Something new under the sun

[Zeuzzz]

Nope - wrong again. It doesn't need to be symmetrical, it doesn't need to be infinite, and considering ions is irrelevant and doesn't change the conclusion.

But it has to be one of these, or magnetic equilibruim would move for the neutral point. And as Scott says, the original position of the neutral point would no longer remain neutral.

Nonsense. As I already told you several times, the energy is changing is the reconnection is occuring, because a and b are changing. Furthermore the question of energy release is independent from the question of whether the field reconnects, and the presence or absence of plasma is crucial for that.

For christs sake, THIS IS NOT AN EXPLANATION. You are basically saying that the energy is released because we add a field a line connecting two points in a vector field.

So what exactly is releasing this energy? this field line connection itself?

No, you have no clue what you're talking about. They wanted to study reconnection in plasma. Reconnection is trivial to achieve without plasma - it happens all the time. What makes it hard in plasma is the high conductivity.

Can we agree now that the cancelling of magnetic field vectors in a simple magnetic setup can not release energy.

And can we also agree that the millions of pounds spent on the machine at MRX is more complex than simply cancelling field line vectors and releasing energy.

I already did, about 15 times. If you were unable to comprehend it the first 15 times, I very much doubt a 16th is going to help. Sorry.

I guess that If you haven't explained the energy release from lines in the slightest, just make the claim that alrealy have have fifiteeen times already.

Comprehend what? your continual hand waving statements on the release of energy from these lines? Lets have another look;

We've linked to several sophisticated and modern numerical simulations in which Maxwell's equations in plasma were solved, and when the solution is plotted you see that reconnection occurs and lots of energy is released. [how?]

We've linked to many papers in which experimenters have measured the magnetic fields in real plasmas, and then plotted the results of their measurements, and again one sees that reconnection occurs in the same way and lots of energy is released.

[How?]


Just saying reconnection happens, then lots of energy is released, is not an explanation! Just explain how the lines reconnecting create the observed energy.

This is a simulation of Maxwell's equations in plasma. It shows reconnection occurring and lots of energy being released. What do you think of that?

I think thats not an explanation for the production of energy. If what you are claiming is magnetic reconnection then i should beable to produce magnetic reconnection with a simple configuration of electromagnets. I'm sure that the guys at MRX at Princeton wont be happy when they find they needn't have spent all that money on the machine to attempt to achieve magnetic reconnection.

This movie of a simulation shows quite clearly how reconnection happens, and you can see for yourself the mechanism by which so much energy is released

No, i can see what appears to be magnetic field lines themselves releasing energy. Just explain how the energy is created.

This just looks like magnetic field lines themsleves creating the energy, and is not an explanation

When that happens one of the tangles has been undone, the energy density decreases, and lots of energy gets released.

That's all there is to it.

hmmm...

Is there any scientific material in the sentence?

That means the field lines aren't quite totally stuck, and if two come very close together and there's a lot of energy built up they can merge and reconnect (just as in the example I gave)

How can magnetic field lines merging release energy? I dont see any exploding fridge magnets.

No, Zeuzzz, you simply don't know the meaning of the terms you use. Reconnection is the phenomenon where two points which were not connected by a B field line suddenly become connected, or the other way around. That's why it's called re-connection.

I say again:

Okay we're getting somewhere here. Given the properties of the vector field that the field lines are describing, explain why two points which were not connected by a B field line suddenly become connected; in terms of the vectors that the lines are describing.


And dont give the same responce that you have the last two times to this question:

I already did, about 15 times. If you were unable to comprehend it the first 15 times, I very much doubt a 16th is going to help. Sorry.

I already have, at least three times. It's when two points which were not connected by a field line suddenly become connected by one (or the other way around).

I guess when you haven't explained something at all, just claim that you have and do some frantic hand waving. The trouble is that people can check.

Just answer the question, your so argumentative.


Maybe once you've answered that you address Alfvens electrical interpretation, which needs no energy release from lines (that dont physically exist in the first place)

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Zeuzz, Any answer to my questions?
Please tell me that you have read at least one paper from the 3 magnetic reconenction expertiment groups.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi Zeuuzz,

On the table I have asked for:

-which solar processes are scalable to Birkeland's experiment and then we can look at the forces in Birkeland's experiment and how they will scale to the solar process.
-do you want to use the change in motion for a star or the entire galaxy when you say that Perrat's model accounts for galactic rotation at a rate higher than that of gravity minus dark matter.

I know you are busy, so when you are ready.

Thanks

 

[sol invictus]

Could someone confirm whether:

1. a broken field line is consistent with, or violates Gauss's law?

2. a broken field line is the same as an open field line?

3. reconnection involves breaking any field lines.

Ian, I already answered that. Please see my previous post on it.

Once again, those questions do not have answers until you define your terms carefully. The correct way to do that is to use equations. The equations tell you that the B field has zero divergence. That does not prohibit reconnection, as we have demonstrated explicitly.

 

[sol invictus]

But it has to be one of these, or magnetic equilibruim would move for the neutral point. And as Scott says, the original position of the neutral point would no longer remain neutral.

That is false. It is obviously wrong.

Tell me, Zeuzzz - do you know what the curl of a vector field is? If yes, please prove it: pick any B field you like corresponding to non-zero current, and add a constant vector to it. Compute the curl of the new field. Has it changed?

Yes or no?


There is no point at all in continuing to discuss this with someone that doesn't understand the equation in question.

For christs sake, THIS IS NOT AN EXPLANATION. You are basically saying that the energy is released because we add a field a line connecting two points in a vector field.

So what exactly is releasing this energy? this field line connection itself?

The field is releasing energy. I have no idea what else you want to know. All magnetic fields store energy. When they change, the energy they store changes, which means either energy has been released or it has been added. One way to understand how much the energy has changed is to see how the field lines behave, but one can also simply use the solution for the field to calculate it. That's what I did for the field config we were discussing here, and that's what the people doing numerical simulations did too. In both cases, one can see how much energy is released when reconnection occurs. Sometimes it's a lot (like in a highly conductive plasma with a large B field), and sometimes not.

Can we agree now that the cancelling of magnetic field vectors in a simple magnetic setup can not release energy.

That question is nonsensical.

And can we also agree that the millions of pounds spent on the machine at MRX is more complex than simply cancelling field line vectors and releasing energy.

No idea what you're talking about.

I think thats not an explanation for the production of energy. If what you are claiming is magnetic reconnection then i should beable to produce magnetic reconnection with a simple configuration of electromagnets. I'm sure that the guys at MRX at Princeton wont be happy when they find they needn't have spent all that money on the machine to attempt to achieve magnetic reconnection.

I just addressed that, and you ignored my comment and asked the same question again.

The MRX experiment is studying reconnection IN PLASMA. It was creating the PLASMA and getting reconnection to occur IN THE PLASMA that made the experiment hard, not the reconnection itsef.

No, i can see what appears to be magnetic field lines themselves releasing energy. Just explain how the energy is created.

Go solve the equations yourself. What's that? You can't?

This just looks like magnetic field lines themsleves creating the energy, and is not an explanation

No, it looks like a field configuration in which energy is being released violently and the lines move suddenly. That's because when you have a field configuration such that lines reconnect in plasma, lots of energy is released.

Is there any scientific material in the sentence?

More than in all your posts combined, yes. That's not saying much, though.

How can magnetic field lines merging release energy? I dont see any exploding fridge magnets.

Is your fridge immersed IN PLASMA?

Okay we're getting somewhere here. Given the properties of the vector field that the field lines are describing, explain why two points which were not connected by a B field line suddenly become connected; in terms of the vectors that the lines are describing.

Zeuzzz, I know you have a very short memory, but have you already forgotten about this field:

[latex]${\bf B} = a(t) x {\bf \hat y} + b(t) y {\bf \hat x}$[/latex]?

Have you forgotten what it looks like, too? Have you forgotten what happens when a and b change with time?

You've forgotten all that, and you want me to repeat it all for you YET AGAIN?

 

[Zeuzzz]

That is false. It is obviously wrong.

No its not. Or you would have stated why.

Tell me, Zeuzzz - do you know what the curl of a vector field is? If yes, please prove it: pick any B field you like corresponding to non-zero current, and add a constant vector to it. Compute the curl of the new field. Has it changed?

Yes or no?


There is no point at all in continuing to discuss this with someone that doesn't understand the equation in question.

If you are referring the particular setup of currents that Scott was talking about when he made this claim there is no current like the one you just described there. Such a current could exist if you add in extra currents sheets, as he himself akwowledges, but for the configuration he is describing his statement is true.

Can we agree now that the cancelling of magnetic field vectors in a simple magnetic setup can not release energy.

That question is nonsensical.

Precisely, yet this is the exact mechanism that you are claimng proves reconnection in your example.




I just addressed that, and you ignored my comment and asked the same question again.

The MRX experiment is studying reconnection IN PLASMA. It was creating the PLASMA and getting reconnection to occur IN THE PLASMA that made the experiment hard, not the reconnection itsef.

No, i can see what appears to be magnetic field lines themselves releasing energy. Just explain how the energy is created.

Go solve the equations yourself. What's that? You can't?

And neither can you evidently.

No, it looks like a field configuration in which energy is being released violently and the lines move suddenly. That's because when you have a field configuration such that lines reconnect in plasma, lots of energy is released.

Okay, so now it is the lines again that are moving, and this creates the energy?

Zeuzzz, I know you have a very short memory, but have you already forgotten about this field:

[latex]${\bf B} = a(t) x {\bf \hat y} + b(t) y {\bf \hat x}$[/latex]?

Have you forgotten what it looks like, too? Have you forgotten what happens when a and b change with time?

You've forgotten all that, and you want me to repeat it all for you YET AGAIN?

You still think that this field exhibits reconnection?

I never said that this field violates any of maxwells laws, but it does not show reconnection.

wheres the MHD terms? wheres the plasma (somehow) attached to the field lines? surely this has to be factored in to call it magnetic reconnection, Sol?

And before you post another rant about how ridiculous my position is about magnetic field lines, it seems that many other scientists hold this exact view.

http://www.answers.com/topic/magnetospheric-convection-and-magnetic-storms?cat=technology

This principle of "field line preservation" is a very powerful help for intuition, for instance in understanding the shape of interplanetary magnetic field lines. The "roots" of such lines are anchored in plasma which rotates with the sun (in about 27 days, as viewed from the rotating Earth, but meanwhile other potions of the line are embedded in plasma which races away radially. The result can be shown to be a spiral (flat in the Sun's equator, wound around a cone far from the equator), becoming closer and closer to circular with growing distance from the Sun.

It is sometimes claimed that "in a plasma, field lines move with the plasma," even while others protest that such lines (like lines of latitude and longitude) are artificial constructs, making their motion meaningless. Indeed, "field line motion" is meaningful only if we identify the field line by means of the particles which share it. Otherwise it should be viewed merely as a visualization aid, providing an intuitive meaning to the interplay of bulk motion and magnetic field, while avoiding the need of deriving the electric field which makes that motion possible.

Indeed, no doubt ignoring the need to derive Alfvens valid electrical explanation that needs no abstract field line interaction to produce energy release.

 

[Tubbythin]

Tell me, Zeuzzz - do you know what the curl of a vector field is? If yes, please prove it: pick any B field you like corresponding to non-zero current, and add a constant vector to it. Compute the curl of the new field. Has it changed?

Yes or no?


There is no point at all in continuing to discuss this with someone that doesn't understand the equation in question.

No its not. Or you would have stated why.

If you are referring the particular setup of currents that Scott was talking about when he made this claim there is no current like the one you just described there. Such a current could exist if you add in extra currents sheets, as he himself akwowledges, but for the configuration he is describing his statement is true.

So that's a no then?

 

[Zeuzzz]

So that's a no then?

No.

Its an absolute positive yes for the situation that Sol is describing, such a current could exist at a neutral point given the exact dimensional conditions he gives, but that is not what is occuring in the example Scott is reffering to when he makes the statement in question.


Besides, i really have to wonder why this statement matters so much, it holds no bearing on the actual material in the rest of his paper.

The longer people argue about the wording of this one sentence and if its strictly true in every single situation, the longer it will look as if you cant dismiss any of the main points in the paper.

 

[Tubbythin]

No.
Its an absolute positive yes for the situation that Sol is describing,

Yes. That really is proof!

The longer people argue about the wording of this one sentence and if its strictly true in every single situation, the longer it will look as if you cant dismiss any of the main points in the paper.

I've already dismissed it. The paper is claiming that astrophysicists get their plasma physics wrong. Yet not once does the author show a mathematical example of this: no erroneous equations, no wrong results. Hence the paper shows nothing, regardless of whether his maths is right or not.

 

[Dancing David]

No.

Its an absolute positive yes for the situation that Sol is describing, such a current could exist at a neutral point given the exact dimensional conditions he gives, but that is not what is occuring in the example Scott is reffering to when he makes the statement in question.


Besides, i really have to wonder why this statement matters so much, it holds no bearing on the actual material in the rest of his paper.

People here have said that Scott's paper has an error in it, that is the issue. the issue is that the paper has an error in it, according to them.

They have stated that at least ten times now and then asked you why you kept referencing the paper when they had already pointed out an error that they felt was pretty much an low level one and should not have been made.

they stated that because there was a low level error in the paper they were not sure that the statements made were credible and then they asked you why you kept referencing the paper and ignoring thier critique of the error.

Then for the last page or so, you hav been defending the statements that they say are in error.

Now that they have shown you why they feel that Scott's statement were in error, you are now asking why it should matter.

This is political chicanery of the sort usually described as 'moving the goal posts', it does not do credit to your argument to engage in this tactic, it makes you look as though you are shifting attention from thier contention that Scott made an error.

The longer people argue about the wording of this one sentence and if its strictly true in every single situation, the longer it will look as if you cant dismiss any of the main points in the paper.

If you are interested about intelectual integrity and mathematical demonstrations of complex situation then you would know that the first sentence there is a whopper of a foolish thing to say, it does not credit to your ability to engage in critical thought and looks rather like sour grapes on the vine.

If someone makes a blanket statement and they are in error in that blanket statement then it is again 'moving the goal posts' to say that people are quibbling about the validity of the statement, if the statement is true then the statement is true. If the conditions were placed upon the statement explicitly and not through some conjecture on your part, then there would not be an error on Scott's part.

You can not make an argument from authority based upon Scott's knowledge if others then point out errors in Scotts' expressions.

 

[Ziggurat]

You still think that this field exhibits reconnection?

Clue for the clueless: near the neutral point, the field Sol just posted is actually identical to first order with the field Scott is considering. I just stepped through the calculations to prove to myself what I suspected, and indeed we're looking at the same thing, not merely something related. Which actually illustrates a shortcoming of his drawing: what he terms the "separatrix loci” MUST approach the neutral point at 45 degree angles if there's no current near the neutral point (meaning a=b for Sol's and my equation). But they aren't drawn that way.

wheres the MHD terms? wheres the plasma (somehow) attached to the field lines?

Why would those show up in an equation which only describes the field?

 

[sol invictus]

I asked:

Tell me, Zeuzzz - do you know what the curl of a vector field is? If yes, please prove it: pick any B field you like corresponding to non-zero current, and add a constant vector to it. Compute the curl of the new field. Has it changed?

Yes or no?

You said:

No.

At least, I think that was your answer - your responses are so convoluted and nonsensical it's very difficult to tell even when it's a yes/no question. If you meant to say "yes", we'll tackle that (and it will prove that you have not even the vaguest idea what you are talking about).

Anyway, if your answer was in fact "no" (which is correct) you have just falsified Scott's statement. Congratulations.

By adding a constant, the magnetic field can be set to zero at any point you desire, regardless of the current density at that point.

 

[The Man]

No.

Its an absolute positive yes for the situation that Sol is describing, such a current could exist at a neutral point given the exact dimensional conditions he gives, but that is not what is occuring in the example Scott is reffering to when he makes the statement in question. .

So a current can exist at a neutral point but just not when Scott does not want one too so he can clam there is no source for energy release from magnetic reconnection.

Besides, i really have to wonder why this statement matters so much, it holds no bearing on the actual material in the rest of his paper.

Because, it goes directly to the fundamental nature of his claim as to why no energy can be released from magnetic reconnection and hence his reason for invalidating it, not to mention his credibility and competence.

The longer people argue about the wording of this one sentence and if its strictly true in every single situation, the longer it will look as if you cant dismiss any of the main points in the paper.

The longer you attempt to concede points you cannot dispute, but still try to retain the validity of his statement, or try to down plan the significance of that error not only for his assessment of magnetic reconnection but to any other assessments made in that paper, the more we can clearly see that you are just clutching at the straws of his straw man.


In fact magnetic fields from a current act to resist both changes in that current and the magnetic field, in a conductive media like a plasma eddy currents will be induced that counteract changes in the magnetic field topology, like the shifting of a neutral point.

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

This topology is approximately preserved even when the magnetic field itself is strongly distorted by the presence of variable currents or motion of magnetic sources, because effects that might otherwise change the magnetic topology instead induce eddy currents in the plasma; the eddy currents have the effect of canceling out the topological change.

The very currents you claim must be specifically introduced to avoid the shifting of the neutral point are in fact introduced and caused by a magnetic field’s resistance to changes in topography in a conductive media like a plasma.

Separatrices often (but not always) coincide with current sheets that mark a sudden change in the direction of the magnetic field, but a current sheet is not necessary to the formation of a separatrix, or to magnetic reconnection. As a limiting case, refrigerator magnets moved near one another in Earth's atmosphere cause nearly continuous magnetic reconnection, although no electrical current flows through the air (it is an insulator).
According to simple resistive magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) theory, reconnection happens because the plasma's electrical resistivity near the boundary layer opposes the currents necessary to sustain the change in the magnetic field. The need for such a current can be seen from one of Maxwell's equations,
The resistivity of the current layer allows magnetic flux from either side to diffuse through the current layer, cancelling out flux from the other side of the boundary. When this happens, the plasma is pulled out by magnetic tension along the direction of the magnetic field lines. The resulting drop in pressure pulls more plasma and magnetic flux into the central region, yielding a self-sustaining process.

Ironic isn’t it, that for a group that claims the mainstream is ignoring electrical effects and currents, when it comes to the mainstream concept of magnetic reconnection, it is that very group that is ignoring those very concepts as they relate to magnetic reconnection in order to refute that concept.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I had a long post prepared yesterday, thanking Zeuzzz for what he wrote, saying that it helped me with my study of why threads like this are so long, and asking a set of new questions. However, the real world intervened, and I didn't complete it, so it wasn't posted.

In the day since, Zeuzzz has provided much better material, and, sadly, one reason why threads like this are so long has become much clearer.

First, though, a bit of a recap.

Back in post#1142, I introduced a distinction between a fatal flaw and sloppy work, and I expanded on it in the following post. I asked if the flaw Ziggurat's comment - subsequently much discussed - seems to point to was fatal with respect to the core concept in Scott's paper.

Several people have, independently, checked, and concluded that there is indeed a fatal flaw in the core concept in Scott's paper ... except for Zeuzzz and iantresman.

As someone else has already commented, I found it difficult to work out what Zeuzzz was actually saying, several times. However, he does seem to have agreed with some form of Ziggurat's comment.

Is there still room for an innocent interpretation? Could it be that Zeuzzz is, like iantresman, sufficiently unfamiliar with the physics and the underlying math that he simply doesn't grasp just how fatal the identified flaw is, to the core concept?

For me, such an innocent interpretation is what's interesting; if, say, Zeuzzz is engaging in high-level trolling, cynically shifting the goal-posts, deliberately obfuscating, and so on, then that'd be a bleak end to 'plasma cosmology'. Zeuzzz, I'm NOT saying that you have, consciously, been doing this; however, as several people have pointed out, what you write is - objectively - completely consistent with such a hypothesis.

If the core concept in Scott's paper is, or relates unambiguously to, classical electromagnetism, then it follows that any flaw can be proven, mathematically. And that's because Maxwell's equations are just math.

If so, then the most devastating demonstration of the flaw will also be mathematical.

That several people have shown - mathematically - that if Scott's core concept is classical electromagnetism then the paper contains a fatal flaw.

So the only innocent interpretation for Zeuzzz' apparent continued refusal to acknowledge the flaw is that Zeuzzz' command of the relevant math is so poor that he cannot grok the flaw.

Several things follow from this (if my conclusions stand); some are as follows:

* Zeuzzz cannot have evaluated any of the 'plasma cosmology' material he presented in terms of the soundness of the physics they contain (because all that physics requires a command of math that Zeuzzz demonstrably does not posses)

* Ditto, with respect to any astronomy that necessarily involves math beyond Zeuzzz' grasp

* a key method Zeuzzz uses to evaluate material, such as papers, is whether those papers include the right dogwhistles - key words or phrases that are found in the papers of Peratt (for example); if those words and phrases are there, then the paper is, automatically, a 'plasma cosmology' paper; if not, then not

* to the extent that 'plasma cosmology' contains astronomy, physics, astrophysics, cosmology, etc, Zeuzzz will, generally, be an unreliable participant in any discussion on the merits of such ideas.

Zeuzzz, I hope I am wrong; I hope that it is, in fact, much more difficult to grok what you write about plasma cosmology than the dismal examples above.

 

[iantresman]

Is there still room for an innocent interpretation? Could it be that Zeuzzz is, like iantresman, sufficiently unfamiliar with the physics and the underlying math that he simply doesn't grasp just how fatal the identified flaw is, to the core concept?

.
My maths is insufficient. And I do not doubt Ziggurat's abilities, and that he has found a fatal flaw in his interpretation of what he thinks Scott is saying. However, I do not accept his interpretation of Scott's paper, something no amount of maths can demonstrate one way or another.

I also think that the evaluation of Plasma Cosmology does not just require maths (I'm not saying it is unimportant).

I believe it was Prof. Simon Newcomb who "calculated" that heavier-than-air flight was impossible, some 18 months before the the Wright Brothers flew the Kitty Hawk. And it took Scientific American magazine quite some time to report the success, presumably because they had calculated it was impossible too... and thought it was a hoax.

Of course this does imply Ziggurat is wrong, nor that Scott and Plasma Cosmology is correct. Only that the answers are not always black and white.

 

[Ziggurat]

My maths is insufficient. And I do not doubt Ziggurat's abilities, and that he has found a fatal flaw in his interpretation of what he thinks Scott is saying. However, I do not accept his interpretation of Scott's paper, something no amount of maths can demonstrate one way or another.

Then consider this: if I'm misinterpreting what Scott is saying, is it not possible that Scott's entire paper is based upon his misinterpretation of what people who study magnetic reconnection are saying? Because Scott never once points to any actual math mistakes.

I believe it was Prof. Simon Newcomb who "calculated" that heavier-than-air flight was impossible, some 18 months before the the Wright Brothers flew the Kitty Hawk.

This is wrong. I can find no direct reference to any such calculation, and in fact it appears he didn't actually believe flight was impossible. Wikipedia quotes him as saying,

Quite likely the twentieth century is destined to see the natural forces which will enable us to fly from continent to continent with a speed far exceeding that of a bird. But when we inquire whether aerial flight is possible in the present state of our knowledge; whether, with such materials as we possess, a combination of steel, cloth and wire can be made which, moved by the power of electricity or steam, shall form a successful flying machine, the outlook may be altogether different.

And he was correct: the first powered flight used a gasoline engine, which has far better weight-to-power ratio than electric motors or steam engines. The future arrived sooner than he thought, but he never categorically denied the possibility. But his true views have apparently been distorted in popular culture, to bolster a pseudo-scepticism about scientists' ability to rule out possibilities.

I'll give you another example of a quote that I find quite interesting, this time from the New York Times concerning Goddard's idea of sending a rocket to the moon:
"... after the rocket quits our air and and really starts on its longer journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left. To claim that it would be is to deny a fundamental law of dynamics, and only Dr. Einstein and his chosen dozen, so few and fit, are licensed to do that."
This is one of those famed quotes which history has disproven. But note what is absent: there is no math. Physics is a mathematical science. If you can't do the math, you can't play the game.

 

[Dancing David]

.
My maths is insufficient. And I do not doubt Ziggurat's abilities, and that he has found a fatal flaw in his interpretation of what he thinks Scott is saying. However, I do not accept his interpretation of Scott's paper, something no amount of maths can demonstrate one way or another.

Um, well then , these leaves you with trashing the study of magnetism all over again. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water as it were.

This would be a good time then to say what theory you are going to use to replace the ones currently used to study the mathematics of magnetism.

Again a theory is not just a critique of existing theory. If Scott is saying that magnetism is something other than the established equations which approximate and describe it then there needs to be the substitute. Until such time it is speculative philosphy and not science.

Give us the new theory that it may be tested against the old in it's predictive value.

So for you is it a matter of faith?

I also think that the evaluation of Plasma Cosmology does not just require maths (I'm not saying it is unimportant).

I believe it was Prof. Simon Newcomb who "calculated" that heavier-than-air flight was impossible, some 18 months before the the Wright Brothers flew the Kitty Hawk. And it took Scientific American magazine quite some time to report the success, presumably because they had calculated it was impossible too... and thought it was a hoax.

Sorry fallacy of construction also known as a strawman, Scott is violating the already established theory, like Maxwell's equations. On what basis should they be thrown out? An appeal to his authority? Just like Newcombs, or a critical examination of the theory and it's ability to model the behavior of reality?

What theory and what data do you have?

Otherwise it is speculative philospohy and not science. Or perhaps even worse, blind faith.

Of course this does imply Ziggurat is wrong, nor that Scott and Plasma Cosmology is correct. Only that the answers are not always black and white.

See that is very silly, if we are trying to approximate the behavior of reality through modeling, then what model and what precitions do you have that explain the behavior of reality with more accuracy. There is never any black and white, all human thoughts are equally false and equally true, some just have more validty in predicting the behavior of reality than others.

In the case of the interaction of a continuous magnetic field the answers are not black and white but they are modeled very accurately with the math, so what have you got that is a better model?

I am disappointed Ian I thought you were really interested in understanding the nature of science, there is room for both plasma and mainstream physics that incorporates plasma. But it would seem you have your mind made up and will not examine the data.

But between you and the other two I have not seen a theory or data that predicts anything that is not explained by the current model.

And that is really too bad, because that is what the JREF is all about.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

.
My maths is insufficient. And I do not doubt Ziggurat's abilities, and that he has found a fatal flaw in his interpretation of what he thinks Scott is saying. However, I do not accept his interpretation of Scott's paper, something no amount of maths can demonstrate one way or another.

.
Thanks iantresman, it's just this sort of thing that I'm now quite keen to explore.

Could you please explain, in more detail, what you think Scott's paper includes, in the way of core concepts (see my earlier posts on the distinctions between core concepts and other aspects, referenced in the post you quote), that Ziggurat's (and many others') comments do not address?

My own interpretation of Scott's paper is that it's just what Ziggurat (and others) have said: at its core it is about Maxwell's equations only (of course you need to include the obligatory definitions and matching of symbols etc to words, but the paper has essentially zero room for any ambiguity there ... except, perhaps, to someone who does not grasp the math).

.

I also think that the evaluation of Plasma Cosmology does not just require maths (I'm not saying it is unimportant).

.
Neither do I, nor did I state, or imply that ... if I did, let me be quite clear: my focus is on understanding the reasons for threads on plasma cosmology topics being so long.

I have, tentatively, identified one possible reason - blind defence of the core concepts in 'plasma cosmology' papers, in the sense that the defence is being made by someone who does not actually understand the guts of those concepts.

Of course, plasma cosmology materials may contain core concepts that can be evaluated - objectively - without an understanding of math similar to that required to play with Maxwell's equations; such material may contain logical errors that are just as fatal to the core concepts, even if the math is accepted as impeccable; and so on.

Furthermore, my conclusions are with regard, strictly speaking, to only Zeuzzz, and even more strictly, to his recent posting on the Scott paper.

I hope that this clarifies things a bit.
.

I believe it was Prof. Simon Newcomb who "calculated" that heavier-than-air flight was impossible, some 18 months before the the Wright Brothers flew the Kitty Hawk. And it took Scientific American magazine quite some time to report the success, presumably because they had calculated it was impossible too... and thought it was a hoax.

Of course this does imply Ziggurat is wrong, nor that Scott and Plasma Cosmology is correct. Only that the answers are not always black and white.

.

This points to what I think is, in fact, a much more important aspect ... an aspect I hope (and had hoped) to address in more detail.

However, at least with regard to Zeuzzz and his posts on the Scott paper, it would seem unlikely that these more interesting aspects can be explored cleanly ...

 

[iantresman]

Then consider this: if I'm misinterpreting what Scott is saying, is it not possible that Scott's entire paper is based upon his misinterpretation of what people who study magnetic reconnection are saying? Because Scott never once points to any actual math mistakes.

Absolutely.

This is wrong. I can find no direct reference to any such calculation, and in fact it appears he didn't actually believe flight was impossible.

.
I accept your interpretation. I also have quotes suggesting that he "proved" flight was not possible, and also that he was referring to a craft powered by a steam engine.

I suspect (guess) that he calculated that there was no technology available at the time, that could provide the power. But I think it is also plausible (another guess), that his model excluded lift. But I think my point is still valid. Maths doesn't help if you use the wrong model.

This also reminds of the claims that "mathematically / aerodynamically / scientifically" that bumble bees can't fly. I wonder whether this is just an urban myth.

 

[Ziggurat]

But I think my point is still valid. Maths doesn't help if you use the wrong model.

Sure. But unless you've got a physical counterexample (which isn't applicable if you're claiming magnetic reconnection in plasmas can't release energy), the best way to demonstrate that something is the wrong model is to show (with math) where and how it fails.

This also reminds of the claims that "mathematically / aerodynamically / scientifically" that bumble bees can't fly. I wonder whether this is just an urban myth.

It seems to be, though with a grain of truth buried in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Flight