IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 24th March 2011, 01:32 PM   #41
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I am shocked and appalled. Etiquette demands that you blockquote 10kb of text from plasmacosmology.info before declaring victory. A photo of Birkeland's terella would be acceptable if both seconds agree.
Awe come on

At least try to answer my question.

Does the double layer exist or does one not exist.

That's all I'm asking for.

Last edited by michaelsuede; 24th March 2011 at 01:33 PM.
michaelsuede 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 24th March 2011, 01:34 PM   #42
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
What is wrong with this B-field, Michael?

{Bx,By} = {b*y, a*x}

And why don't you illustrate for us that you understand freshman-level electrodynamics by computing its curl and divergence. If you cannot do that in your head or in a few seconds on paper, you have no business whatsoever discussing this topic.

Can you do that?
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Gibberish.

What are the divergence and curl of that B-field, Michael?
Why can't you answer this question, Michael? Could it be you don't understand basic electrodynamics?
sol invictus 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 24th March 2011, 01:34 PM   #43
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I can compute that there is no such thing as a null point singularity in real 3 dimensional space.
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:
Especially in the middle of a current sheet.
I never said that this was the equation for the magnetic field in the middle of a current sheet. I only claimed that it was a valid magnetic field for some current configuration.
__________________
"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
Ziggurat 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 24th March 2011, 01:40 PM   #44
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

No, you aren't understanding me at all. The volume over which the field may or may not be zero depends upon the system under consideration. For a toroidal solenoid, the field is completely confined to the solenoid, and is zero everywhere outside the solenoid. If one has a spherical shell of superconductor with nothing inside, then the field will be zero within that sphere. If one has a cylindrical wire with uniform current flowing through, then only the central axis (a zero-volume null point) has zero field. It all depends on the system you're looking at.
Indeed, the system is the problem here.

We aren't talking about a closed system now are we.
michaelsuede 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 24th March 2011, 01:43 PM   #45
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Why can't you answer this question, Michael? Could it be you don't understand basic electrodynamics?
I'll answer your question when you tell me why there is no double layer at the boundary of differing plasmas.

I asked first.
michaelsuede 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 24th March 2011, 01:47 PM   #46
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Indeed, the system is the problem here.

We aren't talking about a closed system now are we.
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
Ziggurat 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 24th March 2011, 01:56 PM   #47
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I'll answer your question when you tell me why there is no double layer at the boundary of differing plasmas.

I asked first.
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.
sol invictus 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 24th March 2011, 02:04 PM   #48
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
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.
LOL

Great scientific response.

I hope you aren't teaching any students.

You are supposed to be far smarter than me, it isn't fair to make the dumb kid go first.

Last edited by michaelsuede; 24th March 2011 at 02:05 PM.
michaelsuede 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 24th March 2011, 02:05 PM   #49
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
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?
Mister Earl 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 24th March 2011, 02:07 PM   #50
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
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?
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.

Last edited by michaelsuede; 24th March 2011 at 02:09 PM.
michaelsuede 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 24th March 2011, 02:09 PM   #51
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
You are supposed to be far smarter than me, it isn't fair to make the dumb kid go first.
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
Ziggurat 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 24th March 2011, 02:10 PM   #52
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
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?
It already is, Earl. It already is.
__________________
"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
Ziggurat 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 24th March 2011, 02:10 PM   #53
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Awe come on

At least try to answer my question.

Does the double layer exist or does one not exist.

That's all I'm asking for.
Um sure, then why did you make your OP so long?
__________________
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
Dancing David 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 24th March 2011, 02:11 PM   #54
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Um sure, then why did you make your OP so long?
Because I didn't write that article for astrophysicists, I wrote it for average joe electrical engineers who understand circuit theory.

Any electrical engineer reading the article will find it quite compelling.
michaelsuede 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 24th March 2011, 02:12 PM   #55
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
LOL

Great scientific response.

I hope you aren't teaching any students.

You are supposed to be far smarter than me, it isn't fair to make the dumb kid go first.
I see that you have resorted to argument through rhetoric rather than showing you understand the question, never a good sign.
__________________
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
Dancing David 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 24th March 2011, 02:13 PM   #56
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
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.
Mister Earl 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 24th March 2011, 02:16 PM   #57
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Haven't we been through all this before?
Yes several times. However every EU/PC crank insists on repeating the process, refuses to read previously posted material and posts the same nonsense. Though this poster seems to believe in an enlarged conspiracy.......
catsmate 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 24th March 2011, 02:18 PM   #58
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Good

Looks like I won this round.
Unjustified arrogance rocks.
catsmate 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 24th March 2011, 02:22 PM   #59
ben m
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:
Since a magnetic field is an infinite continuum, there can be no splitting and reconnecting of field lines. In order for a field line (which is a mathematical construct used to describe the location of a magnetic field) to “reconnect” it would first have to be spliced in half.
Funny how quickly that morphs into a totally different argument about how magnetic reconnection doesn't work in some specific plasma context. It's not just moving the goalposts. The goalposts have been removed and replaced with a panel of figure-skating judges.

Last edited by ben m; 24th March 2011 at 02:25 PM.
ben m 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 24th March 2011, 02:25 PM   #60
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
I have no idea what you mean by "infinite vector field", that sounds like a term you invented all by yourself.
That'd be worth ten points on the Crackpot Scale then.

Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Given that you are engaging in ad homs rather than explaining why there is no double layer, I will consider that a victory for my cause.
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.
catsmate 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 24th March 2011, 02:26 PM   #61
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
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:



Funny how quickly that morphs into a totally different argument about how magnetic reconnection doesn't work in some specific plasma context.
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.

Last edited by michaelsuede; 24th March 2011 at 02:28 PM.
michaelsuede 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 24th March 2011, 02:33 PM   #62
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
By default, the standard model of reconnection would be invalidated by the existence of a double layer.

Does a double layer exist at the boundary of two differing plasma regions or not?

Double layers create current sheets.
That's funny, I could have sworn you said:

Quote:
Since a magnetic field is an infinite continuum, there can be no splitting and reconnecting of field lines. In order for a field line (which is a mathematical construct used to describe the location of a magnetic field) to “reconnect” it would first have to be spliced in half.
ben m 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 24th March 2011, 02:34 PM   #63
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
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?
michaelsuede 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 24th March 2011, 02:34 PM   #64
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
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.
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:
Just answer the question and I'll shut up about EU forever.
Just prove that you can do the math and I'll shut up about your total inability to understand electrodynamics at all.

Quote:
Double layers create current sheets.
That's nice. It's also irrelevant. Magnetic reconnection theory doesn't require that double layers or current sheets don't exist.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Ziggurat; 24th March 2011 at 02:43 PM.
Ziggurat 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 24th March 2011, 02:38 PM   #65
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
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.
If only there was a way to find papers on particular science topics!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=resistive+reconnection
ben m 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 24th March 2011, 02:45 PM   #66
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Oh by the way guys, I'm still a little fuzzy where the standard theory of reconnection gets it's current sheet from.
You're fuzzy on a lot of things, including basic electrodynamics. Which is why you still haven't done those basic calculations: you don't know how to.

But you can't bring yourself to admit that you can't.
__________________
"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
Ziggurat 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 24th March 2011, 02:45 PM   #67
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I thought I just did.

With a peer reviewed paper no less.
Well i suppose you did respond. Just not in any meaningful or particularly coherent manner.
Tubbythin 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 24th March 2011, 03:15 PM   #68
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Does the double layer exist or does one not exist.

That's all I'm asking for.
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.
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 24th March 2011, 03:23 PM   #69
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
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?
Not another one! Haven't these mathproof geniuses got anything better to do?
dafydd 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 24th March 2011, 03:24 PM   #70
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Because I didn't write that article for astrophysicists, I wrote it for average joe electrical engineers who understand circuit theory.

Any electrical engineer reading the article will find it quite compelling.hilarious
ftfy
dafydd 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 24th March 2011, 03:26 PM   #71
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
LOL

Great scientific response.
LOL - you are supposed to be the person who claims that magnetic reconnection is impossible despite the fact that Maxwell's equations say that it is possible.

You have a claim. You need to produce the evidence for the claim. That is science.
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 24th March 2011, 03:26 PM   #72
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
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?
Can you do the math or not? Then the thread can proceed.
dafydd 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 24th March 2011, 03:27 PM   #73
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
LOL - you are supposed to be the person who claims that magnetic reconnection is impossible despite the fact that Maxwell's equations say that it is possible.

You have a claim. You need to produce the evidence for the claim. That is science.
These people do not do science.
dafydd 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 24th March 2011, 03:29 PM   #74
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
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
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 24th March 2011, 03:33 PM   #75
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
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.
Do the two Michaels know each other?
dafydd 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 24th March 2011, 03:46 PM   #76
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Why can't you answer this question, Michael? Could it be you don't understand basic electrodynamics?
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.

Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
LOL

Great scientific response.

I hope you aren't teaching any students.

You are supposed to be far smarter than me, it isn't fair to make the dumb kid go first.
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.

Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Because I didn't write that article for astrophysicists, I wrote it for average joe electrical engineers who understand circuit theory.

Any electrical engineer reading the article will find it quite compelling.
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.
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 24th March 2011, 04:12 PM   #77
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Any electrical engineer reading the article will find it quite compelling.
Any electrical engineer reading the article will find it full of mistakes, e.g.
  1. All Some plasmas require a constant source of electrical input to sustain them.
    Others just need heat to disassociate neutral atoms , e.g. just about every astronomical plasma.
  2. All Laboratory plasmas have electrical currents flowing through them at all times.
    Plasmas in general have no electrical currents flowing through them. What they have is moving electrons and ions. These give currents at lengths comparable to the Debye length.
  3. All Some magnetic fields in a plasma are caused by the electrical currents that are flowing through them.
    There are also external magnetic fields. And once again the magnetic fields caused by the moving electrons and ions are small scale.
  4. "All plasmas must obey Kirchoff’s circuit laws" on scales of the Debye length, e.g. about a 10 meters for the solar wind.
  5. The Sweet-Parker model of magnetic reconnection does not mention a double layer because there is none. It is a model where plasmas with opposite magnetic fields are pushed together.
    There is no current imposed on the plasma so this is a current-free plasma. To get a current-free double layer you need plasma with different properties such as electron temperature, composition or density.
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 24th March 2011, 04:25 PM   #78
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Any electrical engineer reading the article will find it full of mistakes, e.g.
  1. All Some plasmas require a constant source of electrical input to sustain them.
    Others just need heat to disassociate neutral atoms , e.g. just about every astronomical plasma.
  2. All Laboratory plasmas have electrical currents flowing through them at all times.
    Plasmas in general have no electrical currents flowing through them. What they have is moving electrons and ions. These give currents at lengths comparable to the Debye length.
  3. All Some magnetic fields in a plasma are caused by the electrical currents that are flowing through them.
    There are also external magnetic fields. And once again the magnetic fields caused by the moving electrons and ions are small scale.
  4. "All plasmas must obey Kirchoff’s circuit laws" on scales of the Debye length, e.g. about a 10 meters for the solar wind.
  5. The Sweet-Parker model of magnetic reconnection does not mention a double layer because there is none. It is a model where plasmas with opposite magnetic fields are pushed together.
    There is no current imposed on the plasma so this is a current-free plasma. To get a current-free double layer you need plasma with different properties such as electron temperature, composition or density.
There you are Mikey boy,even a dumbo like me can understand that.
dafydd 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 24th March 2011, 04:28 PM   #79
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
So, first question, please draw a picture of how exactly we should visualize this double layer.
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.

Last edited by michaelsuede; 24th March 2011 at 04:35 PM.
michaelsuede 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 24th March 2011, 04:36 PM   #80
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Research by wikipedia. Got any real sources?
dafydd 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

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 02:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.