|
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. |
24th March 2011, 01:32 PM | #41 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:34 PM | #42 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:34 PM | #43 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
No you cannot. In fact, it's under considerable doubt that you can compute anything.
You have been presented with the equation for a vector field. From this equation, you should be able to calculate two important quantities: the divergence and the curl, both of which appear in Maxwell's equations. Can you or can you not calculate these quantities?
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 01:40 PM | #44 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:43 PM | #45 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:47 PM | #46 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
My equation wasn't for a closed system, so... you've got no point.
Furthermore, it has escaped no one's notice that you have yet to calculate either the curl or the divergence of the field I gave you. If you cannot do even such simple calculations, then you really have no chance at understanding electrodynamics at even the most basic level. And if you don't understand simple electrodynamics, well, your criticism of a topic involving complex electrodynamics is.. unreliable. To put it mildly. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 01:56 PM | #47 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
That's not how this works, Michael. You're the one that started the thread. You're the one making the claim that an entire field of expert researchers is wrong about a basic point. You're the one that needs to provide evidence that your assertions are correct, or at least reasonable.
You can't answer even this simple question, and it's transparently obvious why. |
24th March 2011, 02:04 PM | #48 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 02:05 PM | #49 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
Is this going to be another one of those "I'm going to overturn a large segment of known physics with this idea I have and random documents I link to but refuse to math" threads?
|
24th March 2011, 02:07 PM | #50 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
I would stop arguing this instant if they could tell me why there is no double layer at the boundary of differing plasmas.
You see, admitting that there is indeed a double layer at the boundary of differing plasmas is the same as them admitting that there is no such thing as magnetic reconnection. They can't do it. On the other hand, whether I get their question right or wrong has no bearing on anything. |
24th March 2011, 02:09 PM | #51 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
Smarter or dumber, the person making the claim goes first. That's you. Show us why anyone should take anything you say seriously. Show us that you're competent enough to do even basic electrodynamic calculations.
Or you could just admit that you don't know the math, you don't have the understanding to evaluate competing theories, and that you only believed this stuff because it sounded plausible to you even though you're in no position to actually evaluate it's merits. I do not actually expect such brutal honesty, but it would be refreshing. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 02:10 PM | #52 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 02:10 PM | #53 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
24th March 2011, 02:11 PM | #54 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 02:12 PM | #55 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
24th March 2011, 02:13 PM | #56 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
The difference being, you made a claim with your OP. Sol was nice enough to give you a simple math problem (Not for me, I admit! I am no scientist. Yet.) that shows there is a flaw with your idea. If you intend to examine this scientifically, I'd expect that you'd address Sol's exercise, examine the new information, compare that with your idea, then adjust as necessary.
But to me it looks like you know there's a problem, but rather than address it, you're trying to lure people off on a tangent away from the problem. I know little of science, but even I can see a problem with the way you're handling this. |
24th March 2011, 02:16 PM | #57 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
24th March 2011, 02:18 PM | #58 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
24th March 2011, 02:22 PM | #59 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
The OP did not say "reconnection can't occur because there's a double layer, and a current sheet, and there's infinity, and also 3D, and plasma". It said:
Quote:
|
24th March 2011, 02:25 PM | #60 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
That'd be worth ten points on the Crackpot Scale then.
Hmm, I *think* that's another ten points. Though if you resort to "hidebound reactionary" or "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy" you get twenty. It's forty points when you start comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. |
24th March 2011, 02:26 PM | #61 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
By default, the standard model of reconnection would be invalidated by the existence of a double layer.
I assumed you could figure that part out on your own. Just answer the question and I'll shut up about EU forever. Does a double layer exist at the boundary of two differing plasma regions or not? You can completely rid me of all my EU beliefs if you can demonstrate that there is no such thing as a double layer. Double layers create current sheets. |
24th March 2011, 02:33 PM | #62 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
|
24th March 2011, 02:34 PM | #63 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
Oh by the way guys, I'm still a little fuzzy where the standard theory of reconnection gets it's current sheet from.
I've tried to find a paper where they apply their theory to a real resistive plasma and derive a current sheet from MHD theory, but I didn't manage to find one. So I am still a little unclear how the existence of this current sheet is justified and how it was predicted by MHD models. I'm assuming that if MHD was actually valid it should have predicted the existence of the neutral sheet - right? |
24th March 2011, 02:34 PM | #64 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
Nobody here knows what the hell you mean by that, so no, we can't figure it out on your own. It also doesn't appear to resemble your earlier claim regarding the impossibility of magnetic reconnection, a claim which has been disproven but which you will neither admit was nonsense nor defend by actually doing the math.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 02:38 PM | #65 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
If only there was a way to find papers on particular science topics!
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=resistive+reconnection |
24th March 2011, 02:45 PM | #66 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 02:45 PM | #67 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
24th March 2011, 03:15 PM | #68 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
It looks like we have another plasma cosmology proponent who does not know the basics of plasma physics or electromagnetism.
Ziggurat has given you a defintion of a magnetic vector field. That magnetic vector field undergoes magnetic reconnection as it changes configuration with time. The answer to your question is trivial: Double layers exist. They are nothing to do with the theory of magnetic reconnection. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
24th March 2011, 03:23 PM | #69 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
24th March 2011, 03:24 PM | #70 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
24th March 2011, 03:26 PM | #71 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
24th March 2011, 03:26 PM | #72 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
24th March 2011, 03:27 PM | #73 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
24th March 2011, 03:29 PM | #74 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
I wonder where exactly this double layer is supposed to be located. The easiest way of measuring the topology of reconnection is in the Earth's magnetotail. There are very good observations presented in a paper by Runov et al. (2003) (I am co-author on that paper) where the structure of the magnetic field is clearly shown to be in agreement with Hall reconnection. However, there is no such thing as a double layer.
Now, why is there no double layer? michaelsuede is claiming that there are regions of differing plasmas. Indeed, a double layer can be created on the boundary of two different plasmas (e.g. of different temperature, or composition). But in reconnection this is not the case, there is, e.g. in the tail, two regions of oppositely directed magnetic field. However, in the simplest case the magnetic field is a Harris current sheet, where there is only a field in the X-direction which is a function of z and given by B(z) = B0 * tanh(z/L). Note that at z=0 there is NO magnetic field, which is to be expected at the center of a current sheet which separates these two regions. So, the only thing that is changing is the magnetic field strength, and that is gradually. Although there is a small region where the ions and the electrons get demagnetized in the centre, there is no reason there for a double layer (probably with the E-field in the z direction, but none of this anti-reconnection group of people have ever said how this DL should be situated). Now, indeed the magnetic field is a vector field and at every point (x,y,z) with all three of them elements of R, and thus at any value the field is determined. And doing reconnection research, naturally the magnetic field is a vector field. However, to visualize some steps, to get an idea of how the topology of the field looks like, one can draw field lines. This is just a tool, but an important tool, as e.g. it will show how there is curvature in the magnetic field, that there is tension in the magnetic field etc. etc. For the rest we can just copy/paste all the post that were made in MM's numerous threads talking about MRx, there is nothing new about all these comments, and most of them don't even make sense and some are blatently false (the magnetic field of a charged ball? No 3D zero magnetic field, one should look at the magnetometer calibration lab at my insitute). So, first question, please draw a picture of how exactly we should visualize this double layer. |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
24th March 2011, 03:33 PM | #75 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
24th March 2011, 03:46 PM | #76 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
The question doesn't even require any knowledge of electromagnetism. It's a question about vector fields, which are allegedly the basis of his argument.
His web site's 10 links for "Anti-Fascist Science" include a link to Pilots for 9/11 Truth. If he's impressed by their math, he must have trouble with basic calculus. Your mathematical arguments (in posts #14, #23, #28, #30, and #35) made no sense at all. Given a chance to prove yourself by answering a freshman-level problem in vector calculus, you hit the "LOL" key, threw more , and asked us to take pity on a "dumb kid". When I was in college, I was lucky enough to take courses from some of the world's best teachers. Some were famous, some were practically unknown, but I knew I'd be stupid not to learn everything I could learn from them. Here in this subforum, I've learned quite a bit from sol invictus, ben m, Ziggurat, and tusenfem, who have already taken the time to respond to you in this thread. You're lucky they're talking to you at all. I'm not so patient. There's no need to insult EEs. I've worked with a lot of them over the years, and most have known how to calculate the divergence and curl of a simple vector field. I think most of them would recognize the vacuity of your argument. |
24th March 2011, 04:12 PM | #77 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Any electrical engineer reading the article will find it full of mistakes, e.g.
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
24th March 2011, 04:25 PM | #78 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
24th March 2011, 04:28 PM | #79 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
Alfven explains where the DL is located in the criticism section at the bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=419551364 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Figure11.JPG MHD doesn't explain why your current sheet should exist. Modeling a current sheet is not the same as explaining why it is there in the first place. |
24th March 2011, 04:36 PM | #80 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
Research by wikipedia. Got any real sources?
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|