I go toe to toe with the establishment Summary 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 Alfvén, Fälthammar, 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.Given the above claims, that is basically stating I believe "frozen in" magnetic fields do not exist and current theories of magnetic reconnection are wrong. The real cause of magnetic reconnection is an exploding double layer of plasma driven by inductive electrical currents in space. A list of papers I have presented. Dealing with the requirement B × curl [B(E•B/B2)] = 0 be satisfied. On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field LinesDealing with frozen in magnetic fields Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the CosmosDealing with double layers, double layer explosions (explaination for "magnetic reconnection"), and circuit theory Double Layers And Circuits In AstrophysicsDealing with supportive claims of circuit theory and double layers as a driver of "magnetic reconnection". THEMIS mission site declaring:Dealing with the quasi-neutrality of plasma Graph of volts over amps, showing a frozen in state of plasma can never be achieved.Dealing with the standing theory of "fast" Hall reconnection and problems with resistive MHD theory Alfvnic collisionless magnetic reconnection and the Hall term |
|
|
|
Updates >
The Great Magentic Reconneciton Debate (Criticism)posted Aug 23, 2009 3:29 PM by Michael Suede [ updated Aug 27, 2009 5:38 PM ] |