|
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. |
4th April 2011, 05:39 PM | #241 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
5th April 2011, 02:10 AM | #242 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
WRONG! There are no particles in MHD, that is why the H is in there, you work with fluids.
Circuit theory cannot explain the irreversable change of magnetic topology, as circuit theory has no fields and no lines. There is no KINETIC energy of the EM field. Dungey explained in the late fiftys why there MUST be reconnection. I still have not seen any paper that says experiment with respect to your CNO cycle paper. Are you going to retract your obviously unsupported paper finally? |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
5th April 2011, 02:13 AM | #243 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,197
|
In that paper they have reconnection running smootly (see Fig. 2) and then, to drive instabilities in the current sheet they artificially increase the voltage over the current sheet, driving stronger currnets and thus creating instabilities. This may or may not have a application in space plasma physics, but it is rather hard to suddenly increase the voltage in actual astrophysical entities.
And no that is NOT the entire point of Alfvén's theory. |
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist |
|
5th April 2011, 05:17 AM | #244 | ||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
|
||
5th April 2011, 11:08 AM | #245 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Grrr. It's so aggravating to move an inch in your direction only to have my hand bitten off due poor phasing on my part. You're not exactly easy to deal with at times. I can however admit that a B oriented approach has some merit and it allows things to be viewed on small scales. What you seem to refuse to acknowledge is any movement toward an E orientation of the same event. I find that annoying frankly.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
5th April 2011, 11:14 AM | #246 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
FYI, t....
You're essentially trying to "dumb down' an entire current carrying Bennett Pinch thread, to a "magnetic line'. It's not simply a "magnetic line', it's a "flow of current" in a flowing plasma thread. The path of the current simply changes over time, and that is what you're calling "magnetic reconnection'. That's a complete "dumbed down" (B only) oriented view of events. It can also be viewed a "short circuit' and wiring topology change in two 'circuits". You're must ignoring the whole Circuit orientation of plasma physics because you don't like it. |
5th April 2011, 11:20 AM | #247 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
I see it just like Alfven saw things, only I'm actually a little more "liberal" about it quite honestly. I realize they botched the hell out of the title they give their mathematical equations, but I also recognize the validity of them to some degree. Alfven just rejected the concept entirely in a current carrying plasma in favor of a circuit oriented approach, something I still prefer as well.
I guess the basic difference between us is education. This particular "layman" has actually bothered to sit down and read Alfven's material for himself, unlike you, and unlike most of those who fancy themselves to be "experts" on this topic that are participating in this thread. Only two of us have actually read Alfven's material AFAIK. |
5th April 2011, 11:22 AM | #248 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
I'm not. You're the one ignoring 100 years of physics related to "discharges' in plasmas.
If I actually rejected MR theory outright as you seem to imagine, you might actually have a point. Since I simply prefer not to 'dumb down" a whole current carrying plasma thread to a "magnetic line", your point is moot. |
5th April 2011, 01:04 PM | #249 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
No I am not.
The definition of electrical dicharges has always meant that they are impossible in plasma. Some authors in the past have used the term electrical discharge to refer to high current densities, especially that sudden ones caused by magnetic reconnection (see Dungey). So now you are saying that MR theory is correct ? Or what bits of it are wrong? That is not MR theory. MR theory does not say that there is a "current carrying plasma thread". In fact current in plasma never happens as "threads". It happens in sheets. MR theory is models aa entire volume of plasma including the electromagnetic fields within it. This ignorance about MR makes the question more appropriate: Michael Mozina, Why are you ignoring over 30 years of advances in plasma physics? Plasma physics did not stop in 1981 ! Alfven did not write a bible of plasma physics. He wrote a book which reflected the knowledge of the time. Most of that knowledge is still correct. Some will have been shown to be incorrect. Some is just outdated. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th April 2011, 01:09 PM | #250 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
Wow, take MM off Ignore, and enter the world of surreal.
Except, of course, that Alfven actually understood Maxwell's equations, PDEs, the whole math nine yards.
Quote:
Does this constitute proof of the existence of (slightly overlapping) parallel universes? Or something more mundane, to do with delusion perhaps? Or, ...
Quote:
Given that - to you, MM - the math that forms the foundation of Alfven's work is as comprehensible as a dialect of PIE, reading != understanding. |
5th April 2011, 01:10 PM | #251 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
We have never ignored the fact that Dungey used the term electrical discharges in the context of high current densities .
We do know that he never states that magnetic reconnection was a "discharge" event. He states that it causes high current densities which he terms electrical discharges. But I may be wrong: Cite and quote where Dungey explains magnetic reconnection as an electrical discharge. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th April 2011, 01:22 PM | #252 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Um, maybe because he wrote MHD theory, was given a Nobel Prize for that work, and her personally called MR theory pseudoscience?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't recall you even commenting on it personally. How about that paper by Mann and Onel? Why do I need "magnetic reconnection' to explain a flare when a simple circuit will do?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
5th April 2011, 01:59 PM | #253 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
But Newton discovered gravity. I bet you haven't read Principia from cover to cover though have you. And yet you still feel able to comment on gravity. Should we reject anything related to gravity that was not endorsed by Newton?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
5th April 2011, 03:00 PM | #254 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Hi MM. Could you post that *PERFECTLY* good definition of pressure in a VACUUM in this new thread:
Can pressure be negative? |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th April 2011, 03:09 PM | #255 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
You need magnetic reconnection beacuse the simple circuit model produces simple results!
All that it predicts is the large scale properties of the solar flare. It does not show
In science a theory that explains more is better than a theory that explains less. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th April 2011, 04:14 PM | #256 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
Circuit theory can explain the irreversible change of magnetic topology, and indeed is the only way one can explain such a change given that fluid models invoke ad hoc resistivity. When the voltage of the circuit is increased/decreased, it can lead to current disruptions and instabilities which give rise to double layers. In such a double layer, kinetic energy is transfered to the particles. Double layers are the only way one can account for the transfer of kinetic energy in a plasma while still obeying the circuit laws that any real plasma must obey. MHD theory is incapable of modeling the mechanics of a double layer, and necessarily neglects any mention of them in its models. Given that we know such instabilities give rise to density depletions and such depletions are even modeled in MHD simulations, we know that the formation of a double layer in those regions is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Unless you want to claim that regions of differing plasma do not produce double layers between themselves. |
5th April 2011, 05:54 PM | #257 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Ya, two way conversations and hearing the other half of the debate can be quite a different experience than just tuning out what you don't like to hear.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Have you even read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma yet DRD? Let me guess...... |
5th April 2011, 06:38 PM | #258 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics (PDF)
That was a keynote speech in a conference in 1986. That was his own personal (and now outdated) opinion You need to get rid of your obsession with Alfven's opinions and the physics of 30 years ago. Learn some modern physics written by other people. You are also lying about what he said. He starts by pointing out (correctly) that care needs to be taken when applying the frozen-in flield line approximation. He then calls "Magnetic Merging" a pseudoscience (section B). There are a couple of what look like elementary mistakes in there. I am sure that I am wrong though.
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th April 2011, 06:49 PM | #259 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Even I know that this a lie!
Circuit theory has a circuit model of the system. There are no details about the magnetic field. The magnetic field is a single number - the inductance of the inductor in the circuit (sometimes several inductors = several numbers). Likewise:
You are still ignoring Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 which clearly shows (read the abstract, see Fig 9) that current disruption (and thus DLs) happens afer the magnetic reconnection. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th April 2011, 08:03 PM | #260 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Cosmic Plasma and other reading
From 13 Jan 2011 To this day Mozina has never responded, so I can only assume that he has not read any books on magnetic reconnection and has never examined any experimental data related to magnetic reconnection. It seems inappropriate that he should be so constantly and repetitiously demanding of everyone else that they read "his" book, while he himself refuses to even touch any current book on the topic. It is hypocritical. Yes, for the bazillion and first time, I have read Alfven's book, used it as a student over 30 years ago, and have two copies ready at hand. Now please stop asking me if I have read the book and please explain why you adamantly refuse to read any other books besides Alfven's. |
__________________
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 |
|
5th April 2011, 08:46 PM | #261 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Real Plasma Physics
None of them do. However, Alfven's conditions are erroneous and therefore irrelevant. Worse, you don't have any idea what Alfven's real conditions are anyway, since you misrepresent them by constantly quoting them shorn of context. Just look at this sentence from Alfven that you regurgitate constantly: "What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface". That sentence cannot possibly be correct as stated and is sheer nonsense. How are charged particles moving around in some volume supposed to "know" or "care" if there is an electric current flowing across some imaginary surface around this volume? How could the current possibly make it impossible to know what the plasma is doing inside the volume? You think that simple sentence is all there is to it and that is proof enough that while the words of Alfven's book might have scrolled before your eyes, comprehension & understanding have yet to scroll past your brain.
Lest we forget ... From Feb 4, 2010 Like I said: Alfven established faulty boundary conditions because he was guided by a faulty paradigm, namely the circuit paradigm for describing the physics of plasmas. You and michaelsuede have both fallen into the trap of believing that the circuit paradigm actually describes the physics of plasmas. In fact it does not and indeed cannot describe the actual physics of plasmas because the circuit paradigm does not involve particles & fields. The circuit paradigm is primarily useful as a "bookkeeping" exercise, heuristically describing the flow of energy in a plasma, without regard for the physics involved. Only at the level of particles & fields can we really understand plasma physics. The circuit paradigm is the functional equivalent of the elementary school approach to plasma physics. It's time for you to get out of the primary grades and graduate to adult level plasma physics. As long as you tout the virtues of the circuit paradigm, you are just a grade school student of plasma physics. |
__________________
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 |
|
5th April 2011, 08:58 PM | #262 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Magnetic Reconnection and Double Layers
Absolutely false. No, circuit theory cannot, under any circumstances, ever describe the change in topology of the field. Topology & shape are not the same thing. The only way you can change the magnetic fields in circuit theory is to change the shape of the field by re-orienting the currents. But changing the topology by rearranging the currents is not physically possible.
Wrong again. See, for instance, Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Priest & Forbes, page 468, where electrostatic double layers are included as a source of anomalous resistivity, which is required for magnetic reconnection to happen. You overestimate the importance of double layers. They cannot provide as much energy as reconnection can because they cannot sustain a large enough cross-layer potential in an astrophysical plasma. Besides, double layers accelerate particles in the wrong direction anyway, perpendicular to the flows initiated by magnetic reconnection. |
__________________
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 |
|
5th April 2011, 09:04 PM | #263 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
I know you didn't just say that I'm the one who's falling into a trap with my understanding of theory.
This from a guy who thinks an object the size of an asteroid is spinning around at half the speed light, while being made entirely of neutrons, and it is ejecting a beam of light that is visible across galactic distances because the beam is being rotated directly at the earth like a lighthouse. LOL By the way, how are those double layers treating you guys in those MHD simulations you run? |
5th April 2011, 09:05 PM | #264 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Circuit Reconnection?
That is a fairy tale. 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)?
|
__________________
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 |
|
5th April 2011, 09:14 PM | #265 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
Yes, it can. And I've provided the relevant papers to show how it can. Stamping your feet and claiming it can't, when it clearly can, is ridiculous.
Quote:
Could it be because MHD is completely incapable of modeling the mechanics of a DL? Could it be because you refuse to accept that the plasma parcels in question are part of a circuit and obey Kirchhoff's circuit laws as they do in the lab?
Quote:
You understate them on purpose because you don't want to put yourself out of a job. |
5th April 2011, 10:11 PM | #266 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Logical fallacy of argument from incredibility.
Just because you cannot understand the physics of pulsars does not mean that they do not exist. Off topic so start a new thread if you want to discuss it more fully michaelsuede. But in simple terms:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
6th April 2011, 12:02 AM | #267 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
LOL
Ok |
6th April 2011, 03:27 AM | #268 |
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! |
|
6th April 2011, 05:01 AM | #269 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Oh my...
um , so you reject the known physics because it doesn't match your internal reality. The fact that the forces that lead to the conclusion of neutron stars are measured and match the model is not a barrier for you... so which parts of the theory don't you accept? Strong force, weak force, EM force and gravity. Which is measured incorrectly and modeled incorrectly, what leads you to believe there are not neutron stars? How does your theory explain the measured forces and model them correctly. |
__________________
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 |
|
6th April 2011, 05:03 AM | #270 |
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 |
|
6th April 2011, 05:35 AM | #271 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
6th April 2011, 05:41 AM | #272 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
6th April 2011, 05:46 AM | #273 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
Is it too much to expect the math a well? Or does our hero not believe in math,just like the other Michael.
Micheal2,what is your alternative explanation for this? This image from 2001 explores the close bond between two neutron stars in the globular star cluster M15. Chandra's image of a puzzling X-ray source in the globular star cluster M15 shows that it is not one neutron star binary system, but two neutron star binary systems that appear so close together (2.7 seconds of arc) that they were indistinguishable with previous X-ray telescopes. In the 1970's astronomers discovered one neutron star binary system in M15, called 4U2127, with the Uhuru X-ray satellite. Subsequent data from X-ray telescopes indicated that the neutron star itself was not directly visible in X-ray light because it was hidden by an accretion disk of hot matter swirling from a companion star onto the neutron star. This picture was put into doubt when the Japanese Ginga X-ray satellite saw luminous X-ray bursts from the region in 1990. The length of the burst and other light characteristics implied that the surface of the neutron star was directly visible, in contradiction with earlier observations. Chandra observations solved this mystery. The source could exhibit two contradictory modes of behavior because 4U2127 is not one source, but two: one whose neutron star is hidden by an accretion disk (on the left in the image), and one (right) where occasional X-ray outbursts reveal another neutron star's surface. The broader implication of the Chandra discovery is that binary star systems with a neutron star orbiting a normal star may be common in globular clusters. Previously, and inexplicably, astronomers had never seen more than one of these neutron star binaries in any one globular clustera tight spherical region that can contain a million stars or more. |
6th April 2011, 08:42 AM | #274 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Rather than derail the thread, maybe we can take it here?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...64#post7055564 |
__________________
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 |
|
6th April 2011, 09:26 AM | #275 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Basically your *ENTIRE* argument seems to boil down to a belief that Alfven didn't have a clue what he was talking about. I'm sorry, I don't buy that claim, and you can't demonstrate it either. I've showed you papers from Mann and Onel, which you've never personally commented on that very nicely explain flares. Your whole claim is bogus Tim. Alfven was an 'expert' in his field of plasma physics, and even had a Nobel Prize to demonstrate that fact. He used circuit theory *CONSISTENTLY* in current carrying plasma. Please demonstrate your claim that it's doesn't properly apply to plasmas because Alfven isn't the only one that used it.
|
6th April 2011, 09:48 AM | #276 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Sure they can, it's called a transistor. In this case it's related to the movement of the circuit itself and a change in resistance (path of least resistance), but magnetic lines are completely and utterly incapable of 'disconnecting from' or "reconnecting to" any other magnetic line!
|
6th April 2011, 09:49 AM | #277 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Has there been no valid plasma physics research in the past 30 years? Also, what is it about, "Those claiming there are problems with magnetic reconnection are responsible for demonstrating that to be true," is so difficult to understand? Maybe things are different now, but even when I was in grade school and high school science classes, that idea about who's responsible for the burden-of-proof was pretty standard stuff. |
6th April 2011, 09:52 AM | #278 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
IMO that's the most telling statement of the thread. None of them satisfied his conditions, so they are *ALL* misleading and erroneous according to Alfven himself. In *ALL* current carrying scenarios, he used a *CIRCUIT* oriented approach. Onel and Mann's paper is another great example of a "circuit" oriented approach to plasma physics, which you claim doesn't even work! I'm sorry, but your whole belief system is evidently based upon the denial of the legitimacy of Alfven's *ENTIRE* work, and you've never even bothered to actually read it! Where's you Nobel in plasma physics Tim?
|
6th April 2011, 09:55 AM | #279 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Is the Onel and Mann paper you keep avoiding like the plague less than 30 years old?
Quote:
|
6th April 2011, 09:56 AM | #280 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Yet in thousands of words posted in this and other threads on this forum, plus literally millions of words posted on a variety of other science and skeptic themed forums on the 'net for nearly a decade, none of the people claiming there is some significant problem with magnetic reconnection has been able to support that claim objectively, scientifically, and quantitatively. Imagine that. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|