Something new under the sun

[zosima]

.
Actually, I do. And I care, and respect what you have to say too, though I don't necessarily have to agree with it. It reminds me of a story about Alfvén.

Apparently Alfvén gave a lecture at the University of Chicago in 1948, in whcih he explained his 1942 ideas on magnetohydrodynamic waves. Up until then, most scientists described them as nonsense. But Enrico Fermi cared enough about what Alfvén thought, to attend, and so the story goes, Fermi agreed that "of course such waves could exist", and the next day, because of Fermi's authority, the rest of the world agreed that Alfvén's waves existed. (Ref)

And the above vignette too is a bad reason to believe that we should care what about what crackpot ideas scientists have. It is unfortunate that scientists are human and often do have erroneous ideas. They are just as susceptible to woo as anyone else, but that is bad science, and certainly no reason to be persuaded by erroneous claims of someone, regardless of what authority that person holds. All that should matter is the logical consistency of the theory and its capacity to explain and predict experimental evidence.

As noted, if those claims via authority are persuasive, I would recommend you immediately take an injection of vitamin C and methamphetamine, it will do you wonders.

That said, you are correct, I should not have spoken for others, it was an attempt to make a dramatic application of hyperbole.

 

[sol invictus]

Argument from authority is a very common polemic among physics crackpots. The irony is that there are an overwhelming number of authorities on the other side... but to the crank mind, that just indicates the strength of the mainstream conspiracy suppressing their ideas.

 

[iantresman]

And the above vignette too is a bad reason to believe that we should care what about what crackpot ideas scientists have.

.
Alfvén's crackpot idea earned him the Nobel Prize.

Argument from authority is a very common polemic among physics crackpots.

.
Indeed. Just because Alfvén said something does not make it right. And conversely, just because Alfvén wrote it, doesn't diminish his evidence and theories.

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz seems to have missed or ignored my last post about calculations for the energy in magnetic reconnections. Could someone quote it in case he is ignoring me?

 

[Dancing David]

I think a certain point can be made that the equations Alfven used to define something that might be called magnetic reconnection and the equations that Sol I. et al. have used to describe something that might be called magnetic reconnection have the same end and describe the same process. Now the cool thing about math is, it means they are the same.

Let me repeat that, although Sol I. already said it, the two sets of equations are the same in mathematical terms.

So mathematicaly speaking they are the same. It does not matter if you have a preference for Alfven's equations or the equations that Sol I., Zig and Ben M. have been using.

They are the same.

It does not matter which of the two frameworks you use to solve the magnetic reconnection. They are the same

So until someone demonstrates that there is a difference in the solutions for real life situations between Alfven's equations and the others, it does not matter, they are the same.

So when somebody might have said "NO ONE CARES WHAT HANNES ALFVEN THOUGHT", it could be that they were speaking to the point that someone kept acting like Alfven's equations were better("preferred to use plasma physics and the current disruption model, the “Ej approach” which utilizes the electric field and current density instead of the magnetic field and bulk plasma flow model magnetic reconnection is currently based on."), but they are the same. So it is just like the two kinds of notation in calculus, it does not matter.


(It does not matter.)^n degree.

 

[Ziggurat]

Alfvén's crackpot idea earned him the Nobel Prize.

I think you will find that Alfven's cosmology ideas were not, in fact, any part of why he was awarded the prize. His cosmology ideas were and are simply wrong. They do not match observations.

 

[sol invictus]

I think you will find that Alfven's cosmology ideas were not, in fact, any part of why he was awarded the prize. His cosmology ideas were and are simply wrong. They do not match observations.

The list of Nobel laureates that (usually late in their careers) turned into crackpots is nearly as long as the list of Nobel laureates.

I think there's some universal psychology to it - you've already won the highest award you can win, so the only thing you could possibly do to top that is come up with a true revolution. So you study ideas on the fringe of the field - which makes you (by my definition at least) automatically a crackpot.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Could you stop saying I dont understand the maths, if you think this then show an example of this. I have actually agreed with much of what people have posted, I did debate some of its relevance to the subject at hand, and I did look at a couple of assumptions in them.

I think that Sol was wrong about this for example;




If your Z-axis is at the centre of the neutral point then the current would certainly have to either infinite, or symetrical about the Z axis, so the neutral line from your current flow is directly on x=y=0, if it was not symetrical about the Z axis the neutral point would no longer remain neutral (by amperes law)

And all the other maths I have largely agreed with, although I would still dispute the relevance of some of them. What do you want me to say? nice calculation dude!, but I dont think its relevant. No. I'm obviously just going to say why I think that calculation is irrelivant, irrespective of whether the person who wrote it got the calculation right or wrong.

.
In terms of what I'm focussed on - why threads like this tend to be so long - this is, again, good input, thank you.

And thanks too to sol invictus, zosima, Reality Check, and ben m for your comments and inputs in response to Zeuzzz' recent post.
.

They are not equivalent, there are differences. Magnetic reconnection does not encompass automatically all current-driven processes because an electric current based on the Ampere’s law is associated with a non-zero curl B and thus can be cast into a magnetic reconnection configuration when the background field is removed.

.
Zeuzzz, once again, may I suggest that this part of this thread would be much shorter if you asked questions about this sort of thing, rather than making no-room-for-doubt statements that lack a carefully worded context?

Especially if, as you say, a good many of the past few pages of posts are little more than everyone else misunderstanding what you had intended to say?

Of course, I would be the first to say I do not really understand your intent, in most of your posts, not least because what you write comes across to me as confused, inconsistent, and (sorry to say) just plain wrong.

That what you write has been interpreted/understood by your audience (the ones who write posts in this thread anyway) quite differently than what you (now) say you intended, should be painfully clear ... why not try to change the way you write, to better convey your intent?

For example, once we've put 'magnetic reconnection' to bed, I have at least two questions to you that remain unanswered, and several others have more of theirs too. One of my open questions goes to the heart of what I took to be your intention, earlier, namely to provide a clear description of 'plasma cosmology' as it relates to certain aspects of astrophysics.
.

And what fatal flaws? They have shown that one sentence in his paper does not hold true for evey single idealised field configuration. They have not refuted any of the maths, or the main material in his publication.

.
Maybe it's worth revisiting this; it certainly seems that you do not address the points made in anything like the same way Ziggurat, The Man, etc did.
.

I can see that we're not getting anywhere in this discussion. Everyone just seems to be making accusations instead of addressing the material.

Let’s outline my points in a more coherent manner then. And maybe some of the differences betwen the Ej approach and the Bu approach would be a good idea.

• The standard description of Magnetic reconnection in plasma is the process by which magnetic field energy is converted into kinetic energy.
• The field configuration of the neutral point involved in magnetic reconnection configuration obeys Maxwell’s laws.
• None of the above are a physical description of how the magnetic energy is liberated from the field; there is no mention of the physical object that has to be receiving the kinetic energy, or any of the magnitudes involved.
• Hannes Alfvén, the founder of the concept “frozen-in magnetic field lines” (which he later spoke critically of), was severely opposed to the concept of magnetic reconnection and preferred to use plasma physics and the current disruption model, the “Ej approach” which utilizes the electric field and current density instead of the magnetic field and bulk plasma flow model magnetic reconnection is currently based on.
• Alfven also proposed that the E-fields resulting from double layers in the plasma may play a role in particles gaining their kinetic energy.
• The Ej Aprroach (Current disruption) and the Bu approach (magnetic reconnection) have several differences, however they are similar in the sense that they are both phenomena that involve the breakdown of the ideal MHD condition and both can arrise from the same magnetic field neutral point setup.
• One major characteristic of current disruption is the large magnetic fluctuations and time-varying electric currents. No large magnetic fluctuations are expected for the “dissipation” region in Magnetic reconnection.
• A magnetic neutral line is essential for magnetic reconnection, but not for current disruption, which can occur in various other field conditions, and is well known for releasing energy from solar flares and other phenomenon (one of the few areas where this idea has gained some acceptance, mainly due to Alfvens persistence of pursuing the electrical current theory as opposed to the magnetic one) (ref ref)
• Local current is reduced and breaks up into filaments in current disruption, but not so in magnetic reconnection.
• The plasma instabilities invoked for their onsets are different. For magnetic reconnection, the tearing instability is thought to be the main mechanism (ref), and instead KBI and CCI instabilities are used for current disruption. (ref)(ref)
• The plasma flow pattern associated with current disruption is not ordered by the magnetic field configuration, and the change in magnetic field topology is not essential (although it may occur)
• Reduction and filamentation of local current is a characteristic of the Ej approach that is not manifested in magnetic reconnection theory.
• The Ej approach, although very similar, is not equivalent to the Bu approach for magnetic reconnection.

.
There's a lot there, and it may be interesting to go through this list point by point.

However, it's also true that many points on the list have already been covered (by ben m, to give just one example) ... and you seem to have completely ignored those earlier posts.

May I ask why?

 

[The Man]

.There's a lot there, and it may be interesting to go through this list point by point.

Ok, I’ll give that a shot.

I can see that we're not getting anywhere in this discussion. Everyone just seems to be making accusations instead of addressing the material.

Let’s outline my points in a more coherent manner then. And maybe some of the differences betwen the Ej approach and the Bu approach would be a good idea.

• The standard description of Magnetic reconnection in plasma is the process by which magnetic field energy is converted into kinetic energy.

Ok

• The field configuration of the neutral point involved in magnetic reconnection configuration obeys Maxwell’s laws.

Ok

• None of the above are a physical description of how the magnetic energy is liberated from the field; there is no mention of the physical object that has to be receiving the kinetic energy, or any of the magnitudes involved.

Well wait a second you just said “The standard description of Magnetic reconnection in plasma is the process by which magnetic field energy is converted into kinetic energy”, that would be “a physical description of how the magnetic energy is liberated from the field”. So which of these statements do you wish to adhere to?

• Hannes Alfvén, the founder of the concept “frozen-in magnetic field lines” (which he later spoke critically of), was severely opposed to the concept of magnetic reconnection and preferred to use plasma physics and the current disruption model, the “Ej approach” which utilizes the electric field and current density instead of the magnetic field and bulk plasma flow model magnetic reconnection is currently based on.

So, the “Ej approach” does not involve idealized MHD involing “frozen-in magnetic field lines”

• Alfven also proposed that the E-fields resulting from double layers in the plasma may play a role in particles gaining their kinetic energy.

With charged particles gaining or losing kinetic energy (or a non force free current) it can always be described in terms of E-fields.

• The Ej Aprroach (Current disruption) and the Bu approach (magnetic reconnection) have several differences, however they are similar in the sense that they are both phenomena that involve the breakdown of the ideal MHD condition and both can arrise from the same magnetic field neutral point setup.

So, both are dependent on a breakdown of “frozen-in magnetic field lines” conditions.

• One major characteristic of current disruption is the large magnetic fluctuations and time-varying electric currents. No large magnetic fluctuations are expected for the “dissipation” region in Magnetic reconnection.

Why are you only focusing on the ““dissipation” region in Magnetic reconnection” and not any particular region of the “current distribution” model? What would classify as “large magnetic fluctuations”?

• A magnetic neutral line is essential for magnetic reconnection, but not for current disruption, which can occur in various other field conditions, and is well known for releasing energy from solar flares and other phenomenon (one of the few areas where this idea has gained some acceptance, mainly due to Alfvens persistence of pursuing the electrical current theory as opposed to the magnetic one) (ref ref)

A magnetic neutral line is an essential result for any description of current distributions that obeys Maxwell’s laws. Please provide a description of any of these “various other field conditions” that do not result in a “A magnetic neutral line” or point.

• Local current is reduced and breaks up into filaments in current disruption, but not so in magnetic reconnection.

In magnetic reconnection the currents that maintain the magnetic topography are reduced in the diffusion region do to plasma resistance, which permits the reconnection to occur. Could you please provide a reference for a current that “breaks up into filaments in current disruption”?

• The plasma instabilities invoked for their onsets are different. For magnetic reconnection, the tearing instability is thought to be the main mechanism (ref), and instead KBI and CCI instabilities are used for current disruption. (ref)(ref)

Not being able to view PDF files for this computer I will have to look at these references later. But based on what I can view I can make the following remark. The KBI theory is based on ideal MHD which would involve “frozen-in magnetic field lines” that Alfven “spoke critically of”.

• The plasma flow pattern associated with current disruption is not ordered by the magnetic field configuration, and the change in magnetic field topology is not essential (although it may occur)

Any current disruption (without a compensating current) results in a change in the magnetic field topology since those currents are responsiple for maintaining the magnetic field topology. Are you proposing that the magnetic field topology does not result in or from the plasma flow pattern and disruptions in those currents, that maintain the magnetic topology, may not affect that topology?

• Reduction and filamentation of local current is a characteristic of the Ej approach that is not manifested in magnetic reconnection theory.

Current reduction is required in magnetic reconnection, but I have already said that when you made this same point three quotes ago.

[*]The Ej approach, although very similar, is not equivalent to the Bu approach for magnetic reconnection.
[/list]

Current disruption is a critical part of magnetic reconnection, without it the magnetic field lines would remain coupled to the plasma and no reconnection could occur. An electrical field (Ej) approach does not take into account force free currents (currents not resulting from a voltage or E-field, or resulting in a net gain or loss of kinetic energy ) that result from the maintaining of the magnetic field topology.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AcApS..19..156H

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970JETPL..12..201K

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j2274157235548k7/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q621077685103077/

 

[Zeuzzz]

I think a certain point can be made that the equations Alfven used to define something that might be called magnetic reconnection and the equations that Sol I. et al. have used to describe something that might be called magnetic reconnection have the same end and describe the same process. Now the cool thing about math is, it means they are the same.

Let me repeat that, although Sol I. already said it, the two sets of equations are the same in mathematical terms.

So mathematicaly speaking they are the same. It does not matter if you have a preference for Alfven's equations or the equations that Sol I., Zig and Ben M. have been using.

They are the same.

It does not matter which of the two frameworks you use to solve the magnetic reconnection. They are the same

So until someone demonstrates that there is a difference in the solutions for real life situations between Alfven's equations and the others, it does not matter, they are the same.

So when somebody might have said "NO ONE CARES WHAT HANNES ALFVEN THOUGHT", it could be that they were speaking to the point that someone kept acting like Alfven's equations were better("preferred to use plasma physics and the current disruption model, the “Ej approach” which utilizes the electric field and current density instead of the magnetic field and bulk plasma flow model magnetic reconnection is currently based on."), but they are the same. So it is just like the two kinds of notation in calculus, it does not matter.


(It does not matter.)^n degree.

Are you sure? I think the slight difference arrises from the fact that its the current that creates the magnetic field, not the other way round. So really it does make more sense to use Alfvens approach and treat the current as the primary quantity in magnetic reconnection (as well as other phenomenon in space).


http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=911153

The debate on whether the primary quantities in magnetospheric physics are the magnetic field combined with the plasma bulk flow or the electric field combined with the current density has been raging on and off for decades. The former approach is known as the Bu paradigm and the latter as the Ej paradigm. The first tutorial for the Conference on Magnetospheric Current Systems advocates that the correct approach to understanding magnetospheric problems is in terms of the Bu paradigm. In this paper, we address the limitations of the Bu paradigm and consider the merits of the Ej paradigm, with some emphasis on the magnetotail current. The concept of magnetic reconnection is formulated in the Bu paradigm and that of current disruption is formulated in the Ej paradigm. Since the usefulness of these two concepts and their distinction from each other is central to this debate, we discuss also the similarities and differences between them. We conclude by pointing out that each paradigm has its merits and limitations, and which one is the better approach should depend on the magnetospheric phenomenon to be investigated.

http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/010093e.html

Recently, John Greene took up the "Parker Challenge" [Parker, 1996]. Parker argued that the correct approach to understanding magnetospheric phenomena is to use the magnetic field and plasma flow velocity (B, u) as the primary quantities, with the electric field and current (E, j) being secondary, in that E and j can be determined from B and u. At the outset, it should be noted that this is strictly true only if the plasma dynamics are entirely governed by ideal magnetohydrodynamics.

The correct approach to understand magnetospheric physics depends on the phenomenon to be investigated. There is no single paradigm that is always superior to others for treating macroscopic magnetospheric problems. Insisting on one particular approach as the only correct one is unjustified and may stifle innovative pursuit in research. Thus, I am motivated to address both the limitations of the B-u paradigm, and the merits of the E-j paradigm.

Parker [1996] equated the B-u paradigm with the magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) approach as he stated that "the macroscopic behavior...of the magnetosphere is described by MHD which we refer to here as the B-u paradigm. The equations of MHD form a complete set of partial differential equations, providing a deductive approach to the theory of magnetospheric activity." Numerical simulations of the magnetosphere based on the MHD equations have indicated magnetospheric disturbances to be solely driven by X-type magnetic reconnection in various regions. This may be thought of as vindication of the B-u paradigm, but as we discuss below there is strong evidence for suggesting that MHD is insufficient to explain the physics of such disturbances.

What then is the E-j paradigm, where electric field and current are taken to be the primary quantities? What it is not is an electrical circuit approach. Rather, a focus on electric field and current as primary quantities generally requires an analysis based on particle dynamics. Therefore, we shall associate the E-j paradigm as the approach of single particle calculation or kinetic analysis (with full consideration of collective effects). [......]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=932a7cc1bd52eba9871d7ef3d03f9917

Very prominent particle acceleration occurs during current disruption in the magnetotail. Although particle acceleration is frequently attributed to magnetic reconnection alone, particle heating and acceleration can equally well be associated with plasma instabilities which can be unrelated to magnetic reconnection. In this paper, the characteristics of particle acceleration for a well observed current disruption event is examined in detail. It is found that particle acceleration during this current disruption event is consistent with that expected from the development of the cross-field current instability. Furthermore, observational evidence of magnetic reconnection not causing particle acceleration during this current disruption event is also found.

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/01545/EGU06-J-01545.pdf

Similarities and differences between magnetic
reconnection and current disruption

Applied Physics Laboratory, Maryland, USA

Both terms, magnetic reconnection and current disruption, have been used in the literature to describe space plasma processes that convert field energy to particle energy. There is a general presumption that current disruption is just one aspect or consequence of magnetic reconnection. In this presentation, we examine similarities and differences between magnetic reconnection and current disruption. Particle simulation of current disruption will be used to illustrate some major differences between these two phenomena.

 

[Belz...]

I'm going to ask a stupid question: why are we discussing magnetic reconnection until we're blue in the face (aside from arguing against Zeuzzz' assertions, that is) ? Exactly how does it reconnect with the OP ??

 

[The Man]

Are you sure? I think the slight difference arrises from the fact that its the current that creates the magnetic field, not the other way round. So really it does make more sense to use Alfvens approach and treat the current as the primary quantity in magnetic reconnection (as well as other phenomenon in space).

Are you sure?


So what then creates the current, an electrical field? Not in a reference frame moving with the plasma’s local center of mass.


http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2005-7&page=articlesu2.html

Frozen field lines

Space plasmas are often approximated as perfect conductors, meaning that the electric field vanishes in a frame moving with the plasma’s local center of mass,

So in that frame, currents created by magnetic fields make sense but currents created by an electrical field and resulting in a magnetic field are not applicable.

 

[The Man]

I'm going to ask a stupid question: why are we discussing magnetic reconnection until we're blue in the face (aside from arguing against Zeuzzz' assertions, that is) ? Exactly how does it reconnect with the OP ??

Not a stupid question at all. It really goes back to the OP’s distinction between EU theories like the electric sun and mainstream models of solar dynamics. That being, the EU terrorist contentions that their opposing model is ignored by the mainstream. The OP’s contention being that the spacecraft anomaly cited and the relevant data is generally accepted even if it represents a “break with the established theory”. Something the EU community generally accuses the mainstream community of not doing. Also, opposition to magnetic reconnection is often a repeated theme in EU presentations. This represent an opposing model that they do not accept because it represents a break from their un-established theories, in that electrical considerations should always supersede magnetic considerations. I hope that makes the “reconnection” you were asking for

 

[Dancing David]

Are you sure? I think the slight difference arrises from the fact that its the current that creates the magnetic field, not the other way round. So really it does make more sense to use Alfvens approach and treat the current as the primary quantity in magnetic reconnection (as well as other phenomenon in space).


http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=911153




http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/010093e.html





http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=932a7cc1bd52eba9871d7ef3d03f9917





http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/01545/EGU06-J-01545.pdf

Okay , so where does it produce different figures, different equations and different predictions? You have shown the links, that is good, but where does it make a difference in the results?

 

[zosima]

I said this before, but I'd like to be clear.

Current Disruption and Magnetic Reconnection are both real and distinct events, they are related, and generally one follows the other, but scientists do not know which follows which.

There is a large effort going on in the space physics community right now to analyzes the data from the THEMIS spacecraft, to determine which is primary. Scientists do not yet know.

So Zeuss, please stop making claims about current disruption being primary, you *may* believe this, but hopefully scientists will know for sure very soon.

And David, they aren't just different ways to day the same thing, like calculating an electric field with Coulomb's law or calculating an electric field with Gauss's law. They are separate, related, events, like earthquakes and aftershocks. But unlike earthquakes and aftershocks we don't know which is which, yet... If you look at the press release that I linked in a previous post, you'll see experts in this very field verifying my claims.
I you don't believe their claims, you can read their papers.

We really really do see magnetic reconnection, or at the very least, if we have a spacecraft in orbit during such an event we see ropes of magnetic and plasma flux flowing over the spacecraft, with many measurements at different locations in the magnetosphere, we piece together the whole event, and see the same thing that happens in those animation.
We can also use ground magnetometers and sky imagers to measure the energy released in these events.

 

[Dancing David]

Cool Zosima, I must have misread something So said. But i would be hard pressed to say it wasn't my misundertsanding.

It would not suprise me, I was mainly addressing Iantesman.

 

[zosima]

Cool Zosima, I must have misread something So said. But i would be hard pressed to say it wasn't my misundertsanding.

It would not suprise me, I was mainly addressing Iantesman.

It's easy to get wrapped up in these arguments, ya?

I don't know why Iantesman and Zeuzzz are such Alfvén worshipers. He made major contributions to the field, but the science has long since passed him by. But the claims by these fellows are about real theories, but they're just making claims that we can't prove deductively, only experimentally.
I see them more as theory zealots than total woozers. Although I haven't run through all the details specifically, so its possible there are some totally wacky consequences to some of these specific claims that I've missed.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Magnetic reconnection has a clear and unambiguous meaning, and is explained in countless papers and websites.

Go on then, i've asked before, explain the whole magnetic reconnection process, from the topologies of the lines describing the field all the way up to the release of the energy.

There seems to have been a severe misunderstanding by what people mean by "magnetic reconnection", and the merging (cancelling) of field lines in standard magnetic field configurations.

Maybe then we can sort this out once I understand what you think is releasing this energy.

You and your fellows either didn't understand what it meant and attacked something you didn't comprehend, or did understand and falsely attacked it. There is no other option.

This is the issue, there is another option, the Plasma Cosmology option. If you had read the paper I kept quoting, maybe you would understand my position. Or (i'm not holding my breath) you could come up with a reason why it is wrong. This is not an 'obviously wrong' position to take, no matter what you are claimg Sol. For example, the paper in the journal of plasma physics that disputes magnetic reconnection, and favors Alfvens double layer approach, was peer reviewed by top experts in plasmas, electronics and magnetics. I find it very hard to accept that all of the peers involved at an establishment as well respected as the IEEE would publish a paper which was based on faulty science. For example one of the editors of that very journal was Timothy E. Eastman, Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups and world expert on magnetospheric boundary layers (one of the very places where "reconnection" is thought to occur).

He was with EG&G, Inc., Los Alamos, NM (1972–1979); the University of Iowa, Iowa (1979–1985); NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1985–1988); NASA Headquarters (HQ) as Branch Chief for Magnetospheric Physics (1985–1988); the University of Maryland, College Park (1988–1997); and National Science Foundation (NSF) as Program Director for Magnetospheric Physics (1991–1994). He has been with Plasmas International since 1997 and is currently a Perot Associate with the QSS Group Inc./Perot Systems Corp. NASA GSFC Space Physics Data Facility. He has published 100 research papers, primarily in space plasma physics but also in data systems and philosophy.

See what i mean?

These are not marginal people, and they really do have this opinion about magnetic reconnection, or the paper would not have published in the journal. http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

Every single concrete idea we've managed to extract from you guys has turned out to be obviously false, and the rest is either too vague to address or coincides with standard cosmology.

Like what? I'd be happy to elaborate on anything you thought was vague.

In sum, no one here has a clue what "plasma cosmology" is.

You straight up admit that you dont even understand what plasma cosmology is, yet you still try to argue against it.

I should point out that much of what is being discussed in this thread is not really plasma cosmology material, so if you are taking this to be the basis of what PC is, no wonder you dont get it.


Try the publications here for a start; http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers-cosmology.html

And this gives a brief overview; http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/plasma-cosmology.html

The advocates of plasma cosmology believe that the evolution of the universe in the past must be explained in terms of the processes occurring in the universe today. In other words, events that occur in the depths of space can be explained in terms of phenomena studied in the laboratories on earth. This approach rules out the concepts of a universe that began out of nothing, somewhere in time, like the big bang. We can't recreate the initial conditions of the big bang in laboratories. The closest we can get is in the particles created in accelerators. Plasma cosmology supports the idea that because we see an evolving universe that is constantly changing, this universe has always existed and has always evolved, and will continue to exist and evolve for eternity.

Another aspect of this new theory is that, while the big bang sees the universe in terms of gravity alone, the plasma universe is formed and controlled by electricity and magnetism, not just gravitation. With the introduction of electromagnetism the “clumpiness” of the universe and the fluctuations in microwave background radiation can be easily accounted for. Even the expansion of the universe can be explained by the electromagnetic interaction of matter and antimatter.
Cosmonotes

Since all that is being provided for you is a simple summary and basic explanation of plasma cosmology I would recommend that you check out the list of recommended reading in this area in the Appendix B, “Suggested Reading List.” There is a lot more to this theory than I can elaborate on in the space of a few pages, so if you're interested in finding out more about these new ideas, I suggest you look into some of the books I've recommended. There is still very little support for this theory because the big bang is the one that many believe is the correct interpretation of the origin of the universe, and to question the validity of this theory is not on the minds of many of today's cosmologists.

And while electromagnetism forms the basis for plasma cosmology, it is also the basis for our technological society that surrounds us today. Plasma technology has stimulated research for better computer screens, how radio and radar transmission can be increased, and may be the answer to developing the long-sought-after genie in the bottle: fusion energy. So in the long run it holds the possibility of not only providing a better description of the origin and structure of the universe, but it can also lead to a whole new area of advanced technology.[....]

.
I'm quoting this post of Zeuzzz' in full because I think it nicely illustrates another reason why threads like this are sometimes so long.

Namely a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the JREF forum and its active participants ... who are, or should be, among the intended audience of what people who post here write.

sol invitus responded to the key part of Zeuzzz' post thus: "<False argument from authority ignored>"

Now Zeuzzz has been posting in this thread from the beginning (over a month ago now), and this forum for considerably longer ... more than enough time to have realised that an argument from authority is almost certain to lead to a loss of credibility among readers, yet he chose to spend time and effort building a case based partly on just such an argument.

Combine this with a tentative conclusion I noted earlier - that at least a subset of posts in this thread show Zeuzzz has rather badly misunderstood his intended audience and very badly presented the ideas he now says he has been, all along, trying to convey - and it would seem that Zeuzzz at least has a tin ear and very poor ability to put together material that is suited to both his intended purpose (presumably gaining acceptance of some 'plasma cosmology' idea or other) and his intended audience.

iantresman's posts present a somewhat different puzzle: is there any good foundation to their content other than an appeal to authority (Alfvén, and to a lesser extent Birkeland and Peratt)? Apart from the questions, many of which are very good.

 

[iantresman]

It's easy to get wrapped up in these arguments, ya?

I don't know why Iantesman and Zeuzzz are such Alfvén worshipers. He made major contributions to the field, but the science has long since passed him by. But the claims by these fellows are about real theories, but they're just making claims that we can't prove deductively, only experimentally.
I see them more as theory zealots than total woozers. Although I haven't run through all the details specifically, so its possible there are some totally wacky consequences to some of these specific claims that I've missed.

.
Worshipers [sic], woozers, zealots and wacky in the same post, and you "haven't haven't run through all the details" yet.

Let me know if you need some better ad hominems, it certainly beats constructive criticism.

 

[Zeuzzz]

.
I'm quoting this post of Zeuzzz' in full because I think it nicely illustrates another reason why threads like this are sometimes so long.

Namely a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the JREF forum and its active participants ... who are, or should be, among the intended audience of what people who post here write.

sol invitus responded to the key part of Zeuzzz' post thus: "<False argument from authority ignored>"

Now Zeuzzz has been posting in this thread from the beginning (over a month ago now), and this forum for considerably longer ... more than enough time to have realised that an argument from authority is almost certain to lead to a loss of credibility among readers, yet he chose to spend time and effort building a case based partly on just such an argument.

Combine this with a tentative conclusion I noted earlier - that at least a subset of posts in this thread show Zeuzzz has rather badly misunderstood his intended audience and very badly presented the ideas he now says he has been, all along, trying to convey - and it would seem that Zeuzzz at least has a tin ear and very poor ability to put together material that is suited to both his intended purpose (presumably gaining acceptance of some 'plasma cosmology' idea or other) and his intended audience.

iantresman's posts present a somewhat different puzzle: is there any good foundation to their content other than an appeal to authority (Alfvén, and to a lesser extent Birkeland and Peratt)? Apart from the questions, many of which are very good.

What have we talked about so far? Peratts galaxy model, and 'magnetic reconnection'. Hardly much content, we've looked in detail at about two publications, Peratts galaxy papers and Scotts publication on EM forces in space. There are many more things to discuss that may be far more interesting, I've barely scratched the surface here. But I have to stop posting for a couple of months now, I have other commitments.

And as for you complaining about making arguments from authority I feel that I have no choice when everyone here is shouting about how much of a crank I am. I doubt that are many other areas of science where so many academics question the dominant paradigm as they do with the Big Bang, I am not alone, and I have no hesitation to show this. Considering that most of the reasons for dismissing plasma cosmology shown in this thread are arguments from authority themselves I fail to see why I should refrain from doing this in responce.

Argument from authority is a very common polemic among physics crackpots. The irony is that there are an overwhelming number of authorities on the other side... but to the crank mind, that just indicates the strength of the mainstream conspiracy suppressing their ideas.

Amazing. He critises arguments from authority then uses his very own argument from authority to verify his own position! "overwhelming number of authorities on my side"

Whats ironic about this statement is that your reason for dismissing plasma cosmology in the first place is an argument from authority, "Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus" sort of attitude. Well, history has shown us something completely different.

It would surely be far simpler to just say plasma cosmology is incorrect because ........ [enter scientific reason here]

And Sol, I am curious as to what the 'mainstream' opinion is for Van Allens observation that magnetic moments of the planets and stars are proportional to their angular momentum, over some 12 orders of magnitude. I thought that there was supposed to be no driving force on bodies causing them to rotate, just left over angular momentum from when they formed. Van Allen said: “This graph is purely empirical and is regarded with disdain by theorists of planetary magnetism.”

I, of course, have an alternative plasma explanation, but I want to first find out how mainstream idea's can account for this observation.