Magnetic Reconnection - Why Einstein Was Wrong

Lets start off with the dictionary definition of "magnetic reconnection"

en.wikipedia.org...

Magnetic reconnection is the process whereby magnetic field lines from different magnetic domains are spliced to one another, changing their patterns of connectivity with respect to the sources. It is a violation of an approximate conservation law in plasma physics, and can concentrate mechanical or magnetic energy in both space and time. Solar flares, the largest explosions in the solar system, may involve the reconnection of large systems of magnetic flux on the Sun, releasing, in minutes, energy that has been stored in the magnetic field over a period of hours to days. Magnetic reconnection in Earth's magnetosphere is one of the mechanisms responsible for the aurora, and it is important to the science of controlled nuclear fusion because it is one mechanism preventing magnetic confinement of the fusion fuel.

Magnetic reconnection is something that has supposedly been "tested" and proven in the lab yet for some reason the lab results keep coming out "wrong."

Currently when scientists create a "reconnection" event in the lab between two electrically charged plasma sheets the "reconnection" event takes place at twice the speed MHD theory predicts.

So far no one has been able to rectify this problem, nor have they been able to produce a "reconnecting" magnetic field without first applying current to the plasma sheets they are observing. The reason being obvious of course, in order to create a magnetic field, one must first induce an electrical current. So far, this is the only known way of producing a magnetic field in a plasma that can be tested.

As soon as the current shuts off, so too does the magnetic field.

Magnetic reconnection is proposed to account for the sudden bursts of observed kinetic energies that power the aurora's substorms and light up the polar skies. It’s also proposed to account for about a billion other phenomena that I will not get into here including explanations of the Sun and comets.

So what's the problem?

The known laws of physics say it is impossible.

Don Scott sums it up nicely here:

Hannes Alfvén was explicit in his condemnation of the reconnecting concept:
"Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. Despite.. this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept.

I was naïve enough to believe that [magnetic reconnection] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: ‘merging’ … seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group."

They have reinvented the wheel and done a bad job of it. If you are going to come up with an alternative explanation for something – at least get one that is defensible scientifically.

If we look closely at the reason for this reinvention, it becomes clear that, having adamantly refused to acknowledge the effects (let alone the existence) of electric currents in space, astrophysicists had to come up with an explanation that avoided mentioning them. Moreover, in giving this explanation a catchy name – “reconnection” – that appears repetitively, they can avoid restating the details of their invented explanation each time they use it and thus avoid having to defend it. We hear “Oh, that is an example of reconnection.” “Yes, another effect of the reconnection process.” Etc., ad nauseum.

In the law, a well known principle is that ‘Ignorance of the law is no defense.’ Similarly in science, intentional ignorance of the work of an entire academy of scholars and researchers that has applicability to the area in which you are involved, is evidence of either incompetence or a lack of ethical behavior. There can be no excuse for astrophysicists ignoring the work of investigators such as Nobel laureates Hannes Alfvén and Irving Langmuir.

-----------------------------------------------

From my knol article:

“Magnetic reconnection,” as it applies to its use in explaining the Sun and the auroras, violates conservation laws of physics. Magnetic field lines can not merge and snap imparting force. A paper by Don Scott demonstrates this.[14] This was also shown to be unnecessary by Falthammar here and Alfven himself rejected this idea in Cosmic Plasma and in this paper here.[15][16][17]

There are no such things as “frozen in magnetic fields in plasma.” Such a plasma is purely abstract formalism and cannot be demonstrated in a lab. A simple discharge tube experiment proves that plasma is not an ideal conductor (a superconductor with zero-valued resistance). Voltage in a real plasma never drops to zero and therefore resistance never drops to zero, ergo plasma is not a superconductor. Hence, any theory that relies on plasma being regarded as an ideal conductor having “frozen in” magnetic fields is in error. This is also covered in the above point, but I feel it needs to be highlighted in a separate point. The use of MHD models to describe entire systems of plasma interaction is a classic example of “reification.” It is interesting to note that the man who won the Nobel prize for creating MHD theory (Alfven) flatly disagrees with its use in modeling astrophysical phenomena.

As Don Scott says:

Laboratory measurements demonstrate that a nonzero-valued electric field in the direction of the current (E parallel > 0) is required to produce a nonzero current density within any plasma no matter what mode of operation the plasma is in. Negative-slope regions of the volt-ampere characteristic (negative dynamic resistance) of a plasma column reveal the cause of the filamentary properties of plasma, but all static resistance values are measured to be > 0.

Thus, although plasmas are excellent conductors, they are not perfect conductors. Weak longitudinal electric fields can and do exist inside plasmas. Therefore, magnetic fields are not frozen inside them.[14]

14. Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
Scott D. E., IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 35, No. 4, August 2007

15. On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
Falthammar C. ,Eos, Vol. 88, No. 15, pp.169–170, 10 April 2007

16. Cosmic Plasma
Alfven H. ,Cosmic Plasma ,ISBN 90-277-1151-8

17. On Frozen-In Field Lines And Field-Line Reconnnection
Alfven H. ,Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 81, No 22, August 1st 1976, 4019-4021

-------------------------------------------

A summary of my claims:

Claim #1:
The condition B × curl [B(E•B/B2)] = 0 is not satisfied in standing theories of magnetic reconnection, therefore they are wrong. - As is demonstrated by Alfven, Falthamar, and proofed by Mozer.

Claim #2:
Plasma is quasi-neutral and therefore must obey Kirchhoff's rules, which are violated by a perfectly conductive magnetized plasma field that has 0 resistance (such a state is required of a "frozen in" plasma).

Claim #3:
Magnetic fields are only produced by electric currents. They can not exist without moving electrons / ions, as such, if all charged particles were to stop moving in a field of plasma, there would be no magnetic field.


CRITERIA FOR AND STATISTICS OF ELECTRON DIFFUSION REGIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH SUB-SOLAR MAGNETIC FIELD RECONNECTION
F. S. Mozer Journal of Geophysical Research Volume: 110 Issue: A12 Year: 2005

Very cool read.

But what does it all mean?

and how do we profit from this?

Originally posted by grey580
Very cool read.

But what does it all mean?

and how do we profit from this?

We profit by demanding the government stop funding the criminals pushing Einsteinian nonsense down our throats.

Thus, we get to keep our tax dollars for ourselves.

Thus, the world will be a better place.

reply to post by mnemeth1


mnemeth1, I have been scouring through your threads..... you *seem* to know it all... are you some kind of scientist? Do you work in a respectable field? Do you know calculus to understand what some of the equations they are using?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by fordrew]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Point them out so we can take em out back and beat the snot out of them.
That'll learn em.

no but really. I like the topic. but I'm not understanding the relevance.

one thing that came to mind. a plasma rotary engine delivering power when the two fields merged together.

Originally posted by fordrew
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

mnemeth1, I have been scouring through your threads..... you *seem* to know it all... are you some kind of scientist? Do you work in a respectable field?

I'm a night janitor for a sports stadium.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by fordrew
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

mnemeth1, I have been scouring through your threads..... you *seem* to know it all... are you some kind of scientist? Do you work in a respectable field?

I'm a night janitor for a sports stadium.

Interesting.... B × curl [B(E•B/B2)] = 0 can you post where you got that from? So how well are your calculus skills? Been scouring through your space/technology/topics I should say

[edit on 26-5-2010 by fordrew]

im no braniac....but the mere fact that people like Nikola Tesla and Viktor Schauberger have been left out of the scientific vernacular and school textbooks in general is enough evidence for me to know that we are being f'd with.

*SNIP*

educate yourself


Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Wed May 26 2010 by Jbird]

Originally posted by fordrew
Interesting.... B × curl [B(E•B/B2)] = 0 can you post where you got that from? So how well are your calculus skills? Been scouring through your space/technology/topics I should say

[edit on 26-5-2010 by fordrew]

Good enough to know that what the standard theorists are telling us is a load of crap.

These people have to know what they are saying is a pile of lies.

They have to know.

Its so blatantly obvious on so many levels (not just magnetic reconnection) that they are full of it that I can no longer believe this is ignorance.

It is fraud.

Oh by the way, if anyone wants to know the real explanation as to why we see explosive releases of energy at the boundary of differing plasmas, look no further.

Alfven explains here:

Double layers and circuits in astrophysics
Alfven, Hannes IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793
adsabs.harvard.edu...


Summarized here:
dic.academic.ru...

Stability: Double layers in laboratory plasmas may be stable or unstable depending on the parameter regime. [Torven, S. High-voltage double layers in a magnetised plasma column] " (1982) "Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics", Volume 15, Issue 10, pp. 1943-1949] Various types of instabilities may occur, often arising due to the formation of beams of ions and electrons. Unstable double layers are "noisy" in the sense that they produce oscillations across a wide frequency band. A lack of plasma stability may also lead to a dramatic change in configuration often referred to as an explosion (and hence "exploding double layer"). In one example, the region enclosed in the double layer rapidly expands and evolves. [B Song, N D Angelo and R L Merlino Stability of a spherical double layer produced through ionization] " (1992) Journal of "Physics D: Applied Physics", Volume 25, Issue 6, pp. 938-941] An explosion of this type was first discovered in mercury arc rectifiers used in high-power direct-current transmission lines, where the voltage drop across the device was seen to increase by several orders of magnitude. Double layers may also drift, usually in the direction of the emitted electron beam, and in this respect are natural analogues to the smooth--bore magnetron. [ Koenraad Mouthaan and Charles Süsskind, Statistical Theory of Electron Transport in the Smooth-Bore Magnetron] (1966) "Journal of Applied Physics" June 1966, Volume 37, Issue 7, pp. 2598-2606 ] ) (not to be confused with a unit of magnetic moment, the Bohr magneton, which is created by the "classical circular motion" of an electron around a proton).

There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection, only exploding double layers of electrified plasma.




[edit on 26-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

I love Alfven's abstract in "Double Layers"

"A simple circuit is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources. Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the Sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from earth. Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object. It is suggested that X-ray and gamma-ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers (although annihilation is an alternative energy source). The way the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat concepts like double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects and circuits was studied. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these, although some of the phenomena were discovered 50 yr ago."

They aren't ignorant.

They are willfully criminal.

They are absconding with our tax dollars, looting the public, pushing lies down our throats, all done with the full knowledge that what they are saying is a load of crap.

Great thread fellow plasma cosmologist.

It sure is good to see how far things have progressed in ten years. More and more people are catching on to the fraudulent nature of the status-quo, gravitationally based paradigm.

I'll provide some research material for those brave enough to attempt to challenge my claims.

After 50 years of research attempting to tell us just how magnetic reconnection can happen, they have this to say:

"In addressing these global issues, we note that all classical models fail when particularly long global lengths are assumed for the current layers."

I'll try and summarize the futility of their efforts.

You see, the criminals you call standard cosmologists assume all plasma in space has no electrical current passing through it. They assume that all of the magnetic fields we see in space are magically frozen into the plasma, even though the laws of physics say this is impossible.

Why?

Because if they were to acknowledge that electrical current flows in large scale space plasmas and those currents are responsible for all the magnetic fields we see in space, they would have to throw Einstein's retarded theories of warping space into the trash can.

This assumption that magnetic fields are "frozen" into the plasma leads to some epic problems. Namely how to explain why that "frozen in" field should ever become "unfrozen." An "unfrozen" state is required in order for their reconnection models to meet with observation.

The "unfrozen" state means that an electric current has been created along the boundary of the plasma, which essentially describes an exploding double layer (a real event that does not violate the laws of physics). They describe this "unfreezing" by adding back in the resistivity that they took out in the first place in order to create their "frozen in" nonsense.

The great question is why should this plasma suddenly decide to become resistive?

When they attempt to model reconnection events using standard MHD theory, which assumes the plasma never becomes "unfrozen," they find that they can't explain the speed at which the reconnection takes place. Only by mimicking a real double layer explosion (which requires resistive plasma,) can they explain what is occurring.

All attempts to describe how this plasma can become "unfrozen" violate the known laws of physics yet again. The physicists are forced to deal with the first violation, which is a "frozen in" plasma, in order to account for the second violation, which is "unfreezing" a "frozen" plasma hahaha.

They can't do it.

They will never be able to do it.

Not without concocting a new force of the universe to explain it.

When the scientists say "the observed reconnection rate can be explained by a generalized Sweet-Parker model which incorporates compressibility, downstream pressure, and the effective resistivity." They are acknowledging that "resistivity" (ie. electrical current) is necessary to explain the "reconnection event."

And when they say "at least half of the increased ion energy must be due to nonclassical processes, consistent with the resistivity enhancement. " They are acknowledging that there is nothing in MHD theory that can explain how the plasma can suddenly decide to become resistive.


-----------------------------------------------------------


The MRX is the experimental team trying to reproduce reconnection in a lab.
mrx.pppl.gov...

Study of Local Reconnection Physics in a Laboratory Plasma
mrx.pppl.gov...

A short review of physics results obtained in the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) is given with an emphasis on the local features of magnetic reconnection in a controlled environment. Stable two-dimensional (2D) current sheets are formed and sustained by induction using two internal coils. The observed reconnection rates are found to be quantitatively consistent with a generalized Sweet-Parker model which incorporates compressibility, unbalanced upstream-downstream pressure, and the effective resistivity. The latter is significantly enhanced over its classical values in the low collisionality regime. Strong local ion heating is measured by an optical probe during the reconnection process, and at least half of the increased ion energy must be due to nonclassical processes, consistent with the resistivity enhancement.

Experimental Test of the Sweet-Parker Model of Magnetic Reconnection
mrx.pppl.gov...&ji98prl&ji99pop.html

We report a quantitative experimental test of the Sweet-Parker model of magnetic reconnection in a controlled laboratory plasma. It is found that the observed reconnection rate can be explained by a generalized Sweet-Parker model which incorporates compressibility, downstream pressure, and the effective resistivity. The latter is significantly enhanced over its classical values in the collisionless limit.

Magnetic reconnection (the 2010 bible on reconnection from the MRX team)
Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud, and Hantao Ji
REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS, VOLUME 82, JANUARY–MARCH 2010
mrx.pppl.gov...




[edit on 26-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by fordrew
Interesting.... B × curl [B(E•B/B2)] = 0 can you post where you got that from? So how well are your calculus skills? Been scouring through your space/technology/topics I should say

[edit on 26-5-2010 by fordrew]

Good enough to know that what the standard theorists are telling us is a load of crap.

These people have to know what they are saying is a pile of lies.

They have to know.

Its so blatantly obvious on so many levels (not just magnetic reconnection) that they are full of it that I can no longer believe this is ignorance.

It is fraud.

Alright man, I seriously can't tell if you are a straight up troll or not, especially since you do not know anything about modern physics (I recall in one thread you said that even a 10 year old could see Einstein's mistakes). But anyways, if you think you are right then go to a researcher. Go to a local college or a researcher at some company and present your evidence. See what they say. I can not say that you are right or wrong because I refuse to read through all of your Einstein bashing. Nor do I claim to have any knowledge of MODERN physics. You seem *so* confident in yourself if you resort to bashing Einstein. And I probably know your response to asking a professor/researcher : "But they have been trained to follow Einstein! THOSE MINDLESS DRONES!"

Take a college class on it. Unless you have sophisticated enough equipment to carry out your own labs. Coupled with learning about such physics, you actually do experiments in a laboratory! Not just sit in a classroom being taught mindless formulas and concepts. You actually prove these theories! You need to learn Calculus btw. Its not hard. I have actually used those magnetic formulas in a prerequisite laboratory to prove they work.

How do you explain the Theory of Relativity? Like satellites/ GPS much? They could not exist without it.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by fordrew]

reply to post by fordrew


How about you learn some basic physics instead.

This way you could actually debate me.

There are some people in this forum that have more than a basic understanding of physics, yet I don't see them in this thread.

Curious.

I would be wasting my time debating a troll/idiot.

Originally posted by fordrew
I would be wasting my time debating a troll/idiot.

I think you got that backwards.

I would be wasting MY time debating a troll/idiot.

So which one of you is going to explain graity so i can understand it and how fast does it travel.

Is it some type of particle like light or is it a string.

The rubber mat and the bowling ball does not fit the bill for me because it fails to answer which way is up or down as the ball sits in the middle and makes a dent downwards so balls will roll towards it.

Does every single attom in the universe realy have an attraction to every other single atom in the universe and if everything came from a big bang and every planet is travling away from each other then how come no one can tell me in which direction the bang started from.

maybe our brains don't have the capacity to understand whats going on because i can not work any of it out.

reply to post by LieBuster


Firstly, gravity is non-existant in modern physics (quantum gravity is only theoretical quantum physics). Gravity is replaced by the theory of relativity.

I have a question for the State funded cosmologists and astronomers in here.

Do you ever feel any guilt for what you are doing or do you self-rationalize all the lying by justifying your need to retain well paid employment?

I find it absolutely amazing that an ENTIRE FIELD of science can be dominated completely by criminal looters.

I suppose I shouldn't though considering the entire field of politics is dominated completely by criminal looters.

You know, I just had an amazing realization.

The percentage of non-looting non-criminal politicians is about the exact same percentage of non-looting non-criminal cosmologists/astronomers.

We have Ron Paul (soon to also have Rand Paul) out of 535 state reps in DC.

We have about 2,000 US cosmologists/astronomers with about 5 of those who aren't total criminals.

A fairly similar ratio.