It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Magnetic Reconnection – Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Let us start off with the dictionary definition of “magnetic reconnection


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.

Only an electric current can produce a magnetic field in a plasma. Without moving electrons, a magnetic field is impossible. Nearly all standard theory explanations of plasma and magnetic fields in space assume a “frozen in” state, where there is no current flowing in the plasma. If this was actually the case, there would be no magnetic fields in space since there would be no moving electrons.

Dr. Donald 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.[16] This was also shown to be unnecessary by Falthammar here and Alfven himself rejected this idea in Cosmic Plasma and in this paper here.[17][18][19] Alfven makes the point that:


As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory.


Fälthammar further explains:


The second concern is that the construct of moving field lines is sometimes confused with the concept of moving flux tubes. A flux tube can be thought of as an ensemble of field lines that are identified by their low energy plasma, which moves at the E×B/B2 velocity. Some researchers have asserted that as the plasma moves from region A to region B at this velocity, the field lines that were at A are later at B, so the magnetic field lines moved together with the plasma. This conclusion is wrong for two reasons. First, it is meaningless to assert that a field line that was at A is now at B, because there is no way to identify or distinguish one magnetic field line from another. Second, the concept of moving magnetic field lines is reasonable if it is used only for visualizing the temporal evolution of the magnetic field, and then, only if equation (2) is satisfied. This point is emphasized by the fact that there are an infinite number of field line velocities that produce the correct temporal evolution of the field when equation (2) is satisfied [Vasyliunas, 1972].[17]


The integration of two plasma parcels across space and time violates the rule Fälthammar has so eloquently described for us.

All observations of “magnetic reconnection” can be explained very simply using standard circuit theory in the form of an exploding double layer.[20][21] See this paper and these papers for more information on the types of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the double layer mechanism.[22][23] from pdf page 97, document page 91:


“It should be noted that before the ignition of BPD, the double layer becomes unstable, and large amplitude potential fluctuations are observed. Figure 9a shows the fluctuations in the local electric field as measured by the diagnostic electron beam. The electric field fluctuates at a frequency of approximately 1 kHz.”[23]


It should be readily apparent to any logical mind that there necessarily can be no magnetic reconnection because there is no such thing as an open ended field line. Any topology change must be accounted for by currents already present in the plasma, therefore there are ONLY exploding double layers.

• 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 an ideal conductor. 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. Because plasma is quasi-neutral it MUST obey Kirchhoff’s circuit laws. Any complete theory of a plasma system must close the circuit, even if the location of the input and output currents are unknown to us at this time.

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.[16]

——————————————-

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.

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). Therefore any attempt to model a plasma field as being perfectly conductive automatically ignores the electrical circuits which MUST necessarily exist as a consequence of the plasma field’s existence.

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.

Claim #4:

Barring the existence of fictitious magnetic monopoles (which Feynman disproved), all “field lines” are closed loops. Therefore, they can not “reconnect” any more than elevation lines on a topographical map can “reconnect.”

——————–

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


As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory. 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.


Summarized here:


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.

——————–

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, scientists 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, enough 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 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.

If you are interested in learning more about the epic lies being spewed upon the public by mainstream cosmologists, follow this link to my Knol article which contains a massive list of supporting scientific papers or click this link to my blog article which hosts several videos on the subject that are suitable for the layman.

The physical proof that electrical currents in space plasma are responsible for ALL observable astrophysical phenomena is overwhelming. The continued omissions and ignorance of electricity in space plasmas by mainstream cosmologists crosses the line into blatant scientific fraud. It is CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR on the part of cosmologists because they are accepting public funding under false pretenses. Any research team that has accepted public funding, and that has blatantly ignored obvious electrodynamic laws, should be hauled before a judge. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

It is not enough to simply refute their lies, I want to see them punished for criminal fraud. They all deserve to be behind bars for their wanton abuse of public funding and gross incompetence. Cosmologists that accept public funding have a fiduciary duty to the tax payer to ensure that the science conducted under their supervision complies with the known physical laws of the universe.

I know this article is being referenced by several prominent university networks. Any scientist reading this should know that continued support of nonsensical theories is not only immoral it is ILLEGAL if done so on the tax payers dime and there will ultimately come a day of reckoning for your actions. The truth will not go away, the physical laws of the universe are immutable. You can not will new forms of matter and energy into existence by creating mathematical models on a piece of paper.

——————–

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...

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...

——————–

Dr. Donald Scott gives a lecture on electric cosmology at the NASA Goddard Space Center Engineering Colloquia:




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I don't have time right now to digest the entire o.p. but electrons are ALWAYS IN MOVEMENT around the nucleus be it inthe "shell "model or "cloud" model...just sayin...



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


In a plasma, electrons are separated and stand on their own.

In a "frozen in" plasma, scientists make the assumption that there are no moving electrons and that the magnetic field is sustained in violation of the known laws of physics.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
You seem to have something against Einstein.

Please tell us what your qualifications are that gives you right to stand toe to toe with him.

Please provide us with references to your published articles in scientific circles. Or is a conspiracy website the only place that will accept your rantings?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Alfven makes the point that:


As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory.
As George Box said:


All models are wrong; some models are useful....

Which could be clarified:

I suppose we could say "All models are incomplete representations of reality; some models are useful." Wordy, but more accurate.
I think Einstein realized this too which is why at times he expressed some doubts about his own model like any smart person would, and expected his model to be replaced by a more complete model like his model was a more complete model than Newton's.

If anybody thinks any one model is a perfect representation of reality, they really need to study the George Box quote. They are all imperfect. If it's useful, use it. If it's not useful, don't use it. How do we know if it's useful? It's useful if it makes accurate predictions of experiments and observations. Part of science is always looking for the next more complete or more accurate model. Scientists also realize some models have a limited range or applicability. That doesn't mean the model isn't useful where it's useful, but it does mean like Box said that all models are "wrong" meaning incomplete representations of reality.

Regarding the thread title: "Magnetic Reconnection – Why Einstein Was Wrong" are you referring to some specific section of a paper by Einstein and a specific claim in that paper regarding reconnection? If so, please cite the paper and section reference.


edit on 10-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Any theory that uses frozen in fields is wrong.

So basically all of modern cosmology is wrong.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Any theory that uses frozen in fields is wrong.
Are you claiming that Einstein made claims about frozen in fields? If so please cite which paper/section.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by 46ACE
 


In a plasma, electrons are separated and stand on their own.

In a "frozen in" plasma, scientists make the assumption that there are no moving electrons and that the magnetic field is sustained in violation of the known laws of physics.


"Known Laws..." This might have been embedded in your post, but I was only able to skim... The null point of the Earth's magnetic field is a vortex. If you'd like to understand the laws of nature, there's a great start.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Any theory that uses frozen in fields is wrong.
Are you claiming that Einstein made claims about frozen in fields? If so please cite which paper/section.


Perhaps you aren't understanding the gravity of what I'm saying (pun intended).

Since frozen in fields do not exist, we know that electrical currents must exist in the plasma that is located in the inter-planetary and inter-stellar mediums.

Because this is so, circuit theory must be applied to account for all observations.

This leads to an entirely electrical explanation of all cosmological phenomena.

Therefore all gravitationally based theories of cosmological phenomena are wrong.

Theories of plasma collapsing by gravitational effects are wrong.

Theories of the inter-stellar medium being electrically neutral are wrong.

and so on and so forth.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
good post, sir. i have recently gotten into plasma cosmology and electric universe theory and i find that both of these theories are far better then the big bang model. they both have reproducible effects of what is observed in the sky. not only this, the theory shows the fallacy that modern science has fallen into. much like the times of capernicus and gallileo, the established is trying to stay in power and keep their wealth and shun true scientists that push our knowledge forward.

the biggest problem i see is math. math is a language that is supposed to be used to describe actions we see. today, math is used to come up with hypothetical actions that supposedly explain the process to the outcomes we see and if they can get an answer, it must be theory. this is not scientific. where is the experiment? math can not and does not replace a real experiment. its like saying the titanic is unsinkable because it would seem so by the blue print. everyone knows that what is seen on paper is not what always happens in the real world and the titanic is a prime example.

another example of this happening is the conventional comet/astroid theory. the probe that was fired at the comet produced a huge primary and secondary flash. unpredicted by nasa, but predicted by EU advocates.

A wake up
call for the Nintendo Generation. We demand
free access to data, well, it comes with some
responsibility. When I was a child, I spake
as a child, I understood as a child, I thought
as a child, but when I became a man I put away
childish things.

-Cereal, Hackers

math is magic when explaining the unknown and not the known.
thunderbolts


did not realize mnemeth posted this. a smart man for sure as i read his posts on other forums. but as with all humans we must realize that not all questions are attacks but signs of interest in what we say. i think he is not attacking einstein himself, but the theory that all mainstream astronomers base their observations from. he points to double layers as it is a reproducible action we see in space. while we can not create our own gravity, it is known that we can negate gravity through electric actions. really this shows that gravity is a product, i spose, of energy flow much like magnetic fields are. show me a object not in motion and its field of force and ill show you god.
edit on 10-3-2011 by tokinjedi because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by tokinjedi because: i cant speel



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Therefore all gravitationally based theories of cosmological phenomena are wrong
Does this include the orbit of the planets around the sun? Are you saying it's electricity, not gravity, that causes the planets to orbit the sun?

I thought the gravitational model worked pretty well in our own solar system, not only for planets but also for launching space probes like Voyager etc using gravitational slingshot effects.

And I really don't understand this false dichotomy between electricity and gravity that some people try to present. The universe isn't either gravitational or electrical, there are obviously both gravitational and electrical/electromagnetic processes taking place. Gravity explains some observations, and electromagnetism explains other observations. And some observations so far haven't been explained by either one, like dark matter observations of galactic clusters.

And I still don't understand the connection between Einstein and magnetic reconnection (no pun intended but I guess it's unavoidable)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Therefore all gravitationally based theories of cosmological phenomena are wrong
Does this include the orbit of the planets around the sun? Are you saying it's electricity, not gravity, that causes the planets to orbit the sun?

I thought the gravitational model worked pretty well in our own solar system, not only for planets but also for launching space probes like Voyager etc using gravitational slingshot effects.

And I really don't understand this false dichotomy between electricity and gravity that some people try to present. The universe isn't either gravitational or electrical, there are obviously both gravitational and electrical/electromagnetic processes taking place. Gravity explains some observations, and electromagnetism explains other observations. And some observations so far haven't been explained by either one, like dark matter observations of galactic clusters.

And I still don't understand the connection between Einstein and magnetic reconnection (no pun intended but I guess it's unavoidable)


They are wrong in as much as they conclude that bending space is responsible for gravity.

It is clear that gravity is not a function of curved "spacetime".

That said, scientists have no explanation of why matter should curve space, therefore there is absolutely no reason to believe that it does.

Dark matter and dark energy are proof that Einstein was wrong. They are necessary ad hoc assumptions in order to make his theories comply with what is observed.



edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Provide me with papers demonstrating the following:

1. Laboratory proof of why matter should curve spacetime.

2. Laboratory proof that dark matter actually exists.

3. Laboratory proof that dark energy actually exists.

4. Laboratory proof that magnetic monopoles exist.


edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by 46ACE
 


In a plasma, electrons are separated and stand on their own.

In a "frozen in" plasma, scientists make the assumption that there are no moving electrons and that the magnetic field is sustained in violation of the known laws of physics.


Long op, will read in depth and post again.
Somehow a stationary or trapped photon or electron is hard to imagine



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Somehow a stationary or trapped photon or electron is hard to imagine


indeed



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
They are wrong in as much as they conclude that bending space is responsible for gravity.
If "all models are wrong and some are useful", I'd say the gravitational model has been pretty useful even if it's "wrong" in the sense I described in my previous post.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Provide me with papers demonstrating the following:

1. Laboratory proof of why matter should curve spacetime.

2. Laboratory proof that dark matter actually exists.

3. Laboratory proof that dark energy actually exists.

4. Laboratory proof that magnetic monopoles exist.
1. I've never seen the "why" explained. But it goes back to the quote that "some models are useful". The gravitational model certainly seems to work in our own solar system, so it's useful for predicting the orbits of planets and the trajectories of satellites. But the fact we can't explain "why" doesn't add validity to (insert alternate model here).
2-3. "Dark" means there's no model, only observations looking for a model to explain them.
4. There is a paper published in Science about this but I haven't read it:

Magnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time

So are you admitting that Einstein didn't really say anything about magnetic reconnection?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


From the study in question:
arxiv.org...


The theory breaks down when typical length scales (screening length, monopole separation) become of the order of the lattice constant. This happens for temperatures above approximately 1K, where the spin ice state gives way to a more conventional paramagnet, and monopoles cease to be suitable quasiparticles


Wiki further concludes:
en.wikipedia.org...


Some condensed matter systems propose a structure superficially similar to a magnetic monopole, known as a flux tube. The ends of a flux tube form a magnetic dipole, but since they move independently, they can be treated for many purposes as independent magnetic monopole quasiparticles. In late 2009, numerous news reports from the popular media incorrectly described this phenomenon as the long-awaited discovery of the magnetic monopoles, but the two phenomena are only superficially related to one another.[10]


From Johns Hoppkins:
physicsworld.com...


Oleg Tchernyshyov at Johns Hopkins University in the US said that the findings of both teams are in agreement with a theory (see "'Spin ice' could contain magnetic monopoles") that was unveiled last year by several of Morris's colleagues. However, he cautions that the theory and experiments are specific to spin ices, and are not likely to shed light on magnetic monopoles as predicted by Dirac.


Which means they have zero applicability to magnetic reconnection.

Further, they are inferred through theory, which means if the theory is wrong, so too are the assumptions of a monopole.

But it is nice to see you admit that there is no reason why matter should curve space and that there are no laboratory observations of dark matter/energy.



edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Let us rejoice in the final destruction of the insane theory of bending space.

The farce of bending space has gone on long enough.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
@mnemeth1

As Arbitrageur has already tried to explain to you, there are no wrong theories/models!

You are talking about "the insane theory of bending space". You have to understand that it is just a model. The idea of bent space doesn't make any sense outside of relativity. Certain phenomena can be described quite fine without by using the newtonian model for example.

A model doesn't have to do anything with the reality. It is a mathematical construct/tool used to describe/predict observed phenomena within a certain domain.

If you mean I've got a better model than the currently used ones, please show its advantage by prediction of observed phenomena. Show that it is more useful and people are going to use it.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


There most certainly are "wrong models"

Anything that violates the known laws of physics, which "magnetic reconnection" does, is wrong.

There are LAWS of physics and then there are theories.

All theories must comply with the known laws of physics, any theory that does not is obviously wrong.


edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join