Recovered: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

Here is an idea of how bad it is. This didnt make it into the bucket thread because magnetic fields are not quite as self explanatory.

White dwarf pulses like a pulsar.
The hard X-ray pulsations are very similar to those of the pulsar in the center of the Crab Nebula. In both objects, the pulses appear to be radiated like a lighthouse beam, and a rotating magnetic field is thought to be controlling the beam. Astronomers think that the extremely powerful magnetic fields are trapping charged particles and then flinging them outward at near-light speed. When the particles interact with the magnetic field, they radiate X-rays.

So here we have "particles interact with the magnetic field" to produce x-rays......

Anybody ever hear of producing x-rays with a magnet?????
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "lk"

- Brant said: In both objects, the pulses appear to be radiated like a lighthouse beam
- Why do you say they resemble lighthouse beams? That would suggest that the beams are rotating, shining like a steady flashlight beam that turns through 360 degrees of motion, so that observers only see a flash of light as the beam rotates out of view.
- Whereas, EU theory says they're not steady beams at all, but pulses caused by electrical capacitor-like conditions and which you said before were Z-pinches.
- So why bring up lighthouse beams again? I thought that theory was conceded to be pretty absurd.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: This is well worth reading. Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-Tr ... ug2007.pdf

Don Scott nails several other aspects of this magnetic reconnection controversy, and he does so with consummate professional skill. It's written from an electrical engineering perspective and it takes close aim at this same topic. It's a wonderful presentation.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

This thesis on charge by Dollard and Tesla Theory is very clear that magnetic reconnection is not a real event.

The true question boils down to do we understand charge and do we understand electricity?

The magnetic reconnection theory proves they do not!

For your intellectual pleasure and for a true understanding of charge and electricity and magnatism we need to recover the basics properly.

http://www.borderlands.com/dollardandtesla.htm
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject: Re:- Hello Reply with quote
OP "Sentient Marine"

Thank you for your invitation to Thunderbolts forum Michael.

I finally found my way across. Briefly I have been working on an idea of gravity density and found the shape I need is best described by the electric universe. The idea is that gravity is binding at the atomic level and so immensely dense much like Tesla said space is immensely stiff.

Well that means that the strong nuclear force simply holds matter (protons) together and the weak nuclear force (a reducing force) pulls elements up to iron stability have no movement component.

So the only force to describe gravity through movement and attraction is the difference between the electric and the rotating magnetic force. The electric universe is the flow of our galaxy through the density of gravity and as such carries the real shape of the universe.

A close look at the cosmic web a filament of density will show that stars travel in lines along each side just like a great Birkeland current. The movement that we have through our galaxy is exactly like what has been shown in the electrical demonstrations.

Sure we see our universe in the way light travels to us through density which makes light almost constant to say 14 decimal places but the shape is a vortex and is connected. In the shapes I way looking at in the gravity model there were no pinches, just flows to beyond a point where we could observe them. I hope that helps and I watched the video ... it is absolutely spot on, cheers Michael

p.s. the sentient marine thing is from my thinking aquatic mammal days 'Save the whales' which is still so very important to me. What we do to ourselves we are held accountable for but what we do to them is inexcusable.
_________________
"This is not the beginning of the end, it is merely the end of the beginning" Winston Churchill

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "zeuz"

This is from Don Scotts rebuttal to Tim Thompson, and it sums up magnetic reconnection perfectly;

Any electrical engineer (or physics student who has studied field theory) will easily show Thompson (and his colleagues) the error of their ways. All it takes to understand this argument is to recognize the clear difference between 1) conceptual constructs that are convenient tools for thinking about and visualizing a process, and 2) the physical process itself. The former (the concept) exists only in one’s mind. It does not exist in three-dimensional space. The latter (the process) concerns the movement or interaction of things that really do exist in our world. Once this difference is fully grasped, it is easy to see that magnetic field lines do not (cannot) do anything in the real world – because they do not exist in the real world.

I really am surprised that astronomers use magnetic reconnection at all anymore, there has never been one experiment to verify it. Even the wikipedia page does not cite any references at all on the magnetic reconnection page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

its been tagged since april for not citing any sources, hopefully it will have to be deleted soon, that might give some astronomers a shock
_________________
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. ~Cree Indian Proverb

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

Charges do not couple to themself.
From a new theory of Electricity.
http://www.newelectromagnetism.com/

There is no such thing as a open field line.
From the Scalar Textbook.
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=10_ ... sublevel=0
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Solar"

Interestingly:

"In electric and magnetic phenomena, the magnitude and direction of the resultant force at any point is the main subject of investigation. Suppose that the direction of the force at an point is known, then, if we draw a line so that in every part of its course it coincides in direction with the force at that point, this line ma be called a line of force, since it indicates the direction of the force in every part of its course.

By drawing a sufficient number of lines of force, we may indicate the direction of the force in every part of the space in which it acts.

Thus if we strew iron filing on paper near a magnet, each filing will be magnetized by induction, and the consecutive filings will unite by their opposite poles, so as to form fibres, and these fibres will indicate the direction of the lines of force. The beautiful illustration of the presence of magnetic force afforded by this experiment, naturally tends to make us think of the lines of force as something real,..." - J.C. Maxwell

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:18 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "saul"

This is from Don Scotts rebuttal to Tim Thompson, and it sums up magnetic reconnection perfectly;

Any electrical engineer (or physics student who has studied field theory) will easily show Thompson (and his colleagues) the error of their ways. All it takes to understand this argument is to recognize the clear difference between 1) conceptual constructs that are convenient tools for thinking about and visualizing a process, and 2) the physical process itself. The former (the concept) exists only in one’s mind. It does not exist in three-dimensional space. The latter (the process) concerns the movement or interaction of things that really do exist in our world. Once this difference is fully grasped, it is easy to see that magnetic field lines do not (cannot) do anything in the real world – because they do not exist in the real world.

I really am surprised that astronomers use magnetic reconnection at all anymore, there has never been one experiment to verify it. Even the wikipedia page does not cite any references at all on the magnetic reconnection page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

its been tagged since april for not citing any sources, hopefully it will have to be deleted soon, that might give some astronomers a shock

An example of some of the many experimental papers on reconnection:
http://mrx.pppl.gov/Publications/publications.html

Electric, magnetic, and fluid velocity field lines may not be real physical objects but they have rigorous definitions and are very useful concepts.

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "zeuz"

An example of some of the many experimental papers on reconnection:
http://mrx.pppl.gov/Publications/publications.html

Electric, magnetic, and fluid velocity field lines may not be real physical objects but they have rigorous definitions and are very useful concepts.

Ahem, i need to make a small correction to your statement, "An example of some of the many experimental papers on the process of releasing energy that has been attributed to reconnection"

There are plenty of papers on 'reconnection'. Restricting ADS' search to just Astronomy, and just 2006 to 2008, and to only papers with the words 'magnetic reconnection' in their titles yields >2000 hits! Of course, some will be irrelevant, and many relate to indirect observations associated with various magnetic effects.

Another for example, the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment: "The goal of MRX is to investigate the fundamental physics of magnetic field line reconnection, an important process in magnetized plasmas in space and in the laboratory." Now they give a very detailed explanation about how the energy is created, and the mechanics of the equiptment and many other things. But the one quite amazing omission from any of those papers is any experimental evidence of magnetic field lines actually 'reconnecting' to create this effect.

The simple reason for that is that things that dont exist in the real world cant reconnect.

Here you have to separate the actual data about what is known from the interpretation of it. I am not saying that 'magnetic reconnection' (or whatever you want to call it) does not occur, there obviously is a process that releases this energy that we can detect, but i dispute that we have to invoke completely new and unknown charteristics of magnetic field lines to explain this. The data is the key, however people interpret it in different ways.

The data is reliable, i am not questioning that. However not every interpretation of the data is equally reliable. I trust their data completely, but I distrust their interpretation of the data because it is at odd with how we previously thought all magnetic fields function.

Magnetic field lines can not connect, get tied in 'knots' or get tangled up any more than lines of latitude and longitude can reconnect or get tied into knots.

If you can find the experiment that actually shows and verifys the magnetic lines as they reconnect, and how the energy is created by this 'reconnection', please post it here. So far i have found none. In my opinion it flies in the face of the all we know about the established sciences of electrical engineering and magnetics
_________________
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. ~Cree Indian Proverb

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Saul"

Yet not a sign of electric current....amazing


Maybe not in the pop-sci review, but any model of "reconnection" (are you happy about the quotes?) includes currents.

See the map of current density in the related model:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=40420

Reconnection also includes quite strong electric fields and anomalous resistivity which can give rise to separation of charges.

Electric fields in space? No wonder you guys don't like this stuff.

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "leokor"

I have been away from the forum for a while, so I didn't see this thread. Having glanced cursorily through the paper--which I intend to take a closer look at later--I suspect that what the authors mean by "magnetic reconnection" is as follows.

For the lack of graphic images, I will have to describe them in words. Also, for the simplicity's sake, let's consider two-dimensional cross-sections of two plasmoids. These may be the so-called "magnetic ropes"--in reality, plasmoids of a roughly cylindrical shape, formed by field-aligned electric currents. Also for the simplicity's sake, imagine them being roughly parallel (the real 3-D topology may, and usually is, more involved).

Let's consider the cross-sections in the same plane, thus reducing the complexity down to 2-D. The field-aligned electric currents generate toroidal magnetic fields of their own. In the descriptive formalism of magnetic field lines, there are roughly circular, concentric magnetic field lines around each cross-section. These extend up to a certain point, until they merge (again, in the descriptive, not physical, sense) into a larger-scale magnetic field that "washes" around either cross-section, including the area between them.

I hope I have described the image well. Do you see it? Going from left to right, as I would have drawn it on paper, there would be roughly straight field lines, curving to the right and past the first cross-section, then the circular field lines around the cross-section, then again the larger-scale field lines curving past the cross-section, straightening to the right, and then curving against past the next cross-section, etc.

Now imagine these magnetic ropes being drawn closer to each other--for example, by the attractive force between parallel electric currents. Indeed, this is the same process as described by Peratt in his model of galaxies. At a certain point in time, the magnetic field may reach the following configuration.

From left to right, we have the larger-scale field lines curving around the first cross-section, then the hourglass-shaped field lines around both cross-sections, then circular field lines around the first cross-section, then the "neck" of the hourglass, and do on to the next cross-section. In other words, there is a link between the two cross-sections now.

If this is what they call "magnetic reconnection," then it is nothing mysterious to us, except that we describe it in different terms. The magnetic field configuration described in the first image naturally generates a double layer sheath around the first "magnetic rope" and another double layer around the other rope. In the transition from the first image to the second one, these double layers touch and penetrate each other. As is well known, this results in an explosive release of energy. In the second image, there is an hourglass-shaped double layer around both plasmoids, as well as smaller double layers around each, where the field lines remain circular. This redistribution of charge, to minimize electric stress, is the mechanism of this energy release.

This is pretty much the same process that produces interplanetary thunderbolts, should the plasma sheaths of the magnetospheres touch. In particular, it may be responsible for the Comet Holmes display. In his galaxy simulations, Peratt reports a splash of synchrotron radiation at the time when the repulsive force between the Birkeland filaments becomes comparable to the attractive force; I believe this corresponds to the transitions between the above-mentioned field topologies.

If so, then we may be in agreement, after all, with the authors of that article--or maybe, in a less of a disagreement; I would have to read the paper more closely to say. Smile Still, there is something misleading about the "magnetic reconnection" terminology; namely, making it appear as if no electric field is involved. We would do well to reinterpret this mechanism in terms of double layer reconnection.

Leo

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

quote="leokor"]
If this is what they call "magnetic reconnection," then it is nothing mysterious to us, except that we describe it in different terms.[/quote]

No, what they call "magnetic reconnection" is based on the idea that magnetic field lines can connect and disconnect like electrical current.

Animation-4_195.gif (184.74 KiB) Viewed 13100 times

They are quite literally trying to claim that magnetic field lines make and break connection and thereby release energy. Magnetic fields do not do that. They only form as a full continuum and they can't make and break connections like electrical circuits. Plasma flows can make and break connections because they are charge particles that flow with some velocity. They would automatically trigger induction currents in a fixed magnetic field. Plasma can ebb and flow as ESA suggests, but only because it is carrying current, not because the magnetic fields make and break contact. They are grossly mistaken in their basis premise which is why Alfven himself ridiculed the idea. The worst part is they keep trying to use MHD theory to support this false idea, even though Alfven publicly rejected the idea.

Don Scott's paper was extremely well written and approaches this mainstream nonsense from the perspective of an electronics engineer. EE folks understand that electricity makes and breaks connections, but magnetic fields form a full continuum. There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection". It is a myth. No such thing happens in nature in a lab. This skewing of the language and the blurring of electrical behaviors (reconnection) with magnetic fields (continuum) is misleading and intentionally so. The worst part all of this nonsense IMO is the fact that the father of MHD theory claimed it was false. Now they turn right around and try to use MHD theory to support the idea using *uncontrolled* observations from space, and never once demonstrated how it works in a lab. The whole thing is stupid IMO. Many of them know what's really going on, but they can't publish anything with the term "current flow" in it, so they use bogus lingo and false concepts to convey electrical behaviors without mentioning electricity.

Last edited by Michael Mozina on Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:44 pm; edited 2 times in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "leokor"

Don Scott's paper was extremely well written and approaches this mainstream nonsense from the perspective of an electronics engineer. EE folks understand that electricity makes and breaks connections, but magnetic fields form a full continuum. There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection". It is a myth. No such thing happens in nature in a lab. This skewing of the language and the blurring of electrical behaviors (reconnection) with magnetic fields (continuum) is misleading and intentionally so. There worst part all of this nonsense IMO is the fact that the father of MHD theory claimed it was false. Now they turn right around and try to use MHD theory to support the idea using *uncontrolled* observations from space, and never once demonstrated how it works in a lab. The whole thing is stupid IMO. Many of them know what's really going on, but they can't publish anything with the term "current flow" in it, so they use bogus lingo and false concepts to convey electrical behaviors without mentioning electricity.

Yes. Just as I said, their terminology is misleading. But when it comes down to experiments, this very ambiguity will allow them to claim experimental support from exploding double layer experiments--because, as they'd say, "this is exactly what we were talking about all along."

Leo

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Yes. Just as I said, their terminology is misleading. But when it comes down to experiments, this very ambiguity will allow them to claim experimental support from exploding double layer experiments--because, as they'd say, "this is exactly what we were talking about all along."

Leo

The part that really ticks me off about their claims is the fact that exploding double layer experiments do *not* support this idea at all. Alfven expressly explained that the explosive aspect of exploding double layers is directly related to the current flow inside the plasmas and the instabilities that are caused by the current flow and changes in the current flow. He specifically said that it was impossible for the magnetic fields to be responsible for this fundamentally electrical interaction between plasmas.

They are intentionally promoting a theory that Hannes Alfven himself rejected, and most of them don't even know that Alfven rejected the idea, nor why he rejected the idea. Now the term "magnetic reconnection" is just like a "black hole". In spite of what Einstein said about black holes, black holes are "rationalized" using GR theory. In spite of Alfven said about "magnetic reconnection", the mainstream has created an MDH oriented mythology that in no way resembles the way nature actually functions.

In Einstein's case there isn't much anyone can do about it because we can't study one in controlled conditions. In the case of magnetic reconnection theory however, we can and we *must* empirically demonstrate that it actually occurs in nature *before* we start pointing to the sky and claiming "magnetic reconnection did it". I've seen them claim that "magnetic reconnection" does everything including lighting up the aurora. That's nonsense. It is the flow of charged electrons and charged ions and physical particles that allow for "reconnection' to occur. It has absolutely nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection". Magnetic fields do not release energy charged particles do release energy when they "connect".

The mainstream are utter weaklings when it comes to *qualifying* any of their metaphysical ideas. Some of their nonsense can't really be disputed because we can't test anything in controlled conditions. This particular idea is their Waterloo precisely because it *can* be tested in controlled conditions and *must* be tested that way. They can't demonstrate this magnetic reconnection claim in a lab, because magnetic fields do not make and break connection. Only charged particles do that.