Something new under the sun

[DeiRenDopa]

While we wait for Zeuzzz to write his next post (and while I wait for iantresman to reply to my questions, especially the last one ("Could you please explain, in more detail, what you think Scott's paper includes, in the way of core concepts (see my earlier posts on the distinctions between core concepts and other aspects, referenced in the post you quote), that Ziggurat's (and many others') comments do not address?")), I'd like to introduce another paper which Zeuzzz cited as a 'plasma cosmology paper published in mainstream astronmy journals': How Can Spirals Persist? (C.K. Whitney, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 175-186).

I'd like to ask any reader of this post whether you think this paper is a plasma cosmology paper, and if so why; I'm especially interested in hearing from Zeuzzz, iantresman, and BeAChooser.

 

[Dancing David]

Hiya
DeiRenDopa,


I am not sure what to make of that paper, I will have to read over it again. It seems to be begging the question:
Are the spiral structure permanent or are they transitory.

I would say it is like trying to say that the observed waves on the ocean are some sort of permanent feature and trying to explain them as such.

I would ask, what says that the spiral arms and the like have to be permanent, why can't they be transitory feature of arrangement.

If the appearance is created by the new stars and the lighting of dark molecular clouds then I don't know why there would be a question, I also remember some movie about how tidal interactions of two galaxies in collision provide the barred spirals.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(bits of Dancing David's post omitted)

I would ask, what says that the spiral arms and the like have to be permanent, why can't they be transitory feature of arrangement.

.
Whitney explicitly excludes transitory explanations from the scope of the paper.

 

[ben m]

While we wait for Zeuzzz to write his next post (and while I wait for iantresman to reply to my questions, especially the last one ("Could you please explain, in more detail, what you think Scott's paper includes, in the way of core concepts (see my earlier posts on the distinctions between core concepts and other aspects, referenced in the post you quote), that Ziggurat's (and many others') comments do not address?")), I'd like to introduce another paper which Zeuzzz cited as a 'plasma cosmology paper published in mainstream astronmy journals': How Can Spirals Persist? (C.K. Whitney, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 175-186).

So we have another candidate "plasma cosmology" paper with zero citations. If this is the state-of-the-art of plasma models of galaxy structure, why isn't it used (and cited) in subsequent discussions? If this is not the state of the art, why post it as an example of work in the field?

Anyway, not only does no one cite this paper: the author seems deeply unfamiliar with any actual facts of galaxy observation and modeling. First of all, she doesn't even pretend to be aware that there are mainstream models for the formation and maintainance of spiral arms. It's standard practice in science papers that, if there is a model/theory/paradigm in competition with yours, you should say so. If the author is indeed aware of these other theories, then her statement in the abstract

The older gravitational models can explain how spirals might form, but they also predict that the spirals would quickly disintegrate.

is flatly false. Neither SSPSF nor Lin-Shu models "predict that the spirals would quickly disintegrate". The author has absolutely no grounds for believing they do; if the paper is meant to "solve this problem" then it is attacking a pure strawman. The alternative is that the author is unaware of the existence of mainstream models, which is consistent with the fact that she doesn't cite them---but this doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the author's attention to detail.

And then we get to the theory. To generate two spiral arms, the author places a pair of huge gravitational masses in the Galactic bulge; their symmetry axis is taken to define the initial direction of the arms; the resulting gravitational quadrupole sets up a potential that could accelerate galactic-center stars outwards. At first glance, I think the author is correct to show that this mechanism, so constructed, could indeed result in persistent spirals---it's sort of a limiting case of density-wave theory.

The author makes no attempt whatsoever to compare this model to reality. Are there two giant masses orbiting one another inside the Galactic bulge? Good heavens, no. We've got extremely detailed orbital data (both radial velocities and proper motions) throughout the bulge, and it's not a giant gravitating dumbbell. Are arm/bar stars actually moving radially outwards at a good fraction of their orbital speed, according to observations? No no no no. The model is thus completely refuted. End of story.

The other odd things about the paper are the long digression about electromagnetism, which is presented as though there's an elaborate analogy between gravity and E&M, but in the end the analogy isn't used in the paper except insofar as the author uses a finite-propagation-speed gravity model; it reads like a badly-padded undergrad lab report, where there's an extra two pages on the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics appended to the statement "We stored the E. Coli in liquid nitrogen at 77K." The author cites Peratt's plasma simulations and points out that they're irrelevant to astronomy because stars are neutral, which is perfectly true. That's something, anyway.

 

[Dancing David]

.
Whitney explicitly excludes transitory explanations from the scope of the paper.

Well they say that they will focus on thier mechanism instead, i am not sure how saying that the spirals would unwind would preclude transitory spiral structures. But again probably over my head.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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

What flaw?

I think you'll find that i've been defending this alleged flaw.

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

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

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

Yes, but they have not shown any of the maths in his paper to be wrong. What they have done is take one sentence out of the paper, and shown that this sentence does not hold true for every single field configuration (even though it does for the one in question). Fair enough.

Scott later states himself this relationship between the magnetic energy of the system being ultimately dependant on the current;

Equations (6)–(9) demonstrate the basic principle that the total energy that is stored magnetically in the infinite volume surrounding the conductors completely depends on the current.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I only have Maths and Mechanics A-level, so although I may not be as sharp as some of the mathematicians here, I am quite mathematically competant. I'm also pretty sure I would'nt be studying physics at Uni if I was unable to do maths.

If you can find any mistakes in any of the maths I have posted or talked about, please quote it and we could discuss it. I have infact agreed with much of what has been posted by other members here in relation to maths, I just had a poke at some of the assumptions in them, and I do dispute the relevance of some of them. Especially Sols graphs, here for example, what was he trying to prove by showing standard field lines around a neutral point? I certainly never said that the field Sol drew violated any of maxwells equations, and it doesn't.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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

We learn that if the field lines of the sun are open ended they will be violating Gauss' law, and so they likely do not end on interstellar clouds

We learn that it has become accepted opinion in astronomy to treat conceptual field lines as real world objects;
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfldline.html

For many years magnetic field lines were viewed as merely a way to visualize magnetic fields. Not so in space, however, where magnetic field lines are fundamental to the way free electrons and ions move. These electrically charged particles tend to become attached to the field lines on which they reside, spiralling around them while sliding along them, like beads on a wire

Which many scientists dispute. Especially amounst electrical engineers, magnetic reconnection is mentioned unfavorable in a number of their publications. Although plasmas are excellent conductors, they are not perfect conductors. Weak longitudinal electric fields can and do exist inside plasmas. Therefore, magnetic field lines are not frozen inside them.

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

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

We find out that the second term in the MHD equation that reconnection is based on ( ∇(p + B2/2μo) − (B∇)B/μ0 = 0 ) is equivalent to the pinch effect caused by electric currents, and that Alfven came up with an alternative model to explain the energy release with a double layer in the plasma, without needing a new theory for the "splicing" of magnetic field lines.

We learn that all magnetism is produced by moving charge (electric current), and so models that leave out the electrical currents and fields are not fully complete.

...We learn that often in plasmas simple electrostatic calculations are meaningless because plasma divides into complex self-supporting cellular structures.

...And we also learn everything else that he put into that paper...

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

In what sense do you mean cleanly?

 

[sol invictus]

Yes, but they have not shown any of the maths in his paper to be wrong. What they have done is take one sentence out of the paper, and shown that this sentence does not hold true for every single field configuration (even though it does for the one in question). Fair enough.

That's because there is no math in his paper apart from the basic equations of E&M, which are written correctly. What is wrong is everything else - namely most of the words he writes.

Here's another explicit example:

Since the 1950s, some solar astrophysicists have asserted that
the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) is really open ended [7],
with one end “anchored” to the Sun and the other waving in the
solar wind.

Reference [7] is http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmpause.html, which is nothing but a rather clear exposition of the same reconnection field Zig and I have been discussing over the last few pages of this thread. The physics on that page is perfectly consistent with Maxwell's equations, as even Zeuzzz has now admitted. Scott's summary of it is highly misleading, and his objections are flat out wrong.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Here's another explicit example:



Reference [7] is http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmpause.html, which is nothing but a rather clear exposition of the same reconnection field Zig and I have been discussing over the last few pages of this thread. The physics on that page is perfectly consistent with Maxwell's equations, as even Zeuzzz has now admitted. Scott's summary of it is highly misleading, and his objections are flat out wrong.

Yes and its also the exact same field that Scott uses in his paper. Your point?

From that nasa site;

The northward flowing group would migrate to line "3" in the drawing, an "open magnetic field line" linking Earth to interplanetary space. A short time later the field line linking those particles will occupy position "4", then "5". Dungey proposed that the process was reversed at some distant neutral point (or neutral line) "6" in the far tail, as illustrated here by a figure adapted from his original article. There the interplanetary line halves were reunited and flowed away, and the ends connected to Earth were also joined up again.

This is what Scott is disputing. Mainly Dungey's model of reconnection, and that when people model the field of the sun they usually leave the magnetic field of the sun open, when in reality it can not be open, and has to form a continuum.

For a more slightly more detailed derivation of Scotts main problems with magnetic reconnection I suggest reading Magnetic reconnection, merging, and viscous interaction in the magnetosphere - Heikkila, W. J. Space Science Reviews (ISSN 0038-6308), vol. 53

Alfvens alternative is also addressed in it too when he considers the E-field.

However, there are some serious questions, questions that are still outstanding after nearly three decades of research. In 1975 I published a paper pointing out a consequence of dayside reconnection that had apparently been overlooked, that of the implied energy dissipation; the observational evidence did not show this dissipation. I did not question the magnetic field topology, and indeed that seemed to be correct, including the existence of X-lines. What I did question was the nature of the electric field, its topology, and whether it was electrostatic (with curl = 0), or inductive (with a finite curl); it seemed to me that a drastic revision to the simplistic reconnection model (Figure l(a)) was needed.

 

[Dancing David]

Which many scientists dispute. Especially amounst electrical engineers, magnetic reconnection is mentioned unfavorable in a number of their publications.

Except for those who happen to study magbetic reconnection, some of whom are electrical engineers.


http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v65/i6/p721_1
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/physics_astronomy/report-14305.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110529080/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004JA010478.shtml
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR00/DPP00/abs/S1460045.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15323767
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0032-1028/23/9/008



Look I can engage in argument by spam as well, and that was just one of many pages.

 

[The Man]

We learn that it has become accepted opinion in astronomy to treat conceptual field lines as real world objects;

No just that real world objects can and do follow those conceptual field lines.

Which many scientists dispute. Especially amounst electrical engineers, magnetic reconnection is mentioned unfavorable in a number of their publications. Although plasmas are excellent conductors, they are not perfect conductors. Weak longitudinal electric fields can and do exist inside plasmas. Therefore, magnetic field lines are not frozen inside them.

For magnetic reconnection the field must be explicitly not frozen into the plasma. Weak coupling of the field lines to the plasma outside the defuse region around the neutral point is part of the resistive MHD model. Within the defuse region and at the neutral point the magnetic field lines (or field vectors) are no longer coupled to the plasma, which is why the reconnection can occur in the first place.

We find out that the second term in the MHD equation that reconnection is based on ( ∇(p + B2/2μo) − (B∇)B/μ0 = 0 ) is equivalent to the pinch effect caused by electric currents, and that Alfven came up with an alternative model to explain the energy release with a double layer in the plasma, without needing a new theory for the "splicing" of magnetic field lines.

But exploding double layers do need a mechanism as to how and why they do explode. Magnetic reconnection serves quite nicely in that regard.

We learn that all magnetism is produced by moving charge (electric current), and so models that leave out the electrical currents and fields are not fully complete.

Like Scotts model, delibretly or ignorantly leaving out the required currents at and near the neutral point so he can claim there can be no energy release from that neutral point, since it is magnetically neutral and as Scott incorrectly insists must not have current at or near it or it would not be magnetically neutral.

...We learn that often in plasmas simple electrostatic calculations are meaningless because plasma divides into complex self-supporting cellular structures.

We also learn that sometimes these structures are magnetically separated with currents that sustain that magnetic separation and the neutral point. With that neutral point in a defuse region of the plasma the currents can no longer maintain those magnetic fields and the previously magnetically separated regions can become magnetically connected. This is magnetic reconnection in a plasma and the potential differences between those regions are now free to equalize releasing the stored energy that has built up over time as the potential difference between those regions when they were magnetically separated. Just as a floodgate in a dam does not release or generate water (or energy) from within the floodgate itself but only acts as opening between the higher potential in the reservoir behind it and the lower potential of the spillway in front of it, so too magnetic reconnection and the neutral region only act as the mechanism for previously magnetically separated regions (or potentials) to become magnetically connected. Saying that there can be no energy release from a neutral point (or by magnetic reconnection) because there is no magnetic field at a neutral point (and maybe just some current) is like saying there can be no water (or energy) release from the hinge of the floodgate or by the floodgate because there is no water in the hinge or the floodgate.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Except for those who happen to study magbetic reconnection, some of whom are electrical engineers.


http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v65/i6/p721_1
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/physics_astronomy/report-14305.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110529080/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004JA010478.shtml
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR00/DPP00/abs/S1460045.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15323767
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0032-1028/23/9/008



Look I can engage in argument by spam as well, and that was just one of many pages.

Yes indeed, just like the other experiments I listed myself before. I expect that most of these people dont agree themselves on what occurs in the magnetic reconnection process, half of them are using the Sweet and Parker reconnection model, the other the Petschek reconnection method, I expect some are still using the explosive reconnection mechanism, or Vasyliunas' model, and I expect that some may be using Alfvens electrical explanation.

I am getting a bit tired of the constant insinuations that my position is a ridiculous one to take, which I feel is based on a misunderstanding of what exactly I am disputing. Many scientists do not agree with magnetic reconnection as it is currently described, and many have come up with alternative interpretations, not all based entirely on topological changes in the field lines.

Many of the leading experts in this field acknowledge that any objective scientist would have a good reason to question the notion that the topological form of field lines themselves can release energy. This is why there are many separate models that have been proposed for the actual magnetic reconnection process.

Proceedings of the Magnetic Reconnection Meeting - Swedish Institute of Space Physics, 2003 (a very informative paper to review some of the different models)

Magnetic reconnection/merging was introduced by by Jim Dungey in 1961 to explain the transfer of solar wind energy through the magnetopause and large scale convection in the magnetosphere. Magnetic reconnection was quickly adopted by many researchers in space plasma physics, but it also stirred up an intense controversy that remained for a long time. Among many of the contemporary critics were Hannes Alfvén, the founder of the concept “frozen-in magnetic field lines”, a concept that formed the basis for the original thesis by Jim Dungey.

Magnetic reconnection has evolved extensively since the early 1960s and has become well recognized by most space researchers as an important plasma process capable of expeditiously converting large amounts of magnetic energy to both thermal energy and bulk acceleration of the plasma. However to say that the controversy is over and the intrinsic properties of magnetic reconnection are well understood is an opinion rather than the truth.
Magnetic reconnection deals with a fundamental force-field in nature, the magnetic field, in a topological sense such that magnetic field lines from one source of the magnetic field may be tied to another source. Considering that the magnetic field is immaterial we have a problem in conveying the model to a general physics community.

I like the tone of Ludin in this paper, he is obviously a true scientist and does not react defensively to the people who are challenging the standard explantion for magnetic reconnection (like some people around here). Infact he seems to welcome such critisism as further advancing the scientific method.

The purpose of setting up a workshop in Kiruna in September 2002 was to enable proponents and opponents to confront and discuss all issues they find relevant to further the understanding of magnetic reconnection. Our goal was to analyse the existing findings critically and to find means of discriminating magnetic reconnection from other possible plasma physical processes because there is a risk that a ruling paradigm may gain so much momentum that it becomes obvious—and thus beyond criticism. Adequate use and understanding of magnetic reconnection is in my opinion essential for the respectability of space plasma physics within the science—and in particular the general physics—community.

The history of science is scarred with controversies, some of them taking a long time to settle while others quickly disappear in the realm of increased knowledge. Instantaneous suspicion and doubt is healthy while seeking the truth. On the other hand, progress in search of the truth in science also requires a certain amount of momentum or we would be stuck in a continuous debate. The blue ribbon for a healthy scientific field is criticism and careful scrutiny of existing paradigms. It is in my opinion a healthy sign that there are still knowledgeable critics in space plasma physics.

Rickard Lundin
Kiruna, August 2003.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Another more recent one I just stumbled upon;

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/4287017/04287018.pdf?temp=x

Long-Standing Unsolved Problems in Solar–Terrestrial Physics

Akasofu, S.-I.
Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 35, Issue 4, Aug. 2007 Page(s):751 - 758
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPS.2007.902091

Summary:

This paper is not intended for firm believers of magnetic reconnection. It calls for attention of the young generation to the following facts: (1) there are a number of unsolved problems such as sunspots, solar flares, and magnetospheric substorms in spite of almost 50 years of effort; (2) one of the reasons for this failure to solve them may be because the guiding principles in understanding those phenomena are not well founded and are misleading; (3) thus, it is encouraged to cast doubt on the leading paradigms and develop new ideas.

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...
Many of the leading experts in this field acknowledge that any objective scientist would have a good reason to question the notion that the topological form of field lines themselves can release energy. This is why there are many separate models that have been proposed for the actual magnetic reconnection process.

Proceedings of the Magnetic Reconnection Meeting - Swedish Institute of Space Physics, 2003 (a very informative paper to review some of the different models)

I like the tone of Ludin in this paper, he is obviously a true scientist and does not react defensively to the people who are challenging the standard explantion for magnetic reconnection (like some people around here). Infact he seems to welcome such critisism as further advancing the scientific method.

Can we take your quotation of these articles on magnetic reconnection to mean that you are now convinced that magnetic reconnection exists?

 

[sol invictus]

Yes and its also the exact same field that Scott uses in his paper. Your point?

That there is no problem with it, despite what he says.

I love how you keep shifting your position without ever acknowledging you were totally wrong before. It's quite entertaining for the rest of us.

This is what Scott is disputing. Mainly Dungey's model of reconnection, and that when people model the field of the sun they usually leave the magnetic field of the sun open, when in reality it can not be open, and has to form a continuum.

Now you've contradicted yourself in the space of two paragraphs. If that field is the same one Zig and I posted here, which is the same as the one Scott has, how can there be a problem with the field being "open"? You yourself agree the field configuration satisfies Maxwell's equations.

For a more slightly more detailed derivation of Scotts main problems with magnetic reconnection I suggest reading Magnetic reconnection, merging, and viscous interaction in the magnetosphere - Heikkila, W. J. Space Science Reviews (ISSN 0038-6308), vol. 53]

Your usual tactic - once one reference gets thoroughly debunked you move on to the next crank.

I am getting a bit tired of the constant insinuations that my position is a ridiculous one to take, which I feel is based on a misunderstanding of what exactly I am disputing.

Gee, I wonder why there might be a "misunderstanding" of your position. Could it be because you change it with each post? Or because you've made so many totally false statements you can't keep track of them yourself? Or because you contradict even yourself within a paragraph or two?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Can we take your quotation of these articles on magnetic reconnection to mean that you are now convinced that magnetic reconnection exists?

I never said it didn't exist, I myself quoted those papers at MRX before you did. I just dispute that their interpretation of it what is creating the energy ("splicing" field lines). Thats the issue i've had all along, and Alfvens model in Scotts paper seems much more likely to me.

Reality check, what do you think of this publication I quoted? http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4287018

 

[Zeuzzz]

I love how you keep shifting your position without ever acknowledging you were totally wrong before. It's quite entertaining for the rest of us.

Where?

You claimed that i said magnetic reconnection violated maxwells laws, when I didn't. I said that open field lines violate maxwells equations, thats completely different; and its true.

Now you've contradicted yourself in the space of two paragraphs. If that field is the same one Zig and I posted here, which is the same as the one Scott has, how can there be a problem with the field being "open"? You yourself agree the field configuration satisfies Maxwell's equations.

I never claimed that there was a problem with the field being open in magnetic reconnection. I did say that gauss' law for magnetism does not allow open field lines, but I have not once said that the topology of the field lines in magnetic reconnection violates any law.

Your usual tactic - once one reference gets thoroughly debunked you move on to the next crank.

Okay then, WJ Heikkila is added to the (now very substantial) list of established scientists Sol thinks are cranks. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=WJ+Heikkila&btnG=Search

Cant attack the message, attack the messenger.

Do you also think that Rickard Lundin is a crank too, for his comments in this publication?; http://www.irf.se/Publications/IRFreport280.pdf

Gee, I wonder why there might be a "misunderstanding" of your position. Could it be because you change it with each post? Or because you've made so many totally false statements you can't keep track of them yourself? Or because you contradict even yourself within a paragraph or two?

Cant come up with any examples of this?

Whats your opinion of some of the Long-Standing Unsolved Problems in Solar–Terrestrial Physics? (or is he a crank too? )

 

[Reality Check]

I never said it didn't exist, I myself quoted those papers at MRX before you did. I just dispute that their interpretation of it what is creating the energy ("splicing" field lines). Thats the issue i've had all along, and Alfvens model in Scotts paper seems much more likely to me.

Reality check, what do you think of this publication I quoted? http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4287018

I have no access to the paper. From the abstract I would say that is is a review of "Unsolved Problems in Solar–Terrestrial Physics" including the problems in applying magnetic reconnection to real phenomena. This is not surprising given that there are several models (as you mention) and experimental work in this area is still proceeding.

I guess I must have missed the posting where you acknowledged that magnetic reconnection happened in the example magnetic field that was posted here.

 

[sol invictus]

Where?

You've shifted your position so many times it's making me dizzy. Most recently, you went from arguing reconnection was totally impossible to calling it "standard".

You also claimed the field Zig and I posted didn't exhibit reconnection, and repeatedly mocked me (really, yourself) for saying it did. Now you say it's obviously the same as all the other examples of reconnection.

Should I go on?

Okay then, WJ Heikkila is added to the (now very substantial) list of established scientists Sol thinks are cranks. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=WJ+Heikkila&btnG=Search

I don't know who the guy is, but he believes in reconnection - or at least he did. He worked on it, and proposed a slightly modified model here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u0w23p0l0u5k7871/

Note that this is all in the context of trying different variations of the same idea in order to explain specific phenomena, not at all like you, BAC, and that paper of Scott's, which were claiming that the whole idea is impossible.

 

[sol invictus]

Oh, and by the way - any paper where the first sentence in the abstract is "This paper is not intended for firm believers of X" just screams crackpot, regardless of what X is (but particularly when it's a well-established phenomenon).