Team produces unique simulation of magnetic reconnection

September 8, 2017, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Northern lights as seen over Norway. Credit: Jan R. Olsen

Jonathan Ng, a Princeton University graduate student at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), has for the first time applied a fluid simulation to the space plasma process behind solar flares northern lights and space storms. The model could lead to improved forecasts of space weather that can shut down cell phone service and damage power grids, as well as to better understanding of the hot, charged plasma gas that fuels fusion reactions.

The new simulation captures the physics of magnetic , the breaking apart and snapping together of the magnetic field lines in that occurs throughout the universe. The simulations approximate kinetic effects in a fluid code, which treats plasma as a flowing liquid, to create a more detailed picture of the reconnection process.

Previous simulations used fluid codes to produce simplified descriptions of reconnection that takes place in the vastness of space, where widely separated plasma particles rarely collide. However, this collisionless environment gives rise to kinetic effects on plasma behavior that fluid models cannot normally capture.

Estimation of kinetic behavior

The new estimates . "This is the first application of this particular fluid model in studying reconnection physics in space plasmas," said Ng, lead author of the findings reported in August in the journal Physics of Plasmas.

Ng and coauthors approximated kinetic effects with a series of fluid equations based on plasma density, momentum and pressure. They concluded the process through a mathematical technique called "closure" that enabled them to describe the kinetic mixing of particles from non-local, or large-scale, regions. The type of closure involved was originally developed by PPPL physicist Greg Hammett and the late Rip Perkins in the context of fusion plasmas, making its application to the space plasma environment an example of fruitful cross-fertilization.

The completed results agreed better with kinetic models as compared with simulations produced by traditional fluid codes. The new simulations could extend understanding of reconnection to whole regions of space such as the magnetosphere, the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth, and provide a more comprehensive view of the universal process.

Explore further: Physicists uncover clues to mechanism behind magnetic reconnection

More information: Jonathan Ng et al, Simulations of anti-parallel reconnection using a nonlocal heat flux closure, Physics of Plasmas (2017). DOI: 10.1063/1.4993195

Related Stories

Japanese researchers find new classes of electron orbits

October 5, 2016

Phenomena like solar flares and auroras are consequences of magnetic reconnection in the near-Earth space. These "magnetic reconnection" events are akin to magnetic explosions that accelerate particles as they rapidly change ...

Studying magnetic space explosions with NASA missions

March 9, 2017

Every day, invisible magnetic explosions are happening around Earth, on the surface of the sun and across the universe. These explosions, known as magnetic reconnection, occur when magnetic field lines cross, releasing stored ...

Recommended for you

X-rays reveal chirality in swirling electric vortices

January 16, 2018

Scientists used spiraling X-rays at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) to observe, for the first time, a property that gives handedness to swirling electric patterns – dubbed ...

Quan­tum physics turned into tan­gi­ble re­al­ity

January 16, 2018

ETH physicists have developed a silicon wafer that behaves like a topological insulator when stimulated using ultrasound. They have thereby succeeded in turning an abstract theoretical concept into a macroscopic product.

Slow 'hot electrons' could improve solar cell efficiency

January 16, 2018

Photons with energy higher than the band gap of the semiconductor absorbing them give rise to what are known as hot electrons. The extra energy in respect to the band gap is lost very fast, as it is converted into heat and ...

225 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2017
"Magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience" Alfven

Such as claims like;
the breaking apart and snapping together of the magnetic field lines in plasma

Utterly pseudoscientific!
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (17) Sep 08, 2017
And, of course, the Cult of Lightning adherents jump in to toss around their usual garbage wrapped in pseudoscientific jargon.

Cantthink and Gish-galloping Chris. I can;t think of a worthier combination to ridicule.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (17) Sep 08, 2017
Re: "I can;t think of a worthier combination to ridicule."

And yet all we are doing is quoting Alfven, recounting the crucial history which these press releases always leave out, and pointing out that fluids models are inappropriate for modeling phenomena like aurora which plainly exhibit EMF.

Importance of electric fields in modeling space plasmas
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
George K. Parks

"no new currents will be generated & ideal MHD theory is restricted to describing only preexisting electromagnetic fields & currents that are frozen in the plasma. This theory cannot account for the production of boundaries nor can it describe dynamic phenomena SUCH AS AURORAS & flares that require generation of new currents. The importance of currents in dynamic plasmas has been repeatedly emphasized by Alfven ."

No GG Chris, you are presenting his material as if nothing has been learned in the 40+ years since he said those things. You are a fraud.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2017
The Plasma Universe of Hannes Alfven
David Talbott

http://coincider....e-09.pdf

"But the critical turn in this story, the part almost never told within the community of astronomers and astrophysicists, is that Alfvén came to realize he had been mistaken. Ironically -- and to his credit -- Alfvén used the occasion of his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize to plead with scientists to ignore his earlier work. Magnetic fields, he said, are only part of the story. The electric currents that create magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis, he said."

One would think that readers should be informed that the creator of MHD distanced himself from the way in which MHD is being applied by the astrophysical community.


40 years ago. Fraud.
shavera
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2017
Can anyone find an actual prediction from EU? Like a real scientific prediction, like "A magnetometer placed at this location will measure x ± y gauss?" that isn't otherwise explained by conventional physics? Not qualitative wishy-washy "but look at the shape of this thing, isn't it neat?" An actual hard fact that EU predicts from its assumptions, calculated out through actual mathematics, that conventional physics calculations arrive at a different value.

Even if no experiment has ever been undertaken to make this measurement, are there any actual predictions that someone could, in principle, test?
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2017
Re: "you are presenting his material as if nothing has been learned in the 40+ years since he said those things"

The passage of time will not magically add EMF to a fluids-based model.

No, dumdum, it is the study of the subject over time that will add the to knowledge we have of the subject - including corrections of past mistakes and misunderstandings.

Well, except for those associated with the Giant Lightning Bolt Cult of Phanidiots, who think knowledge over time does not grow.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 08, 2017
Re: "Can anyone find an actual prediction from EU?"

Have you tried Googling "electric universe predictions"?


Yep. Good for a laugh! They have gotten nothing right, and they change their "predictions" whenever they are proven wrong.

Can you show a prediction they got wrong GG Chris?
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2017
Activity should never be lazily confused with progress.
Nor should your lack of understanding confused with realism.
So, what does it mean when graduate students are not even informed that Alfven rejected the way in which MHD is being applied?
It means we have moved past his lack of understanding. You should try that.
And what does it mean that there is still no recognition in the reporting that all of the current theories in the space sciences are rooted in the empty vacuum of space mistake?
This means nothing, it is just an example proving that you do not know what you are talking about.
How can progress occur if there is not even reporting on basic historical facts?
Progress does not rely on fallacy.

You are a fraud.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2017
Another example ...

http://www.plasma...ormation

"In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament.[3]

The simulation began with two spherical clouds of plasma trapped in parallel magnetic filaments, each carrying a current of around 1018 amperes. The clouds spin around each other until a spiral shape emerges. Peratt concluded that the shapes seen in the simulation appeared similar to observed galaxy shapes, and posited a morphological sequence that corresponded to Halton Arp's ideas that galaxies formed out of quasars ejected from AGN.[4] Perrat's spirals had qualitatively flat rotation curves."

Gish gallop.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2017
The MHD #physicscranks make up extraneous objections and get pwnt. Amusing to watch but basically knee-jerk responses to the term "reconnection" in the title.

Still haven't seen any realistic response to my discussion of reconnection many months ago. The #physicscranks never responded with any rational refutation of it.

Happy to reprise it if anyone has a realistic explanation of it, but mere denials without evidence deserve no response and will receive none. Tired of dealing with #physicscranks.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2017
Still no explanation by #physicscranks of why reconnection is wrong, just more blather and bombast.

C'mon, #physicscranks, explain why magnetic reconnection is wrong in detail instead of just saying "it's wrong" over and over.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2017
#physicscrank @reeve can't explain it, gives unrelated "evidence" from famous names trying to pretend this has any relevance. Famous names won't do it. You'll need to make actual arguments and produce evidence to support them. No name spamming.

Try some more and see what you get. I'm here waiting.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2017
So far #physicscrank @reeve, you've done worse than not saying anything at all; your supposed arguments don't say anything about reconnection and they have nothing to do with plasmas, MHD, or anything else that's on topic. It makes it apparent you're dishonest and not willing to admit you don't even know what's being argued about.

If you have no better than this it's apparent reconnection is correct and you can't even make a coherent argument against it because you don't even understand what it means.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2017
Alfven's 1942 Theorem, called Alfven's Theorem, the Frozen In Theorem, and other names indicates that you are merely hand-waving, #physicscrank @Reeve. It's a theorem; post a disproof. You don't have any or someone would have shown it in the 70 years since then.

You can't make up lies about mathematical theorems like you can about physical theories. If you have the error in the proof show the math and present it, if you can't you're full of sxxt. It's as simple as that.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2017
What these quotes do not show is a specific refutation of Alven's proof for the Frozen In Theorem he himself derived from Maxwell's Equations.

You haven't presented that either. Until you do you're full of sxxt and there's no way to deny that. Bring the math or admit, tacitly or actively, that you're lying. No questions, no doubts, no horsepucky. Either you got the math or you don't, and quotes ain't it.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2017
No, it's not called "rabid," it's called "rigorous." It's the standard mathematicians hold to for proofs and refutations of proofs, which are what theorems stand or fall by.

Theorems are not theories, and the difference is your point of ignorance. To disprove a theorem you have to show an error in the math. If you don't have any then you are shown to be lying. It's as simple as that.

I'm looking for a mathematical disproof. You aren't giving one. The conclusion is obvious. It doesn't matter whether you have the personal integrity to admit it or not; anyone who knows math knows about you from your own statements:
1. Alfven's Theorem is a lie.
2. I don't have any proof.

OK, we accept your lack of proof. Where do you want to go from here?
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2017
Trying to discuss science with a EU Cultist - especially Chris Reeve - is like arguing with an actor on TV. Nothing you say matters, he knows nothing about dialog, he only knows to stick to the mantra he is given because it is the only thing he knows.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 08, 2017
Exhibit 1: James Van Allen

"I found Dr. Van Allen in Boston, at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was conferring with other space scientists. That evening, over dinner, I asked him about newly discovered phenomena of 'empty' space. 'Most people still think of space as a cold, black vacuum,' I said. 'Is it true that scientists shared this misconception until very recently?'

'Most scientists did think of space as a barren waste,' he said. 'When we started getting real information, it was quite a revelation.'"


Exhibit 2: Einstein...
Exhibit 3: Eddington...
Exhibit 4: The Positivists...
Exhibit 5: Hannes Alfven...
Exhibit 6: Sydney Chapman...



Gish gallop.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2017
@Maggnus, I'd be comfortable if I thought everyone reading this understood what Alfven said and what it means, never mind knowing the difference between a theorem and a theory. But I think it's worth saying because I don't think everyone reading this knows that.

That's OK. I'm willing to let #physicscrank @Reeve flail while trying to pretend to "facts" it doesn't have; I think this is more revealing when it is elicited from the #physicscrank. Let them flail and thrash around trying quoting people instead of posting the math, and trying to pretend mathematical theorems aren't proven with mathematics. At least the smarts will get it, I don't expect to convince stupids like #physicscrank @Reeve #denier.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2017
I mean, c'mon now, anyone who's even an Electronics Technician much less an Electronics Engineer, we use these approximate Maxwell Equations-derived Ohm's and Joule's Laws, and Kirchoff's Laws and Thevenin's Theorems based on them, to design, troubleshoot, and analyze and repair electronic circuits in our daily work. They work fine. If this is good enough to make the First Approximation for EE, why isn't it good enough to make the First Approximation for plasmas? Alfven's Theorem is the Ohm's Law of plasmas. Go look at it and use your EE. Tell me I'm wrong, if you can say why, and I'll have an answer; I am, after all, an EE myself, so I better have.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2017
#physicscrank @Reeve, sorry but you are denying a mathematical theorem without mathematical proof. This is not credible, it doesn't pass the first test. Either you have mathematical proof or you don't, and it doesn't matter what you or I stated other than that. There isn't any lie you can make up that will get around denying a theorem without proof. Either you have rigorous proof or you do not and if you do not you are lying. That's all there is to be said and I'll say it as many times as I have to.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2017
If you want to do the math, here are the equations to start with: https://en.wikipe...nvention They're the ones Alfven started from, and they're the ones every EE and ET learns first.

You'll want to look at Faraday's and Ampere's Laws. Gauss' Laws merely define the electric and magnetic flux.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2017
If you want to look at Alfven's Theorem you can find it here: https://en.wikipe...tatement

You'll need to know enough math to derive it from Maxwell's Equations, but it's not very difficult. I'd venture to say that if you can't figure it out you shouldn't be talking about plasmas in the first place since you don't know enough about EM to do so.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2017
Good, @Reeve, then you understand that math is math, and it doesn't matter what the history is. That's a big step forward.

The proofs for Newton's Laws are just as good today as they were when he wrote the Principia 300 years ago.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2017
If you really want to understand Newton, you have to read the Principia and actually understand how he thought calculus worked. It's a very interesting sidelight on modern Leibnitz derived calculus that can open new doors of understanding once you get it. Many people say that Newton's fluctions and Leibnitz' calculus are "the same;" they are not. They are equivalent, which is quite different from "the same."
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2017
If you really want to visualize how reconnection works, this is probably your best bet: https://en.wikipe...tion.gif

If your ability to visualize 3D is good, that picture will tell you everything you need to know. It's when two magnetic fields combine, at the point where they combine. Neither one gets canceled; they reconnect, forming two new fields. They can't cancel; no real magnetic field is shaped right to do that.
691Boat
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2017
If you really want to understand Newton, you have to read the Principia and actually understand how he thought calculus worked. It's a very interesting sidelight on modern Leibnitz derived calculus that can open new doors of understanding once you get it. Many people say that Newton's fluctions and Leibnitz' calculus are "the same;" they are not. They are equivalent, which is quite different from "the same."


Kind of a side note here, but if you ever get the chance to read Newton's "Opticks", I highly recommend it just for the reason of being able to see his observations from his own point of view, which were extremely fascinating. I could feel the excitement in his writing about the visible spectrum experimentation he conducted.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2017
@691 I wish I could say I had read Opticks. I may if I live long enough; it's on my list. Good one man.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 08, 2017
If you're laughing at math then you don't understand science and never will, #physicscrank @Reeve #denier. Math doesn't depend on history. If it's a theorem a thousand years ago, it's a theorem today, and if it's a theorem today it will be a theorem in a thousand years from now. That's how math works.

Pythagoras' Theorem, if it was invented by the Babylonians as has been mooted by a recent article here on physorg, is getting on close to 4,000 years old. And it's as true today as it was then.

Math is math. Get over it.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2017
I repeat, #physicscrank @Reeve #denier, the Pythagorean Theorem is at least 2000 years old and probably 4000. It's still math, and it doesn't even really matter who invented it; it's still easily proven in a number of ways.

Math is math. There isn't any "worldview," there isn't any "selection," there is only a mathematical proof (or in your case, the lack of one). That's the thing about math.

a² + b² = c²

Alfven's Theorem rests on a foundation just as solid.

There simply isn't any more.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2017
#physicscrank #mathcrank @Reeve #denier, if you want to disprove Alven's Theorem you'll need to start by disproving Maxwell's Equations.

On a computer in order to post your disproof on the Internets. A computer designed and built using Maxwell's Equations.

Good luck with that. Just sayin'.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2017
#physicscrank #mathcrank @Reeve #denier, sorry man but you don't understand the "debate" over reconnection if you claim it's not about math. That's #stupid.

If you're an EE tell me how you are disproving Maxwell's Equations to render Alfven's Theorem invalid. I'm waiting here. You haven't said anything that requires all that EE training you claim to have had. Why is that?
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2017
Here's Alfven's Theorem:

∫(S) B ∙ dS = k

Note the use of the B field; this is a vector equation, where B and S are vectors. k is a constant, indicating that the vectors of B and S are jointly conserved across the dot product. You can see the fully vectorized equation in the section of the Wikipedia article on Alfven's Theorem I linked above.

Once again, if you claim the derivation is incorrect, #physicscrank #mathcrank @Reeve #denier, please show your work. If you can't then everyone knows you are lying. That's the thing about math; everyone can tell if you lie. There is no place to run, and no place to hide.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2017
The meaning of Alfven's Theorem is, the B field through a surface moving along with a fluid (including a plasma) is constant. The implication is that the E field over the volume enclosed by the moving surface is also constant, and the movement of the plasma is constant as well.

As I discussed above, in a real plasma, the resistance is non-zero, so this equation is not precisely correct for a real plasma, and in addition one must define the surface so that the volume is constant not in spatial terms but in terms of the number of particles of the fluid enclosed, in order to keep the charge enclosed constant. The reasons for these constraints will be obvious to anyone who knows Gauss' Laws from the Maxwell Equations.

#physicscrank #mathcrank @Reeve #electronicsdenier it must be comforting to imagine that math is wrong because you're #toodumbtogetmath even though you're posting your BS on the Internets.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2017
Oh, and I still haven't seen any evidence that #physicscrank #mathcrank @Reeve #electronicsdenier has an EE. As far as I can see this person is a not-very-talented ET with no degree claiming to be an EE.

The math is all on this thread. Not one peep of math from this supposed "EE." Sounds like a degree from The Air University, the same one that gives degrees in Air Guitar.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2017
See, real EEs don't just learn "electronics stuff." You have to have the math to get the degree. No way out. So if you see someone who claims to be an "EE" who can't do the math, you know for certain they're lying.
MRBlizzard
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2017
Could similar calculations be applied to model creation of radio waves from a pulsar?
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2017
Could similar calculations be applied to model creation of radio waves from a pulsar?
Probably not. The radio from a pulsar is currently hypothesized to be generated by the strong magnetic field of the pulsar causing jets of ejected protons and electrons which decelerate in the magnetic field and emit signals from X-rays down to microwaves, not by plasmas, and driven by the rotation of the pulsar. But it must be admitted that the mechanism of the emission is not known with any high certainty, so it could be, if our hypotheses are wrong or incomplete.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2017
I did some more research, @MRBlizzard.

The magnetic field lines along the axis are open due to their speed approaching the speed of light as they diverge from the poles of the pulsar. Magnetobremsstrahlung (synchrotron radiation) is extremely likely to cause most of the radiation, as the electrons are accelerated along the open but still curved field lines that pass through the cone in which they must hit the speed of light due to the rotation of the pulsar and become open; these electrons will emit bremsstrahlung until they can break away from the curved field lines. This accounts well for the observed radiation properties of the pulsars and the calculations of their spin axes from other properties.

You can find an extensive discussion of this here: http://www.cv.nra...ars.html Look in the "Emission Mechanisms" section. They call the magnetobremsstrahlung "curvature radiation."

That's the best I got.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2017
I left something out: the full action involves the bremsstrahlung pumping up fields of electrons about one wavelength in size resulting in MASER action among these fields; this is the actual source of the radiation. We don't see much of the bremsstrahlung because most of it is consumed in activating these regions of charge rather than directly emitted along the magnetic field lines.

This is some very interesting stuff, but pretty complicated, and the complete mechanism is not understood. But it seems pretty clear that we know a lot about the dynamics in these areas because we can see them with radiotelescopes. Meanwhile, your Word for the Day is magnetobremsstrahlung. Have fun.

And in any case, it seems unlikely that magnetic reconnection has anything to do with any of this.
Ojorf
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2017
Re: "Math doesn't depend on history."

Perhaps not, but the worldview which inspires the selection of the equations certainly does!


I though experimental data inspires and selects the equations.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2017
@Maggnus, I'd be comfortable if I thought everyone reading this understood what Alfven said and what it means, never mind knowing the difference between a theorem and a theory. But I think it's worth saying because I don't think everyone reading this knows that.

That's OK. I'm willing to let #physicscrank @Reeve flail while trying to pretend to "facts" it doesn't have; I think this is more revealing when it is elicited from the #physicscrank. Let them flail and thrash around trying quoting people instead of posting the math, and trying to pretend mathematical theorems aren't proven with mathematics. At least the smarts will get it, I don't expect to convince stupids like #physicscrank @Reeve #denier.
Yea DS I get where you're coming from, and I like your approach. I just find the continual resurrection of the EU zombie arguments tedious. His flailing about here is typical, but he also frequents other sites where he is not always taken to task. That is the danger.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2017
6 examples were provided, with links to original quotes, to demonstrate that a huge mistake lurks at the root of the astrophysical and cosmological disciplines.
It demonstrates no such thing. The progress of science is based on the scientific method. Look that up GGChris.
We can fairly say that the ideas which currently dominate in astrophysics and cosmology are PRE-SPACE AGE.
This is so wrong, it's actually laughable!
The realization that space is permeated by plasma can fairly be called the biggest realization of the Space Age.
Poppycock! 1st, it preceded the space age, 2nd the biggest realization is the origin of the cosmos. You can't even get history right #denier.
Those who would have us believe that these things mean nothing are practicing a form of denial.
Fallacy, no one said this.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2017
We can fairly say that the ideas which currently dominate in astrophysics and cosmology are PRE-SPACE AGE.

This is so wrong, it's actually laughable.

Examples;
General Relativity- 1915 or so, and prior to the scientific plagerist (Einstein) the 17th century. Definitively pre-space age.
Stellar internal fusion beliefs/guesses- Eddington 1925 or so. Also definitively pre-space age.
Belief in pseudoscientific black holes and faerie dust dark matter- Both invented in the '30's, pre-space age.
It would seem as if maggnuts prefers revisionism and lies to reality and truth.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2017
The realization that space is permeated by plasma can fairly be called the biggest realization of the Space Age.

Poppycock! 1st, it preceded the space age, 2nd the biggest realization is the origin of the cosmos. You can't even get history right #denier.

It did preceed the space age, by folks such as Alfven and Birkeland, however it was by no means generally accepted by the scientific community as the very reason Birkeland's and Alfven's predictions (auroral dynamics/origin, galactic magnetic fields, etc.) were derided because these could not work in the vacuum of outer space.
More revisionism, lies, and obfuscation by maggnuts. Good job!
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2017
General Relativity- 1915 or so, and prior to the scientific plagerist (Einstein) the 17th century. Definitively pre-space age.
GR has passed every test it has been subjected to, EU has passed none.
Stellar internal fusion beliefs/guesses- Eddington 1925 or so. Also definitively pre-space age.
the usual can'tthink bs. Observations, they are so hard for the Acolytes of the Magic Lightning!
Belief in pseudoscientific black holes and faerie dust dark matter- Both invented in the '30's, pre-space age. It would seem as if maggnuts prefers revisionism and lies to reality and truth.
Ah can'tthink you are such a bundle of stupid wrapped in a cloak of ignorance surrounded by a wrapping of religious fervor. No wonder most every science site bans your dumb ass.
cantdrive85
2.9 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2017
Nice attempt to changing the subject after I pointed out quite concisely how you revised history and lied. Typical behavior maggnuts, why am I not surprised by your deplorable character.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2017
(It is truly remarkable how many corrections are required for some of the commenters here on even just the basic facts of what has occurred in the space sciences.)

You mean such as the following nonsensical blather?

"Poppycock! 1st, it preceded the space age, 2nd the biggest realization is the origin of the cosmos. You can't even get history right #denier."

1st, you are wrong again. As the following paper states;
https://www.googl...zCGn174Q
2nd, the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed his 'creatio ex nihilo' church supported creation event (Big Bang) back in 1927, 30-years prior to the Space-Age.
Lies, revisionism, and further obfuscation by maggnuts.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Sep 10, 2017
In my discussions with people online, it has become apparent that very few people understand what a worldview is.
Pot, meet kettle.
It's very important that people struggle with this notion, because most of the more important debates in the sciences today are worldview debates (sometimes called paradigm disputes).
Facts do not care what your worldview is.
To the extent that a person cannot identify what a worldview generally is, it suggests that they are SUBJECT TO their own worldview. The first step to having any chance of questioning one's own ideology is to know what a worldview is.
I laugh that you think you can lecture others. You are the worst of the stereotypes you are trying to portray, a mouth spout with no facts or science to back you up. Look in the mirror fraud.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2017
Look in the mirror fraud.

After he makes this statement before trying to change the subject again;
This is so wrong, it's actually laughable
and;
Poppycock!

Pot, meet kettle...
What lies are you gonna tell now?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2017
I think it hilarious that these two cultists continue to post their nonsense in the face of the utter and universal ridicule heaped on their religion by actual scientists. Only a religious fervor could maintain such a convoluted view of the ideals presented by these Acolytes and the charlatans they represent.

Chris is just delusional, and writes about science as if his opinion and worldview make some difference to the facts and observations. He seems to think that if he orates well enough that he will somehow overcome the actual observations.

Can'tthink is just stupid and has demonstrated a capacity to believe anything as long as it prima facie supports his world view that scientists are in cahoots with each other against the rest of humanity.

That's describes a world view Chris, not this sacerdotal posturing you are doing here on behalf of a laughable religionistic pseudoscience.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2017
I think it's hilarious to see one of these #physicscranks pretending to be a EE with no math, and trying to present quotes with no math in opposition to proven theorems. This is the classic situation of the man who brings a knife to a gun fight.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2017
Observation to @Forum.

From @Da Schneib: I think it's hilarious to see one of these #physicscranks pretending to be a EE with no math, and trying to present quotes with no math in opposition to proven theorems. This is the classic situation of the man who brings a knife to a gun fight.
From @Chris_Reeve: Da Schneib, the debate over magnetic reconnection is just another aspect of the larger paradigm dispute. The math is not even what is being argued.
I previously tried to make DS aware of that salient point which Chris has just stressed for DS's benefit. But will the point get through DS's 'one track math' blinkers/filters sufficiently for him to realize that Maths and Physical Reality may not equate/coincide? If DS can stop trolling/ego-tripping and read up re that point (made by all truly great physicists, including Einstein, who made a remark about that very point), then maybe DS can come back and tell us he finally 'gets it'. Good luck to him. :)
Chris_Reeve
Sep 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
691Boat
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 11, 2017
Let's explain this in the simplest of terms ...

There are two competing worldviews. Each one has its own PHYSICAL explanation for a particular phenomenon.

How do we decide which of the two is correct? Each of the two physical explanations points to its own system of concepts, propositions, models AND MATHEMATICS to establish its claim.

@Reeve:
Where is all the math for EU? As a self-proclaimed EE, I feel you should easily be able to show that math for the "circuitry" that apparently makes up our known universe, including the voltage sources and grounds. Seems pretty straight forward, no?
Chris_Reeve
Sep 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
691Boat
5 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2017
How do you know that the galactic circuits are not closed? If they are open, that would mean voltage is present but no current flow, correct? how does that model work?
Chris_Reeve
Sep 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
691Boat
5 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2017
Re: "How do you know that the galactic circuits are not closed?"

In the EU view, it was discovered by Halton Arp that active galaxies are ejecting other galaxies from their cores, which then remain connected by the original ejection filament. This is what creates the structure at the galactic scale. These things were not known when Alfven wrote Cosmic Plasma.


It was discovered? Or was it suggested? Is this the whole 'Tang and Zhang' redshift thing that was proven false a decade ago?
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2017
I think it's hilarious to see one of these #physicscranks pretending to be a EE with no math


So Schneibo, what is your degree in? I recall you one time alluded to having a degree of some kind in something to do with Information Technology, not exactly physics related is it..........CRANK.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2017
I don't get the impression that the terms "closed circuit" and "open circuit" mean much to @Reeve.

Pro Tip™, @Reeve: Arp doesn't have anything to do with it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2017
@691Boat, @Chris_Reeve.

FYIs to help mutual understandings re issues you're discussing:

- The universal totality is infinite, hence always OPEN CIRCUIT OVERALL due to immense time delay overwhelming phenomena via REGIONAL/EPOCHAL 'localized circuits' arising/subsiding due to Quantum perturbations and further feedback forces (gravity, electro-magnetic dynamics EXCURSIONS within/between various local sources and sinks in intergalactic/galactic/interstellar/interplanetary etc charged/neutral material media bodies/expanses).

- we now know Fast Electron dynamics create "butterfly effect' ranges of localized/long distance flows/swirls etc; which CURRENTS chaotically arise in plasma previously 'calm' for short period (which is a relative term, depending on spatial/temporal extent and evolutionary trajectory of the plasma features/processes under study).

- PPPL simulations/approaches now acknowledge transient/localized "closed circuit' effects/factors in space plasmas.

Complex!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2017
@691Boat and @Chris_Reeve.
s this the whole 'Tang and Zhang' redshift thing that was proven false a decade ago?
I strongly caution both 'sides' on any 'redshift' and 'CMB' dependent hypotheses and interpretations of the past, to NOT perpetuate (on either 'side') any claims which arose at a time when 'redshift' and 'cmb' was (like Big Bang/Inflation etc) merely naive/wrong interpretations/attributions to observational data.

In short: neither of you is particularly tenably based re if your respective arguments depend on old/falsified 'redshift' and 'cmb' etc MISUNDERSTANDINGS as to their real meaning/implications in actual phenomena observed.

New discoveries/reviews are seriously questioning all big bang/inflation/redshift/cmb INTERPRETATIONS and hypotheses/claims; so take a step back and review your OWN RESPECTIVE 'side's arguments to check whether both of you are speaking from 'falsified' stances/interpretations or not. Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2017
@RC, no current flows in an open circuit. By definition. Current only flows in closed circuits.

I feel like I'm discussing the existence or non-existence of bicycles with people who don't know what a "wheel" is and don't believe they exist.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2017
The simplest science store electronic experimenter's kit contains the simplest of experiments: a battery, a light, and a switch, and wires to connect it all. Close the switch, the light lights up. Open it, the light goes out. This is basically fact #1 regarding electrical circuits.

I'm thinking we're dealing here with folks who have never seen anything like this, and have no idea how it works. Hard to believe; not only did I have a kit like this, most of the kids I knew did too. And if they didn't they saw it in science class in school, generally before they were eight years old.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, no current flows in an open circuit. By definition. Current only flows in closed circuits.
Are you really this stupid/irresponsible? If you read what I said you would have realized that the KNOWN plasma SCIENCE re FAST ELECTRONS in plasma contexts now acknowledges how and why current circuits arise/evolve/dissipate within/across ANY lab/space plasma in dynamical context.

Your stupid and ignorant attempt to ridicule based on your own stupidity/dishonesty is now become too much. You've been using such tactics to denigrate those who are MORE CORRECT and KNOWLEDGEABLE than you; and to distract from the fact you won't engage fairly but insult and troll in order to 'win' despite being so ignorant of the actual KNOWN and EVOLVING science involved.

Your further attempts at mischaracterizing and strawmanning are LAME even for you, DS. The issue was not about open/closed circuits per se; but whether circuits arise in space plasmas, as PPPL has just simulated.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2017
Your stupid and ignorant attempt to ridicule based on your own stupidity/dishonesty is now become too much
..........and you expected better from someone whose knowledge of the Fundamental Laws of Physics is so grossly lacking that he believes an infinite gravity field & infinite density of material can exist on the surface of a finite stellar mass called a BH? Even S Hawking no longer believes this kind of slop & swill of Funny Farm Science.

Hey, RC, you're trying to have a dialogue with an overage Trekkie, you know, those guys who dress up in tin foil hats & prance off a couple times a year to those Trekkie Conventions.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2017
@RC, it doesn't matter what you say to try to justify it after you say something that stupid about electricity. There isn't anyplace left to hide after you said,
The universal totality is infinite, hence always OPEN CIRCUIT OVERALL


You made it obvious you have no more idea of what an open or closed circuit is than any of the rest of the #physicscranks. They teach this stuff in elementary school. To little kids. Who seem to understand it better than you do.

There isn't any lie you can tell, there isn't any grandiose claim you can make, and there isn't any insult you can throw that will help you conceal your appalling, abysmal ignorance and overwhelming arrogance after you said something that stupid. There just isn't.

But it sure is funny watching you try, so feel free.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2017
Let me repeat it so there is no mistake: no current flows in an open circuit. If current flows, then there is a closed circuit from source to sink. This is of absolutely foundational importance in the understanding of any electrodynamic phenomenon whatsoever. There are no exceptions to this rule. It's just as simple as that. Anybody who thinks that currents flow where there is no source or sink is claiming magic, not talking about science.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2017
But it sure is funny watching you try, so feel free.


What is really funny is the funny farm science hapless cranks like you try to come up with to prove Infinite Wells of gravity & infinite density of material CAN EXIST ON THE SURFACE OF A FINITE MASS, that you actually believe gravity is not mass dependent in spite of what we know about General Relativity.

Gee, Schneibo, this is fun.....keep the entertainment coming old man.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 11, 2017
You may ask, why is this true? The answer is simple: net electric charge is conserved. It can neither be created nor destroyed. If ever a positive or negative charge appears to be created or destroyed, a charge of the opposite type was created or destroyed at the same time. You will always find it if you look.

This is absolutely foundational to the understanding of electricity. No one can discuss a plasma without knowing how electricity works. If they do there is no point in listening to them; they're simply spouting nonsense. Electric currents don't just appear out of nowhere. It's like claiming that mass or motion appear out of nowhere.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2017
What do you even say to people who claim to know all about plasmas and can't figure out a lightswitch?

I mean, seriously.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2017
It doesn't matter how many walls of text you post.

If you can't figure out a lightswitch nobody cares what you claim about plasmas.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"'You should hold and explore conflicting possibilities in your mind while moving fluidly toward whatever is likely to be true based on what you learn.'

'Sincerely believe that you might not know the best possible path.' Dalio says that recognizing what you don't know is more important than whatever it is you know for sure.

'Recognize that decision making is a two-step process: First take in all the relevant information, then decide.' Dalio says that it's here where many entrepreneurs get tripped up. Most people are reluctant to consider information that is inconsistent with their world view or the conclusion they've already arrived at.

'Remember that you're looking for the best answer, not simply the best answer that you can come up with yourself ...'

'If you are too proud of what you know...you will learn less, make inferior decisions, and fall short of your potential,' says Dalio."

A little off topic, there, CR...
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2017
This inference relies on established facts indicating that both types of disturbance (respectively, on the Earth and on the Sun) contain two main components; one driven, fed by magnetic reconnection on the outer boundary of the magnetosphere; and the other fed by magnetic reconnection of a different type, inside the AR.

Magnetospheric Substorms and Solar Flares
Mishin, Banin, Lunyushkin & Falthammar (1996)
http://adsabs.har...89..731M

It also means that change of connectivity is possible not only at magnetic x-points (as in ordinary reconnection) but also within regions of non-vanishing magnetic field.

Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas – a brief review
Falthammar (2002)
http://www.redaly...3210.pdf

......TBC in Reevesque Gish gallop style.....

jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2017
........
In fact, the most interesting plasma physics occurs precisely where and because this equation is not satisfied, such as the auroral acceleration region, magnetic field reconnection,.....


On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
Falthammar & Mozer (2007)
http://onlinelibr...0002/pdf

A special kind of violation of the frozen field condition is the process of reconnection.....Independently of topology, two elements of plasma that are at one instant of time on a common magnetic field line can be on different magnetic field line at another instant, if the condition given above is satisfied somewhere between the plasma elements.


The Earth's Magnetosphere as a Key to the Plasma Universe
Falthammar (2010)
http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

So, can we finally get this question answered from the EU loons? Is Falthammar a crank?
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2017
On a somewhat strange note, here is a damning critique of Don Scott's drivel, given by, of all people, a creationist! He also happens to be a professional astronomer; something that Scott most certainly isn't. As is obvious if you're familiar with any of his inane ramblings.

An Evaluation of Plasma Astronomy
Faulkner, D.R.
https://pdfs.sema...5956.pdf
691Boat
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2017
The fact that the ionosphere is layered is really quite peculiar, and a striking coincidence in light of the fact that charge-loading a metal sphere in a vacuum produces the same effect.

But I was under the impression that modern astrophysics is based on the false assumption that space is empty, just like your "charge-loaded metal sphere in a VACUUM." How can you possibly use that as a comparison?
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2017
Unfortunately, he keeps his analysis so vague on the specifics that there is no way for a reader to understand where the debate is happening.


What debate?

Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2017
Even as one moves down in scale -- like if we are inside of a Crooke's tube -- you're going to find areas where the number of plus and minus are equal. Does that mean that the Crooke's tube doesn't do anything?


So what electrical charge is on the Sun? Bear in mind that equal numbers of electrons and ions are leaving it at the same speed, and in the same direction.

Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2017
but fails to make any mention of Velikovsky's claim that Venus should be hot.


Velikovsky was a loon. A scientifically unqualified loon, at that. He thought Venus should be hot because it was recent, having flown out of Jupiter, before doing a grand tour of the inner solar system, with numerous physics defying handbrake turns on the way. That stuff is for the fairies. Lol.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2017
Like many others, he also of course fails to mention that the dataset was corrected to reflect the desired outcome.


Crap. As is the rest of your mythology based woo.

Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2017
Faulkner: "I found it interesting that while Scott thought that he had shown that conventional astronomy could not explain the high surface temperature of Venus, he offered no plasma explanation for it either."


Scott is clueless. That is a given. Ask any relevantly qualified scientist to review his unpublished nonsense, and you will get the same answer. That is why it is unpublished.
As for Venus, Velikovsky was beaten to the 'Venus is hot' argument by a real scientist. Doing real science:
Photochemistry of Planetary Atmospheres
Wildt, R. (1937)
http://adsabs.har...86..321W

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2017
And he just gallops along.

Gish galloping Reeve the EU Acolyte.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2017
"In order to make good decisions, argues Dalio, a person must have the ability to explore different points of view and different possibilities, regardless of whether or not it hurts your ego ..."


WTF is that? Lol. No, Reeve, we are talking about science. So, let's get back on topic, eh? Generally speaking, you do science by firstly having an hypothesis. You can then test that hypothesis in a lab, if practical. Then you can get in-situ observations that will either confirm or deny your hypothesis. Take magnetic reconnection - it went through all those steps, and is now a proven fact.
691Boat
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2017
"You're either on the bus or off the bus." -Ken Kesey

"It's not that EUers are wrong; they're not even on the bus." -Michael Shermer
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
691Boat
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2017
What do you suppose is Michael Shermer's rationale for failing to inform his readers that the dataset was corrected?

You tell me, since you are so keen on the history of things, like how Venus was a comet at one point, right?
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2017
I don't know why anyone is arguing with someone who can't figure out how a lightswitch works about plasma.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2017
@Da Schneib.
it doesn't matter what you say to try to justify it after you say something that stupid about electricity. There isn't anyplace left to hide...
You made it obvious you have no more idea of what an open or closed circuit is than any of the rest ....
Your obsessive semantical fixations haven't helped your comprehension of what is being said IN the discussion CONTEXT OVERALL, DS. Nothing new there, hey! ;-)

As you have OFTEN and LOUDLY BOASTED, DS, you still don't read or still ignore/don't care to comprehend what's being said.

DS, you LEFT OUT the REAL KNOWN SCIENCE which makes your simplistic twaddle so LAME.

I said the UNIVERSE may be infinite and hence OPEN CIRCUIT, however, there is LOCALLY TIME/SPACE variability and LAG between 'events' across the entirety of the universe. Hence the KNOWN plasma SCIENCE involving transiently arising FAST ELECTRON CURRENTS (as PPPL and all the labs are NOW increasingly seeing in experiments).

Listen and Learn, DS. :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2017
It's perfectly straightforward, @RC. There isn't any lie you can tell about it, no boasting insult you can post, no whining excuse you can make.

It's really easy to see that if you can't understand how a lightswitch works you're never going to understand plasma, and no one should be listening to you. It was an incredibly stupid thing to say, and now you have to pay for it.

The EUdiots can't figure out how a lightswitch works. That's the end of that.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Sep 12, 2017
The EUdiots can't figure out how a lightswitch works. That's the end of that.


And you can't figure out Einstein's Field Equations that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT, not DENSITY DEPENDENT.......end of that.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2017
@Lenni, we're not talking about anything as complicated as relativity. We're talking about a lightswitch. Everybody's got one in their house. If you can't figure that out you're a moron. And if the EUdiots can't figure it out, so are they.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2017
The EUdiots can't figure out how a lightswitch works. That's the end of that.


And you can't figure out Einstein's Field Equations that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT, not DENSITY DEPENDENT.......end of that.

Yeah, but....
When is mass NOT dependent on density of contributing massive entities?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2017
EUdiots can't do math.

All anybody has to do is look up the Einstein Field Equations on Wikipedia and look at the equation. Let's do that: https://en.wikipe...quations

On the right side, we have the stress-energy tensor. If we look this up, we find that it is determined by the mass density, energy density, and field density: https://en.wikipe...y_tensor
The stress–energy tensor (sometimes stress–energy–momentum tensor or energy–momentum tensor) is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the *density* and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics.


Which would make the EFE-- and therefore GRT as a whole-- density dependent.

And you're still a moron. This time you're a math moron. Not that it's unusual for you.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2017
What do you suppose is Michael Shermer's rationale for failing to inform his readers that the dataset was corrected?


And of what relevance is it?
The original data were affected by a significant error whose source was discovered in laboratory testing after the mission was completed.


Radiation in the Atmosphere of Venus
Titov et al. (2007)
http://lasp.color...EVTP.pdf

So, what would you have them do? Just publish the initial data, despite the fact that they have discovered an instrument error? That wouldn't be very scientific, would it? Either way, none of this is at all helpful to anyone stupid enough to believe Velikovsky's unscientific ramblings.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2017
@Lenni, we're not talking about anything as complicated as relativity. We're talking about a lightswitch. Everybody's got one in their house. If you can't figure that out you're a moron. And if the EUdiots can't figure it out, so are they.


Hey, Schneibo......doing a circuit analyses using Kirchoff's circuit laws is a far more challenging prospect of analytics for a novice than a calculation using a simple simple plugin equation like calculating the force due to gravity between two masses where G is the gravitational constant........but how would you know how to calculate potential rises & drops in any kind of circuit analyses.

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2017
If you don't understand lightswitches, and you don't understand the EFE, what good is it talking to you about physics, @Lenni?

And if you understand Kirchoff's Laws so well, how come you keep making up fairy tales about currents that don't go anywhere?
Chris_Reeve
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2017
If you don't understand lightswitches, and you don't understand the EFE, what good is it talking to you about physics, @Lenni?

And if you understand Kirchoff's Laws so well, how come you keep making up fairy tales about currents that don't go anywhere?


Really?......... When? ..........You're the head of the flow of anything that goes nowhere, for example your Black Hole Math that Einstein so completely destroyed in his 1039 paper: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

Old man, you're a dreamer. You need to first start with some high school level physics & learn how to calculate gravitational attraction between gravitating bodies before you try Kirchoff's laws of circuit analyses with this Electrical Engineer.
,
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
If you don't understand lightswitches, and you don't understand the EFE, what good is it talking to you about physics, @Lenni?

And if you understand Kirchoff's Laws so well, how come you keep making up fairy tales about currents that don't go anywhere?


Really?......... When? ..........You're the head of the flow of anything that goes nowhere, for example your Black Hole Math that Einstein so completely destroyed in his 1039 paper: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"
...

1039?!? Almost a thousand years ago?!?
You're trying to warp time, Benni...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2017
Gish Gallop, @Lenni. If you don't have an answer just admit it instead of trying to change the subject.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2017
1039?!? Almost a thousand years ago?!?
You're trying to warp time, Benni


I have an FTL vehicle that has such tremendous velocity that I can fly right past photons & catch up to the ones that left the planet in year 1039, I can slow down my FTL machine to match 1039 photons & view anything in the open atmosphere of the planet for that year, cloudy weather & rooftops do create viewing problems, but what the hell do I care about what goes on inside bedrooms.

I got the idea for my FTL from reading Schneibo's dissertations for calculating infinite gravity based on Schwarzschild Black Hole Math. I figured if those two know how to create infinite gravity using a given volume the size of one of my pickup trucks, then I'm not about to be outdone those two novices.

So, I went to work on a gravity generator system using ultra high pressure to increase density of materials to the point of density whereby I create infinite gravity that I use as my FTL energy source.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2017
1039?!? Almost a thousand years ago?!?
You're trying to warp time, Benni


I have an FTL vehicle that has such tremendous velocity that I can fly right past photons & catch up to the ones that left the planet in year 1039, ... cloudy weather & rooftops do create viewing problems, but what the hell do I care about what goes on inside bedrooms.

You drinkin' or something, today?
I got the idea ... for calculating infinite gravity based on Schwarzschild Black Hole Math. I figured if those two know how to create infinite gravity ... I'm not about to be outdone those two novices.

Again, only your interpretation of the math produces infinite gravity. Maximum is the limit. No more, no less...
So, I went to work on a gravity generator system using ultra high pressure to increase density of materials to the point of density whereby I create infinite gravity that I use as my FTL energy source.

You ARE drinkin'...
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2017
Benni,
And I STILL would like an answer from you on when mass is NOT a function of density...
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
@Whyde, no mass is not a function of density; gravity is. It's implicit in Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, right here:

Fg = Gmm'/r²

See that r²? See how it's on the bottom of the fraction? That means the force of gravity (Fg) increases as the distance (r) decreases, proportional to the square of the radius. So if you take the same masses (say, m is Earth and m' is you), then if you shrank the Earth to be half as big without changing its mass or yours, the gravity on the surface would be four times greater.

And, of course, it would also be denser; same mass, smaller radius, that's pretty simple for anyone to figure out.

See? No relativity even needed for that one.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
Here, let me complete the math. Volume of a sphere is

V = 4πr³/3

Now, density is mass per unit volume,

D = m/V

So for a sphere (convenient because most celestial bodies are stars or planets, which are spheres more or less) we can substitute the right hand side of the volume equation for the volume, and say

D = 3m/4πr³

Notice how r is in the bottom of the fraction again? Once again we have a quantity increasing as r decreases, this time proportionally to the cube of r.

So as r decreases given the same mass, both Fg and D increase. None of this is the least bit controversial. It's just basic physics; the definition of density, the definition of volume, and Newton's TUG. All known for hundreds of years at least, some of it for thousands.

Now, if @Lenni can't do math then perhaps it can find something to lie about, but to anyone who knows any physics it will be transparent.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
no mass is not a function of density; gravity is


You just said : gravity is a function of density.

Ok, where is that found in General relativity? According to YOUR laws of Physics, one atom can be squeezed into a volume of such high density that it can actually exceed the gravity of the Sun. Proven by your equation: Fg = Gmm'/r²........you pipe dreamer. All you're doing is bending every law of physics to fit your mis-application of the math you're putting up.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
Now, if @Lenni can't do math then perhaps it can find something to lie about, but to anyone who knows any physics it will be transparent.


Your Schwarzschild Black Hole Math is a simple as you are stupid. It isn't possible to apply any of your concocted slop & swill math to the laws of physics to create an atom that can exceed the gravity of all the mass of atoms inside the Sun simply by making that atom occupy a smaller volume of space, yet this is what your explanation of your math concurs.

Idiot, take a Nuclear Physics course & you'll learn real quick why your versions of math can never comport with the Laws of Physics, oopps, that's right, you'll need Differential Equations for that & high school algebra is as far as you ever got.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2017
Sigh. @Lenni, I already told you where density is found in GRT. The stress-energy tensor, remember?

And the left-hand side is the gravity.

The EFE are the field equations of gravity, @Lenni. Got yer density right here, got yer gravity right there. Simple as that.

The EFE use tensors. Tensors are differential geometry, which are calculated using systems of differential equations. There's your differential equations, @Lenni.

You really don't know any math, do you? Pretty embarrassing not recognizing TUG on sight, @Lenni. Are you denying Newton now, along with Einstein?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
@Da Schneib.
It's really easy to see that if you can't understand how a lightswitch works...

The EUdiots can't figure out how a lightswitch works. That's the end of that.
Forget the EU crowd, DS; concentrate on OUR exchange re this matter; and REALIZE YOUR OWN stupidity/dishonesty, DS. I just pointed out to you that in space/lab plasmas, the MAINSTREAM KNOWN SCIENCE ALREADY observes CIRCUITS spontaneously arising/evolving/subsiding around/across/along ANY dynamical plasma feature/flows due to charge-SORTING/SEPARATION physics. So your continued strawmanning based on SIMPLISTIC, STATIC/SOLID MATERIAL 'lightswitches/circuits' DOES NOT APPLY in dynamical plasma contexts/physics analysis.

Please, DS, just STOP your stupid/dishonest 'tactics'; just LISTEN and LEARN. :)

ps: FYI, yet another of MY predictions/observations confirmed by new/recent MAINSTREAM discoveries/reviews: https://phys.org/...rgy.html

LISTEN and LEARN. :)
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2017
Now, if @Lenni can't do math then perhaps it can find something to lie about, but to anyone who knows any physics it will be transparent.


Your Schwarzschild Black Hole Math is a simple as you are stupid. It isn't possible to apply any of your concocted slop & swill math to the laws of physics to create an atom that can exceed the gravity of all the mass of atoms inside the Sun simply by making that atom occupy a smaller volume of space, yet this is what your explanation of your math concurs.

Idiot, take a Nuclear Physics course & you'll learn real quick why your versions of math can never comport with the Laws of Physics, oopps, that's right, you'll need Differential Equations for that & high school algebra is as far as you ever got.


Give up Benni boy. You can't even understand what visible light does. Lol. As proven.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2017
It seems to not really matter how many times people are pointed to the EU math, and that is really the sad part about this discussion. You guys exist in your own self-made bubble.


Lol. There is NO EU maths. If any of the idiots involved with that brainless cult actually understood maths, then they wouldn't believe in EU, would they?
Take the idiot Thornhill's claim of no ice or H2O at comets. It's all caused by an impossible reaction involving H+ hurtling into non-existent O- at 400 km/s! What a tosser! Not going to happen, is it dears? Not only is it bloody impossible, the maths is way off. Isn't it? Burkes.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2017
So, Reeve, let's see some maths involving the unobservable incoming current to power the Sun. How many electrons per second? We know the output of the Sun, so shouldn't be difficult. Let's hear it, dear.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
^^^P.S. Where are these electrons, dear? Not in the ecliptic are they? So what about the poles? Ulysses didn't see s**t, did it, lovey? Please, tell us how this crap works out in the end. Or admit that Scott & Thornhill haven't got a bloody clue.Yes?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
By the way - I notice that we have yet to get an EU prawn commenting on Falthammar. Please, chaps, give us the official EU position on Falthammar. I assume that they think he is a pseudoscientist. Yes? Can we call that official? The geniuses Scott and Thornhill know plasma physics better than Falthammar? Great.

Knobs.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2017
OK, so let's get back on topic. From the crap pseudoscientist Falthammar:

Reconnection is considered to be one of the most important phenomena in cosmic plasma, as a means of topology change and energy release. In the Earth's magnetosphere, reconnection takes place both at the magnetopause and in the tail current sheet. In addition, local reconnection of limited strands of magnetic flux, so-called flux transfer events, are also common (Le et al. 2008). The reconnection events in the geomagnetic tail that are associated with magnetospheric substorms have many similarities to the fast energy release that takes place in solar flares
(Lin et al., 2008).


OUCH.

http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

So, let's hear it EU geniuses. Why is Falthammar a pseudoscientist? Come on - there must be at least one of you nutjobs with the cojones to explain this. Go ahead. We are waiting........
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2017
.....
Reconnection is an extremely complicated phenomenon, and this makes it even more important to have actual measurements to guide theoretical work. One reason for complexity is that reconnection involves coupling between widely different spatial scales, from system-scale structure through ion scales and down to electron scales. Therefore, multipoint measurements are essential. Multipoint measurements are at present being made with the still operational Cluster satellites and the more recent five satellites of the THEMIS project. For example, Cluster observations showed that the extent of the electron disffusion region can far exceed what is expected from simulations (Phan et al., 2007) Substantial further progress can be expected from another four-spacecraft mission, Magnetospheric
Multiprobes, which has recently been approved by NASA.


YIKES.

Come on dears; why is Falthammar a pseudoscientist? What is Scott & Thornhill's claim to fame? Lol.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
The EFE are the field equations of gravity, @Lenni. Got yer density right here, got yer gravity right there. Simple as that.


......and your problem is that you don't understand the Laws of Physics behind Einstein's GR. You still imagine you can take one atom of something, apply your version of density dependent gravity & come up with something that is infinite in magnitude, alias BHs. To get that you need MASS that is infinite but you think by sleight of an irrelevant equation that infinite gravity can be attained by simply shrinking the radius of the gravitating body.

You should take one of those For Dummies courses that are offered online, you'll at least get a grade school level of fundamental laws of physics, way more than what you have now.

Chris_Reeve
Sep 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
@Whyde, no mass is not a function of density; gravity is. It's implicit in Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation,...

DS, I used the wrong word.
I understand that without a sufficient density, you cannot have sufficient mass to present sufficient gravity to (at some point) effect light gravitationally.
I just wanted Benni to answer my previous question -
"When is mass NOT dependent on density of contributing massive entities?"
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2017
@Lenni, this is pointless. You're Gish Galloping again.

You asked where the density is in GRT and I told you.

Nobody applies GRT to atoms. GRT is not a quantum theory and to talk about atoms you need a quantum theory. So you made something up again. And it's just as transparent as I said it would be.

This is why I don't generally bother paying attention to what you say.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2017
The EFE are the field equations of gravity, @Lenni. Got yer density right here, got yer gravity right there. Simple as that.


.... You still imagine you can take one atom of something, apply your version of density dependent gravity & come up with something that is infinite in magnitude, alias BHs.

Crucial point, here. One atom, no. (An insufficient amount of baryonic matter to present the mass required).
A really massive collection of atoms, yes. A side effect of that is that they get compacted REALLY close to each other.(They call that - density)

To get that you need MASS that is infinite but you think by sleight of an irrelevant equation that infinite gravity can be attained by simply shrinking the radius of the gravitating body.

Nope. You just need a LOT of mass. Not infinite, by any means.
C'mon, Benni... Even I get the relationship between radius, density and gravity felt at a surface...
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2017
It seems to not really matter how many times people are pointed to the EU math, and that is really the sad part about this discussion. You guys exist in your own self-made bubble.


There is no math Acolyte, That's the whole point. EU is the bizarre imaginings of a loon bolstered by the pure greed of charlatans. And you, Mr Reeve, promote it.

I wonder, what does that make you?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2017
The paper showing this math is posted on Don Scott's homepage (it means something that you didn't look). You may have better luck opening it with Firefox. For some reason, Chrome barfs for me ...

Solar Electron Flux
http://electric-c...2013.pdf


Really Acolyte, that is what you post to support your cult's position? Surely you have read enough by now to see the assumptions made and the flaws those assumptions MUST lead you to in this "paper"?

Do you understand what peer review is? What "worldview" allows you to overlook such poorly crafted work and then hold it out as if it is the support for your cult's imaginings? Have you actually read that tripe Acolyte??
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2017
What "worldview" allows you to overlook such poorly crafted work and then hold it out as if it is the support for your cult's imaginings?

Another thing "worldview" allows you to do is invent five-times more faerie dust than real matter. Not to mention the fact that "worldview" is missing ~96% of it's Universe.

Other than some hand waving there is no comment on the claims other than nu-huh...
Chris_Reeve
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2017
OK, so back around to the original claims, it seems that @jonesdave's point about Falthammar's papers has no answer; in fact, the EUdiots have no response to Falthammar and cannot have any because they can't do math and don't understand basic electrical science. Their claims seem to be equivalent to unicorns because they can't show a real current (that is, source to sink). It is therefore correct to claim they don't understand electrical circuits (i.e. don't know how a lightswitch works).

The only other two EUdiots involved, @RC and @Lenni, don't understand enough math to deal with Kirchoff's Laws and Thevenin's and Norton's Theorems. @Reeve has already proven incompetent at math.

What we basically have here is Rebels Without a Clue. Just keep slinging mud against the wall and maybe something will stick.

If you got it bring it; if you can't everyone competent will know. It's really just that simple.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2017
So, what is the point of demanding math, and then once it is produced, claiming that it is broken, then once it is asked how, refusing to explain?

What is the point of all of this noise?

I think you should re-read what I asked of you Acolyte.

What is the underlying assumption that MUST be true for this gobblygook to be relevant?
Chris_Reeve
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2017
#physicscrank @Reeve #mathdenier, quote the math you posted.

Like all #physicscranks, you post nothing then claim you posted something. Quote it or admit (as usual tacitly) that you got nothing.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2017
The three D's of pseudoskeptics as shown by maggnuts and da schnied.

Dodge, duck, dive, and dodge...
Add another for the fifth D, DARK!
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2017
The paper showing this math is posted on Don Scott's homepage (it means something that you didn't look). You may have better luck opening it with Firefox. For some reason, Chrome barfs for me ...

Solar Electron Flux
http://electric-c...2013.pdf

From the paper:
"The probe has been measuring the speed of the solar wind and for the first time in its
journey, the wind now "blows back at us." "
That still means that up to 18 billion km from the sun, net flow is outwards, not in.
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2017
Also regarding the paper, do you know anything that has 100% E-O conversion efficiency? That is an assumption made but not spoken to. Any comments regarding that?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2017
First and most obvious error: it doesn't matter what Voyager measures in one direction. The question is where's the beef: if the Sun is getting "electrical energy" where's the source?

No circuit no current; no tickee no laundry.

Get over it.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2017
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you teach us?


Us? You more than one person? You do post like you are schizoid, but I thought that was just your posting style.

The article you listed assumes there to be an incoming current powering the Sun. Of course, you know this, you're just being purposefully obtuse, as usual. The assumption is, of course, wrong.

The rest is gobblygook.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2017
Current from nowhere and current to nowhere are unicorns. There aren't any unicorns. See lightswitches.

Get over it.

#physicscrankscantcount.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2017
Re: "First and most obvious error: it doesn't matter what Voyager measures in one direction. The question is where's the beef: if the Sun is getting 'electrical energy' where's the source?"

This is silly.


No, actually it is exactly on point. At 18 BILLION KM out, the probe finally (for EU advocates) measures an "incoming" electron flow. At a point beyond the heliopause.

Your whole Cult is silly!
Chris_Reeve
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2017
da schnied said;
"The magnetic field lines along the axis are open due to their speed approaching the speed of light as they diverge from the poles of the pulsar."

Then goes on to say...
"No circuit no current; no tickee no laundry."

Somehow magnetic fields have "open field lines" according to the moron da schnied.

Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2017
Re: "The article you listed assumes there to be an incoming current powering the Sun."

Does it really? What if charged particles are simply an aspect of the space through which the heliosphere moves?


Talk about silly!! Ok, WonderAcolyte, where would those charged particle arise? What is their nature?

What a stupid comment Acolyte, you should consider what you are saying before you press Submit.
691Boat
5 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2017
Re: "The article you listed assumes there to be an incoming current powering the Sun."

Does it really? What if charged particles are simply an aspect of the space through which the heliosphere moves?

So, the sun takes nothing from within 18 billion km of itself, converts all that nothing into huge currents to power the rest of the solar system through open circuits with electrical magic??
Really solid theory!
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2017
Hey you two EU Acolytes - neither of you geniuses has responded to jonesdave's comments about Falthammer. Come on Acolytes, answer his question! Surely this has been answered by Velikovsky's prophets, right? Where is your response Cultists?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2017
Like I said, these are a bunch of #physicscranks who don't understand a lightswitch. Meanwhile, @cantthink69 doesn't understand the difference between magnetic field lines and electrical circuits. Why would anyone pay attention to such a bunch of morons?
Chris_Reeve
Sep 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.
The only other two EUdiots involved, @RC and
I've told you more than once that I have NOTHING TO DO with "EU crowd"; and have told you to FORGET the "EU crowd" whenever engaging ME (an independent researcher/observer/commenter); and do so without tactics/feuds and dishonest misattributions/associations, DS.
What we basically have here is Rebels Without a Clue.
Really, DS, for someone 'parroting' textbook stuff NOT applicable to space plasma contexts/dynamics, and who has been corrected on the science by me so many times before, you really must be suffering from industrial strength insensibility/inebriation to come out with THAT! You, and that 'ego-tripping-while-ignorant' gang, have been clueless all along; while I have been correct all along. And I am being CONFIRMED CORRECT YET AGAIN by MAINSTREAM reviews of Standard Candle/Distance Ladder etc 'methodologies/interpretations' which I have LONG explained is FLAWED in SO MANY WAYS. Learn, DS. Please. :)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2017
Meanwhile, @cantthink69 doesn't understand the difference between magnetic field lines and electrical circuits.

So a closed electric circuit which must be present to create the currents to produce the magnetic field can produce "open field lines"? That's nifty!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2017
If you're going to argue about the difference between the E and B fields, we'll need to bring up Maxwell's Equations, @cantthink69. I prefer the Heaviside differential forms.

Let's start with Gauss' Laws for the E and B fields:

∇ ∙ E = ρ/ε0

∇ ∙ B = 0

These two equations show why a closed electric current creates open magnetic field lines; the magnetic field lines must add up to zero far from the source of the field, whereas the electric field lines cannot due to their requirement to express the charge within, unless the charge is zero. They also show why there are electric monopoles, but no magnetic monopoles.

These equations (or their equivalents) were first shown in the 1850s by James Clerk Maxwell, and are the basis of electrical field theory, as well as a great deal of modern physics. No one has disproven them in nearly two hundred years.

The fact you're typing messages on a computer is proof they're right, @cantthink69.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2017
To put Gauss' Laws in perspective, consider their English descriptions:

The divergence of the E field is equal to the charge density divided by the permittivity of space.

The divergence of the B field is zero.

It's the charge density term in the E field equation that makes it behave the way it does, and the lack of it in the B field equation that guarantees there are no monopoles.

And it is the lack of monopoles that guarantees there can be open magnetic field lines.

As usual, @cantthink69 doesn't know the math. You have again demonstrated that you are an innumerate moron, @cantthink69.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2017
Apparently 1039 was a good year for red photons...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2017
And it is the lack of monopoles that guarantees there can be open magnetic field lines.

You must live in some bizarro fantasy world where black is white, up is down, slavery is freedom, and you are not a moron. The lack of monopoles guarantees the the field lines have no beginning or end.
From some grade school textbook somewhere;
"Gauss' Law for Magnetism states that "the total magnetic flux out of a closed surface is zero".
Unlike electric flux which originates and terminates on charges, the lines of magnetic flux are closed curves with no starting point or termination point."

Clearly you are the moron and even concepts such as this are too much for your brain cell to handle.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2017
@cantthink69, this is the problem when you try to bamboozle a real EE.

"The total magnetic flux out of a closed surface is zero" is exactly the same thing as "There are no monopoles."

And you obviously don't know why.

And BTW they don't teach that in grade school because it requires calculus. So to top it all off you lied too.

Good one. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2017
"The total magnetic flux out of a closed surface is zero" is exactly the same thing as "There are no monopoles."

Agreed, why are you trying to convince everyone this is wrong by stating there are "open field lines"? You obviously don't understand the implication of you claiming that "open field lines" exist means you are also claiming magnetic monopoles do exist. Your confusion is only matched by your stupidity.
this is the problem when you try to bamboozle a real EE.

ROTFLMAO, now you think you are an EE? Did you get your "degree" in a box of Cracker Jacks?
Lest we not forget, you are the one claiming Guass' Law gaurantees "open field lines" in spite of the fact it prevents monopoles. Cap'n Stoopid had better watch out as there is a new Major Stoopid who has usurped his rule.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2017
BTW, the fact that monopoles do not exist proves magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience. As soon as a magnetic field line "breaks" you have a monopole as the field line is no longer a closed loop as required by Guass' Law. "Breaking" and "reconnecting" field lines is utter pseudoscience.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2017
AGAIN, a REMINDER re SO-CALLED MAGNETIC FIELD "LINES":

- there are no such things as magnetic field "lines". These are abstractions for graphic representation of magnetic FORCE VECTORS in the region of 'electro-magnetic' energy-space under consideration;

- there are also illustrative abstraction "lines" of LEAST ACTION to depict the 'axial direction' of some TEST CHARGES' SPIRALING MOTION due to the effect of magnetic field on said charged particle.

IN SHORT:

- these 'mag-field lines' and 'mag-effect lines' DO NOT actually exist in reality as energy-space manifestations of any kind; these are merely ABSTRACT 'connect-the-dots' MAPPING LINES to convey 'frame-of-reference' ORIENTATIONAL and MOTIONAL INFORMATION about TEST PARTICLE dynamics/interactions within the energy-space volumes/areas/distances involved in the system under analysis.

- these abstract "illustrative lines" have NO REAL physical existence as 'contiguous' physical 'paths' or 'things'.

OK? Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2017
why are you trying to convince everyone this is wrong by stating there are "open field lines"?
Because at the magnetic poles, the field lines stretch to infinity. Sigh.

Getting boring here.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2017
Because at the magnetic poles, the field lines stretch to infinity. Sigh.

So you believe magnetic monpoles exist, got it. And you think you are an EE? Truly laughable!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2017
If you're just going to lie about what I believe and contradict what I said two posts ago, @cantstoplying69, there is no point in talking to you.

Almost as boring as @RC.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2017
Because at the magnetic poles, the field lines stretch to infinity.

Hey lyin' schnied, if the "field lines" don't return to the closed surface, as required by Guass' Law for zero sum flux, how exact do you explain your claim the field lines "stretch to infinity"? You are truly delusional if you don't understand how that implies a monpole.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2017
Since you can't tell us why the two statements of Gauss' Law of Magnetism are equivalent, I don't expect you'll get that one either.

Boringer.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2017
I can tell you, how about this.
If hypothetical field line "A" exits the surface as arbitrary value "+1", then to equal a zero sum field line "A" must then retun through the surface as "-1" and complete a circuit. As such Field line "A" is defined as having no beginning and no end. This supports there being no monopole as the "line" closes onto itself. It has a +1 and a -1 or a N and a S.
In your view of an "open field line at the pole", the hypothetical pole field line "D" (for dumbass) exits the surface as "+1" and wanders off to infinity ne'er to return to balance the sum to zero. That field line flapping out in the magnetic breeze "connected" to infinty suggests it is connected to N and not S. You're describing a monople with one end exiting the surface never returning to complete the zero sum process. You're describing pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo, a personal religious belief (although seemingly shared by the plasma ignoramuses) based on your own ignorance.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2017
@cantdrive85 and @Da Schneib.

You two are arguing over "magnetic field lines" that DON'T EXIST as real physical entities as such!

Here, I will explain what actually DOES EXIST and how it is working; but FIRST read my last post REMINDING all re ABSTRACT "lines" depicting magnetic FORCE FIELD VECTORS; and re ABSTRACT "lines of magnetic LEAST ACTION VECTORS of test particles.

Ready? Here we go:

- abstract 'lines' conventionally coming from N and going to S 'poles' are depicting LEAST ACTION axial orientations for test particles and magnetizable iron filings etc. They are NOT 'lines' of the magnetic field per se!

- real magnetic FIELD per se is the WHOLE magnetic-field-affected energy-space acting on NOTHING UNTIL a test particle/iron filings etc are introduced into that energy-space volume so affected; and THEIR ORIENTATION (iron filings) OR MOTION PATH (ie, electron spiraling around/along a 'least action' axis/direction) is what is OBSERVED.

Argue REAL THINGS, guys. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2017
@cantthink69, if you got it bring it. I haven't seen you explain why div B equals zero is equivalent to there are no monopoles, much less why it also means that the only open field lines from a B field are to its poles. You don't appear to understand mathematics, much less EE.

You might also note that the reference I brought says the same things I do and is astrophysicists who study neutron stars.

I'll take those astrophysicists over some random dude with a bad attitude on the Internets any time.

Considering also that you attempted to deny this on the grounds that it included open field lines when all the field lines from an isolated electric charge are open, I would say that your lack of knowledge is manifest.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2017
RC, settle down there JA. I have been on these threads railing against the reification of field lines for years now. I understand we are discussing magnetic flux of the force field, although I don't think da schnied does.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2017
I haven't seen you explain why div B equals zero is equivalent to there are no monopoles,

From that same grade school textbook;
All magnetic flux lines entering a region via a closed surface must leave the region elsewhere on the same surface. A region cannot have any sources or sinks.
I understand these aren't circuits but they are loops with no beginning or end. There is no "open magnetic flux" at the poles, there is however (such as with the Earth) field-aligned electric currents flowing into the poles creating the magnetic field.
You might also note that the reference I brought says the same things I do and is astrophysicists who study neutron stars.

Ooh, your "experts" who study the pseudoscientific neutron stars are your "authority", also known as plasma ignoramuses.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2017
Considering also that you attempted to deny this on the grounds that it included open field lines when all the field lines from an isolated electric charge are open,

We aren't discussing electric fields here da schnied, why are you trying to change the subject. You have been talking about B fields all along. I am also well aware an isolated electric charge flux terminates at "infinity".
You have yet to explain your open magnetic flux lines and how those work. You know, the ones tied to that magnetic monopole you keep trying to push.

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.