GRAPES-3 indicates a crack in Earth's magnetic shield

November 3, 2016
The GRAPES-3 muon telescope, the largest and most sensitive cosmic ray monitor recorded a burst of galactic cosmic rays that indicated a crack in the Earth's magnetic shield Credit: TIFR

The GRAPES-3 muon telescope, the largest and most sensitive cosmic ray monitor recorded a burst of galactic cosmic rays that indicated a crack in the Earth's magnetic shield. The burst occurred when a giant cloud of plasma ejected from the solar corona struck Earth at a very high speed causing massive compression of the Earth's magnetosphere and triggering a severe geomagnetic storm.

The GRAPES-3 muon telescope located at TIFR's Cosmic Ray Laboratory in Ooty recorded a burst of galactic cosmic rays of about 20 GeV, on 22 June 2015 lasting for two hours.

The burst occurred when a giant cloud of plasma ejected from the , and moving with a speed of about 2.5 million kilometers per hour struck our planet, causing a severe compression of Earth's magnetosphere from 11 to 4 times the radius of Earth. It triggered a severe geomagnetic storm that generated aurora borealis, and radio signal blackouts in many high latitude countries.

Earth's magnetosphere extends over a radius of a million kilometers, which acts as the first line of defence, shielding us from the continuous flow of solar and , thus protecting life on our planet from these high intensity energetic radiations. Numerical simulations performed by the GRAPES-3 collaboration on this event indicate that the Earth's magnetic shield temporarily cracked due to the occurrence of magnetic reconnection, allowing the lower energy galactic cosmic ray particles to enter our atmosphere. Earth's magnetic field bent these particles about 180 degree, from the day-side to the night-side of the Earth where it was detected as a burst by the GRAPES-3 muon telescope around mid-night on 22 June 2015. The data was analyzed and interpreted through extensive simulation over several weeks by using the 1280-core computing farm that was built in-house by the GRAPES-3 team of physicists and engineers at the Cosmic Ray Laboratory in Ooty.

This work has recently been published in Physical Review Letters

Solar storms can cause major disruption to human civilization by crippling large electrical power grids, global positioning systems (GPS), satellite operations and communications.

The GRAPES-3 muon telescope, the largest and most sensitive cosmic ray monitor operating on Earth is playing a very significant role in the study of such events. This recent finding has generated widespread excitement in the international scientific community, as well as electronic and print media.

Explore further: The magnetosphere has a large intake of solar wind energy

More information: P. K. Mohanty et al, Transient Weakening of Earth's Magnetic Shield Probed by a Cosmic Ray Burst, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.171101

Related Stories

The magnetosphere has a large intake of solar wind energy

July 22, 2016

Solar wind forms the energy source for aurora explosions. How does the Earth's magnetosphere take in the energy of the solar wind? An international team led by Hiroshi Hasegawa and Naritoshi Kitamura (ISAS/JAXA) analyzed ...

Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth's cloud cover

August 25, 2016

A team of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has linked large solar eruptions to changes ...

Integral X-rays Earth's aurora

January 26, 2016

Normally busy with observing high-energy black holes, supernovas and neutron stars, ESA's Integral space observatory recently had the chance to look back at our own planet's aurora.

Image: Majestic solar eruption larger than Earth

August 1, 2016

A gigantic ribbon of hot gas bursts upwards from the Sun, guided by a giant loop of invisible magnetism. This remarkable image was captured on 27 July 1999 by SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. Earth is superimposed ...

Earth-directed CME lights the skies

June 25, 2015

Earth experienced a geomagnetic storm on June 22, 2015 due to the arrival of an Earth-directed coronal mass ejection, or CME, from June 20.

Geomagnetic storm subsiding

April 14, 2011

A geomagnetic storm that sparked auroras around the Arctic Circle and sent Northern Lights spilling over the Canadian border into the United States on April 12, 2011 is subsiding. NOAA forecasters estimate a 25% chance of ...

Recommended for you

Scientists discover superconductor with bounce

October 23, 2017

The U.S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory has discovered extreme "bounce," or super-elastic shape-memory properties in a material that could be applied for use as an actuator in the harshest of conditions, such as outer ...

Scientists update four key fundamental constants

October 23, 2017

Paving the way for transforming the world's measurement system, an international task force has determined updated values for four fundamental constants of nature. The updated values comprise the last scientific piece of ...

Experiment provides deeper look into the nature of neutrinos

October 23, 2017

The first glimpse of data from the full array of a deeply chilled particle detector operating beneath a mountain in Italy sets the most precise limits yet on where scientists might find a theorized process to help explain ...

63 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jeffreyjoemiller
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2016
"Solar storms can cause major disruption to human civilization by crippling large electrical power grids, global positioning systems (GPS), satellite operations and communications."

They do more than that. It's known that metabolic activity among humans / animals increases measurably during solar storm / CME (coronal mass ejection) events, and that there are significant increases in the number of human cardiac / stroke events during periods of increased solar storm activity that disrupt Earth's electromagnetic field (EMF). It is well established that around 70% of these disruptions of Earth's EMF can negatively disrupt the bioelectromagnetic fields of the human body.

And yet, for the past decade, this fact has been routinely omitted from nearly all articles like this one, evidence of a prevailing psychology of denial and an entrenched belief that humans are exempt from exoterrestrial processes.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (41) Nov 03, 2016
It is well established that around 70% of these disruptions of Earth's EMF can negatively disrupt the bioelectromagnetic fields of the human body.
i guess that's why so many people die after getting an MRI ...
WOW
thanks for sharing that gem of intellect

would you mind citing the studies or the statistics links for that information?

thanks

.

.

[satirical hyperbole intended]
bschott
2 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2016
i guess...

That's what you do when you know nothing
so many people die after getting an MRI ...
WOW

His post mentioned nothing of death...quit reflecting upon your past.
thanks for sharing that gem of intellect

Maybe he felt sorry for you since he knew you have none of your own
would you mind citing the studies or the statistics links for that information

Pick one of the million that come up when you do a simple search, there are enough facilities doing work that revolves around bio-magnetics to occupy a laymans curiosity for at least a week. So you take the 4 months it will require for you to get through half that, try and remember one thing, and you will have experienced true learning for the first time.
Or stick around and continue to display the record level of ignorance we have come to associate with your posts.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2016
@bschott
Pick one of the million that come up when you do a simple search, there are enough facilities doing work that revolves around bio-magnetics to occupy a laymans curiosity for at least a week. So you take the 4 months it will require for you to get through half that, try and remember one thing, and you will have experienced true learning for the first time.
Or stick around and continue to display the record level of ignorance we have come to associate with your posts.


If jeffreyjoemiller wishes to make a serious contribution to the discussion he must supply support for his claim that solar activity can cause cardiac/stroke events. It is clearly not reasonable to expect his readers to spend "four months" looking for support for his claims. However, you imply you understand the subject, you seem to support the claim, and say one only needs search the internet. So, why don't YOU supply a link to relevant research?
cantdrive85
3.9 / 5 (36) Nov 03, 2016
So now magnetic fields have cracks in them.

Did I mention "magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience". Alfvén

Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (34) Nov 03, 2016
Pick one of the million that come up when you do a simple search
@full-of-bschitt
so, you're saying you can find the statistical evidence as well as correlating studies that validate the claim of
there are significant increases in the number of human cardiac / stroke events during periods of increased solar storm activity that disrupt Earth's electromagnetic field (EMF)
well then why didn't you link it?

i know why you didn't - because there isn't any
just like there isn't any to validate the other quote i used of his

feel free to refute that with actual evidence - after all, you're supporting his post so that means you can provide the relevant evidence to validate his claims

BTW
IF
the EMF of a CME is enough to "negatively disrupt the bioelectromagnetic fields of the human body"
THEN
an MRI should be lethal

and your super-magnet-cancer-killer would be a deadly weapon

but don't let logic interfere with your beliefs - you never have before
LOL
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (33) Nov 03, 2016
Did I mention "magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience". Alfvén
@cantreadTROLL
1- we can prove, with more than 100,000 experiments that validate the evidence, that magnetic reconnection is a well known, validated factual event:
http://www.pppl.g...HEET.pdf

2- repeating a known lie doesn't make it more true, and you've already proven you are knowingly repeating a lie to intentionally spread misinformation due to your fanatical adherence to a cult like religious belief - the eu

3- if you could prove the "opinion" you quoted was factual, you would have linked the studies and validation that refuted the 100K plus that i linked to you years ago

epic fail for the eu
cantdrive85
4.1 / 5 (34) Nov 03, 2016
The data was analyzed and interpreted through extensive simulation over several weeks by using the 1280-core computing farm that was built in-house by the GRAPES-3 team of physicists and engineers at the Cosmic Ray Laboratory in Ooty.

G-G-G-GIGO...
As demonstrated by the obligatory reference of magnetic reconnection pseudoscience. If astrophysicists weren't so completely ignorant for plasma physics hey wouldn't have to rely on pseudoscience to explain already known physics, but they prefer their fanciful MHD fantasyland.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2016
@cantdrive
As demonstrated by the obligatory reference of magnetic reconnection pseudoscience. If astrophysicists weren't so completely ignorant for plasma physics hey wouldn't have to rely on pseudoscience to explain already known physics, but they prefer their fanciful MHD fantasyland


Where is your evidence that magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience?
jeffreyjoemiller
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2016
@ RNP, Captain Stumpy,

Feigin 2014
Persinger 1987
Kay 1994
Raps, Stoupel, and Shimshoni 1992
Kuleshova 2001
Zakharov and Tyrnov 2001
Tarquini, Perfetto, and Tarquini 1998

The research cited above is just a tiny tip of the iceberg. Whole new fields of research have been established over the past two decades re: the impact of exoterrestrial patterns and processes on Earth's biota (including the human organism).

Phys1
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 03, 2016
@jjm
Your first reference, a Lancet meta analysis, at first glance supports none of the claims that you make here.
Please quote the line where they make any such assessment.
https://www.ncbi....4181600/

Your last reference politely DEBUNKS your claims.
https://www.ncbi..../9691735
cantdrive85
4.2 / 5 (31) Nov 03, 2016
Where is your evidence that magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience?

From Cap'n Stoopid's favorite "proof", the PPPL website;
"PPPL's Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) studies this process, which gives rise to astrophysical events that include auroras, solar flares and geomagnetic storms. The process occurs when the magnetic field lines in plasmas break and violently reconnect."

Of course magnetic field lines do not exist, claiming that they break and reconnect is pseudoscience. No more evidence needed.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2016
@jeffreyjoemiller - The Ebner Effect suggests that elicitation of certain epigenetics depends heavily upon the presence of specific E-fields at the moment of germination. With this approach, genetics of former related creatures can elicit. This has so far been observed with corn, trout and ferns, and it seems to suggest that the organism encodes the E-field as a trigger for epigenetics' elicitation of particular DNA. The implication, if true, is that Earth's E-fields might have changed over time.

What is most peculiar about the Ebner Effect, however, is that it's not entirely clear that this is directed at specific organisms. It seems more appropriate to describe it as a means of protecting the SPECIES from dramatic changes.

The effect seems to have far less impact -- possibly none -- as the organism ages.

But, it is possible that some effect does indeed linger as MUTATIONS ...
Phys1
Nov 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2016
@cantdrive
Where is your evidence that magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience?

From Cap'n Stoopid's favorite "proof", the PPPL website;
"PPPL's Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) studies this process, which gives rise to astrophysical events that include auroras, solar flares and geomagnetic storms. The process occurs when the magnetic field lines in plasmas break and violently reconnect."

Of course magnetic field lines do not exist, claiming that they break and reconnect is pseudoscience. No more evidence needed.


So, all you have is opinions!!! No evidence, not even an explanation!!! Why should anybody take you seriously?
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2016
@cantdrive
Of course magnetic field lines do not exist, claiming that they break and reconnect is pseudoscience. No more evidence needed.


Why do you persist in trying to sell this obvious lie? Evidence for magnetic reconnection can be found at the PPPL links to which you have often been pointed before, and from hundreds of other reputable sources. For those actually interested, I personally found the following reference to be interesting: http://www.nature...omms7190

Phys1
Nov 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2016
@jeffreyjoemiller - The Ebner Effect suggests that elicitation of certain epigenetics depends heavily upon the presence of specific E-fields at the moment of germination.


@Phys.org
This is pseudoscience.
Are you supporting it ?
NIPSZX
not rated yet Nov 03, 2016
Is there anything that humans can do to help repair the crack? We stopped using hair spray in the 80's and 90's to combat the ozone depletion and it repaired itself... Unfortunately though, it seems there might not be much we can do to fix a magnetosphere.
gculpex
not rated yet Nov 03, 2016
Is there anything that humans can do to help repair the crack? We stopped using hair spray in the 80's and 90's to combat the ozone depletion and it repaired itself... Unfortunately though, it seems there might not be much we can do to fix a magnetosphere.

It takes time to renormalize the 'shields', perhaps more than decades.
Not every country has stopped using cfc's.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2016
@Rguy

Why do you persist in trying to sell this obvious lie? Evidence for magnetic reconnection can be found at the PPPL links to which you have often been pointed before, and from hundreds of other reputable sources. For those actually interested, I personally found the following reference to be interesting:


So, all you have is opinions!! No evidence, not even an explanation!!! Why should anybody take you seriously?

Guglielmo Tell
not rated yet Nov 03, 2016
Does it make people more stupid or more intelligent?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2016
Zeph must have been banned again, i see he is back to using the sock army

The research cited above is just a tiny tip of the iceberg
@jeffreyjoemiller
for what? surely it's not some evidence to demonstrate you're point in the first post you made, because not one reference you used actually proves your point

more to the point: of those links, there is absolutely no study in them that provides any evidence that supports your claims in your first post

none at all

and i'm not saying EMF doesn't have an effect at all, mind you

but a CME sure as h*ll doesn't cause mass disruptions in the "bioelectromagnetic fields of the human body" and the best evidence for that is the survival of the ISS astronauts - if it was as destructive as you argue, we would never have survivors come back to earth from the ISS

piggybacking on that and Phys1's post - your last link, as noted already, refutes your claims

so your own links argue my point and refute your own argument
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2016
So, all you have is opinions!!! No evidence, not even an explanation!!! Why should anybody take you seriously?

So you obviously believe field lines actually exist in real space, you also obviously have never taken an EE course or studied EM Theory. My statement is not for opinion, it is well established fact.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2016
Why do you persist in trying to sell this obvious lie? Evidence for magnetic reconnection can be found at the PPPL links

The only lie is the pseudoscientists trying to sell magnetic reconnection with their other pseudosciences of frozen-in fields and fanciful ideal gases. Nope, it's the astrophysicists selling lies and deceit.
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2016
@cantdrive85 - confusing math for reality is one of the hallmark patterns of modern science, and there can be no true progress until people learn to tell the difference.
jeffreyjoemiller
1 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2016
more to the point: of those links, there is absolutely no study in them that provides any evidence that supports your claims in your first post


A team of researchers led by Valery Feigin, MD at the Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand, discovered strong evidence connecting geomagnetic activity to increased risk for stroke. Feigin says: "We have known for ages that geomagnetic storms can shut down electrical stations across many regions and affect satellite navigation equipment, so it is logical that they can also affect human health." He warns that "People need to know when these storms are coming" and suggests that "In time we might have a geomagnetic forecast along with the weather forecast." And he matter-of-factly concludes: "As it is known that 2014 is a year of high geomagnetic activity, we can expect a higher stroke rate this year." (Medscape Medical News, 2014).
jeffreyjoemiller
1 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2016
surely it's not some evidence to demonstrate you're point in the first post you made, because not one reference you used actually proves your point


Solar triggered geomagnetic fluctuations have also correlated with heightened anxiety, insomnia, mood alteration, and increases in psychiatric admissions (Persinger 1987, p 92). A study on the relationship between these fluctuations and depression found that hospital admissions of persons with a previous diagnosis of depression rose 36.2% during periods of solar disruption as compared with normal periods (Kay 1994). Raps, Stoupel, and Shimshoni (1992) established a strong correlation between numbers of first psychiatric admissions and solar disruption.
jeffreyjoemiller
1 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2016
surely it's not some evidence to demonstrate you're point in the first post you made, because not one reference you used actually proves your point
t


Kuleshova et al. (2001) documented that the average number of hospitalized patients with mental and cardiovascular diseases increases measurably during solar triggered geomagnetic fluctuations, and that the frequency of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and disruptions of cardial rhythm and brain blood circulation doubles.
jeffreyjoemiller
1 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2016
more to the point: of those links, there is absolutely no study in them that provides any evidence that supports your claims in your first post


Zakharov and Tyrnov (2001) documented an adverse effect of these fluctuations not just on sick people but also on the healthy: "It is commonly agreed that solar activity has adverse effects first of all on enfeebled and ill organisms. In our study we have traced that under conditions of nervous and emotional stresses (at work, in the street, and in cars) the effect may be larger for healthy people".
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2016
Is there anything that humans can do to help repair the crack?

No. The Earth's magnetic field is created by the huge(!) 'dynamo' at the core. For humans to affect this in any significant way would take far, far, FAR more energy than all powerplants produce combined.
Note that this isn't a 'crack' in the sense of a persistent hole. It's just that the magnetic field of the Earth gets deformed due to massive amounts of charged particles hitting it. I.e. the field is weakened on one side of the Earth allwing more cosmic rays (which we are normally shielded from by the magnetic field) to reach the Earth's surface. This is what they mean by 'crack'. The shield just lets some stuff through that it normally wouldn't.

When the particles stop hitting it (i.e. when the CME passes) things go back to normal.
Phys1
Nov 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2016
@jjm
Why do you continue this nonsense
when your OWN references do not support your case?
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2016

So, all you have is opinions!! No evidence, not even an explanation!!! Why should anybody take you seriously?

Not distinguishing evidence from opinions is another hallmark of the crackpot.
RNP
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2016
@Benni
@Rguy

Why do you persist in trying to sell this obvious lie? Evidence for magnetic reconnection can be found at the PPPL links to which you have often been pointed before, and from hundreds of other reputable sources. For those actually interested, I personally found the following reference to be interesting:


So, all you have is opinions!! No evidence, not even an explanation!!! Why should anybody take you seriously?



Wow! You do not consider laboratory experiments observing magnetic reconnection as evidence for its existence? Incredible! Unfortunately, this clearly shows that the blindness caused by your obsessions means you will never see the truth, even if it is presented to you.
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2016
@cantdrive
Why do you persist in trying to sell this obvious lie? Evidence for magnetic reconnection can be found at the PPPL links

The only lie is the pseudoscientists trying to sell magnetic reconnection with their other pseudosciences of frozen-in fields and fanciful ideal gases. Nope, it's the astrophysicists selling lies and deceit.


I say the same to you as to Benni: How do you explain the thousands of laboratory experiments (NOT carried out by astrophysicists, by the way) that OBSERVE magnetic reconnection?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2016
I say the same to you as to Benni: How do you explain the thousands of laboratory experiments (NOT carried out by astrophysicists, by the way) that OBSERVE magnetic reconnection?

You are confounding a real physical event, an explosive transfer of energy (likely an exploding outlet layer), and a hypothetical description (magnetic reconnection) of said events.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2016
@ Rguy,

Wow! You do not consider laboratory experiments observing magnetic reconnection as evidence for its existence? Incredible! Unfortunately, this clearly shows that the blindness caused by your obsessions means you will never see the truth, even if it is presented to you


I say the same to you as to Benni: How do you explain the thousands of laboratory experiments (NOT carried out by astrophysicists, by the way) that OBSERVE magnetic reconnection


So, all you have is opinions!! No evidence, not even an explanation!! Why should anybody take you seriously?

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2016
*Edit* - (likely an exploding outlet layer) should read *likely an exploding double layer*...

Confounded autocorrect...
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2016
@jeffjoe
ok, lets talk about feigin first
A team of researchers led by Valery Feigin...
1- correlation doesn't equal causation

2- population size in the study was only 2,195, a ridiculously low sample size which could also show correlation between US spending on Science/space/tech and Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation (note the much higher numbers in *my* link)
http://tylervigen...?id=1597

3- a singular study shows a point of potential interest - that's it
but a singular study with a far, far too low sample size that doesn't correlate with people under similar or higher exposure is...?

4- MED history of the ISS astronauts demonstrates a different correlation

5- MED history of MRI patients also show a different history

so you are simply attempting to find a link to support your belief in something
show me a sample size of, say, the US (or at least NYC/CA/FL combined) & then we can talk more
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2016
@jeffjoe cont'd
all these have something in common
Solar triggered geomagnetic fluctuations have also correlated with...
http://tylervigen...n?id=359

Kuleshova et al. (2001) documented ...

http://tylervigen...ion?id=7

Zakharov and Tyrnov (2001) documented
http://tylervigen...?id=1703

something else to consider: my sample sizes are considerably larger than your reference sample sizes, so does that mean my information is more accurate?

another point: how many of these studies were shown to have a connected cause by intentional exposure to heightened fields during experimentation

something that is considerably stronger and more likely to affect the person due to range, exposure time and strength... you know, like an MRI

show me a study that makes the correlation then tests it with exposure to EMF fields proving cause
RNP
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2016
@cantdrive
@Benni
Despite your denials, I (and many others) have provided ample evidence that magnetic reconnection (i.e. "an explosive transfer of energy") is OBSERVED in laboratories around the world every day. In response all the two of you do is dodge the issue. Do you not realize how much you undermine your own credibility with such silly behaviour?
bschott
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2016
@ Stumpid the useless
If it was the cardio issues you were disputing, you should have quoted that part of JJM's post. Since you didn't a quick search of what you did choose to dispute showed how mindless your comment was.
@RNP - As usual, learn to read. I responded to the comment that was made about the part of the post that was quoted. If you want someone to deal with other aspects of the post, ask the person who posted it originally.
@Phys1
Your mom says you have a month to find your own place, and you had better learn how to operate a washing machine, dryer and toaster before you leave....and she also says to take your toys....whatever that means.
Phys1
Nov 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2016
If it was the cardio issues you were disputing, you should have quoted
@full-of-bsch*tt
why?
i think the links i used speak volumes

notice that we do NOT see a correlation between MRI's and death?

that point is important:
IF he is correct
just like IF you are correct in your "cancer killer"
there would be a huge upspike in EMF exposure and death (or killing cancer) simply by watching the statistics of anyone using or getting an MRI

we don't

case closed
Phys1
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2016
@Phys.org
Why do you allow these psychopaths to dominate this blog, unhindered?
You are a disservice to science.
Your guidelines are a joke.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2016
@cantdrive
@Benni
Despite your denials, I (and many others) have provided ample evidence that magnetic reconnection (i.e. "an explosive transfer of energy") is OBSERVED in laboratories around the world every day.

An explosive event yes, MR absolutely not. You see, a real event cannot be described by pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. That's what those who claim MR rely upon, pseudoscience.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2016
@Phys.org
Why do you allow these psychopaths to dominate this blog, unhindered?
You are a disservice to science.
Your guidelinesite are a joke.

They are doing their job just fine, note they have removed the psychopath's comments as needed...
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2016
@cantdrive
@cantdrive
@Benni
Despite your denials, I (and many others) have provided ample evidence that magnetic reconnection (i.e. "an explosive transfer of energy") is OBSERVED in laboratories around the world every day.

An explosive event yes, MR absolutely not. You see, a real event cannot be described by pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. That's what those who claim MR rely upon, pseudoscience.


So the plasma physicists that observe these explosive events are confused, are they? They are mistaking this effect for MR when it is actually........ what exactly? Come on, you claim to be so knowledgeable! What, in your opinion, is actually causing these explosive events? Where is the evidence? Why not publish? You should get a least a paper out of this if, as you claim, you are the only one that truly understands this science!

I am betting that you have NO real answers to these questions and will just obfuscate.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2016
What, in your opinion, is actually causing these explosive events? Where is the evidence? Why not publish?

The cause of these events was discovered about 80 years ago, and have been written up for decades. Unlike the ignorant astrophysicists, I don't find it necessary to re-invent the wheel;

http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf
Note where Alfven describes MR as being pseudoscience.

And this is not new, this exploding double layer mechanism was proposed way back in the 60's;

http://link.sprin...?LI=true

So yes, there is an explanation, the exploding DL, and yes it has already been published. But it would seem that you, along with most of the astrophysicists are ignorant of even fundamental plasma processes such as DL's.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2016
The cause of these events was discovered about 80 years ago, and have been written up for decades
@cantthinkTROLL
then why aren't you linking the references or study authors/date/journal publication?

maybe because your bullsh*t has been found that it's either falsified or it is now called "magnetic reconnection"?
Note where Alfven describes MR...
note on my link ( here: http://www.pppl.g...HEET.pdf ) where the *evidence* proves him wrong

so, per your requirement that just making a claim is true, regardless of the evidence, then if i make a claim you're a rapist, or a serial killer, then it must be true, right?
So yes, there is an explanation,
we already know what it is: http://www.pppl.g...nnection

just because you make a claim doesn't mean it is true, especially when the evidence directly proves you wrong (and a blatant liar)
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2016
Here is another account of double layers:
https://en.wikipe...physics)
It does not exactly claim an important role for them in astrophysics.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2016
Magnetic reconnection is just sudden current dissipation.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2016
Here is another account of double layers:
https://en.wikipe...physics)
It does not exactly claim an important role for them in astrophysics.

Yes, because astrophysicists are ignorant of DL's, as shown in Alfven's presentation to NASA and further confirmed via the cited paper.

Magnetic reconnection is just sudden current dissipation.


That brings to mind Alfven's comment "every inductive circuit carrying a current is intrinsically explosive". When the current is disrupted all of the energy stored in the circuit will be released in a sudden outburst at the point of disruption. Non-local energy is available, as such explains the unexpected energy related with these outbursts. Alfven con't;
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2016
"A simple mechanism of explosion is the following: the double
layer can be considered as a diode for electrons combined with
a reverse diode for ions, limited by a slab of plasma on the
cathode side and another slab on the anode side. Electrons
starting from the cathode get accelerated in the diode and impinge
upon the anode slab with a considerable momentum which
they transfer to the plasma. Similarly, accelerated ions
transfer momentum to the cathode slab. When more energy is
supplied from the outer circuit the result is that the anode
and cathode plasma columns rre pushed away from each other.
When the distance betweeen the electrons in the diodes becomes
larger the drop in voltage increases. This run-away phenomenon
leads to an explosion."
It's well explained, with understood EE concepts which treats the plasma with circuit/particle models that more accurately describe the plasma and do not omit fundamental properties of plasmas such as DL's in the way MHD models do.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2016
Hi Phys1 and cantdrive. :)

Am I seeing/sensing yet another slow but sure 'meeting of minds' in this tread/topic/issue as well? I just noted one such between Phys1 and Benni in another tread/topic/issue. Is this a new trend in PO discussion? I trust so; as it is much appreciated (by me at least, if not by all genuine readers/participants on this site).

PS: Like in that other thread, I again hope that in future less insults/barbs accompany the discourse on the science issues. Good luck. :)
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2016
Hi Phys1 and cantdrive.
Am I seeing/sensing yet another slow but sure 'meeting of minds' in this tread/topic/issue as well? I just noted one such between Phys1 and Benni in another tread/topic/issue. Is this a new trend in PO discussion? I trust so; as it is much appreciated (by me at least, if not by all genuine readers/participants on this site).

PS: Like in that other thread, I again hope that in future less insults/barbs accompany the discourse on the science issues. Good luck. :)


No RC, it is not a "new trend"......it is a condition forced upon Phys 1 because there is a Moderator that has gotten around to doing his job of deleting the foul mouthed filth that has so purveyed his Commentary in this chatroom for so long. He'll be right back at it just as soon as he's got it figured out he can get away with it again. This is a Social Networking site to him, not a site for the Discussion of Science, he comes here solely for the purpose of blowing off his anger.
Phys1
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2016
@Benni
You repeat false accusations of "foul mouthed filth" in every post.
You are a plagiarist.
You defame scientists in every post without ever showing any substance.
I honestly don't know why you haven't been flushed of this site years ago.
There is no meeting of minds and moderation is still highly defective.

tear88
Nov 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2016
@Benni
You repeat false accusations of "foul mouthed filth" in every post.
You are a plagiarist.
You defame scientists in every post without ever showing any substance.
I honestly don't know why you haven't been flushed of this site years ago.
There is no meeting of minds and moderation is still highly defective.


See what I mean RC.......more anger.

Hey, ever notice who his two most frequent 5 Star upvoters are? Yeah, yyz & RNP, and it never matters how much name calling filth he spews out of his foul mouth, they give him 5 Stars.

RNP & yyz are also Phys 1, he uses two different devices to post & upvote his foul mouth in addition to Phys 1. He's also used Physman, my2cts, chileastro & a couple more I don't offhand recall.
Phys1
3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2016
@Benni
There is no "name calling" in my post and no anger.
I have proven you a plagiarist and that you are yourself "foul mouthed".
I am concerned about the failing moderation on this blog,
which allows an ignoramus to continue defaming science.

RNP & yyz are also Phys 1, he uses two different devices to post & upvote his foul mouth in addition to Phys 1. He's also used Physman, my2cts, chileastro & a couple more I don't offhand recall.

my2cts was my previous alias, as I have always stated up front in the relevant posts.
The rest is produced by your imbalanced imagination.
Get well soon.
Phys1
Nov 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2016
Guys, Guys! For f*ck's sake, give it a rest, will ya?!

Mainstream/Alternatives discoursers, professional and amateur alike, are in the process of reconciling many past infantile animosities based on old and now increasingly discredited assumptions and antagonisms etc which only held back true science/understanding rather than helped anyone except egotistical personalities and trolls alike to push their own barrows because they confused everything so much that no-one saw through all the crap until more recent discoveries/revisions began to untangle the gems from the dross.

Serious and genuine mainstream/non-mainstream players with good will and no grudges are MOVING ON from all these past personal/ego feuds and irrelevances!

How about doing the same, guys?

MOVE ON. Stop the childish crap from ALL 'sides', will ya? It isn't helping anything.

Just post POLITE ON-SCIENCE points/arguments etc; BE CONSTRUCTIVE to science/humanity. Stop the feuds; behave like grown ups. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.