Zyxzevn wrote: Michael Mozina wrote:
.. had actually read a real textbook on MHD theory. I think they only thing one has to be is a cult follower to "understand" it.
Anyone with a background in even basic EM field theory knows that magnetic fields form as a full continuum, and those "lines" aren't real to start with
How can we get more people educated in EM to look through this shit?
I would think that any first semester class on basic EM field theory would suffice frankly. Anyone who's been introduced to EM field *theory* should know that magnetic fields form as a full 3D continuum, and those 2D "lines" aren't real, they are simply a teaching tool to denote the magnetic field topology just like the 2D topology lines on any topology map. You'd think a basic EM field theory education would do, but apparently not in some cases.
I tried to talk to some people on reddit, but the astronomers are just too religious about it.
I hear you. I did not believe that anyone who'd been exposed to EM field theory would buy this "magnetic reconnection" nonsense, but my experiences at JREF were "enlightening' to say the least. Apparently astronomers tend to specialize in specific areas of metaphysics, like "dark" energy/matter, or inflation, but on whole they don't seem to know very much about even basic EM field theory, and even less about MHD theory. Clinger's vacuum fiasco was simply laughable from the standpoint of physics but not a single so called "professional' bothered to point out to him that he needed *plasma* to transfer magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy to get "reconnection". Even the first paragraph of the WIKI page explains that much about "magnetic reconnection' theory, and it clearly states that it's a process *in plasma* that *transfers energy* into particle acceleration. Clinger and RC didn't even know that much!
Holy Cow. The ignorance factor is unbelievable but the denial process is simply absurd. The moment I pointed out to the cast of ignorant clowns at ISF/JREF, that Clinger, the high and mighty MIT math professor had failed to produce a formula to express a non zero rate of 'reconnection" in his vacuum contraption, I immediately got banned. Watching the math professor bite the dust over his missing math formula was an absolute *riot*! I'll never take any of their math aficionado crap seriously ever again. They're clueless, both in terms of physics *and* math!
Math? What math? They couldn't collectively come up with a single measly math formula to support their claims, so they had to ban me instead! They're clueless cowards.
The real scientists on the other hand, are able to see through it, but they don't know what to do with it.
They do not understand how bad it is.
I think "professionals" from other fields simply assume that astronomers have some 'explanation" for their idea that works out and the term is just confusing. That was my original assumption anyway. I assumed they didn't really think that magnetic lines are real and are capable of disconnecting and reconnecting to other magnetic lines, but evidently that's exactly what they think happens. They essentially believe that topology map lines 'disconnect" from topology map lines and "reconnect" to other topology map lines and thereby cause earthquakes. That's the equivalent analogy to their "magnetic reconnection" argument.
I had no idea how bad it really was until that conversation at JREF/ISF. That's where I finally realized just how out of touch with EM field theory and physics they really are. Up to that point I gave them the benefit of the doubt, but never again.
Maybe we could get more people to see what is wrong with it.
I think most of those scientists would already realize that there's a problem with the 'term", but they probably wouldn't "assume" that astronomers have so poor of a grasp of EM physics. I seriously doubt that any paper on 'magnetic reconnection' theory would pass peer review in an IEEE publication. Only astronomers would be that gullible.
Other "evidence" is related to the solar magnetic field.
So far it appears to me that the sun's magnetic field is measured via the Zeeman effect.
There do not seem to be any other measurements, and the Stark effect is identical.
This means that any mentioning of magnetic field can be electric fields instead (or mixed).
If astronomers are so wrong with the Sun already,
it does not say much good for anything further.
When you look at the fact that magnetism is directly related to (caused by) charged particle movement, and charged particle movement is a form of "current", it's pretty easy to understand that the electric field is the real work horse behind all sustained high temperature plasma events in space. How that issue can be overlooked and ignored in solar physics is beyond me. Birkeland not only explained why the sun's corona has a higher temperature than the surface of a sun, he *simulated* that process in a lab and he created a full sphere corona around his solar model.
The mainstream could *never* simulate and sustain a full sphere "hot" corona in a lab based on "magnetic reconnection" theory because induction is an *isolated/localized* event to begin with, and it's a time limited event as well. Magnetic fields do not heat and sustain million degree plasma in the lab for hours on end, even if it's possible to induce current and heat plasma on a short term basis by introducing time variable magnetic fields into the plasma. You'd think that would be their first clue that they are missing something important, but *noooooo*!
The basic problem is that not only is 95 percent of their cosmology theory a metaphysical piece of crap, the other 5 percent is mostly just pseudoscience and total nonsense. Astronomers literally have no actual empirical "knowledge" to offer anyone, and they have no real "expertise" on anything other than myth making with magical math formulas.
Nothing they espouse actually works in the lab as described as best demonstrated by all their billions of dollars worth of lab failures with "dark matter" theory. Birkeland literally knew more about solar physics over a century ago than the collective expertise of the mainstream to this very day. It's really that bad. It's hard to believe mind you, but it really is that bad. I didn't realize how bad it really was until I attended a meeting on solar physics at LMSAL several years ago, and I didn't realize the depth of the problem until that surreal discussion on magnetic reconnection at JREF/ISF.
I think it's natural to give someone the benefit of the doubt to start with, and not everyone in the public has been exposed to basic EM field theory so it's easy for astronomers to pull the wool over the eyes of most people. Anyone however with a firm grasp of basic EM field theory knows that the 'lines' aren't any more real or any more substantive than the lines on a topology map.