After checking out those two links, above, that you have provided, I now see that "Anaconda" is James F. Evans. Nice bit of research there, ND!

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out later; it's 06:42 hours, here in the UK, and it's nearly my bedtime!

Here's something somewhat curious: Anaconda (a.k.a. JFE) has had various aspects of (classical) electromagnetism pointed out to him many times, over many months. He's also had someone who personally knew Alfvén, who is obviously very familiar with both Alfvén's work and plasma physics explain (more than once!) how, where, and why Anaconda errs in his references to Alfvén. And so on.

Yet Anaconda continues to write just as he has always done.

(BTW, Svalgaard delivers a very powerful rebuttal of the PU website so many EU proponents like to cite (it's 22nd June, 17:43:13, or search "besmirch"): "The website is basically fraudulent in its claims and reflects the pseudo-science of its promoter. The site does not pass an elementary smell test once you begin to look at it in details, for instance this on Hubble: “Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.” So modern cosmology also goes down the drain. Since I knew Alfven personally and have discussed his ideas with him, I cannot let you besmirch him with this pseudo-science."

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/17/solar-cycle-24-lack-of-sunspots-caused-by-sluggish-solar-jet-stream-returning-soon/

search for "I suggest that you dial back your rhetoric and accusations a bit" and look at the next immediate posting.

I submit the following that James F. Evans is Anaconda

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/04/th-sun-puts-on-some-fireworks-for-the-4th-of-july/

search for "Anaconda", it's the only mention on that thread. Not that it matters.

You know the expression 'to take something out of context', right?

You know that it can be quite misleading (taking something out of context, that is), and that it is quite easy to do, both deliberately (coldly, cynically … the sort of thing that happens all too often in politics, for example), and inadvertently.

I'm sure you also recognise that a discussion based on things which have been taken out of context is likely to be unsatisfactory (and may be downright misleading, or even surreal).

Good.

Now consider this: every time you use a key word ("emf", perhaps), or concept ("magnetic reconnection", perhaps) 'out of context' you make it likely that any further discussion will be unsatisfactory (at a minimum).

Here comes the punch line …

… a very high proportion of your comments, here in UT-land, are equivalent to taking key things out of context!

Now I, Nereid, have no interest in participating in an exchange of comments where there is not just one or two things being taken out of context, but a whole legion of them.

However, I'm more than willing to work with you, to show you how and why some (most?) of what you write cannot possibly lead to a meaningful discussion … but only if you either explicitly acknowledge 'consistency' as an essential element of contemporary astrophysics, or accept that you need to become conversant with at least the foundations of classical physics.

Sadly, a few days' later, JFE writes a very long comment which shows that he understood almost nothing of what Svalgaard tried to explain (sound familiar?).

As I have already posted above…
Ecclesiastes 5:3 For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

But apparently Dr. Svalgaard has the same opinion on magnetic reconnection and double layers as I had (although I didn't stated it — my lame excuse: the questions were directed to Nereid, shame on me). Magnetic reconnection is the CAUSE that builds the double layer. They are not the same.

Btw: It is interesting. There was a time when Anaconda heavily opposed to magnetic reconnection. And now he acknowledges them suddenly and still thinks they serve his ideas? What?

Ah, what the heck. I guess, a few posts from now we will see comment about some playing mice while the cat was gone…

First he quotes JFE:

If I refer to magnetic reconnection as a ‘double layer’ and emphasize its electromagnetism, I suggest that be taken as a synonymous term as magnetic reconnection and not seen as some misleading term open to disparagement.

Then this response:

It is not a question of ‘naming’, but of physics. All currents we observe in space plasmas are created by plasma moving relative to a magnetic field [and almost currents we have on the Earth as well - that's how power stations work]. If the magnetic field gradient is large enough and/or the movement [i.e. the resulting change in magnetic field dB/dt] is fast enough these current can be enormous. Huge currents exert tremendous forces and the plasma is thus highly unstable [a particularly nasty instability is called the Buneman instability [incidentally, Oscar Buneman had his office across the hall from my old office at Stanford and has often lectured me on this - he was a good man].
As a result of these instabilities, pinches, filaments, and current sheets appear naturally, and when two of the latter [with opposite charge] occurs together we call it a double layer. Reconnection drives these currents and are thus a natural cause of double layers. Currents have to be constantly ‘driven’ by something, otherwise they just either dissipate their energy or short out, and go away, unless some force is constantly regenerating them. As that is where the Electric Universe falters, because there is no explanation of what drives these large currents.

The ‘electromagnetism’ label is dead wrong. There are electric fields and magnetic fields, but no ‘electromagnetic’ fields – although people often loosely talks about such a field or force. Maxwell’s equations [link omitted] make no reference to any ‘electromagnetic field’, only to electric and magnetic fields. It is a common tactic to obscure matters by referring to an ‘electromagnetic’ field allowing one to be vague and imprecise about what is meant,

Sadly, a few days' later, JFE writes a very long comment which shows that he understood almost nothing of what Svalgaard tried to explain (sound familiar?)

Anyway, again thanks to ND for supplying the link … now I understand (better anyway) where Anaconda is coming from with his question (and his three papers, and …) …

Anaconda sounds awefully like J.F.E.. Anaconda looses it when he becomes desperate and his ignorance is fed back to him on a platter. As for that electron-spin skirmish we had a few months ago, he tried very hard with red-herrings and conflation of "electron movement" to try and label electron spin as just a hyphotheses. "Has anyone observed electron spins" he protested. What is wrong with this guy?

Dr. Svalgaard presented an interlocutor's statement: "Frankly, the descriptions [of "magnetic reconnection"] are consistent with a plasma ‘double layer’."

And Dr. Svalgaard answered:

"Of course, nobody doubted that for a second. These double layers are generated in currents resulting from plasma moving in a magnetic field."

So what? That does not prove the "Electric Universe"!

Anaconda:

Admitting double layers and "magnetic reconnection" are the same structure would give too much credibility to Plasma Cosmology, and Nereid just couldn't abide by that — it defeats her purpose for being here.

Err… what the hell gives you that idea?

As Dr. Svalgaard himself stated (emphasis mine):

It would seem that the in situ measurements demolishes the ruminations of a certain Electric Universe enthusiast, Donald Scott: "Magnetic reconnection was invented to ‘explain’ away the release of vast amounts of energy from magnetic fields in plasmas by people who could not bring themselves to study EM field theory. Again – gravity does not squirt out energy. Energy is released from magnetic fields when the current CAUSING the field to exist, drops in magnitude. Proponents of ‘magnetic reconnection’ demonstrate their ignorance of electro-magnetic principles by committing several fundamental errors in that regard.”

It seems to me that you are not only putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, but 22 as well!

I noted that as well, but I don't think that those two are one and the same, because (a) J.F.E. acknowledges electron "spin", and (b) J.F.E. appears to be fairly consistent with his arguments, even though they are wrong, whereas Anaconda tends to contradict himself — I think that he is just a parrot who just repeats what he hears/reads, but does not know WTF he is talking about!

Not that this matters.

and the answer will be obvious

How about taking a leaf from Dr Svalgaard's book (or blog) and spell it out for me (and any other reader, for whom, perchance, it also does not seem obvious)?

Is "James F. Evans" Anaconda perchance?

I started to collect some quotable quotes, but there were simply too many …

… but here are a few anyway:

Now, there is a good difference with the Electric Universe cult, because the EU cannot make calculations, only hand waving, false analogies

None of the voices in Astrophysics endorse the Electrical Universe.
I can see from your posts that you have no idea about science, the scientific method, and physical laws, so consider this blog to be your chance to learn something [for free, even].

Almost everything in your post is wrong, so it is hard to comment specifically [and won't have any effect anyway].

The equations [Maxwell's and Newton's] have been verified by observations and therefore one can perform mathematical deductions and calculations from them. The equations are just a shorthand for the overwhelming experimental evidence behind them.

(Nereid, you can analyze & interpret the Wikipedia entry and the papers can't you?)

(And after study, analysis, and interpretation make a comparison — you do know how to do that don't you?)

(Or do you like spoon-feeding sessions?)

(I'm tired of wiping your chin.)

Your obfiscation only reinforces my point.

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/discoveries-from-the-ibex-satellite-show-we-still-dont-know-quite-a-few-things-about-the-heliosphere-and-solar-system/

Further, you didn't ask him, did you? So how do you *know* what his understanding of the question is?

Apparently, Dr. Svalgaard doesn't have your problem understanding the question.

Anaconda, it's your question, so how about providing the necessary clarifying statements?

You've made a good start, by re-posting the link to the Wikipedia entry on double layers; now how about "magnetic reconnection"? "structure" (this one is very important)? "same"??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)

Is Dr. Leif Svalgaard, Stanford University helio-astrophysicist, a "chimp"?

@ Nereid:

Apparently, Dr. Svalgaard doesn't have your problem understanding the question.

But Nereid's response is typical of obfiscating politicians' responses to questions they don't want to answer:

"I don't know what you mean."

So, when Nereid is backed into a corner, she won't answer and provides myriad excuses for failing to do so.

(That gives a good indication of what she really thinks of the readers of this website — obfiscating responses will satisfy them.)

By the way, even these myriad excuses don't offer a reason why Nereid won't discuss the three published peer-reviewed papers on "magnetic reconnection".

But since Nereid won't answer the question and won't discuss the peer-reviewed papers, I suggest she study both electric 'double layers' and the peer-reviewed papers.

Oh, and just to make it easier on Nereid, here is the link to the Wikipedia entry for plasma double layers (it's like spoon feeding a child medicine that tastes bitter — but is good for them ).

And if she has any integrity, after doing so, she'll come back and answer the question and discuss the papers (which have already been linked in this thread).

Don't hold your breath waiting…

After all, Nereid's only purpose on this website is to discourage the readers from considering electromagnetism in space.

But as is apprent, that posture doesn't hold water anymore.

My work is done here.

Which means the resident chimp has run out of crap to throw about!

@ DrFlimmer:

You are right.

Actually, this makes me sad!

You sound like Bill Clinton, "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Is light:
a) a wave?
b) a particle?
c) neither a wave nor a particle?
d) both a wave and a particle?
e) none of the above?
f) all of the above?

The point – well one point – of this exercise is to illustrate the critical importance of definitions, when talking about physics. With the arrival – and confirmation, via thousands of independent experiments – of quantum physics, a successful description of electromagnetic radiation/light/etc was established. The description is successful in the sense that it can account for all relevant experimental and observational results, quantitatively.

So, to create a rough analogue to Anaconda's (re-phrased!) question

Is the structure of "magnetic reconnection" and double layers:
a) the same?
b) different?
c) neither the same nor different?
d) both the same and different?
e) none of the above?
f) all of the above?