Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Michael Mozina]

And you still aren't able to quote Birkeland, show the math, reference a specific document, page, and line where he described the physics behind the high speed solar wind. And you still can't cite a specific Birkeland experiment that demonstrated million degree coronal loops. Let us know when you're willing to actually respond to the issues being raised, eh?

This is like a twilight zone episode because you are not interested in finding "truth", you are interested in slandering an individual and winning some kind of petty ego battle. It's like casting pearls before swine. Your reaction demonstrates the irrational nature of your intentions. Not only did I provide you with an actual "prediction" from the lips of Birkeland, I provided you with *THREE* (four including the pretty picture) validations of Birkeland's "prediction". You completely and utterly ignored all the material provided.

If you want solar wind speed predictions, why didn't you search the document like I suggested? Why do I personally have to educate you? I'm not your science mommy.

Fine, we'll try one more time and we'll focus on the predicted "speed" of those "flying electrons and ions". Page 663:

I do not think, however, that Schuster's objections have any serious bearing on my theory, if we consiider the properties which the new sunbeams must be assumed to possess.
I have shown that cathode-rays from the sun, which are to strike down towards the earth in the Aurora polaris zones, must have a transversal mass about m = 1.83 X 10^3 X m . In other words, the longitudinal mass of our particles is 6 milliard times greater than the mass of the particles upon which Schuster calculates in his energy-comments. Thus these cathode-rays will pass the earth, not with a velocity of 9 kilometres, but with a velocity very little short of that of light.

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

Prior to Birkeland and his team who on Earth ever 'predicted' that auroral events were caused/triggered by solar storms and high speed particles that traveled anywhere near the speed of light? Yes or no do some CME events kick out high speed charged particles that reach a significant percentage of the speed of light? Yes or no did he compare solar wind speeds to light speed during auroral activity?

 

[Tim Thompson]

More Coronal Electric Fields

Hey, how about this one? Can we trust those Brits? Emphasis mine once again ...
A fresh look at the heating mechanisms of the solar corona; David Tsiklauri, New Journal of Physics, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 79 (May 2006).
Abstract: Recently, using particle-in-cell simulations, i.e. in the kinetic plasma description, Tsiklauri et al and Génot et al reported on a discovery of a new mechanism of parallel electric field generation which results in electron acceleration. In this work we show that the parallel (to the uniform unperturbed magnetic field) electric field generation can be obtained in a much simpler framework using an ideal magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) description, i.e. without resorting to complicated wave particle interaction effects such as ion polarization drift and resulting space charge separation which seems to be an ultimate cause of the electron acceleration. In the ideal MHD the parallel (to the uniform unperturbed magnetic field) electric field appears due to fast magnetosonic waves which are generated by the interaction of weakly nonlinear Alfvén waves with transverse density inhomogeneity. Further, in the context of the coronal heating problem a new two-stage mechanism of the plasma heating is presented by putting emphasis firstly on the generation of parallel electric fields within ideal MHD description directly, rather than focusing on the enhanced dissipation mechanisms of the Alfvén waves and, secondly, dissipation of these parallel electric fields via kinetic effects. It is shown that for a single Alfvén wave harmonic with frequency ν = 7 Hz (which has longitudinal wavelength λA = 0.63 Mm for a putative Alfvén speed of 4328 km s^-1), the generated parallel electric field could account for the 10% of the necessary coronal heating requirement. We conjecture that wide spectrum (10^-4 10³ Hz) Alfvén waves, based on an observationally constrained spectrum, could provide necessary coronal heating requirement. It is also shown that the amplitude of generated parallel electric field exceeds the Dreicer electric field by about four orders of magnitude, which implies realization of the runaway regime with the associated electron acceleration.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, Alfven understood MHD better than I do, and better than you do.

So if we're going to apply MHD theory to objects in space, don't you think we should start by examining *HIS* beliefs on that topic?

Alfven did NOT understand MHD better than the entire faculty and staff of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, the MIT Astrophysics Division space plasma lab, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the Berkeley Space Science Laboratory, etc.

As it relates to the topic of "magnetic reconnection", please demonstrate this claim by having one of them come over here and describe the unique physical energy release mechanism called magnetic reconnection that is definitely not caused by induction or some other known electromagnetic particle interaction process in plasma. Even I've picked out some shady "assumptions" in PPPL papers, specifically the claim the the E field is constant during a "pinch" process where the diameter of the "tube" of electrons shrunk significantly. I'm not convinced they understood MHD theory better than Alfven.

My conclusion is that Alfven was mistaken and his successors (with, I might add, access to much better numerical equation solvers) are right.

Why? What physical evidence can you cite to back up that claim? How much do you wanna bet that *EVERY* "magnetic reconnection" event begins with or requires "electricity" to generate those powerful magnetic fields?

Just because the topology of a "circuit" changes over time does not mean "magnetic reconnection" had anything to do with it. We're talking about moving particles of "current flow".

There is nothing "unique" about magnetic reconnection that isn't better "explained" by calling it "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" to keep it consistent with other branches of science like electrical engineering and/or particle physics. None of you can tell us what is "unique" about the energy release of "magnetic reconnection" and how you ruled out more typical interactions like "induction" and "particle collision" and "resistance in plasma."

When your experts can do that, I'll be satisfied that they understand the topic of magnetic reconnection better than Alfven. Until then I can only note that he described the whole term as "pseudoscience" and as far as I can tell that is exactly what it is. It's a piss-poor way to say "circuits changed topology in the plasma", or more appropriately : "A short circuit between two filamentary circuits followed by a change in circuit topology".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Alfven was wrong and you are wrong to believe him. It's not my fault you don't know enough physics, and have no desire to learn enough physics, to figure it out for yourself.

I do have a desire to learn about this topic Tim, but when I ask anyone (I'll bet you too) to explain the unique physical energy release process that is unique to 'magnetic reconnection" that cannot otherwise be categorized as "induction" and/or categorized as an ordinary "particle interaction" in plasma, I get deafening silence. Care to give it a whirl?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's another one.

You had to go back 15 years to find one? Got anything from the 21st Century?

 

[ben m]

I do have a desire to learn about this topic Tim, but when I ask anyone (I'll bet you too) to explain the unique physical energy release process that is unique to 'magnetic reconnection" that cannot otherwise be categorized as "induction" and/or categorized as an ordinary "particle interaction" in plasma, I get deafening silence. Care to give it a whirl?

We've done it. Repeatedly. Someone (Sol?) gave you an explicit magnetic field equation (obeying Ampere's Law, etc.) which "reconnected". IIRC, you didn't understand it---you adopted some (wrong) tangential argument about how field lines didn't mean anything.

The criterion for good science is not "can be explained to, and understood by, a professional contrarian with an ax to grind and minimal math background". I'm not surprised, MM, that you don't understand it. You don't want to, after all. I suspect that you have not, for example, read a plasma physics textbook (Kulsrud, for example) and done a semester's worth of practice problems therein.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hey, how about this one? Can we trust those Brits?

Seems to me like the Germans the Russians and Brits are all less "electric field phobic" than US publications. To read US publications one might get the impression that Maxwell's equations don't even have an E component to them.

That one was a gold mine. Thanks. It will take me awhile to digest that one. Got anything published in say the APJ in the past 5-7 years?

 

[Michael Mozina]

We've done it. Repeatedly.

Link?

Someone (Sol?) gave you an explicit magnetic field equation (obeying Ampere's Law, etc.) which "reconnected".

Magnetic field equations do not physically "reconnect" in plasma Ben. A photon might have a kinetic effect on a charged particle. We call that "induction". An electron might have a kinetic effect which we would call a "collision". An ion or any large particle might have a kinetic effect on something physical too. A math formula doesn't have a physical kinetic effect on anything.

IIRC, you didn't understand it---you adopted some (wrong) tangential argument about how field lines didn't mean anything.

The magnetic field does in fact form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. There is no possibility of an individual magnetic line disconnecting from or reconnecting to any other magnetic field line. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry, that is just standard electrical engineering and Alfven was an electrical engineer by trade. I guess that is why he also called the idea "pseudoscience". It's like "sort of" understanding the physical process, but not quite getting it right.

The criterion for good science is not "can be explained to, and understood by, a professional contrarian

I'm not a professional contrarian, I'm simply a "skeptic" of your personal dogma.

with an ax to grind

If you mean I'm not big fan of religious-like, faith based "dogma" dressed up (mathematically) as "science", ya, I guess I'm not particularly thrilled with creation mythologies and metaphysics in general.

and minimal math background

".

Even if that were the case, so what? I'm not questioning your understanding of math in the first place, I'm questioning your comprehension of the *PHYSICS* of plasma physics, and specifically your lack of empirical physical support for inflation, dark energy and exotic forms of matter. The one thing I've learned over the last few years is that the problems in astronomy papers are almost never related to math. You folks have got the math down pat, so pat, it's become your metaphysical Achilles heal. What your industry seems to sorely lack is any *PHYSICAL* understanding of what actually occurs inside of plasma (or space for that matter).

I'm not surprised, MM, that you don't understand it.

Neither am I. When I ask you folks for a physical explanation of what is happening in the plasma at the point of "reconnection", you folks run for the hills.

You don't want to, after all.

Sure I do. If you could explain how magnetic reconnection physically works I'd be all ears. I'm sure you can explain how induction works or how particle collisions manifest in plasma. You don't seem to be real forthcoming as a group about what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that isn't actually induction or a kinetically driven particle collision.

I suspect that you have not, for example, read a plasma physics textbook (Kulsrud, for example) and done a semester's worth of practice problems therein.

I've got four or five plasma physics textbooks in my collection, two from Alfven, one from Peratt, one from Irving Langmuir and another one who's name excapes me that had the *WORST* explanation for "magnetic reconnection" I've ever seen in print. I won't even bother to mention (or remember) the author but it wasn't Kulsrud. Care to explain how he physically explains "magnetic reconnection" for us at the level of *ACTUAL PHYSICS*?

 

[Reality Check]

Ya right. You point Rhessi and Fermi at Earth and they both see gamma rays coming from "discharges" in the Earths atmosphere. You point the same equipment at the solar atmosphere, see the same gamma rays and claim "magnetic reconnection did it". Now it is somehow all my fault that not a single one of you can explain the unique physical energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" or show that it is any different than ordinary EM interactions in plasma. It's all my fault I suppose that you can't empirically duplicate Birkeland's work with spheres with "magnetic reconnection" too?

Wrong: Magnetic reconnection and the many other posts in this thread and other threads that you ignore.

It is not our fault that you cannot understand this physics.

 

[Reality Check]

Page 664 BIRKELAND. THE NORWEGIAN AURORA POLARIS EXPEDITION, 1902-1903.

If the metallic globe surrounding the electro-magnet is not smooth, but has sharp points on its surface, for instance near the poles, the disruptive discharges would issue at these points, and it will be.necessary to use a stronger magnetisation to make the patches arrange themselves in zones round the equator. From the results obtained by SWABE, WOLF, CARRINGTON and SPOERER, we know that the sun-spots arrange themselves just in two zones between 5 and 40 N and S latitude, in such a manner that in the minimum-period of the spots, they begin to show themselves in high latitudes, and then descend until at their maximum-period they have reached a latitude of about 16 north and south. If we remember especially that the spots are the centres of emission of very stiff cathode-rays (Ho =3 X 10^6 C. G. S.), which give rise to auroras and magnetic perturbations on our earth, it would appear as if the sun-spots were the foot-points of disruptive electric discharges from the sun.

1. The Sun is not a metallic globe.
2. It does not have sharp points on its surface.
3. Sunspots are now known to be not the footprint of disruptive electric discharges from the Sun. They are the footprints if intense magnetic (and electrical) activity in the Sun.
   

   The Wilson effect tells us that sunspots are actually depressions on the sun's surface. Observations using the Zeeman effect show that prototypical sunspots come in pairs with opposite magnetic polarity. From cycle to cycle, the polarities of leading and trailing (with respect to the solar rotation) sunspots change from north/south to south/north and back. Sunspots usually appear in groups.

So Birkeland was wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15 April 2001 WL.gif

Oh look, Birkeland was right! And of course this has all been confirmed by other authors that you probably won't read or respond to.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701

Oh look pretty picture from a crank web site!
And of course you cite

• "Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits"
  A paper on the flow of electrons along magnetic lines in coronal flares.
• "Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare"
  A paper on magnetic ropes in certain types of flares.
• "Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops"
  A paper on electrical activity in flares.

The papers are applications of what looks like standard plasma physics to flares.
So what, Michael Mozina?

 

[Reality Check]

Fine, we'll try one more time and we'll focus on the predicted "speed" of those "flying electrons and ions". Page 663:

I do not think, however, that Schuster's objections have any serious bearing on my theory, if we consiider the properties which the new sunbeams must be assumed to possess.
I have shown that cathode-rays from the sun, which are to strike down towards the earth in the Aurora polaris zones, must have a transversal mass about m = 1.83 X 10^3 X m . In other words, the longitudinal mass of our particles is 6 milliard times greater than the mass of the particles upon which Schuster calculates in his energy-comments. Thus these cathode-rays will pass the earth, not with a velocity of 9 kilometres, but with a velocity very little short of that of light.

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

Birkeland was wrong again! Thanks for pointing this out Michael Mozina.

The speed of light is 670,616,629 miles per hour (299 792.458 km/s).
The speed of the fast solar wind is 1,677,702 miles per hour (750 km/s).
You do the math MM.

 

[Michael Mozina]

1. The Sun is not a metallic globe.

1. 
   
   Well, it certainly has a metallic crust.
   
   

   [*]It does not have sharp points on its surface.

   
   Sure it does. It has volcanic "points" all over the surface. They even erupt in a virtually horizontal directions that defy gas model theory altogether. It happened again this week in fact.
   
   http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2009/12/22/ahead_20091222_euvi_195_512.mpg
   
   What does that shock wave coming out of the flare only go in one direction from the point of origin if everything in the vicinity of the eruption is composed of extremely light plasma? Where's the equal and opposite reaction going the other way?
   
   

   [*]Sunspots are now known to be not the footprint of disruptive electric discharges from the Sun.

   
   Well, sunspots form around the active areas of the surface which we can see in the iron ion wavelengths. No active regions, no sunspot. The footprints begin *UNDER* the photosphere as NASA claims, not above the photosphere as LMSAL insists as that pretty picture you provided demonstrates. The sunspots are in fact related to high energy discharge regions. When the discharges are powerful enough they create sunspots in the surface of the photosphere.
   
   

   They are the footprints if intense magnetic (and electrical) activity in the Sun.

   
   It's called an "electrical discharge". They can produce a strong magnetic field. They occur right here in our own atmosphere everyday too, not just in the solar atmosphere.
   
   

   So Birkeland was wrong.

   
   Nope. Birkeland was ten times the empirical scientist of anyone in this conversation, myself included. His idea have stood the test of time and they will continue to stand the test of time because they were developed in the old fashion way scientific manner, via sweat equity and real empirical physics in real lab "experiments" with real "control mechanisms". You're dead inflation deity and "magnetic reconnection" claims will be laughed at as childish drivel by future generations while Birkeland will still be highly respected for all of his work, not just the tiny part you've grudgingly accepted so far.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, it certainly has a metallic crust.

Start a new thread and prove it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Birkeland was wrong again! Thanks for pointing this out Michael Mozina.

Evidently you aren't doing the right math. He was talking about auroral activity (and it's cause) during solar storms:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html

On Jan. 20, 2005, though, there were no humans walking around on the moon. And it's a good thing.

On that day, a giant sunspot named "NOAA 720" exploded. The blast sparked an X-class solar flare, the most powerful kind, and hurled a billion-ton cloud of electrified gas (a coronal mass ejection, or CME) into space. Solar protons accelerated to nearly light speed by the explosion reached the Earth-moon system minutes after the flare; it was the beginning of a days-long "proton storm."

Lucky guess on Birkeland's part eh?

 

[Reality Check]

Well, it certainly has a metallic crust.

Wrong. The Sun has a protosphere ("crust") of plasma containing mostly hydrogen with about 0.14% Fe. That is not metallic. That is a trace element.

Sure it does. It has volcanic "points" all over the surface.

Sure it does not. It has active regions all over the surface.

They even erupt in a virtually horizontal directions that defy gas model theory altogether. It happened again this week in fact.
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2009/12/22/ahead_20091222_euvi_195_512.mpg

What does that shock wave coming out of the flare only go in one direction from the point of origin if everything in the vicinity of the eruption is composed of extremely light plasma? Where's the equal and opposite reaction going the other way?
[/quote]
Magnetic fields and of course electric fields.

Well, sunspots form around the active areas of the surface which we can see in the iron ion wavelengths.

They form around magnetically active areas of the protopshere. We can see that in many wavelengths. Of course magnetically active also means electrically active (Maxwell's laws).

No active regions, no sunspot. The footprints begin *UNDER* the photosphere as NASA claims, not above the photosphere as LMSAL insists as that pretty picture you provided demonstrates. The sunspots are in fact related to high energy discharge regions. When the discharges are powerful enough they create sunspots in the surface of the photosphere.

Wrong. There are no such things as "high energy discharge regions".
Again with your ignorance of basic science: The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (LMSAL is the data center) is designed to explore guess what? The transition region and corona!
The images in the "iron ion wavelengths" are all of activity in teh corona.

It's called an "electrical discharge". They can produce a strong magnetic field. They occur right here in our own atmosphere everyday too, not just in the solar atmosphere.

Are you deluded emough to think that the Earth's astmosphere is the Sun's?

Nope. Birkeland was ten times the empirical scientist of anyone in this conversation, myself included.

Nope. You are obseessed with Birkeland because you have a delusion that the Sun has a solid iron surface/crust/(thingy that you have no evidence for).

His idea have stood the test of time and they will continue to stand the test of time because they were developed in the old fashion way scientific manner, via sweat equity and real empirical physics in real lab "experiments" with real "control mechanisms".

Some of Birkeland's ideas have stood the test of time.
None of them have remained as he first conceived them. For example, sweat equity and real empirical physics in real lab "experiments" with real "control mechanisms" have added magnetic reconnection.

You're dead inflation deity and "magnetic reconnection" claims will be laughed at as childish drivel by future generations while Birkeland will still be highly respected for all of his work, not just the tiny part you've grudgingly accepted so far.

Your dead iron sun deity and ignorance of physics will be laughed at as childish drivel by current and future generations.
Birkeland will still be highly respected for some of his work.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong. The Sun has a protosphere ("crust") of plasma containing mostly hydrogen with about 0.14% Fe. That is not metallic. That is a trace element.

Your elemental abundance numbers are meaningless because they are all based upon the assumption of little or no mass separation. You seem to think Iron and Nickel are going to stay mixed together with wispy light Hydrogen and Helium. Hell, the moon can't even hang on the hydrogen that blows by it every day and it has *tons* of iron in it.

Take away your assumption that the elements stay mixed and your abundance numbers fall apart instantly.

Sure it does not. It has active regions all over the surface.

The volcanic surface eruptions are *ACTIVE* electrically, just like eruptions here on Earth. The primary difference on the sun is the that atmosphere is mostly ionized so solid coming up from under the surface get ionized in a blaze of light and electrical discharges galore.

Magnetic fields and of course electric fields.

Pfft. That's not going to cut it, not even if you toss in the electric field (as you should). There isn't enough rigid plasma in the universe to explain those energy distribution patterns! There is no way you're going to tell me that whispy thin light plasma will blow material out with that force and we'll observe *NO* blowback of any sort. Baloney. Only a solid could do that trick. A solid could easily shield that kind of destructive force from the other direction. A Mt. St. Helen's type of sideways eruption could easily explain what we observed yesterday, but your whispy light "thinner than air" plasma could not possibly block the force of the blowback from a blowout of that magnitude. If however the blowout occurs *UNDER* the photosphere, angles off in a specific direction based on the direction of the eruption, that image is relatively easy to explain.

They form around magnetically active areas of the protopshere.

That's like claiming that thunder and photons form around magnetically active areas of the Earth's atmosphere. That a weird way to put it. It's not the magnetic field that is doing the work, it's the charge separation and current flow that is doing the work. The thunder and lightning are not "magnetic reconnection" events they are "discharge events".

We can see that in many wavelengths. Of course magnetically active also means electrically active (Maxwell's laws).

Which of Maxwell's four basic laws allow you to "disconnect" or "reconnection" one "magnetic line" to another?

Wrong. There are no such things as "high energy discharge regions".

Sure there are. They happen here on Earth every single day. They congregate on Earth around clouds and thunderstorm clouds in particular. They also occur during volcanic events.

Again with your ignorance of basic science: The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (LMSAL is the data center) is designed to explore guess what? The transition region and corona!

That's the problem with "assumptions" that were made before launch. Where's your evidence those powerful coronal loops only become visible *above* the photosphere?

The images in the "iron ion wavelengths" are all of activity in teh corona.

Some of the energy is indeed released in the corona, but how do you know *ALL* of what we see occurs only in the corona, and not in the chromosphere or photosphere?

Are you deluded emough to think that the Earth's astmosphere is the Sun's?

Er, no, that seems to be your own strawman. I simply said it has a crust and and it has an atmosphere. I didn't suggest they were the same. Some natural things like discharges occur however in *ALL* large atmosphere in the solar system, including, but not limited to the atmosphere of the sun.

Nope. You are obseessed with Birkeland because you have a delusion that the Sun has a solid iron surface/crust/(thingy that you have no evidence for).

That's totally bogus since I found his work only after finding satellite and nuclear chemistry data to support the theory. I was blown away with his work, and to be honest a wee disappointed that someone had "beat me to the idea by 100 years. He had even done the lab work, take the in-situ measurements to support his ideas and everything. I was literally stunned. The SOHO RD and that Doppler Image from Kosovichev on my website were what convinced me the sun had a crust. Birkeland's work was simply a bonus from my perspective.

Some of Birkeland's ideas have stood the test of time.
None of them have remained as he first conceived them.

I agree but it's hardly surprising.

For example, sweat equity and real empirical physics in real lab "experiments" with real "control mechanisms" have added magnetic reconnection.

Magnetic reconnection theory is pure "pseudoscience" according to Alfven and none of you can explain the *PHYSICS* so he must be right. There aren't that many physical things to work with in plasma, electrons, ions and photons. Induction isn't magnetic reconnection and particle collisions are not magnetic reconnection, so what exactly (physically) is "magnetic reconnection" and how does it get kinetic energy from the magnetic field to the particle if not via *induction* which of course is not "magnetic reconnection"?

Your dead iron sun deity

You really don't get the "dead deity" thing do you? Iron isn't "dead", it shows up in a real lab today and it will show up tomorrow too. Electrons aren't dead either. They exist today too and they show up in a lab today. Iron can't be a "deity" because it isn't all that "unique" or "special" or "supernatural". It's just like every other element and build from the same things as all the other elements. It's not different from other elements other than the specific number of protons in it. It's not "supernatural" in any way because it behaves like other metals on the periodic table. It's just "iron".

Inflation is "dead". It doesn't exist anymore, even by your own admission. It's "non existent" and big fat no show in the lab today, and forever and ever. It's a "deity" because it is "supernatural". It's not like other vector or scalar fields in nature. It does supernatural density defying magic tricks for breakfast. Unlike the EM field, inflation density doesn't drop off significantly with exponential increases in volume. Oh no, it's very "special" in that respect. It's "supernatural" in that respect.

Now do you understand the difference between a dead deity and at worst case a "failed empirical theory"?

and ignorance of physics

Pfft. Compared to your personal ignorance? Please. (edited the comment about sol. I think that may have been zig) None of you can explain physically what you even mean by "magnetic reconnection", but there isn't anything magical about plasma and there isn't much to work with besides photons, electrons and ions.

Birkeland will still be highly respected for some of his work.

Face it, mainstream theory already needs Birkeland and Alfven to even have a shot a ever mathematically quantifying the universe. It's only a matter of time before others start to notice that you're going about explaining the universe completely backwards according to Alfven, the father of MHD theory. He did not like your "prophetic" approach to cosmology. Your heroes and mine are one and the same and always will be. The difference between us is that I share their basic ideas about the electric universe we live in, whereas you reject their ideas outright in favor of what Alfven personally labeled "pseudoscience" and that none of you can physically explain.

 

[GeeMack]

That's totally bogus since I found his work only after finding satellite and nuclear chemistry data to support the theory. I was blown away with his work, and to be honest a wee disappointed that someone had "beat me to the idea by 100 years. He had even done the lab work, take the in-situ measurements to support his ideas and everything. I was literally stunned. The SOHO RD and that Doppler Image from Kosovichev on my website were what convinced me the sun had a crust. Birkeland's work was simply a bonus from my perspective.

You keep saying the Sun has a solid iron crust, but apparently you don't have any more than your unsupported assertion. If you really believe it, and think you can support that crackpot notion with real evidence, not just your looks-like-a-bunny grade school science and arguments from incredulity and ignorance, you should start a thread about it. But since you can't support it, why bother trying, eh?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You keep saying the Sun has a solid iron crust, but apparently you don't have any more than your unsupported assertion.

No, apparently I don't have an unlimited amount of time to kill casting my scientific pearls before someone who won't even bother reading the material presented to them.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Redux IV

I do have a desire to learn about this topic Tim, ...

I do not believe you. After all, despite being given copious examples from the relevant scientific literature, you seem to have ignored them all. You even dismiss without consideration the very controlled laboratory experiments you yourself demanded, for no reason other than their disagreement with your misguided & preconceived notions. How is any of that consistent with the attitude of a genuine desire to learn?

... but when I ask anyone (I'll bet you too) to explain the unique physical energy release process that is unique to "magnetic reconnection" that cannot otherwise be categorized as "induction" and/or categorized as an ordinary "particle interaction" in plasma, I get deafening silence. Care to give it a whirl?

None of that is at all true either. The process has been explained to you by myself and numerous others, but you always dismiss everything that does not suit your fancy. For myself, see for instance ...

• Magnetic Reconnection Redux III
• Magnetic Reconnection Redux II
• Magnetic Reconnection Redux
• Comments on Magnetic Reconnection II
• Comments on Magnetic Reconnection
• Magentic Reconnection

Magnetic reconnection is a change in the topology of the magnetic field, which you have already been told. The change results in a lower energy state of the field and a transfer of energy from the internal energy of the magnetic field to the kinetic energy of the particles, which you have already been told. And finally, this cannot be the result of "circuit reconnection" because it violates the conservation of energy principle, which you have already been told; after all, how can the energy of the "reconnected" circuits exceed the energy of the "reconnecting" circuits by orders of magnitude?