Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
However, he was fine with it in the solar atmosphere.
I didn't claim induction and MRx were one and the same process, I simply noted that induction occurs in *all* conductors during changes to the magnetic field topology. His description of MRx is too generic to eliminate induction as the process he's describing.
No he wasn't. He used circuit theory.
https://thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents In The Solar Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf
His double layer paper eliminates the need for MRx in any and all current carrying environments. That's the whole point of his dissatisfaction with MRx.
Yes it has been. Stop lying.
Really? Where is this written up? Links please.
Read the scientific literature. Too many to list here. On the other hand, show me where any scientist is claiming MR is not a real phenomenon. And induction is pure woo, invented by you.
What current? Where is this written up? Links, please.
Tusenfem linked you to a paper if I recall, showing that such a thing was very unlikely in space plasmas. And they certainly haven't been observed. And certainly not in connection with MR.
No he wasn't. He used circuit theory.
https://thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents In The Solar Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf
His double layer paper eliminates the need for MRx in any and all current carrying environments. That's the whole point of his dissatisfaction with MRx.
Michael! Read my lips; HE. WAS. WRONG. As proven.
I could not care less what he thought. He is wrong. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'WRONG'?
And the DLs aren't there. So he was WRONG.
Where's the lab test that demonstrates it?
Type in Z-machine on google.
Faraday demonstrated induction hundreds of years ago. If you have to accuse me of creating something that's hundreds of years old, you don't have an argument.
I thought you said you read Alfven's work. Where *didn't* he discuss current in space?
That's not what I asked you for. I don't care if you think it's 'unlikely'.
No, Michael. You are squirming again. It is a bad habit.
False. Even mainstream astronomers use terms like "Current sheet" and other terms that demonstrate that current is present and flowing through the plasma, and therefore MRx is unnecessary.
I'm not squirming, I'm holding you responsible to demonstrate your claim. Since plasma is a conductor, induction is a given the moment you introduce changing magnetic fields. If you think that something *other than* induction happens in such conditions, it's up to you to provide laboratory evidence to demonstrate it.
I'm not squirming, I'm holding you responsible to demonstrate your claim. Since plasma is a conductor, induction is a given the moment you introduce changing magnetic fields. If you think that something *other than* induction happens in such conditions, it's up to you to provide laboratory evidence to demonstrate it.
Hopefully, it is becoming apparent that Michael is not particularly au fait with any of the relevant science he critcises. One therefore has to ask why he continues to post his nonsense on various fora. Those that he isn't banned from, that is. Dunning-Kruger syndrome is certainly one possibility. A general anti-science agenda is another. Hearing the sound of his own voice would be yet another. I would suggest that it is a combination of all three. He simply cannot help himself.
You have a lot to offer in this forum why waste it on this individual who seems to be only interested in picking fights with those who he sees as possessing a level of understanding greater than his.
He screwed up the maths, has no mechanism for moving stars around, and has no evidence for the existence of these impossible currents. I'd say that is a slam-dunk, yes?
No. Like I said I've already pointed out math and physics errors made by Scott's detractors. I haven't seen a reasonable rebuttal to those posts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?