Death Star Galaxy

[The Man]

I think any honest reading of what I originally posted would see I was challenging you to provide a mainstream source that supports the mainstream gnome explanations of phenomena and specifically dismisses the double layer, z-pinch and Birkeland current explanations for those same phenomena. I don't know of any. But you say you're sure they exist. So why don't you provide some ... something other than that wikipedia article. Make it from a scientific journal. Can you do it or not?

No, that was your later challenge, for me to disprove the assertion I made that double layers and Birkeland currents are considered and not specifically dismissed. Having conceded that point you continue to challenge me to disprove it for you. Please keep trying and maybe someday when I am old and senile I will forget the point I was making and try to prove your point for you, but don’t hold your breath.

And around and around we go. Obviously you can't prove that the mainstream supporting community has considered the double layer, z-pinch and Birkeland current explanations.

Please provide one mainstream-supporting, peer-reviewed journal article that says magnetic reconnection is the double layer phenomena. Please provide one mainstream-supporting, peer-reviewed journal article that says current sheets and magnetic ropes are Birkeland currents. Can you do it or not? I'm betting no.

Go around as many times as you would like it only leads you back to this same place where you have already conceded that magnetic reconnection is as you put it “a re-labeling” of those aspects.

Is there one mainstream article directly challenging what they say ... i.e., referencing them and identifying why they are wrong? Because if there isn't, and I don't think you can find one, then yes indeed, the mainstream has ignored those article and theories.


You are being dishonest. First of all, as I pointed out to you previously, that source does NOT say magnetic reconnection is the same thing as a double layer. Quite the opposite ... it treats them as two separate and distinct phenomena. Second, it did not disprove the double layer explanation. In fact, it concluded that BOTH double layers and reconnection could produce the observed energy levels. But one explanation was a gnome and the other was not. Even 2 decades after these authors published their article that is written as if magnetic reconnection was a proven fact, physicists were STILL trying to demonstrate the kind of magnetic reconnection theorized by astrophysicists. So my challenge to you is still outstanding.

No you are only being dishonest with yourself, the article clearly stated that micro-instabilities might cause the formation of a double layer and field aligned currents before the reconnection event. In fact it was stated that the continuation of those field aligned currents after the formation of the double layer might trigger the reconnection event. The distinct alternatives as given by that article were whether the micro- instabilities occurred or did not occur before the reconnection.

You are either being obtuse or dishonest. As I've noted before, science doesn't work when scientists publish papers and then all those scientists that disagree with that work ignore the published papers in their own work and articles. It works when the scientists who disagree publish papers of their own mentioning the other work and either disputing or confirming that work. And because the mainstream community has chosen this dishonest TACTIC in defending it's gnomes, a whole section of the scientific community has decided to give up on holding a conversation with the mainstream community and split off.

Science works by building on what works and incorporating those aspects into new theories. Like the possible formation of a double layer or field aligned currents, due to micro- instabilities, before a reconnection event.

And how long does that take? Remember ... the mainstream theorists claim that the magnetic fields in space are frozen-in to the plasmas for quite a long time. Have they ever been able to reproduce that in the lab?

A superconductor will produce the same “frozen-in” magnetic effects and remain in that state as long as it remains below its threshold temperature.

Really? I was directly quoting a Nobel prize winner in plasma physics and the creator of MHD theory, as well as the concept of frozen-in magnetic fields. Too bad that mainstream astrophysicists dishonestly tell the public that Alfven invented the concept of frozen-in fields they are using in their explanations but fail to tell the public that he later repudiated the theory's use in most astronomical situations and in fact said it would seriously mislead astrophysicists if they used it.

Try referencing resistive MHD.

Here IS what some mainstream sources say on this subject:

http://www.glue.umd.edu/~drake/ "The topological change in the magnetic field required to form the x-line requires a breakdown in the ideal "frozen-in" flux condition, which occurs at small scales. As a result, magnetic reconnection occurs in narrow boundary layers."

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/2004/00000289/F0020003/05256925 "Magnetic reconnection, or the ability of the magnetic field lines that are frozen in plasma to change their topology, is a fundamental problem of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD).

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/04325/EGU05-J-04325.pdf "In the two-fluid system, magnetic reconnection occurs spontaneously because the ‘frozen-in’ condition can be broken by the electron inertial effects."

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=41553 "Magnetic reconnection is a favored mechanism for understanding charged-particle acceleration phenomena in space and laboratory plasmas. A change in magnetic field line topology is envisioned in magnetic reconnection to release the stored magnetic field energy. In order for this to take place, some form of dissipation to break the frozen-in condition is required."

Even your own source (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node74.html ) links magnetic reconnection to "frozen-in" magnetic fields. Without the notion of frozen-in magnetic fields there is no magnetic reconnection
.

Clearly, you were trying to mislead our readers again.

No, your attempt to mislead the readers has brought you to the conclusions you fail to acknowledge. As your quote mining clearly demonstrates and as I have said several times before, the reconnection occurs specifically where the magnetic field lines are not “frozen in”. The micro- instabilities produce the resistive aspects in the resistive MHD model which are “some form of dissipation to break the frozen-in condition” resulting in a “breakdown in the ideal "frozen-in" flux condition” “because the ‘frozen-in’ condition can be broken by the electron inertial effects” resulting in the magnetic reconnection that “occurs in narrow boundary layers." That boundary layer being a double layer and often associated with Birkeland or field aligned currents. You obviously have all the information you need but your continued reference to the outdated ideally conductive MHD model proposed by Alfven and your refusal to acknowledge the resistive MHD model that addresses Alfven’s concerns about his originally ideally conductive model is the needle in the strawman you have created to represent mainstream cosmology.

The problem with your theory is that none of the mainstream supporting articles claim they are one and the same. For example, the article I provided early that you dishonestly cited back to me in your post clearly does distinguish magnetic reconnection from typical discharge behaviors. You are lying. Is that what it comes down to ... your side has to lie to support your gnomes?

The gnomes are yours and as you continue to feed them by lying to yourself I am sure they will grow in significance for you. You have already conceded to the “re-labeling” indicating that you believe the mainstream claims “they are one and the same”.

What article are you referring to? Knowing your predilection for confusing things I can not be sure without a specific reference. Could you possibly be referring to this article that I originally provided?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJS...90..837H

If you are claiming this article to be one you provided that I cited back to you then your ability to lie to yourself far exceeds your ability to lie to others (although that was never in doubt). This is only exemplified by your consideration of that article as trying to “distinguish magnetic reconnection from typical discharge behaviors” as opposed to the assertions of the authors.

If this particle density is moderately low, field-aligned currents are likely to trigger micro-instabilities and possible double layer formation before reconnection occurs. If instead the lowest particle density is higher, reconnection is likely to occur before the threshold for micro-instability is reached. In some circumstances, the current may continue to grow even after double layers have formed, eventually triggering a reconnection event.

Again the only differentiation they were making was in the lowest particle density and whether it was sufficiently low to possibly create a double layer before reconnection. Their intention was not to distinguish between double layer formation and magnetic reconnection but to combine the two based on particle density. A conclusion I am sure will continue to be lost on you.

Now you are trying to claim that Sweet Parker and Petcheck explain reconnection in solar phenomena? Did you miss the part in your source (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node77.html ) where it states "The problem is that Sweet-Parker reconnection takes place far too slowly to account for many reconnection processes which are thought to take place in the solar system"? Did you miss the part where it states "Clearly, we can only hope to account for solar flares using a reconnection mechanism which operates far faster than the Sweet-Parker mechanism." Did you miss the part where it states "It must be pointed out that the Petschek model is very controversial. Many physicists think that it is completely wrong, and that the maximum rate of magnetic reconnection allowed by MHD is that predicted by the Sweet-Parker model. In particular, Biskamp wrote an influential and widely quoted paper reporting the results of a numerical experiment which appeared to disprove the Petschek model."

No, did you miss where I specifically quoted the problems with Sweet-Parker model and the controversial nature of the Petschek model. Just because you can not remember what you post do not expect everyone to succumb to your failings.

The Sweet-Parker reconnection ansatz is undoubtedly correct. It has been simulated numerically innumerable times, and was recently confirmed experimentally in the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) operated by Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.37 The problem is that Sweet-Parker reconnection takes place far too slowly to account for many reconnection processes which are thought to take place in the solar system.

One, admittedly rather controversial, resolution of this problem was suggested by Petschek.38 He pointed out that magnetic energy can be converted into plasma thermal energy as a result of shock waves being set up in the plasma, in addition to the conversion due to the action of resistive diffusion. The configuration envisaged by Petschek is sketched in Fig. 29. Two waves (slow mode shocks) stand in the flow on either side of the interface, where the direction of reverses, marking the boundaries of the plasma outflow regions. A small diffusion region still exists on the interface, but now constitutes a miniature (in length) Sweet-Parker system.

Here we have the difference between science and your pseudoscience. In science problems with theories are identified and an effort is made to correct or replace the theory. In your pseudoscience problems like your exploding charged sun are not calculated, dismissed when they are found and just simply ignored to maintain the fictitious validity of your pseudoscience.

Guess that depends on the definition of "is".

Ah, the Bill Clinton argument, I doubt it will fair any better for you then it did for him.

 

[Dancing David]

Guess what? I knew this since it was I who originally cited the source specifically noting the model. Of course, I emphasized the fact that it is a "novel" mechanism they propose and one that can't be easily tested since it depends on what's inside the comet and as yet we have no means to look inside comets. Heck, you folks can't even tell us how the heat from the sun manages to vaporize the materials deep in the comet when the materials of comets are highly efficient insulators.

[/lurk]

BAC, you still continue with the bizzare behavior but since you keep to bring this up, and it is just so very foolish.

Effective insulator as in what?

A Dewar flask, an alabative sheild ? You are making a really bogus assertion here and over and over.

Insulation is a relative factor, are you thinking what about heat transfer in a comet? That it should occur over night because you popped it in the micro wave. the level of solar radiation is a factor of what? Hmm, how does the level of radiation change for an object past Neptune as it moves into the orbit of Jupiter? Does it change in a smooth linear fashion?

A very cold object in a very cold enviroment will change as it enters a slightly warmer enviroment. What is the melting point of many of the volitales?

By your very foolish assertion the water pipes in the ground will never freeze in the ground. And specifically they will not freeze in the spring, soil is such a poor conductor.

So again an emotional appeal on your part that is not based in science but in silly thoughts.

[lurk]

Please continue the fine job of demonstrating that you are a troll.

 

[The Man]

Please provide one mainstream-supporting, peer-reviewed journal article that says magnetic reconnection is the double layer phenomena. Please provide one mainstream-supporting, peer-reviewed journal article that says current sheets and magnetic ropes are Birkeland currents. Can you do it or not? I'm betting no.

Bet all you want, you have nothing worth winning. I will make my own assertions and support them with whatever documentation I feel is applicable, including your own statements and those of your fellow EU theorists.

Let’s look at some applicable assertions.

And there are no experiments that show "magnetic reconnection" is uniquely different from known electrical behaviors in plasma. The mainstreams gnome "reconnection" is simply a relabeling of phenomena (without true understanding of it) so they can get papers published in a scientific establishment hostile towards electricity.

You certainly remark that they are not “uniquely different”.


http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070607magneticreconnection.htm

And astronomers find that during the magnetic reconnection process, a two-layer flow of particles is created that speeds the release of energy [plasma cosmologists call them double layers.]

Even your own EU theorists agree they are the same.


Again one of my favorite papers, which you have seen before, noting a possible link between magnetic reconnection and double layers.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJS...90..837H

If this particle density is moderately low, field-aligned currents are likely to trigger micro-instabilities and possible double layer formation before reconnection occurs. If instead the lowest particle density is higher, reconnection is likely to occur before the threshold for micro-instability is reached. In some circumstances, the current may continue to grow even after double layers have formed, eventually triggering a reconnection event.

The authors do not state that only double layer formation or only magnetic reconnection will occur they clearly state that one or the other will occur first due to particle destiny the basic assertion being that both eventually occur and are associated.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1994SSRv...68...29R

You might find this paper, from the Department of Plasma Physics, Alfven Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden, interesting since it describes the analogy between the physics of double layers and magnetic reconnection near x-type neutral lines. In both cases large scale behavior may be described using idealized MHD and energy release on a large scale is made possible by the local relaxation of the frozen in field conditions. Even a laboratory named after your patriarch considers the physics of Double Layers and Magnetic Reconnection analogues and invokes two of your feared gnomes, idealized MHD and frozen in field lines, as part of that analogy. Fortunately, unlike you they note the large scale energy release for both conditions results specifically from the local relaxation of the frozen in field condition.


http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP05/Event/35735

Mechanisms for magnetic reconnection and for the acceleration and energization of charged particles are two of the most important and long-standing questions in space plasma physics. The existence of a non-zero parallel electric field, which is often in the form of a double layer, is a necessary condition for auroral particle acceleration as well as the breakdown of the frozen-in condition required for reconnection

At the 2005 47th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics was the presentation of this paper specifically citing a non-zero parallel electric field, often in the form of a double layer, as necessary for the breakdown of the frozen-in condition that results in reconnection.


http://www.mpg.de/forschungsergebni.../archivListenJahrbuch/2002/33/publZIM230.html

[1] Three-dimensional (3-D) particle simulations are performed in a double current layer configuration to investigate the stability of current sheets and boundary layers which develop during magnetic reconnection of antiparallel fields in collisionless plasma.

A paper from the Max-Planck-Institute, although concerning simulations, it is clearly describing the boundary layers which develop during magnetic reconnection as a double layer.


http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/preprints/NI04028.pdf

In the double current layer configuration reconnection continues robustly until the islands from the adjacent current layers overlap.

Another paper from the University of Maryland again although dealing with simulations it clearly describes the reconnection boundary as a double layer, from the images I am sure you will recognize the classic double layer cross sections.

Naturally, you will and must find any excuse to discount all these assertions including your own and the other EU theorist. That is the only way you can maintain your paranoid delusional fantasy of “a scientific establishment hostile towards electricity”

You should try challenging yourself to develop a realistic solar model that will not explode due to its own charge.

The most telling part is that I never even heard of magnetic reconnection until I started posting on this thread and have only been researching it for about a month. You have been at it for how long? Yet you still have not learned anything about it or the relationships to the plasma effects you claim are ignored but somehow "relabled".

 

[Complexity]

What a pity we can't have a thread about something awesome and of great beauty that doesn't get vomited on by the lesser amongst us.

 

[Dancing David]

It would lack the wow factor.