EU theorist takes on establishment - Magnetic Reconnection

[Anaconda]

The issue of so-called "magnetic reconnection" has reached a vary large internet audience at Watts Up With That? with the NASA announcement of the new mission to investigate the magnetotail and send satellite in situ probes right through the location where exploding double layers have been erroneously identified as "magnetic reconnection".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/01/n ... c-portals/

What a quote from the August 31, 2009 press release of NASA:

"Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don't really understand -- not from laboratory experiments or from simulations," says Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

And with the sophisticated technology that is part of the MMS or Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission, there is a good chance that many unanswered questions (to "modern" astronomy) will be answered and likely again, astronomers will be "surprised" and most likely Hannes Alfven will be confirmed to be right, again, and exploding double layers will be detected (to check out the specs on the mission, see link below):

http://mms.space.swri.edu/

Looks like michael.suede's timing on starting the thread over at BAUT couldn't have been better and at least NASA was honest enough to acknowledge astrophysicists don't understand so-called "magnetic reconnection".

This fact seems highly embarrassing to the folks over at BAUT.

Maybe the case for "magnetic reconnection" belongs to the ATM section of BAUT since there is so little understanding of the supposed process

Not even understood in a laboratory setting -- very telling.

[Birkeland]

Maybe the case for "magnetic reconnection" belongs to the ATM section of BAUT since there is so little understanding of the supposed process

Indeed, and may I suggest, when you get unbanned, that you put forward a request that the moderators move their neutron drills, the one dimensional black hole point singularity, all the invisible dark matter that floats around ... somewhere, the holy god particle, the catholic explosion from the beginning of time (the latter: a concept they don't even understand) and the rest of the revelations pulled out of their empty magical hat - ask them to move all of this nonsense over to the crackpot section of the forum. Maybe you earn a permban, but it may be worth it just for the fun of it. Myself: I don't even enter that church. They would certainly banish me as a cosmological satanist.

[michael.suede]

The issue of so-called "magnetic reconnection" has reached a vary large internet audience at Watts Up With That? with the NASA announcement of the new mission to investigate the magnetotail and send satellite in situ probes right through the location where exploding double layers have been erroneously identified as "magnetic reconnection".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/01/n ... c-portals/

What a quote from the August 31, 2009 press release of NASA:

"Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don't really understand -- not from laboratory experiments or from simulations," says Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

And with the sophisticated technology that is part of the MMS or Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission, there is a good chance that many unanswered questions (to "modern" astronomy) will be answered and likely again, astronomers will be "surprised" and most likely Hannes Alfven will be confirmed to be right, again, and exploding double layers will be detected (to check out the specs on the mission, see link below):

http://mms.space.swri.edu/

Looks like michael.suede's timing on starting the thread over at BAUT couldn't have been better and at least NASA was honest enough to acknowledge astrophysicists don't understand so-called "magnetic reconnection".

This fact seems highly embarrassing to the folks over at BAUT.

Maybe the case for "magnetic reconnection" belongs to the ATM section of BAUT since there is so little understanding of the supposed process

Not even understood in a laboratory setting -- very telling.

ho ho ho that's so money

[StevenO]

For another example of mainstreamers grasping for a hold onto their beliefs check here on BAUT:

The Twin Paradox does not exist

Adsar on the BAUT forums is a professional troller too. Just check his behaviour on this thread, split off from mine, that describes that GPS does not rely on SR/GR at all to function:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainst ... sr-gr.html

Poor Webbo is being trolled to the bone to get him suspended. I'm pretty sure if Webbo does not give up, Nereid will show up too and talk about the inconsistent language those stupid ATM'ers are using and how they just don't comprehend the higher concepts of the mainstream

I was suspended BTW. for being persistent.

Did you follow the thread? Webbo was doing great and now the moderators just closed it for his failure to adopt their beliefs, while stating that hey were actually being nice to him...

Just a few paraphrases:

No idea. Their site, their story. Check with them. My point regarding this is they are contradicting themselves. Either they had a prediction that was within 1% or they were uncertain of the magnitude and sign of the effect. The only situation that can fit both of these is that they had multiple predictions. If so, that is not very scientific.

It's their phrase not mine. What I do have is a description of the method of positioning, together with an example, that not a single individual amongst you has questioned or even addressed.

(bold added)

FWIW, the reason I have not questioned, or addressed, this is simple and easy to understand: by the time I understood the actual ATM claims you were making in this thread, it became apparent that the GPS could not be used "to prove time dilation", because this ATM claim is merely a (minor?) aspect of a much deeper (and/or broader) ATM claim (namely "no current or past experiment has, or is, proving time dilation").

That is true actually. They have no proof of relativistic time dilation except Doppler experiments or the supposed stellar redshift, which is circular.

Agreed. Webbo, you are fairly new here. I'm guessing that this is not the first time you've tried to make this argument someplace. Here, we are apt to be a bit friendlier to people exploring something like this than a more exacting physics forum, but we aren't going to side with you over the facts.

It happens often that someone will come here, and get frustrated, and then blame all scientists for not being open minded... especially to people that aren't comfortable with differential equations.

As it happens, the business of how (or to what degree) GR can be demonstrated using the required corrections to GPS satellites, is something that demands math. If your idea is really ground-breaking, you should probably try to team up with someone capable of handling the math to try and express it.

You're a smart guy, so in the mean time, keep reading, and expanding your horizons. That's what we're all here for.

If you have'nt read the thread yet, please do so. It is more entertaining than Not The Nine O'Clock News.

[StevenO]

Sofar they are a no

[solrey]

The owners of BAUT forum are hiding behind a domain proxy, a service for domain owners who wish to remain anonymous.

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration BAUTFORUM.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598

They can't even be open and honest about who runs the show for that site, therefore I would not expect the forum admins or mods, in general, to be any different.

[bboyer]

Problems with Proxy Registration and Related Services
http://www.dynadot.com/resource/article/qa.html?aid=0

(Not an endorsement of dynadot services; I'm not familiar with them or their service personally, but the info they present on this page regarding proxy registration sounds about right)

[Anaconda]

Well, the 30 day window for discussion has now elapsed and the thread has been closed per BAUT rules.

Frankly, my knowledge is limited so it was hard to persuade the interlocutors that so-called "magnetic reconnection" doesn't exist (I suspect no amount of knowledge and facility would dissuade the interlocutors from their belief in "magnetic reconnection").

But a couple of points were made in the concluding comments:

1. So-called "magnetic reconnection" is not understood or explained, per NASA news release. And that a new mission with an advanced in situ satellite probe will hopefull provide more observational data. So, it is necessary to keep an open-mind toward all possibilities. This was not well received by the interlocutors, as their position was apparently, "magnetic reconnection happens, even though we don't understand it, and to consider any other possibility is unnecessary."

(See NASA link below:)

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009 ... ist1065474

(A very weak position to take for scientists in my opinion.)

2. New analysis & interpretation by UCLA scientists exposes the fact that scientists' understanding of the Sun -- Earth electromagnetic relationship/dynamic is limited, so to claim Science understands enough about the energy releases in the magnetotail that cause the aurora to be able to rule out other possibilities is silly at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

(See UCLA link below:)

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl ... 01025.aspx

The interlocutors responses varied from Nereid's ignore the UCLA press release entirely and pursue questions that were already asked and answered (but serve to bog down the proponent); to, "well, its just a press release", never mind that it shows how little is known and how much of what was thought known is wrong; to the Sun's solar wind electrical interaction with the Earth's magnetosphere doesn't cast any light on the energy releases in the magnetotail.

All in all, it seemed the responses to NASA's acknowledgment of not understanding "magnetic reconnection" and the UCLA announcement that numerous ideas about the solar wind/magnetosphere dynamic were wrong only showed how mulish the "modern" astronomy community is about admitting their lack of knowledge and being unwilling to look at other possible ideas.

(Again, in my mind, this just reveals that those in the "modern" astronomy community are losing touch with the requirements and ethics of the Scientific Method.)

micheal.suede provides an excellent summary of the "magnetic reconnection" debate from the Electric Universe perspective at his website, Cosmology Quest:

http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyq ... connection