|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 10:10:27 [Permalink]
|
Chapter II 5.3
quote:
What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electrical current crosses the surface. In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention.
Emphasis his. According to Alfven, the so called "tests" that are currently being conducted to look for magnetic reconnection are "misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention".
Chapter II.6.3
quote:
Energy Release in Double Layers
If a double layer has been formed by a curreent I, energy at rate P=IV(sub)D is released in the double layer. This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles. A small fraction is usually dissipated as as noise. Of course, the accelerated particles interact with the plasma and produce a number of secondary effects so that the released energy finally is dissipated as heating and radiation. Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of magnetic merging or of magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration (II3.3, II.5.3). In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field.
Emphasis his. About all I can say at this point Dave is that you are in hardcore denial of scientific fact.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/11/2007 10:25:38 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/11/2007 : 10:20:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Except that your calculations are drastically inconsistent with your claims, because the mass of the shell and the core in your spreadsheet total less than 17% of the total mass of the Sun, while you've claimed that the Sun is at least 50% iron (meaning most of the iron is somewhere else besides the shell or the core, and not "mass separated" like it should be). How did you arrive at the 10% figure for the mass of the core, and its alleged 4.15 km radius, anyway?
The whole point of that particular spreadsheet was to demonstrate to Nereid that the "average density" of the bulk of the sun was not drastically affected by the presence of a shell and/or a small neutron core. Our conversation had nothing to do with percentages of iron or other elements. I would say that the bulk of the iron probably is located in the core if there is a neutron core so maybe I'd have to use use a larger core. I simply made up the 10% figure for the core based on a paper I had listed previously about the smallest possible neutron core. I did another spreadsheet with a 20% figure for the core and it still showed an average density that was close to that of water.
The point I was trying to make to John is that the presence of a crust solves more problems that it creates, and by itself it has no drastic impact on the total mass of the sun. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 10:33:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Of course not, because "definite test" has no meaning in physics.
It should have read "definitive test". Leave it to you to ignore my point entirely. Talk about denial Dave. You can't even define the physics and you don't have any tests that show it to exist. Somehow, in spite of Alfven's statements, you're convinced magnetic reconnection is an energy source because it has to be "anything but electricity".
quote:
quote:
...or what magnetic connection actually is.
The fact that you don't know but keep repeating the "it's a myth" mantra is what's funny here.
Notice how you just totally dodged the issue again?
quote:
What a fantastic rationalization you've got there.
It's nothing compared to the rationalizations you're using to deny what Alfven said.
Would you really argue evolution with a creationist that won't educate themselves and denies what Darwin said? What would be the point Dave?
I'm not even going to bother doing this point by point with you. If Dave can't find it for free on Google, it must not be worth reading. Is that about it Dave? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 12:37:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Chapter II 5.3quote:
What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electrical current crosses the surface. In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention.
Emphasis his. According to Alfven, the so called "tests" that are currently being conducted to look for magnetic reconnection are "misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention".
Only if - according to Alfven - "no electrical current crosses the surface." But why would you think that's the case when you're talking about the Sun being powered externally, Michael? Why would solar scientists think that no electrical current would cross the surface of any finite volume of the corona when we know that that's what causes aurorae? Alfven set limits on the ability to describe the phenomena in a plasma, so why are you ignoring those limits, Michael?quote:
Chapter II.6.3
quote:
Energy Release in Double Layers
If a double layer has been formed by a curreent I, energy at rate P=IV(sub)D is released in the double layer. This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles. A small fraction is usually dissipated as as noise. Of course, the accelerated particles interact with the plasma and produce a number of secondary effects so that the released energy finally is dissipated as heating and radiation. Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of magnetic merging or of magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration (II3.3, II.5.3). In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field.
Emphasis his.
Where is it written that magnetic reconnection must occur within a double layer?quote:
About all I can say at this point Dave is that you are in hardcore denial of scientific fact.
Actually, you've just proven that you're incapable of understanding the quotes that you're posting. And don't forget that it was once "scientific fact" that light travelled through an "aether."
Next post:quote:
The point I was trying to make to John is that the presence of a crust solves more problems that it creates, and by itself it has no drastic impact on the total mass of the sun.
Except that as I've already demonstrated, it creates huge problems for your own theory, Michael. The pressure required to keep the shell "inflated" given the limits on the mass inside would require whatever plasma that's in there to be at tens of thousands of Kelvins, more than enough to melt any material you might care to name. And that was with a shell a hundred times less massive than the one you describe in your spreadsheet.
Next post:quote:
It should have read "definitive test". Leave it to you to ignore my point entirely. Talk about denial Dave. You can't even define the physics and you don't have any tests that show it to exist.
You've already been handed links to the tests which show that magnetic reconnection occurs in nature, you simply deny that they exist. This link is to the first report (2002) of the laboratory measurement of a three-dimensional reconnection (people had been measuring 2-D reconnection events in the lab for quite a while by then).quote:
Somehow, in spite of Alfven's statements, you're convinced magnetic reconnection is an energy source because it has to be "anything but electricity".
Since magnetic reconnection depends upon electrical currents flowing, your complaint is nothing but nonsense.quote:
Notice how you just totally dodged the issue again?
The issue is whether you are correct in claiming that Alfven claimed that magnetic reconnection is a myth. Unless you're going to claim that Alfven meant something different by the phrase "magnetic reconnection" from all currently alive solar scientists, then my knowledge of the subject is irrelevant.quote:
It's nothing compared to the rationalizations you're using to deny what Alfven said.
Alfven said a lot of things that you're ignoring, Michael.quote:
Would you really argue evolution with a creationist that won't educate themselves and denies what Darwin said? What would be the point Dave?
Indeed, why would I argue with you when you clearly deny what Alfven said, in the quotes that you provided?quote:
I'm not even going to bother doing this point by point with you.
That's because you're unequipped to answer the difficult questions.quote:
If Dave can't find it for free on Google, it must not be worth reading. Is that about it Dave?
And when you can't cope with the facts, Michael, you simply resort to personal attacks, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 13:22:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Only if - according to Alfven - "no electrical current crosses the surface." But why would you think that's the case when you're talking about the Sun being powered externally, Michael? Why would solar scientists think that no electrical current would cross the surface of any finite volume of the corona when we know that that's what causes aurorae?
Dave, that's the whole point. There is no part of our solar system that isn't experiencing current flow, and therefore there is no such thing as a magnetic reconnection process anywhere in our solar system!
This whole conversation has become a twilight zone episode at this point.
Michael discussing Evolution with Dave.....
quote:
Dave: Evolutionary theory claims that we all evolved from apes.
Michael: No Dave, evolutionary theory suggests that we all evolved from a common ancestor, not that we all evolved from apes.
Dave: No, that's not what Darwin said.
Michael: Yes it is what Darwin said Dave, here's what he said: (Quote provided)
Dave: See, right there he says we all evolved from apes!
Michael: No Dave, it says we all evolved from a common ancestor. Have you read any of his work by the way?
Dave: No I have not and I refuse to do so because I don't need to read his work to prove you wrong. Everything I know about Darwin I learned on the internet using Google searches. I know I'm right.
Michael: I really think you should read this particular book: XXXX
Dave: No, I don't need to read that book because you don't understand what Darwin meant, and I do.
Michael: How do you know what he meant?
Dave. I just told you. I found it out through Google!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 13:39:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Dave, that's the whole point. There is no part of our solar system that isn't experiencing current flow, and therefore there is no such thing as a magnetic reconnection process anywhere in our solar system!
I just want to be clear, here, Michael-- when you say "there is no part of our solar system that isn't experiencing current flow" do you mean that this is a well-known and generally accepted fact of science which I could find discussed somewhere (and if so, where-- the whole thing is interesting, but confusing), or do you mean that this is an aspect of the model you're working with? [[b]And I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to know where you're coming from!] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 14:24:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Only if - according to Alfven - "no electrical current crosses the surface." But why would you think that's the case when you're talking about the Sun being powered externally, Michael? Why would solar scientists think that no electrical current would cross the surface of any finite volume of the corona when we know that that's what causes aurorae?
Dave, that's the whole point. There is no part of our solar system that isn't experiencing current flow, and therefore there is no such thing as a magnetic reconnection process anywhere in our solar system!
No, Michael, Alfven said that "All theories which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention." If current flows throughout the whole solar system (throughout the entire universe!), so that there is no finite volume of space which has a surface through which current does not flow, then Alfven's theory itself is "misleading or erroneous" and deserves "no attention." Yet here you are, demanding that we pay attention to Alfven's theory!quote:
This whole conversation has become a twilight zone episode at this point.
Indeed, because you don't understand what's being said, and you deny the evidence at hand.quote:
Michael discussing Evolution with Dave.....
You can't even characterize the exchange correctly, because what I know of what Alfven has said has come from the quotes you provided, and not a Google search. And once again, rather than address any of the points I made, you simply went for yet another personal attack.
You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the mere existence of the laboratory measurement of magnetic reconnection, can you Michael? You think your hero claimed, 25 years ago, that such was impossible, so anyone who says otherwise must be wrong, correct? All in spite of the fact that you don't even know the meaning of the term "magnetic reconnection," and so cannot provide evidence that what you think is right. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 14:40:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Dave, that's the whole point. There is no part of our solar system that isn't experiencing current flow, and therefore there is no such thing as a magnetic reconnection process anywhere in our solar system!
I just want to be clear, here, Michael-- when you say "there is no part of our solar system that isn't experiencing current flow" do you mean that this is a well-known and generally accepted fact of science which I could find discussed somewhere (and if so, where-- the whole thing is interesting, but confusing), or do you mean that this is an aspect of the model you're working with? [[b]And I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to know where you're coming from!]
The notion of electrons flowing through the universe is a well accepted tenet of plasma cosmology in general. Aflven describes it too. Standard theorists tend to be in complete denial of electrical currents that permeate space with the exception of Birkeland currents.
You might note by the way that we find that the plasma threads that makeup the universe posses magnetic fields, just as plasma cosmology predicts in current carrying plasma. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 14:50:11 [Permalink]
|
You are acting so irrationally, I simply don't even know what to do with you at this point Dave.
You won't read his work. You cludge the two paragraphs I typed in for you and you twisted his statements out of context. You ignored the fact that Alfven's MHD theory mathematically explains the current carrying threads that form in current carrying plasma and he explains that the energy comes from electrical current flow.
If you refuse to read his work there is no point in discussing Alfven's work with you. It's exactly like my creationist dialog analogy. No matter what I say or post from his work, you're going to ignore his words because you've already made up your mind about who's right.
There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection Dave. No physicist has ever defined what "magnetic reconnection" actually is. Nobody has isolated the specific method of energy transfer that is unique to "magnetic reconnection". None of the experiments related to magnetic reconnection today satisfy the parameters that Alfven provided, so they are misleading just as Alfven said. The guy literally created and wrote MHD theory Dave. You can't just ignore what he said on a whim.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 15:07:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You are acting so irrationally, I simply don't even know what to do with you at this point Dave.
You won't read his work. You cludge the two paragraphs I typed in for you and you twisted his statements out of context. You ignored the fact that Alfven's MHD theory mathematically explains the current carrying threads that form in current carrying plasma and he explains that the energy comes from electrical current flow.
If you refuse to read his work there is no point in discussing Alfven's work with you. It's exactly like my creationist dialog analogy. No matter what I say or post from his work, you're going to ignore his words because you've already made up your mind about who's right.
There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection Dave. No physicist has ever defined what "magnetic reconnection" actually is. Nobody has isolated the specific method of energy transfer that is unique to "magnetic reconnection". None of the experiments related to magnetic reconnection today satisfy the parameters that Alfven provided, so they are misleading just as Alfven said. The guy literally created and wrote MHD theory Dave. You can't just ignore what he said on a whim.
I'm not doing so, Michael, I'm simply disputing the meaning that you, Michael Mozina, a guy without a Nobel Prize, have given to Alfven's words. By your own logic, Alfven has falsified his own theory because his theory fails to meet the criterion you quoted. It is your attempt to impart that meaning that's ridiculous. Alfven himself has done no wrong, as far as I can tell.
As far as the context goes, you're the one who ripped those quotes from whatever context they had, Michael. I certainly didn't do so. How could I? According to you and your psychic abilities, I refuse to read the book.
Of course, the most important thing to realize from all this is that you, Michael, have only brought up Alfven's work in order to make lame attacks on the mainstream (real scientists who are using Alfven's work in order to study the real phenomenon of magnetic reconnection, by the way). You didn't bring Alfven into this as actual support for your theory, because you don't have a clue as to how to apply anything Alfven said to your model. Mostly, that's because you don't actually have a solar model - just a pile of guesses - but that's neither here nor there. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 16:04:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not doing so, Michael,
Yes you are. This is classic denial.
quote:
I'm simply disputing the meaning that you, Michael Mozina, a guy without a Nobel Prize, have given to Alfven's words.
I posted his words for you Dave. What parts of his statements were "unclear" to you exactly?
quote:
By your own logic, Alfven has falsified his own theory because his theory fails to meet the criterion you quoted.
That has to be the world's worst rationalization. It is most certainly a new low for you personally. He falsified the concept of trying to show that any energy is released as a result of "magnetic reconnection", and he demonstrated where his work up to that point could only be used in very specific circumstances. If you had read the book, you'd know that he goes on to explain how to deal with current carrying plasmas in MHD theory in later chapters. You however would not know about any of that because you're too damn lazy to even order the book. I know from experience it takes a while to get the book after you order it. The longer you wait, the longer this denial routine will play out. The sooner you get the book the sooner your show is busted. I guess that is why you haven't ordered the book.
You sit there in ignorance and "assume" that every part of MHD theory relates only to zero curl (non current carrying) plasmas. Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but you wouldn't have a clue about any of that.
quote:
It is your attempt to impart that meaning that's ridiculous. Alfven himself has done no wrong, as far as I can tell.
The only thing that is ridiculous is your denial Dave. FYI despite your protestations you are one of the best "scientists" that I've met in cyberspace. I can't think of any other single individual that I would choose to "convert" if I had that power. You'd be an incredibly powerful ally, but only if you continue to educate yourself. Obviously that choice is yours, and your fate is in your own hands, not mine. I'll never convince you, you will have to convince yourself. You claim to want evidence that is "quantified". Here is your opportunity. Read his work.
If however you never get off your lazy butt and buy that book, I will forever pity you. IMO, you will have forever cut yourself off from the source of information that I believe will set you free.
In spite of your gruffness, and your stubbornness, you are a good scientist Dave. You'll never be a great scientist IMO unless you lose the stubbornness. I'm an optimist and I have faith in you. Let me know when you've read the book and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Until then I respect you too much to sit here and continue bashing heads with you ad nausea about a subject you clearly know nothing about. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 16:05:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The notion of electrons flowing through the universe is a well accepted tenet of plasma cosmology in general. Aflven describes it too. Standard theorists tend to be in complete denial of electrical currents that permeate space with the exception of Birkeland currents.
You might note by the way that we find that the plasma threads that makeup the universe posses magnetic fields, just as plasma cosmology predicts in current carrying plasma.
I'm confused. You say it's "a well accepted tenent of plasma cosmology" but also that "standard theorists tend to be in complete denial" about most of it. I'm sure I'm just not understanding something.
Also, how is the universe made up of plasma threads? |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 18:31:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not doing so, Michael,
Yes you are. This is classic denial.
quote:
I'm simply disputing the meaning that you, Michael Mozina, a guy without a Nobel Prize, have given to Alfven's words.
I posted his words for you Dave. What parts of his statements were "unclear" to you exactly?
quote:
By your own logic, Alfven has falsified his own theory because his theory fails to meet the criterion you quoted.
That has to be the world's worst rationalization. It is most certainly a new low for you personally. He falsified the concept of trying to show that any energy is released as a result of "magnetic reconnection", and he demonstrated where his work up to that point could only be used in very specific circumstances. If you had read the book, ...
I'm responding to this part only in case there are any lurkers out there who may be getting the wrong impression. I know Michael will ignore this and Dave doesn't require any confirmation from me or assistance with his argument.
Dave's interpretation of the Alfven quotes provided is to my reading, scientificaly valid. I can say so in the context of some of Alfven's other writing, as I have read some of his work. (No Michael, I do not own nor have I read the entirety of Alfven's works.)
If you have some specific context in which you think Alfven's words support your argument, Michael,then you should provide it. Repeating "buy the book, read the book, bow down to the book" only makes you look desperate.
By the way, Michael, are you going to respond the the whole desktop plasma ball is a ""simulation" of exactly what's really going on" issue? (reminder) I know there are a of of issues to respond to, and I'm not badgering you, but you seem to have addressed later posts, but ignored that, which seems strange if we really do have such a great simulation tool readily at hand.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 19:33:12 [Permalink]
|
| Quick note here: I just saw on TV that the Navy has an eight-megajoule rail gun working. That's 128 billion billion million electron volts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2007 : 19:39:18 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, but the Navy will never get that rail gun to work unless they acknowledge the current which flows through the entire universe!!! As Michael reminded us: "there is no part of our solar system that isn't experiencing current flow," which I guess makes outlets sort of superfluous.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/11/2007 19:39:34 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Surface of the Sun, part 13
