Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[Michael]

The delusion that people fluent in physics cannot not understand the Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection in vacuum by W.D. Clinger.

The real "delusion" by the way is claiming that an unpublished rant on a random website that is devoid of any plasma, and devoid of any mathematical expression of a rate of 'reconnection' has anything at all to do with the process in plasma and MHD theory that is known as "magnetic reconnection". Do you even understand what a *published* reference looks like RC? You've never provided one that supported any of your statements, not in relationship to electrical discharges in plasma, not in relationship to 'reconnection' without plasma, and not in relationship to any of your claims related to Manuel's work. Do you have anything *science* oriented to offer RC, or just random unpublished websites and personal insults galore?

 

[Michael]

So then it's real simple. Why don't you show me one of those post-graduate college courses like I showed you that don't say exactly the same thing? Why don't you show us Gauss, Ampere's or Maxwell's laws in those books and let's see what they say?

Or is it because you can't find any that support your Fairie Dust any more than you can find one single Plasma experiment in which the gravitational force laws were applied? Is that why you refuse to accept the science for some guy on a blog-spot that can't show anything either???

So go ahead - show us all what they say. I'd give you some more of those post-graduate courses, but we will use your accepted post-graduate textbook link. So show me Ampere's law in your accepted link, or are you having the same trouble finding your Fairie Dust as you are having with those plasma experiments and gravitational force laws???

No, I think all you can do is make claims and link to blog-sites when it comes down to the actual science.

You're dreaming if you expect RC to crack a real textbook. I've been after him for 4 years to pick up a textbook on MHD theory to no avail. Apparently he learns everything he spews via osmosis rather than actually reading the material.

 

[Michael]

A pity that is a lie since no charged particles are included in the example as anyone who reads the section can see.

Not only *does* it include plasma *current*, it includes plasma current *displacement* too RC, which satisfies both of the requirements on WIKI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration. Magnetic reconnection occurs on timescales intermediate between slow resistive diffusion of the magnetic field and fast Alfvénic timescales.

What about term "in highly conductive plasmas" don't you comprehend RC? What about the term "magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy" don't you comprehend RC? Somov's example *includes* to plasma currents, and *current displacement*, satisfying A) the need for plasma, and B) plasma particle acceleration as a result of "reconnection".

You and Clinger on the other hand do not have a plasma particle to your name, you have no way to transfer magnetic field energy into particle acceleration, and you therefore have no way to mathematically express a rate of reconnection that is greater than zero.

Why do you think the process occurs on time timescales related to *plasma* features RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Not only *does* it include plasma *current...

This is Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma. As you know Michael:

• The word plasma does not appear in the caption of the image you included !
• The word plasma does not appear in section 4.4.2.
• X marks the spot - magnetic reconnection happens at point X which is in vacuum between the currents.

But just in case you have better eyes than everyone else:
22 November 2016 Michael: Quote the description of any current ("plasma" or otherwise) going through the point X in Somov 4.4.2.

Or more simply from ISF:
15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?

 

[Michael]

This is Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma. As you know Michael:

• The word plasma does not appear in the caption of the image you included !

The term "currents" (of charged plasma particles) however does appear in the caption, along with the *motion* of those "currents" (charged particles). You and Clinger *left out* the *charged particles entirely*, as well as the *transfer of energy* that is called "reconnection". I'm blown away that you dug up this thread. It just serves to demonstrate your own ignorance of plasma physics.

When can I expect to see any published paper that claims that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma RC? Never!

The fact that Somov *included* charged particles, *and* he *included* charged particle movement/acceleration demonstrates the *transfer of energy* part that you and Clinger forgot! Doh!

Wow. I'm absolutely stunned you have the nerve to even bring up this thread and point out your own personal plasma physics Waterloo again. Amazing.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The term "currents" (of charged plasma particles)

Any one reading the caption can see that is a fantasy - there is no "plasma" in the caption.
Any one who can understand English can read the text and see no plasma in the example and magnetic reconnection happens outside of the current - in vacuum
Any one who knows about plasma knows that it is an ionized gas and so expands to fill any volume making "two parallel currents" (of charged plasma particles) into a physically impossible fantasy.

This is many years of going on about physically impossible and irrelevant plasma making up two parallel current in this forum and the ISF.
15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?
22 November 2016 Michael: Quote the description of any current ("plasma" or otherwise) going through the point X in Somov 4.4.2.

 

[Michael]

Any one reading the caption can see that is a fantasy - there is no "plasma" in the caption.

As much as you wish to deny that his "current" is a form of "plasma", it's still a form of plasma RC. As much as you'd love to deny the *movement* of those two currents and the transfer of energy to particle acceleration, it's all included in his diagram.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration.

Just like the WIKI definition of reconnection, Somov *included* the charged particles that you and Clinger left out, and he *included* the movement of those charged particles that you also left out. That's why Somov's model *can* achieve a non-zero rate of reconnection, whereas you and Clinger are up a vacuum creek without a plasma paddle.

Any one who can understand English can read the text and see no plasma in the example and magnetic reconnection happens outside of the current - in vacuum

Anyone that can read English knows that the term "in plasma" requires plasma, and understands the concept of transferring energy to charged particles. Evidently you and Clinger don't understand English. Somov on the other hand did understand English which is why his "vacuum" includes A) moving plasma particles, and B) acceleration of those charged particles.

Evidently you read the term "vacuum", and ignored the rest of Somov's currents and his example of moving currents to suit yourself.

Who do you think you're fooling RC? Everyone following this conversation know full well that I've been asking your for a formula for a non-zero rate of "reconnection" in Clingers nonsense for years now, and neither of can or ever will produce it. We all know what WIKI says. We all know what a *transfer of energy* is too. You already know that you're wrong, but you're simply too stubborn to admit it. Where's your math?

 

[RealityCheck01]

As much as you wish to deny that his "current" is a form of "plasma", it's still a form of plasma RC.

The fantasy that an ionized gas (plasma ) magically forms two parallel lines where and the electrons or ions trot along the lines in currents !
This is many years of going on about physically impossible and irrelevant plasma making up two parallel current in this forum and the ISF.
15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?
22 November 2016 Michael: Quote the description of any current ("plasma" or otherwise) going through the point X in Somov 4.4.2.

 

[Radrook]

True but it is a fact that black holes have been discovered as predicted and that galaxies harbour at their core supermassive black holes. In fact we know they are there from the orbits of stars around the black holes or when they are in the process of feeding.

You may not see the air but you can see its effects.

Don't even try to convince me that black holes do not exist and that Galaxies are held together by electricity because that is not accepted by the mainstream and so long as it stays that way I will dismiss EU.

Whew! There I said it!

Did you watch the documentary on Science and Islam? I guarantee you if you watch it all you will come out having learnt quite a few new things about the history of science. You will be surprised at what is in there.

Isn't it amazing how logical atheists can be with cause and effect arguments until such arguments involve a creator. Then all logic suddenly becomes irrelevant.

 

[Michael]

The fantasy

Is it possible for you to even post a single post without resorting to your verbally abusive bag of tricks, like "fantasy", "ignorant", "deluded", yada, yada, yada? Do you ever *not* cheat at debate, or are you verbally abusive to everyone?

that an ionized gas (plasma ) magically forms two parallel lines where and the electrons or ions trot along the lines in currents !

EM fields and moving charged particles aren't "magic" RC. Unlike all your dark nonsense, they actually show up in the lab, and in Somov's diagram too, including *movement* of those "currents" where the *transfer* of magnetic field energy occurred and *moved* the charged particles of *plasma*.

Somov *included* the two things you and poor Clinger forgot, namely charged particles and charged particle acceleration. Deal with it already.

We all know you will *never* provide us with a non zero rate of "reconnection" maths to support your erroneous nonsense because without a transfer of energy, *zero* amount of reconnection is occurring.

This is many years of going on about physically impossible and irrelevant plasma making up two parallel current in this forum and the ISF.

For all these many years, I've asked you and clueless Clinger to provide us with a mathematical formula to describe a non zero *rate* of reconnection in his "example". Never have you provided us with that math. Never *will* you provide us with that math. It does not exist, because it cannot exist.

Cue the theme song to Jeopardy while we wait again, and again, for the formula that you will never provide.....

You're always reduced to citing irrelevant unpublished blogs as a reference, or kludging the whole meaning of a single paragraph or diagram, just like you kludged Somov's diagram when he *included* charged particles and charged particle acceleration.

 

[Michael]

Isn't it amazing how logical atheists can be with cause and effect arguments until such arguments involve a creator. Then all logic suddenly becomes irrelevant.

Yep.

 

[Radrook]

There is absolutely no true incompatibility between astronomy and creationism. Both admit that the universe had a beginning. Both recognize the present state of our universe as it is astronomically detected. The only difference is that atheistic astronomy refuses to consider the possibility of a creator a while creationism asserts one. So it isn't an astronomical incompatibility at all. It is an incompatibility between the atheist view and the desist view concerning the universe's origin. All other aspects of astronomy remain essentially untouched.

 

[Speedwell]

There is absolutely no true incompatibility between astronomy and creationism. Both admit that the universe had a beginning. Both recognize the present state of our universe as it is astronomically detected. The only difference is that atheistic astronomy refuses to consider the possibility of a creator a while creationism asserts one. So it isn't an astronomical incompatibility at all. It is an incompatibility between the atheist view and the desist view concerning the universe's origin. All other aspects of astronomy remain essentially untouched.

It depends on what you mean by some of your terms. What's the difference between astronomy and "atheistic astronomy?" I believe in God, which makes me a "small c" creationist but I know of nothing about the astronomy I share with atheists which gives me any concern, the existence of God not being an astronomical question. On the other hand, the astronomy of Young Earth Creationists is a very, very different thing altogether.

 

[Radrook]

It depends on what you mean by some of your terms. What's the difference between astronomy and "atheistic astronomy?" I believe in God, which makes me a "small c" creationist but I know of nothing about the astronomy I share with atheists which gives me any concern, the existence of God not being an astronomical question. On the other hand, the astronomy of Young Earth Creationists is a very, very different thing altogether.

By atheistic astronomy I mean astronomy which refuses to acknowledge any possibility of a divine cause for the BB. The existence of God becomes an astronomical issue whenever atheistic astronomers attribute the BB to a non- divine cause and any divine cause is shunted aside as being ridiculous.

BTW
I agree that the Young Earth astronomy causes a serious rift between most astronomical theories and their view.

 

[Armoured]

By atheistic astronomy I mean astronomy which refuses to acknowledge any possibility of a divine cause for the BB. The existence of God becomes an astronomical issue whenever atheistic astronomers attribute the BB to a non- divine cause and any divine cause is shunted aside as being ridiculous.

BTW
I agree that the Young Earth astronomy causes a serious rift between most astronomical theories and their view.

The cause of the Big Bang is not a matter of astronomy. Much like the abiogenesis is not a matter of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

By atheistic astronomy I mean astronomy which refuses to acknowledge any possibility of a divine cause for the BB. The existence of God becomes an astronomical issue whenever atheistic astronomers attribute the BB to a non- divine cause and any divine cause is shunted aside as being ridiculous.

BTW
I agree that the Young Earth astronomy causes a serious rift between most astronomical theories and their view.

Science has not yet discovered a cause for the Big Bang or even, so far as I am aware, hypothesized one. Refusing to acknowledge the possibility of a divine cause is thus a personal philosophical position, not a scientific one. Consequently, I don't think it is possible to speak of atheist astronomy, but only of atheist astronomers--the astronomy itself being the same for boththeists and atheists..

 

[Radrook]

Science has not yet discovered a cause for the Big Bang or even, so far as I am aware, hypothesized one. Refusing to acknowledge the possibility of a divine cause is thus a personal philosophical position, not a scientific one. Consequently, I don't think it is possible to speak of atheist astronomy, but only of atheist astronomers--the astronomy itself being the same for boththeists and atheists..

I suppose you can view astronomy as neutral in the way you describe it.
As for hypothesizing about causes for the BB, yes, there is the Brane hypothesis of what caused it. There are also ideas involving quantum tunneling. Others have entertained the idea of multiple universes and one of their infinite collisions resulted in our specific Big Bang among many others. There was also once the oscillating universe hypothesis which proposed that our BB was merely one in an infinite number previous ones caused by a Big Crunch when our universe once more collapsed upon itself due to gravity and thus triggering another BB. Then their was the Steady State Theory that proposed that the Universe has always existed. That was before they realized that it was expanding and therefore must have had a beginning as the Bible tells us that is has.

 

[Speedwell]

I suppose you can view astronomy as neutral in the way you describe it.
As for hypothesizing about causes for the BB, yes, there is the Brane hypothesis of what caused it. There are also ideas involving quantum tunneling. Others have entertained the idea of multiple universes and one of their infinite collisions resulted in our specific Big Bang among many others.

Are you certain that the originators of those various speculations (for that is what they still are at this point) are atheists? There is nothing inherently atheistic about any of them.

 

[Radrook]

Are you certain that the originators of those various speculations (for that is what they still are at this point) are atheists? There is nothing inherently atheistic about any of them.

I cannot say that every singly person which proposed those origins for the universe was or is an atheist. However, the Steady State theory does not harmonize with what the Bible tells us happened. Also, such theories depend totally on pure chance and not a purposeful conscious being whose purpose is to create. In short, they attribute the universe to a chance occurrence and not to a purposeful effort by a creator. So in that indirect way they are atheistic.

 

[Speedwell]

I cannot say that every singly person which proposed those origins for the universe was or is an atheist. However, the Steady State theory does not harmonize with what the Bible tells us happened. Also, such theories depend totally on pure chance and not a purposeful conscious being whose purpose is to create. in short, they attribute the universe to a chance occurrence and not to a purposeful plan. So in that indirect way they are atheistic.

Ah, but now you are changing the terms of the discussion. Disagreeing with you about "what the Bible tells us happened" is not the same thing as being an atheist.

"All Nature is but Art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction, which thou canst not see."

--Alexander Pope​