Recovered: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Recovered: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:18 am

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: Debunking "magnetic reconnection" Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

I'm looking for a little skeptical "help" here picking apart a recent (and rather lengthy - 27 pages) MHD paper on the notion of magnetic reconnection theory and how it applies to solar energy releases. This new paper is based on the presumption of "Alfven waves" in the solar atmosphere.

Now depending on how one defines "Aflven waves", I would be inclined to believe that the authors are at least thinking in the right direction. Their desire however to chalk everything up to "magnetics" is unfortunate of course, but I'd like to clearly understand where their theory should be incorporating/recognizing the idea and the role of current flow, and where it is not doing so.

Over the Holiday break, I intend to go through this paper and post some thoughts about the paper as I get time to look it over. If anyone else has time to kill and wants to play along with me, or you notice where I messed up something in my analysis, please by all means, point it out for me. In my experiences with such papers in the past, the math is almost always correct, it's usually a cheesy premise that is the problem. FYI, in such papers, the current flow is typically treated as "curl". On my first run through the paper, I'm going to ignore the math part for the time being and focus on the primary "assumptions" that are being made in the paper. I'm specifically looking to find where those assumptions are leading the authors astray. For instance, most papers presume that sun is the sole source of the energy release. That's usually a problem for every solar paper the mainstream publishes these days.

I tend to find that the math in these papers is fine, but that there are usually some glaring theoretical problems that need to be addressed. If you aren't a math whiz, don't be intimidated by the math, or you don't know much about MHD theory, you can still play along. Most likely there is a basic assumption that is being made in the paper that isn't very logical at all. I'm not even going to even focus on the mathematical aspect of the paper until I understand the assumptions that are being made and I believe that the paper passes that aspect of the critique.

Here's the arxiv link the paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3452
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:21 am

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection" Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

First indulge me a bit and let me provide a little bit of background information on Alfven and MHD theory for those who have never been exposed to Alfven's work.

Keep in mind as you read through the paper that Alfven treated MHD theory the way most scientists treat photons, as both particle and wave.

Alfven realized the EM fields traveled through plasma in powerful EM "waves", particularly in dense plasmas. He described that as the 'wave" side of MHD theory.

He also noticed that kinetic energy and particle movements played a much larger role in "thin" plasma, and particularly thin, current carrying plasmas. He talked about kinetic energy of particles in terms of the "particle" side of MHD theory. He tends to treat electron flow in particular as a particle process that also has wave properties. He also discussed the fact that electron temperature and ion temperatures can vary by orders of magnitude, particularly in current carrying plasma. Keep those things in the back of your mind as you read through the paper.

ABSTRACT

The impulsive phase of a solar flare marks the epoch of rapid conversion of energy stored in the pre-flare coronal magnetic field.


Ok, the first question I immediately have to ask myself is how this energy is being "stored" exactly? Every lab experiment involving "magnetic reconnection" theory seems to 'store" the energy that is released inside electrons that are stored in giant capacitors. The current is then run through an electromagnetic coil to generate a short but powerful electromagnetic burst into the plasma. That burst tends to separate the plasma and creates kinetic movements of particles inside the plasma. Once the "stored" energy is gone, the "magnetic reconnection" (which is actually electrical interaction from induction forces) process is over, and it's over in seconds. In other words, the real storage mechanisms are *electrical* in nature, and the energy release is due to a release of strong electrical currents into the apparatus.

Hard X-ray observations imply that a substantial fraction of flare energy released during the impulsive phase is converted to the kinetic energy of mildly relativistic electrons (10-100 keV). The liberation of the magnetic free energy can occur as the coronal magnetic field reconfigures and relaxes following reconnection.


So what kind of kinetic energy "pattern" is playing out in the Alfven wave, or the light plasma atmosphere *before* the "reconnection' event? How does one determine if this "reconnection" event is a magnetic reconnection or an "electrical" reconnection? How do magnetic fields "reconnect" in the first place if they always form a continuum? What "prediction" of magnetic reconnection theory can be used to differentiate it from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma?

We investigate a scenario in which products of the reconfiguration – large-scale Alfv´en wave pulses – transport the energy and magnetic-field changes rapidly through the corona to the lower atmosphere.


Pulses? How does it "pulse" exactly? We can make a "pulse" in a magnetic rope by temporarily increasing the current flow inside the Bennett pinch. Is that what they mean by a "pulse'? What kind of pulse are we talking about, and what kind of density are they suggesting is present in this "Alfven Wave"?

These are some of the first thoughts and questions that came to mind as I started reading through the paper. This should give you some idea of the type of critique I intend to begin with.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:24 am

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

OK I will play along...but right off the top of my head I think Einstiens ideas have more merit then the math...ie they said on the History Channel on the Universe that although Einstiens math allowed a black hole (thats debateable from what I have seen) he did not believe in them and said its an abomination of a thought in physics.

So I agree with the read first math second.
;)

He also believed in a Steady State Universe not a big bang, although a false redshift premise made him think his Cosmological Constant was wrong...our famous dark energy in the gravity model. In other words he was correct from a EU model of no big bang. I am sure he would have balked at Inflation Theory (faster then light travel at the early phase of the big bang to explain the even temperature of the universe)
Einstein would be turning in his grave I bet.
:shock:

I think from what you have said that the premise is an abomination. They have the sun as an independent system and then they try to understand it in isolation. :roll:

This concept, which bridges MHD-based and particle-based views of a flare, provides an interpretation of the recently-observed rapid variations of the line-of-sight component of the photospheric magnetic field across the flare impulsive phase, and offers solutions to some perplexing flare problems, such as the flare "number problem" of finding and resupplying sufficient electrons to explain the impulsive-phase hard X-ray emission.


I thought as much.

:roll:

You get my point. How can they work in isolation and then have only solutions that come from within and expect to get it right? Reduction thinking is a grave mistake. They need another answer for another glaring flaw and they refuse to look out so they still look only in.
:?

How about electrons from the galactic current for a start?
8-)

The EU System and I stress that word System is a universal system of galactic quadrants.

I think Einstein needs to marry Tesla and Birkeland for real mange trois...I will let you do the math....it sounds like an abomination, although its really a good view.
:lol:
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:27 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:01 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord'

Well filaments play a critical role. The presence of filament eruption before the impulsive phase of solar flares has been noted. The upward motion of the magnetic X-point tracing the filament eruption begins several minutes before the impulsive phase of the flare, where the explosive magnetic reconnection starts at the X-point magnetic field configuration located under the filament. No change occurs in the character of the motion of the X-point during the onset of the explosive magnetic reconnection. The upward speed of the X-point is about 110 km s-1 at the onset of the impulsive phase.

Here is a theory on that very event, which I cannot open

We give an important condition leading to filament eruptions, which relate to the state of the current sheet under the filament, where the magnetic energy can be released.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k354750163452724/


But its seems ovbious that the state of the current sheet under the filaments is a precursor to the flare.

Here is more data.

Notice again their inability to think out side the box
.
preliminary results from high resolution observations obtained with the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) instrument on the SOHO of two large solar flares of 14 July 2000 and 24 November 2000. We show that rapid variations of the line-of-sight magnetic field occured on a time scale of a few minutes during the flare explosions. The reversibility/irreversibility of the magnetic field of both active regions is a very good tool for understanding how the magnetic energy is released in these flares. The observed sharp increase of the magnetic energy density at the time of maximum of the solar flare could involve an unknown component which deposited supplementary energy into the system.


That statement is the skeleton key to the whole issue. They continue to work and think in isolation. Now to connect to the Galactic Grid.
8-)

Neutrons seem to proceed flares
http://www.copernicus.org/icrc/abstracts/ici6421.pdf

and new microwave emission gives some new double layer results

an analysis of microwave emission spectra from flare-productive active regions (FPAR). For that we used regular observations in a wide frequency range with high spectral resolution and polarization sensitivity made with the RATAN-600 radio telescope. The multi-frequency observations make possible to detect small changes of magnetic field structures at different heights of the solar atmosphere. Observations with RATAN-600 and other large radio heliographs revealed an existence of narrow-band irregularities in the circular polarization spectra of FPARs radio emission. The new receiver complex, recently installed at RATAN-600, significantly improves its technical capabilities for the FPARs further study. Now it provides 1% (or 100 MHz) resolution in the frequency range from 6 GHz to 18 GHz in simultaneous registration. We present some observational results obtained with this new equipment.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... aid=533700



_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

Last edited by junglelord on Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:06 pm; edited 2 times in total
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:28 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:34 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "earls"

you yourself say that magnetic fields and current flow are interchangeable. what difference does it make if he she you or i decide to refer to it as a magnetic field or an electric current? The size/strength of the magnetic field refects the current and vice versa.

Also, *i think* it was you that posted the wiki article on plasmoids. Seems close to the same phenomenon to me.

I do think "they" are on to something, but simply understand it through different terminology and there's the disconnect between the two camps.

perhaps we need some magnetic reconnection up in here.


Anyway, plasmoid reproduction:

Birkeland current structure pinches off
magnetic field twists plasma surrounding the pinch spining and creating it's own magnetic fields becoming denser in the center (pinching off) - particle

repeat ad infinitum until you run out of magnetic field energy to spin plasma into plasmoids

left over energy - photons

varying densities in plasma - gravity

heaviest particles - strongest magnetic field collapse

interaction of magnetic fields from top to bottom producing all known phenomenon

it's not the theorizing that's so damn hard, it's the data collection. :/
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:30 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:45 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

earls wrote:you yourself say that magnetic fields and current flow are interchangeable. what difference does it make if he she you or i decide to refer to it as a magnetic field or an electric current? The size/strength of the magnetic field refects the current and vice versa.


They are not interchangeable. There is a cause and effect order. You can determine the strength of one from the other.

There are 2 types of magnetism, magnetism that is cause by a current flow, and magnetism that is permanent like a bar magnet. But even a bar magnet will wear out eventually(spins will un align).

A moving charge creates a magnetic field. That is the rule that we are interested for plasma.
A magnetic field by itself I don't think will make a plasma.
But an electric current will ionize a gas due to the high velocity electrons emanating from the cathode. A magnetic field can't interact with neutral gas atoms.....
Once there is a plasma then a magnetic field may interact with it producing other effects and, if you have a Langmuir Probe in the plasma, it will modulate the current output of the probe.

Also, *i think* it was you that posted the wiki article on plasmoids. Seems close to the same phenomenon to me.

I do think "they" are on to something, but simply understand it through different terminology and there's the disconnect between the two camps.
:/


All they have to do is say that there is a current flow and all their problems disappear.

A thin plasma. A magnetic fluid(MHD) is different.

PIC(particle in cell) simulations seem to work the best for plasma..
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:31 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:06 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "kovil"

Good find Michael! Now we can put our collective heads together and look at this from the ET perspective and like earls said, define our terms, and see if we can decipher what they mean by magnetic reconnection. It is the same phenomena, but we see it differently and call it differently.
The data is the key, then we interpret it by our viewpoints.

Those who get the data first, make the theories first, and that's their first mistake.

My first impression of the Abstract is, they are giving Alfven lipservice only, and staying on track with their magnetic reconnection, and stuffing the data into their presuppositions. Mainstream is caving slowly by mentioning Alfven, that is a victory of one small step. Congratulations.

Our task is to make sense in the electrical model and see how/if our theory fits with the data. I too will read this over the holiday and post ideas.

Kovil
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:33 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

kovil wrote:Good find Michael! Now we can put our collective heads together and look at this from the ET perspective and like earls said, define our terms, and see if we can decipher what they mean by magnetic reconnection. It is the same phenomena, but we see it differently and call it differently.
The data is the key, then we interpret it by our viewpoints.


Exactly. I'm tickled pink that there has been so much input already. That's great!

A key point to note here is that we are "deciphering" these phenomenon exactly as Hannes Alfven deciphered them, as *electrically driven* phenomenon. We essentially need to figure out where the mainstreamers got lost and got it wrong. Hannes Alfven didn't see the sun as a closed system. That makes a big difference in how one looks at the universe.

Upriver touched on a key point. There is a definite cause and effect relationship between the flow of current through plasma and the "magnetic tornado flux ropes" that form in the plasma. When we turn off a common plasma ball, the currents stop flowing and the ball does dead. If we turn it on again, the filaments (mini magnetic ropes) form again in the plasma. The current flow drives the Bennett pinch process that Alfven then refers to as "magnetic rope". There is a kinetic energy aspect of this "flux rope" to consider as well. There are no "frozen in" magnetic fields in *light* plasma, like we might find in the photosphere and chromosphere or an ordinary plasma ball. The filaments that form in our plasma ball are directly "caused" by the flow of current. The magnetic fields flow with, and around the current. There is a dynamic kinetic energy tornado like process occurring in the flux rope.

Those who get the data first, make the theories first, and that's their first mistake.


All data is good. Not every "interpretation" is equally "good". I trust their data implicitly. I distrust their "interpretation" of this data because it is at odd with how Alfven interpreted this kind of data. He interpreted these events as current driven events. They are trying their best to avoid mentioning the current flows at all. They are attempting to suggest it's a magnetically driven event. That's like claiming our plasma ball activity is a magnetically driven event, only because our science gear can demonstrate that magnetic fields are present in the plasma of the plasma ball. They are trying to interpret the data backwards. They are attempting to claim the "cause" of these ropes is the magnetic field. That is preposterous. Without the current flow in the rope, there would be no magnetic field either.

My first impression of the Abstract is, they are giving Alfven lipservice only, and staying on track with their magnetic reconnection, and stuffing the data into their presuppositions. Mainstream is caving slowly by mentioning Alfven, that is a victory of one small step. Congratulations.


IMO, "magnetic reconnection" theory is the mainstream's Waterloo. It will be their downfall. Unlike many metaphysical astronomy theories that cannot ever be tested (inflation), this particular theory *can* be tested in a plasma physics lab, and it should be empirically demonstrated in a lab *before* they try to use this theory to claim it somehow releases energy.

Also keep in mind that "null points" are simply *zero* points in the magnetic continuum. There is no way it can "release" energy at a zero point. That is why this whole theory violates the conservation of energy laws. That alone should be enough to abandon the whole concept, but they don't abandon the idea even when it violates the laws of thermodynamics. It's an act of pure denial on their part from the very start, and it only goes down hill from there. The interesting part of this debate is that Hannes Alfven already addressed these issues 30 years ago. He publicly condemned the idea of magnetic reconnection as an energy release mechanism. They simply ignored him.

The lip service to Alfven's MHD theory is an entirely superficial act. They ignored what he said about the idea of magnetic reconnection entirely. He clearly stated that this is a *misconception* and that the energy release is related to the pinch effect that is caused by the current flow. He described these high energy events as exploding double layers, or pinches. He did not believe that magnetic fields can make or break connections like an electrical circuit. In electrical theory (and in a lab) magnetic fields always form a full continuum. They don't make and break connections. The whole idea is absurd. If you look at the explanation of "magnetic reconnection" they draw an X and claim that X is the point where two "zero points" of magnetics fields cross and somehow end up releasing energy in the process.

First of all, I can demonstrate with my $20 plasma ball that electrical currents can "cause" these "effects" in plasma. Let's see them do that with a light plasma and some magnetic fields in a lab before I'll be comfortable letting them point to the sky and claim "magnetic reconnection did it"! Boloney. Real science requires real empirical evidence. I can show real empirical evidence that plasma will form filaments around currents. Let see them create filaments that light up to millions of degrees without using any electricity to create a magnetic field in the first place.

Our task is to make sense in the electrical model and see how/if our theory fits with the data. I too will read this over the holiday and post ideas.

Kovil


I appreciate your input so far Kovil, and I look forward to your comments. I guarantee you that our model will fit the data. I also guarantee you that we can demonstrate similar features hear on earth in controlled scientific experiments. I also guarantee you that that the mainstream will never be able to demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" is an energy release mechanism, because nature doesn't work that way.

I've been burning the candle at both ends this week and I need some sleep. I want to briefly respond to uprivers key point and then I'll head off to bed and take this up in the morning.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:35 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

upriver wrote:They are not interchangeable. There is a cause and effect order. You can determine the strength of one from the other.

There are 2 types of magnetism, magnetism that is cause by a current flow, and magnetism that is permanent like a bar magnet. But even a bar magnet will wear out eventually(spins will un align).


I agree that this is a key issue. There is a cause and effect relationship between the flow of electrons, and the formation of the magnetic fields and the formation of the filaments in the plasma.

With our simple plasma ball, we can demonstrate this cause and effect relationship. With the power turned on, filaments form inside our plasma ball, and these filaments give off light and heat. Crank up the voltages and we get more light and more heat. Crank it up some more and we get high energy emission signatures from the plasma pinches and we even get neutrons "pinched" out of the plasma. Turn off the electron flow, and the show is over.

There is also a significant flaw in "magnetic reconnection" theory as it relates to using it to explain a single coronal loop. We can explain a light emitting thread in plasma with current flow, but how do they intend to show how million degree loops are created with "magnetic reconnection"? They use an X to show where two fields cross. They'd have to cross everywhere inside the whole loop to create a single million degree coronal loop.

Even in your solid magnetic, as you pointed out, any kinetic energy would be lost over time, including the aligned spin positions of electrons in the bar magnetics. You can't use a magnetic field to explain a single million degree coronal loop, and magnetic fields alone won't explain these events because these million degree loops wouldn't form at all in light plasma without current flow.

Essentially they are trying to take the MDH work of the father of EU/Plasma Cosmology theory, and use it to promote an electricity free, magnetically driven process. That won't fly. They will fail because Alfven already explained where they were wrong as it relates to "magnetic reconnection", and "electrical current" is capable of explaining all these same pieces of data without violating any conservation of energy laws, or any known aspects of the magnetic field continuum.

A moving charge creates a magnetic field. That is the rule that we are interested for plasma.


Exactly! This is *light* plasma we're talking about too, not dense plasma. It's plasma that is thinner than the the densities we observe in a typical plasma ball. The only real physics we can test here is the physics of charged particles in motion. That's all we have to work with. The light nature of the plasma in the solar atmosphere makes it impossible to attempt to use "magnetic fields" as the "cause" of anything. The fields are *caused by* the current flows, not the other way around.

If and when they ever demonstrate that 'magnetic reconnection' is a unique process, and different than ordinary electrical reconnection, I have no empirical evidence that any energy can come from 'magnetic reconnection'. They lack any sort of empirical test of concept here. Where's their lab work that empirically demonstrates that null points in a magnetic field can release energy?
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:38 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Pluto"

Hello All

These principles should also apply to Earth

http://www.huliq.com/30816/all-change-at-earths-core

“At high pressures the magnetism is squeezed out of the other structures and they all have similar stability,” says Abrikosov, who presented his findings at the 1st EuroMinScI Conference near Nice, France in March this year. The new research has revealed that ‘face centred cubic’ and ‘body centred cubic’ structures can not be ruled out and that all of these structures are energetically possible. “The standard model has been killed,” says Abrikosov.


Studies of seismic waves have revealed that the waves travel faster in a north-south direction and slower in an east-west direction through the core – a phenomenon that scientists call anisotropic. The way the atoms pack in the core is vital for understanding this anisotropy.


New research increases understanding of Earth's magnetic field
http://www.physorg.com/news92665350.html

Research recently conducted at Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, marks an important step forward in understanding the origins of the Earth's magnetic field. The research findings are published this week in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters.

Science attributes the creation of the Earth's magnetic field to the movement of electricity conducting liquids in the molten core of the Earth. Researchers have recently conducted experiments to replicate and study this mechanism.

Experiments conducted in Riga (1999) revealed for the first time that a cylindrical-shaped fluid flow of metal moving in a spiralling motion can generate a slowly growing magnetic field. This was followed by the EU research project MAGDYN (2001-2005), which aimed to show how the generated magnetic field itself is capable of persisting.


Since the core has plasma properties, can ???? we assume a possible Z-pinch creating our North and south poles.
_________________
Smile and live another day
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:39 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

Well I still go back to the cause of the original problem which is a need to have a supply of electrons.

That is their first statement. They do not know where the extra electrons come from. This is a way to explain that.

That in itself is elemental in the EU and a fundamental flaw in their isolated thinking. The Electrons come from the galactic current.

I still say the fundamental problem and their premis is flawed drastically from the start by the very limitations of their model and therefore questions and answers.
:roll:
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:41 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

I need to back up a minute here. I am new.
Does the EU not believe in Magnetic Reconnection and if so why>

I know from my initial studies this keeps coming back to me
In 1970, Hannes Alfvén, the 'father of plasma physics,' warned that cosmology was headed into crisis. He was referring to the treatment of plasma—which makes up about 99.9% of the visible universe—as a magnetizable gas. Alfvén was responsible for the theory, known as 'magnetohydrodynamics' or MHD. But he publicly repudiated its use for space plasma in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

"The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come."
—H. Alfvén, Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=41wjs24r


and I read this blog that explained that from a member
Golub may believe that this sort of plasma behavior is "impossible" to explain, but Hannes Alfv'en explained this behavior 25 years ago. The atmosphere of the sun is electrically active and it interacts with the electromagnetic fields of space. Currents ebb and flow, particularly in the corona. As soon as the electric currents that are flowing through a coronal loops stop flowing, say for instance the electric current seeks a shorter path of lesser resistance through the plasma, the suspended loop will deteriorate rapidly, and it will come crashing back to the surface. As long as we accept Alfven's view that the coronal loops are electrically active and electrically driven, it's not such a mystery. The same electrical current that is running through these massive loops, and heating them to millions of degrees, can instantly terminate. In that scenario. these kinds of "crashing loop" observations become quite easy to explain using the principles of plasma cosmology theory and MHD theory. It seems that even though the the astrophysical community presented Hannes Alfven with the Nobel Prize in the early 1970's for inventing MHD theory, they only heard and understood part of his plasma physics theories. They immediately turned right around after giving him the Nobel Prize for MHD theory, and they completely ignored the other half of Alfven's statements related to MHD theory related to *light* plasma. The mainstream community only "latched on" to the very early part of Alfven's work that was related to the flow of magnetic fields in very *dense* plasma. They quite literally ignored all the rest of Alfv'en's life's work on light plasma. Now that problem has come back to haunt the mainstream community in the Hinode images in a big way.

As Alfven explained from his work in plasma physics, certain types of plasma behaviors simply cannot be be properly modeled or properly understood without considering the electrical flow patterns that are traveling through the plasma. Alfv'en warned the mainstream community during his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize about trying to mathematically oversimplify every plasma behavior, and trying to model every plasma transaction as a purely "magnetic" event. Some plasma events, like atmospheric discharges, are in fact electrically driven events, and in such scenarios, the electrical current in the plasma must also be considered. While lightening strikes on earth generate magnetic fields as a result of the current flowing through the plasma of the bolt, the electrical discharge is not "caused" by changes to the magnetic fields. The discharges in atmosphere are due to charge differences in the atmosphere, and charge equalization laws, not by magnetic fields. In other words, the magnetic fields are the effect of the electrical discharge event, they are not the cause of the discharge event. In this case, as Alfven warned, the mainstream community has the cart before the horse. They find these observations to be "impossible", because they are not magnetic events, they are electrical events. Clearly the observations are not impossible, it is the standard theory of magnetic reconnection that is "impossible". Alfven already explained that to them more than 2 decades ago. They just refused to listen. Maybe they listen to Alfv'en again now that their current theories have failed to explain the solar atmospheric activity.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm


I have come across these items in my Google Quest.
Scientific Data Sets
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=40761
Plasma and Magnetic Reconnection
http://www.aldebaran.cz/astrofyzika/pla ... on_en.html
Scientific Theories
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR04/APR04 ... /S230.html

Can anyone bring up to speed on the relation of MHD to Magnetic Reconnection and the words of Alfven as to our misunderstanding of the whole concept. How does the light gas model relate to the Magnetic Reconnection.

From what I can gather myself if I understand it correctly the Magnetic Reconnection itself is not a problem for the plasma scientist or EU theroy but the questions of limited perspective on the gravity cosmologist and how they try to use it as prinicple mechanisms correct>?

From what I infer of the original question it again boils down to electron velocity and where do they come from. Not really a question of magnetic connection happening or not...is that right?
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:42 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: who is lead dancer, electric or magnetic Reply with quote
OP "kovil"

I'm looking down a microscope, in both size and time; focusing on an event just before it starts. As the event progreses, rings of magnetic field encircle the electric current flow. As the current flow moves, the magnetics surround it, and a plasma is gathered into an ordered thread, along which the current flow's best, and the magnetics continue to surround.

The question is; do the magnetics form the primary lead event, or does the current flow form the primary lead event. We need to look very closely in the size/shape aspect and in the time aspect, to determine which preceeded which.

Unfortunately, both current flow and magnetic field appearance, are very rapid in propagation. Current flow is the slower, as it is a material effect in as much as electrons are the prime component, and electrons, as fast as they are, exhibit a small resistance to instantaneous light speed velocity, whereas magnetic fields are strictly an EM spectrum non-material event and proceed at the speed of light immediately.

Mainstream is using the instant speed of light property of magnetics as reason to qualify them for primary position in the event.

Electric Theory is using the current flow as the primary position in the event's formation and propagation.

As Michael Mozina said, if the current stops, everything comes to an immediate halt.

The problem is, the magnetics follow so quickly on, from the electrical events, that a very close time sense (nano seconds) needs to be imposed on a study of the propagation of events in a solar eruption, to determine who preceeds who, current or magnetic; and our instrumentation is not good enough to do this. Also we cannot directly make measurements of the current density and flow numbers, it is inferred.

Perhaps mainstream, in its ineffible wanton way of spending govt money, is exhausting all possible avenues in the magnetic spectrum, and then will explore the more promising avenue of current flow later. Kind of like clearing all the underbrush on both sides of the trail before clearing the trail itself. It does make for a wider path later on, as more has been explored, but it sure takes longer to get there!


(please correct me if I got some things wrong in the description of the progression of events and how things are structured and ordered. This is a thought experiment to see if I am conceptualizing the wholeistic correctly) Can anyone explain why Cosmic Plasma sells for $111 on AMZN to $172 at Powell's, why isn't it like 20 or $30.

http://www.booksprice.com/comparePrice. ... 9027711518

To go another step; in watching the: Sun, up close and personal video; on the Above Top Secret website. Towards the end of the video, the surface of the Sun with all its electrical and magnetic activity is suggestive of a chaos of fractal equations all competing with each other for attention, or current flow. As the magnetics affect the more efficient path for current, the current affects the magnetic strengths which changes the most efficient path properties. A chaos of fractals summing to function a higher level order of differential expression to the general population of events occuring. There are limits to what is happening tho, in both minimum and maximum of expressions. With occaisonal short term forays towards the end of the bell curve of possibilities! How orderly chaos can be!
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:45 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

junglelord wrote:I need to back up a minute here. I am new.
Does the EU not believe in Magnetic Reconnection and if so why>


No. Let me quote Hannes Alfven himself from his book Cosmic Plasma:

Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of 'magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).

Page 33, Chapter 2


The father of MHD theory himself states clearly that it is not possible to explain high energy plasma emissions using a theory about magnetic field reconnection. In electrical engineering, magnetic fields are always treated as a full and complete "continuum". They cannot make or break connections like an electrical circuit. You can release energy, and make and break connections with electrical current, but magnetic fields always form a full continuum. They can't make and break connections like an electrical circuit.

What these guys are calling "null points" in these papers are simply zero points along the magnetic field line. There is no excess energy found at a zero point in a magnetic field line.

Let's now look at the definition of "magnetic reconnection" on Wiki for a second:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

Magnetic reconnection is the process whereby magnetic field lines from different magnetic domains are spliced to one another, changing their patterns of connectivity with respect to the sources. It is a violation of an approximate conservation law in plasma physics,


So, it violates the conservation of energy laws of thermodynamics and plasma physics? Should that be our first clue that it's nonsense? The author of MHD theory says it's a crock. All magnetic fields always form a full and complete continuum. These guys are trying to get "free energy" from a zero point in a magnetic field. It's never going to happen.

When you ask someone to explain the physical energy release mechanism involved in this energy release process of "magnetic reconnection" at an atomic level, everyone in the room, regardless of their understanding of "magnetic reconnection" theory runs for the door as fast as possible. That is because nobody on the planet has the answer. The whole theory of magnetic reconnection is one giant ruse. There is no such thing as "magnetic" reconnection that can in any way be distinguished from ordinary "electrical" reconnection.

The problem here is that the filament channels are *moving*. There are flowing columns of *charged particles* in the tornado like filaments. They are moving at very high speeds. Is it possible that the these high speed streams of charged particles interact at times? Sure, but then it's *electrical interaction*, and any energy released in the event would be the results of *electrical* reconnection.

Magnetic fields do not make and break connections like electrical circuits. All the mathematical equations that relate to magnetic fields treat them as a full continuum. Electrical circuits can release all sorts of high energy particles and we can demonstrate this in a lab. Magnetic fields in these filaments are the *effect* of the current flow, they are not the *cause*. The mainstream has the cart before the horse.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:46 am

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:26 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Pluto"

Hello All

Hello Michael

You said

Magnetic fields do not make and break connections like electrical circuits. All the mathematical equations that relate to magnetic fields treat them as a full continuum. Electrical circuits can release all sorts of high energy particles and we can demonstrate this in a lab. Magnetic fields in these filaments are the *effect* of the current flow, they are not the *cause*. The mainstream has the cart before the horse.


What is the cause???????? or should I say the horse.
_________________
Smile and live another day
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests