Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 63557188" data-attributes="member: 627"><p><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy</a></p><p></p><p>IMO it's a tad ironic that Tom Bridgman spends his free time talking about dealing with creationism in astronomy when he's the one that is claiming that a 'big bang' created all the matter in our universe. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p>He's essentially peddling a creation event story that requires three (maybe four now) hypothetical entities. Considering his basic belief system, I have no idea why he feels compelled to whine about other people's creation mythologies. Anyway, what struck me about his most recent blog entry was his topic - Magnetic reconnection theory.</p><p></p><p>What struck me most about this particular post is the blatant ignorance of history, along with the absurd attempt to twist the facts.</p><p></p><p>There is no misconception. The fact of the matter is that solar flares are "electrical discharges". Bridgman's whole spiel about "like terrestrial lightning" seems to be the area where he intends to play word games.</p><p></p><p>In fact it was Kristian Birkeland who first described solar flares as electrical discharges, not James Dungey.</p><p></p><p>FYI, here's what Hannes Alfven had to say about "magnetic reconnection" theory when he presented his double layer paper that made that theory obsolete:</p><p></p><p>In short, Alfven openly stated that the entire 'magnetic reconnection' concept was pure pseudoscience. His double layer paper makes it obsolete and Bridgman never even mentioned that.</p><p></p><p>To discuss electrical discharges in plasma we first need a definition of an electrical discharge from a plasma physics textbook. Anthony Peratt from his book "Physics Of The Plasma Universe":</p><p></p><p>Now of course Peratt studied plasma physics from Alfven, but I have no idea what, if anything, Bridgman understands about plasma physics, or if he's even read a single textbook on the topic of plasma physics.</p><p></p><p>BZZZT! Those aren't just magnetic neutral points in Dungey's paper, they are electrically active areas where streams of electrons are flowing, electrons that ultimately *discharge* themselves into to the surrounding plasma. </p><p></p><p>Now of course Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma *is inclusive* of "magnetic reconnection' theory in the first place, it's not *exclusive*. </p><p></p><p>That line is so false it's pathetic. The electrical discharges in the plasma of Birkeland's experiments came from a source *external* to the plasma itself, and the ionization state of the plasma to start with is utterly irrelevant. Alfven also wrote an entire paper that is devoted to explaining how and why electric fields form in plasma, which Bridgman never mentioned!</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents%20In%20The%20Solar%20Atmosphere%20And%20A%20Theory%20Of%20Solar%20Flares.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents%20In%20The%20Solar%20Atmosphere%20And%20A%20Theory%20Of%20Solar%20Flares.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>He is basically wrong on both counts.</p><p></p><p>Apparently Bridgman does not begin to even understand Alfven's double layer paper or that paper by James Dungey. That same X marks the spot in Alfven's double layer where the current from both directions slams into each other. It's not just 'magnetic lines' that interact at that X, it's all the charged particles that are interacting at that X. That's true in Alfven's double layer paper, and it's true in the paper by James Dungey as well.</p><p></p><p> That line is a complete misrepresentation of the facts considering my discussion of this topic at JREF. It was the astronomers and the mathematicians that kept claiming that "reconnection' was a "plasma optional" process! It's the maintream that doesn't even understand their own stupid pseudoscientific theories, not the EU proponents.</p><p></p><p>Alfven already did that for him:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double%20Layers%20In%20Astrophysics.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>Their 'discouragement' was a ruse that was designed to ignore the fact the they *are* similar processes! That's their entire game in a nutshell. When they talk about making two "lines" reconnect, they aren't talking about simple magnetic lines, they are talking about current carrying threads of plasma (aka Birkeland currents) that electrically interact through a double layer that forms in between the two currents! There are no simple "magnetic lines' that actually reconnect, there are two *Birkeland currents" that reconnect electrically through a double layer. Alfven's double layer paper makes their "reconnection' theory obsolete in such instances. They can't and won't accept that fact.</p><p></p><p>It's a placeholder term for pure pseudoscience according to the author of plasma physics theory. It's a placeholder term for an electrical interaction process in a plasma double layer that is adequately described in Alfven's double layer paper without the need for any magnetic lines disconnecting from or reconnecting to any other magnetic lines. </p><p></p><p>Not actually. They all occur in "current carrying" environments, and Alfven's double layer paper explains that process already *without* reconnection theory.</p><p></p><p>That statement is pure bunk. They are both "electrical discharges" involving huge amount of current through plasma.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 63557188, member: 627"] [URL="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/"]Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy[/URL] IMO it's a tad ironic that Tom Bridgman spends his free time talking about dealing with creationism in astronomy when he's the one that is claiming that a 'big bang' created all the matter in our universe. :confused::doh: He's essentially peddling a creation event story that requires three (maybe four now) hypothetical entities. Considering his basic belief system, I have no idea why he feels compelled to whine about other people's creation mythologies. Anyway, what struck me about his most recent blog entry was his topic - Magnetic reconnection theory. What struck me most about this particular post is the blatant ignorance of history, along with the absurd attempt to twist the facts. There is no misconception. The fact of the matter is that solar flares are "electrical discharges". Bridgman's whole spiel about "like terrestrial lightning" seems to be the area where he intends to play word games. In fact it was Kristian Birkeland who first described solar flares as electrical discharges, not James Dungey. FYI, here's what Hannes Alfven had to say about "magnetic reconnection" theory when he presented his double layer paper that made that theory obsolete: In short, Alfven openly stated that the entire 'magnetic reconnection' concept was pure pseudoscience. His double layer paper makes it obsolete and Bridgman never even mentioned that. To discuss electrical discharges in plasma we first need a definition of an electrical discharge from a plasma physics textbook. Anthony Peratt from his book "Physics Of The Plasma Universe": Now of course Peratt studied plasma physics from Alfven, but I have no idea what, if anything, Bridgman understands about plasma physics, or if he's even read a single textbook on the topic of plasma physics. BZZZT! Those aren't just magnetic neutral points in Dungey's paper, they are electrically active areas where streams of electrons are flowing, electrons that ultimately *discharge* themselves into to the surrounding plasma. Now of course Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma *is inclusive* of "magnetic reconnection' theory in the first place, it's not *exclusive*. That line is so false it's pathetic. The electrical discharges in the plasma of Birkeland's experiments came from a source *external* to the plasma itself, and the ionization state of the plasma to start with is utterly irrelevant. Alfven also wrote an entire paper that is devoted to explaining how and why electric fields form in plasma, which Bridgman never mentioned! [URL="http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents%20In%20The%20Solar%20Atmosphere%20And%20A%20Theory%20Of%20Solar%20Flares.pdf"]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents%20In%20The%20Solar%20Atmosphere%20And%20A%20Theory%20Of%20Solar%20Flares.pdf[/URL] He is basically wrong on both counts. Apparently Bridgman does not begin to even understand Alfven's double layer paper or that paper by James Dungey. That same X marks the spot in Alfven's double layer where the current from both directions slams into each other. It's not just 'magnetic lines' that interact at that X, it's all the charged particles that are interacting at that X. That's true in Alfven's double layer paper, and it's true in the paper by James Dungey as well. That line is a complete misrepresentation of the facts considering my discussion of this topic at JREF. It was the astronomers and the mathematicians that kept claiming that "reconnection' was a "plasma optional" process! It's the maintream that doesn't even understand their own stupid pseudoscientific theories, not the EU proponents. Alfven already did that for him: [URL]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double%20Layers%20In%20Astrophysics.pdf[/URL] Their 'discouragement' was a ruse that was designed to ignore the fact the they *are* similar processes! That's their entire game in a nutshell. When they talk about making two "lines" reconnect, they aren't talking about simple magnetic lines, they are talking about current carrying threads of plasma (aka Birkeland currents) that electrically interact through a double layer that forms in between the two currents! There are no simple "magnetic lines' that actually reconnect, there are two *Birkeland currents" that reconnect electrically through a double layer. Alfven's double layer paper makes their "reconnection' theory obsolete in such instances. They can't and won't accept that fact. It's a placeholder term for pure pseudoscience according to the author of plasma physics theory. It's a placeholder term for an electrical interaction process in a plasma double layer that is adequately described in Alfven's double layer paper without the need for any magnetic lines disconnecting from or reconnecting to any other magnetic lines. Not actually. They all occur in "current carrying" environments, and Alfven's double layer paper explains that process already *without* reconnection theory. That statement is pure bunk. They are both "electrical discharges" involving huge amount of current through plasma. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection
Top
Bottom