to avoid magnetic reconnection, which goes forth beyond doubt, in controlled laboratory plasma experiments.
I'm not "avoiding" reconnection Tim, I simply prefer to use an appropriate scientific term that is congruent with other branches of empirical physics. Those PPPL experiments *REQUIRE* current Tim, and therefore any claim of "magnetic reconnection' is 'misleading' and can be discarded according to Alfven.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd May 2011 at 09:05 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2011, 09:10 AM   #399
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
a) In relation to any magnetic reconnection events, Reconnection rate = the rate of magnetic reconnection events, e.g. X events per second.
Define the 'event' in terms of empirical physics please. What particle does the kinetic energy transfer "event"?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2011, 09:35 AM   #400
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Sure, by all means. I still think his paper was one of the best I've ever read on the topic of (circuit) "reconnection".

You mean that the current flow topology changes over time, and therefore so does the magnetic field topology. That's not "magnetic reconnection", but you can go ahead and call it anything you like as long as you acknowledge that current flow inside the line as did Dr. Birn.

Magnetic reconnection occurs, the math is good, and the empirical experiments bear it out, so the only "Problems With Magnetic Reconnection" is it has a funny name?
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.