from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. Greek Mythology Any of the sea nymphs, the 50 daughters of Nereus.
- n. The satellite of Neptune that is eighth in distance from the planet.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- proper n. One of the satellites of the planet Neptune
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. A sea nymph, one of the daughters of Nereus, who were attendants upon Neptune, and were represented as riding on sea horses, sometimes with the human form entire, and sometimes with the tail of a fish.
- n. Any species of Nereis. The word is sometimes used for similar annelids of other families.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. In Greek myth, a sea-nymph, one of the daughters of Nereus and Doris, generally spoken of as fifty in number.
- n. In zoology, a sea-centiped; an errant marine worm of the family Nereidæ; in a wider sense, a marine annelid: applicable to nearly all of the polychætous worms.
- n. 3. Some ocean organism that shines by night. See the quotation under noctilucous.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. (Greek mythology) any of the 50 sea nymphs who were daughters of the sea god Nereus
Nereid, this is where the anti-science liars have the advantage.
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.
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".
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 .
So, when Nereid is backed into a corner, she won't answer and provides myriad excuses for failing to do so.
Nereid, study the wikipedia entry for plasma double layers and the three published peer-reviewed papers, linked on this thread, and anybody else for that matter who is still following this thread, and the answer will be obvious.
Nereid, you can analyze & interpret the Wikipedia entry and the papers can't you?
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.
Nereid, you took the Scott quote out of context and inserted in this thread, why?
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.