Electric universe theories here.

[Ziggurat]

cathode refrigeration.

I like that term. Rather makes plain the absurdity of his proposal.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is rather obviously wrong, Michael. Look at the sun sometime. I suggest you use a filter to avoid hurting yourself. Very little of the sun's light comes from the corona.

Which filter are you using, a h-alpha filter, visible light filter, or one sensitive to helium emissions like the SOHO 304A filter?

Everyone knows this (well, except you), and it's rather easy to confirm by direct observation. You don't even need any fancy scientific equipment. Should be exactly the sort of experimental evidence you're so fond of, yet you are apparently ignorant of it. Strange.

It's strange to me that you only seem concerned with visible light.

Hell, look at my avatar. Ponder upon it. It's a clue. Can you figure it out?

All that demonstrates is that the corona also emits while light as well as other wavelengths.

And how much mass separation should we expect?

Every plasma is mass separated by the element. The solar atmosphere is very dynamic however so it's not 100% separation to be sure, but it's mostly separated by the element and actually the layers tend to try to separate and arrange themselves by the ion. Of course that is typical of current carrying plasma. It tends to mass separate in the presence of large gravity wells and electrical currents, both of which apply to the solar atmosphere.

It's actually a rather simple thermodynamics problem, Michael.

It's "simple" to you because you intentionally and artificially *oversimplify* everything.

You can quantify it rather easily if you assume no convection.

Since there is convection and lots of movement of particles, it's not as simple as you imagine.

Since convection would serve to decrease mass separation, such an estimate would only be an upper bound, but it would be a good starting place. So what amount of mass separation do you expect? Let's see if you can quantify it.

How might we do that?

If you ask nicely, perhaps I'll even do the mass separation calculations for you.

Please do so. Start with Birkeland's concept of voltages and current flow and standard gravity theory. I'd love to see someone attempt to describe the mass separation of elements in such a dynamic environment. I've never figured out a really excellent way to do that, and you might in fact teach me something on that issue. You can't oversimplify the idea however in your search for quantification. Honestly, I would be interested in how you might try to come up with a percentage figure in such a dynamic and changing environment where mass flows are constant, coronal rain is observed and nothing is particularly stationary for any length of time. Off the top of my head, just looking at the images, I'd say it's pretty thoroughly separated, close to 95 percent separated in terms of actual elements. That would not necessarily be true of hydrogen however since protons are flowing up from the surface through all the layers. It would however apply to the helium, neon, silicon, and calcium plasma layers.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which filter are you using, a h-alpha filter, visible light filter, or one sensitive to helium emissions like the SOHO 304A filter?

A filter that cuts down intensity of all light, so you don't blind yourself by looking at the sun. Really, Michael, do you need everything explained to you?

It's strange to me that you only seem concerned with visible light.

I'm concerned with total light output. Which is dominated by visible and IR.

All that demonstrates is that the corona also emits while light as well as other wavelengths.

And why don't you see it if you look at the sun through a filter, Michael? Or through light clouds, or at sunrise/sunset?

Because the corona doesn't emit much light compared to the rest of the sun. You need to block out the rest of the sun in order to see it.

Every plasma is mass separated by the element.

That's not unique to plasmas, it happens in gasses too. And yet, carbon dioxide, which is significantly heavier than both nitrogen and oxygen, doesn't just pool at sea level, but can be found at high altitudes too. Why? Thermodynamics, my friend. It's not that there's no mass separation, it's that it's not abrupt, and takes place over some length scale. You can even calculate the length scales for such mass separation based on thermodynamics. So why don't you do that for the sun, and calculate how much mass separation you should get? Should be an easy task. Who knows, the result might even support your ideas (especially since the calculation I'm suggesting, without convection, would overestimate the separation). But you won't know until you do the calculations. So why don't you?

The solar atmosphere is very dynamic however so it's not 100% separation to be sure

You won't get 100% separation even if it is static.

It's "simple" to you because you intentionally and artificially *oversimplify* everything.

And you can't even figure out that the simplifications I'm suggesting would lead to an overestimation of the mass separation. So the numbers should come out in your favor, if you're even remotely close to being correct. Yet you still won't do such simple calculations.

Since there is convection and lots of movement of particles, it's not as simple as you imagine.

I know that. The particle movement is, in fact, the basis for the thermodynamic calculations. And by ignoring convection, we can establish an upper bound to the mass separation without much difficulty. Do you really not understand why such a calculation might be useful? No, of course you don't.

Please do so. Start with Birkeland's concept of voltages and current flow and standard gravity theory.

We don't need currents. All we need is temperature and gravity, and a little understanding of thermodynamics. In fact, we don't even need to derive any equations, since this is a standard textbook problem. We can just look up the answer. In particular, you can look up "Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics", equation 6.3.20:
P(z) = P(0) e^-mgz/kTThis is basically the density of particles of mass m as a function of height in a gravitational field at a temperature T. In other words, we get roughly exponential decrease with height. What we're interested in, for purposes of mass separation, is the length scale of this decrease, which will be different for different masses, and which leads to mass separation. To fall off by a factor of e, we need
z = kT/mg
So that right there is our characteristic length scale for mass separation of a given species. Now your turn. Pick an element, and figure out the corresponding length scale. Don't forget to use the atomic mass, not the molar mass. Oh, and use g for the surface of the sun, not the surface of the earth.

You can't oversimplify the idea however in your search for quantification.

Sure you can, if you understand the consequences of your simplification. And in this case, I know what the simplification will do: it will lead to an overestimation of the mass separation. I'm not sure exactly how much of an overestimation, but that's OK, as long as I understand that what I've found is thus a bounding value. Which I do.

So let's see if you can quantify one of your ideas now that I've given you the equation with which to do it.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

There's a phrase concerning horses, leading, water, and drinking that springs to mind ...

 

[tusenfem]

He created that MHD world you're using today didn't he? What makes you a greater 'expert' on MHD theory than the man that wrote the theory? Alfven was an electrical engineer by trade. He would therefore *NEVER* have claimed that magnetic lines disconnect and reconnect to other magnetic lines.

And again you cannot read. Yes, Alfven created MHD, and in MHD reconnection cannot happen! I am not a "greater expert" on MHD, I am claiming that in the approximation theory MDH (which is an approximation of plasma physics, do you know which approximations are made?) reconnection cannot happen.

Sounds like another wonderful distraction if you ask me. I wouldn't try to explain it via *JUST* induction. It's an example of *CIRCUIT RECONNECTION* between the solar surface and the heliosphere and the Earth got in the way.

Oh, boohoohoo, I give you some observations, which are totally in agreement with what one expects for reconnection. However, as you do not believe in reconnection, I would like to know how you explain all these observations. But do we get anything, of course not, because MM does not have a clue how to do all this using his "circuit reconnection" and his "induction" and stuff. Colour us amazed at some point, MM, and show us a real model, which qualitatively and quantitatively shows, that your ideas are indeed working. You might even get invited to a reconnection workshop I am planning to organize to look at the basics of RX, which might well include some of your heros like Falthammar, Heikila etc.

To 20 million degree? Yep. Name one other method you know of that heats plasma to tens of millions of degrees and can sustain them at those temperatures for hours on end.

Maybe not that much, but one can put a lot of energy in the electrons by the dissipation of the turbulence.

He did write all the first chapters of plasma physics and you haven't demonstrated that he was wrong about any of it. You haven't written the last chapter either, so get over it.

Why would I want to prove him wrong? What's your obsession with getting Alfven proved wrong? Some of his ideas do not work, his unwinding flux tube does not describe the same phenomenon as those that the Kaastra model of flares is based on. And indeed, I have not written the last chapter on plasma physics, I am most definitely not clever enough for that.

That would be akin to his "noisy" plasma caused by particle flow. So what?

Turbulence is made of plasma waves at large scales, until they reach the particle scales on which they can dissipate. It has nothing to do with plasma flow. I will have to look up how Alfven defines his "noisy" plasma (unless you want to give me a definition).

Circuits disconnect and reconnect all the time. What's the big mystery?

The big mystery is that you have never posted a real model describing how, instead of reconnection, your circuits can explain the easiest part of what we dumb-asses call reconnetion, and that would be the reconfiguration of the Earth's magnetotail, with the observations from the Cluster satellites (you know, from the team that acutally uses "electro") presented in that paper.

I don't. I explain it with a change of 'current flow'.
Currents cause plasma flows and magnetic fields.
You mean a short circuit in two plasma streams?

Then show us how the current flow changes.
Currents do not cause plasma flows, if you had not noticed, in the "outflow regions" of the dumb-ass reconnection model, the electrons and ions are both accelerated in the same direction. Try to do that with a current!
And the quadrupolar magnetic field is not a short circuit, because that field is in the direction perpendicular to the plane in which one usually draws the X-line.

Don't you find it funny that the guy the wrote MDH theory disagrees with you and he himself drew a lot from Birkeland's work?

There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection". You can't even specifically identify what is unique about the energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" that can be shown to be unique and separate from the following *KNOWN* energy exchange methods in plasma.

A) circuit reconnection (large scale circuit interruption)
B) particle reconnection (small scale particle interactions)
C) induction

Go ahead and explain to us how you know that any energy exchanges we observe in space eliminated any of the above processes in plasma, and how *EXACTLY* how your magnetic reconnection process is unique?

Alfven was in the MDH universe, in which reconnection cannot happen, reconnection does not exist in MDH, if you write a code you cannot use an MHD code to model reconnection, because there are things missing in MDH because it is an approximate theory.

Why should I do your tedious work for you? Apparently, you have the EU model of A B and C reconfiguring e.g. the Earth's tail. Please show us, MM, I give you the RX model, you give us the EU or Alfven model.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's a phrase concerning horses, leading, water, and drinking that springs to mind ...

Dorothy Parker's variant does too.

 

[Reality Check]

The short answer is "mass separation".

The helium chromosphere and hydrogen corona are both considerably hotter (and emit more photons) than the other layers of the atmosphere. More importantly, they are also sitting on top of all the other plasma layers and therefore they tend to absorb and emit the most light. Spectral analysis of the upper atmosphere is therefore going to show that the upper layers of the sun are composed of primarily hydrogen and helium.

All of the spectral percentage numbers *assume* that there is little or no mass separation of elements in the solar atmosphere and therefore they interpret these spectral numbers to be indicative of the surface of the photosphere.

From your model of mass separation please show your derivation of the % of elements in each layer.

Unsuppoorted assertiions are a property of a crackpot and you are not a crackpot are you MM?

 

[Zeuzzz]

and you are not a crackpot are you MM?

What reply to this do you expect to this derogative pejorative?

I could equally ask; Are you (due to your sycophantic belifef in the statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter) a crackpot RealityCheck?

The ad-homs employed by some in this thread (not so much you to be fair, RC) are disgraceful, and only add credence to the opposing argument.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What reply to this do you expect to this derogative pejorative?

I could equally ask; Are you (due to your sycophantic belifef in the statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter) a crackpot RealityCheck?

The ad-homs employed by some in this thread (not so much you to be fair, RC) are disgraceful, and only add credence to the opposing argument.

What does the persistent, and consistent, lack of any replies to polite questions about quantification (of the 'Sun has a solid surface' idea) add credence to, Z?

How about the persistent, and consistent, refusal to acknowledge that the sources MM cites do not support the claims he makes?

And so on ...

 

[Reality Check]

What reply to this do you expect to this derogative pejorative?

I could equally ask; Are you (due to your sycophantic belifef in the statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter) a crackpot RealityCheck?

The ad-homs employed by some in this thread (not so much you to be fair, RC) are disgraceful, and only add credence to the opposing argument.

I am merely asking whether MM fits the definition of a crackpot.
Of course it is a bit redundent since everyone who has read this thread (and any other than MM has been involved in) knows that he does fit the definition of a crackpot, e.g.

• his dependence on pictures "looking like" what he expects.
• his continuing misinterpretation (delusion) that the TRACE RD animation shows "mountain ranges".
• his inability to understand that simple physics that all plasmas have optical depth and so he needs to show that the optical depth of the photosphere is ~4800 km in the UV.
• his dependence on an Iron Sun idea that produces no actual predictions.
• his inability to ansswer questions about his idea (see the previous point).

Do you have the list of the "statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter"?
I would be interested in them since I have never heard of any statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Do you have the list of the "statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter"?
I would be interested in them since I have never heard of any statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter.

Rather paradoxically, you need not look any further than your very own signature to find the "statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter" I am referring to!

 

[Reality Check]

Rather paradoxically, you need not look any further than your very own signature to find the "statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter" I am referring to!

Rather paradoxically, you do not understand that the links are to actual observations that are not statistically insignificant.

ETA
Perhaps you are smarter than MM and can answer this

1. A is a big blob of gas.
2. B is a bib blob of gas.
3. Blob A hits blob A.
   • If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas .
   • If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas .
4. We see 3 blobs.
5. Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

Alternatively you can tell us how the Chandra observatory cannot see matter emitting X-rays or how gravitational lensing does not work.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Perhaps. Or not. Lets not try to drive needless dividing lines between people on intellectual capacity, eh?

I think all of the above has been aswered before RC.

Dark matter, or rather Non-baryonic matter, is by definition different from the ordinary matter observed anywhere on earth, and the paper does nothing to prove the existence of such matter.

It actually proves something quite different: that in the case of this particular pair of colliding galaxies, the greater part of the mass is associated with the galaxies and not with the hot intracluster gas. This evidence is that gravitational-lensing measures of total mass outline the concentrations of galaxies, which are physically separate from the main hot gas concentrations.

So, how do Clowe et al get from what was actually indicated to what they claimed? Only though a big assumption, which is in no way supported by their data.

The major assumption is that all of the baryonic, ordinary matter is in the form of hot plasma or bright stars in galaxies. The paper shows that the total amount of gravitating matter, as measured by gravitational lensing, does not correlate with the amount of hot plasma, as measured by x-rays. Therefore, the authors argue, the gravitating matter is instead associated with the galaxies. Since the gravitating mass is much greater than the mass in easily-visible stars, and by assumption, there is no other baryonic matter, the mass must be non-baryonic or dark matter.

The flaw in this argument is this assumption that all the ordinary matter in galaxies is in easily-visible, bright, stars. Instead, most of the mass of galaxies may well be in the form of dwarf stars, which produce very little light per unit mass, in other words have a very high mass-to-light ratio. Several studies of galaxies using very long exposures have shown that they have 'red halos', halos of stars that are mostly red dwarfs. Other studies have indicated that the halos may be filled with white dwarfs, the dead remains of burnt-out stars. In addition, there is evidence that a huge amount of mass may be tied up in relatively cool clouds of plasma that do not radiate much x-ray radiation, and would be in closer proximity to the galaxies than the hot plasma.

The Clowe papers in no way contradict these possibilities, so in no way prove the existence of dark, or non-baryonic matter. Instead, they assume that any mass associated with the galaxies that is not in bright stars is non-baryonic, dark matter.

They assume what they seek to prove.

.....

If you take one of those [dark matter] anomalies and ask, what's the probability this happened by chance, it will be very very small (that is what's called a posteriori statistics, and it's wrong and misleading). But if you only ask, what's the probability there will be some anomalies, it's basically 1.

 

[Reality Check]

Perhaps. Or not. Lets not try to drive needless dividing lines between people on intellectual capacity, eh?

I think all of the above has been aswered before RC.

All of the above was not answered in your post. You assumed that the astronomers assumed that most of the matter in a galactic cluster is in the IGM (not in the galaxies or stars) was wrong. That is not right.

Astronomers have measured that the amount of gas in a galactic cluster is about twice that of the galaxies in the cluster. The Chandra observatory for example detects the X-rays from the intracluster meduim and this emission is proportional to the density of the ICM squared.

The Clowe paper does not "assume that any mass associated with the galaxies that is not in bright stars is non-baryonic, dark matter".

And the question I asked is even relevant if you assume that there is a lot of matter in MACHOs (of which there are not enough to account for dark matter). This is in MM's assertion (together with astronomers not being able to measure the mass of stars acurrately).

The fact that the colliding galactic clusters have formed 3 blobs of gas means that the gas has two components. One of these components has passed through the other and only interacted weakly to form the outer blobs. That gas is not emitting X-rays and is invisible in other wavelengths. That gas was not heated by the inteactions that heated the baryonic, ordinary matter.
My conclusion (and that of the most of the scientific community) is that the gas that formed the outer blobs is nonbaryonic matter.

Can you show that the formation of 3 blobs means something else?

ETA:
You quote a reply is not actually about this dark matter.
What about the many other replies that are about dark matter?
For example:

Zeuzzzzz, that would have been a reasonable mainstream hypothesis 30 years ago. In the intervening decades, astronomers searched for exactly these sorts of "dark baryons" with extremely sensitive probes. Any guess at the results of these searches?

1) Decades of microlensing surveys have explicitly counted the number and mass distribution of brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, black holes, free-floating planets, etc. There are not anything like enough of such objects to give the explanation you propose.

2) We have surveyed the Universe in all wavelengths, not just x-ray. "Cool clouds of plasma" will (a) emit light in some band or another and (b) absorb light from background objects. There have been fairly-comprehensive surveys looking for such cool plasmas and gases. Guess what, Zeuzzz? There is *not*, as you want there to be, five times as much of it as expected.

3) This mysterious "cool plasma" you're inventing would not remain cool during a galaxy or cluster collision. Sorry, there is no evidence that colliding galaxies suddenly appear to have 5x as much visible gas.

Seriously, Zeuzzz---this is what we mean when we say "we're not dogmatically attached to non-baryonic dark matter". Once upon a time, we didn't know what the mass components of the Universe were; all options were on the table; astronomers measured each of the components very carefully and because of those measurements we know that the remainder is non-baryonic.

This is also what we mean by saying "learn a bit about the field before you criticise it". Microlensing surveys are not some obscure piece of trivia, they're standard knowledge among astrophysicists.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And again you cannot read. Yes, Alfven created MHD, and in MHD reconnection cannot happen!

Circuit reconnection can happen in MHD theory. Particle reconnection can happen too. Magnetic reconnection cannot happen because magnetic fields lack physical substance and they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning, and without end. This is straight out of standard electrical engineering and Alfven was first and foremost an electrical engineer. He certainly understood that magnetic lines in a continuum could not "disconnect" or "reconnect" in any physical way.

I am not a "greater expert" on MHD, I am claiming that in the approximation theory MDH (which is an approximation of plasma physics, do you know which approximations are made?) reconnection cannot happen.

Then why in the world would you call this energy exchange process between two flowing "circuits", "magnetic reconnection"? It's irrational IMO.

Oh, boohoohoo, I give you some observations, which are totally in agreement with what one expects for reconnection.

Sure, *CIRCUIT* reconnection, but not "magnetic" reconnection because magnetic field have no beginning and have no ending and they are physically incapable of "reconnecting" any way, shape or form.

However, as you do not believe in reconnection,

But I do believe in "reconnection". I believe in "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection", just not "magnetic reconnection". I reject that notion just like Alfven, for undoubtedly the exact same reason. Many electrical engineers reject "magnetic reconnection", but not all type of 'reconnection'.

I would like to know how you explain all these observations.

Circuit reconnection between the heliosphere and the solar surface and the Earth got in the way and became a "conductor".

But do we get anything, of course not, because MM does not have a clue how to do all this using his "circuit reconnection" and his "induction" and stuff.

So what if that is all true? Alfven also rejected your magnetic reconnection theory and he did know how to make it work with circuits and particles and he explained it in great detail in many of his papers, some of which I have cited and posted for you, both here and BAUT as ManInTheMirror.

Colour us amazed at some point, MM, and show us a real model, which qualitatively and quantitatively shows, that your ideas are indeed working.

Why? What purpose would that serve you personally? Do you think Alfven could not have done it only because I may or may not be able to do so to your personal level of satisfaction? What does any of this have to do with me or my abilities or lack thereof?

You might even get invited to a reconnection workshop I am planning to organize to look at the basics of RX, which might well include some of your heros like Falthammar, Heikila etc.

Oh well, in that case....

Maybe not that much, but one can put a lot of energy in the electrons by the dissipation of the turbulence.

One can put a lot of energy in an electrical discharge too, and one can sustain that energy over long periods of time, times consistent with hour long coronal loop activities. Turbulence comes and goes. Circuits disconnect and reconnect on much longer timelines.

Why would I want to prove him wrong? What's your obsession with getting Alfven proved wrong?

Because one of you must be wrong, you cannot both be right. Either magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience as he claimed, or it's a real process as you seem to think. Both of you cannot be correct. One of you is wrong. One of you is right. My money is on Alfven, the guy with the Nobel prize in plasma physics, not some self proclaimed non-expert that fancies himself as smarter than Alfven on a critically important aspect of MHD theory and electrical engineering theory.

Some of his ideas do not work, his unwinding flux tube does not describe the same phenomenon as those that the Kaastra model of flares is based on. And indeed, I have not written the last chapter on plasma physics, I am most definitely not clever enough for that.

Then maybe you should reconsider Alfven's position on electrical currents in space? What does that sig line of yours say again about keeping an open mind?

Turbulence is made of plasma waves at large scales, until they reach the particle scales on which they can dissipate. It has nothing to do with plasma flow. I will have to look up how Alfven defines his "noisy" plasma (unless you want to give me a definition).

Turbulence is not going to explain a million degree coronal loops being sustained for hours on end. An electrical circuit could explain a self luminous thread in plasma that is sustained over hours. You can observe this same process in any ordinary plasma ball. It's a *VERY* basic current carrying process in plasma.

The big mystery is that you have never posted a real model describing how, instead of reconnection, your circuits can explain the easiest part of what we dumb-asses call reconnetion,

Go buy yourself a plasma ball and watch the process unfold before your very eyes. Turn off the switch and watch how much action you get out of the "turbulence". What exactly do you think a "magnetic rope" is if not a "current carrying filament"? The Earth is simply a "conductor" of current. It's in the way of the surface of the sun and the heliosphere and the magnetosphere ends up carrying the currents from one side to the other. It's not a great mystery.

The rest of the post looks like a rehash.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Astronomers have measured that the amount of gas in a galactic cluster is about twice that of the galaxies in the cluster.

http://www.scitech.ac.uk/PMC/PRel/STFC/Universe.aspx

Maybe it's four times as much?

How do you know any of it is actually contained in exotic, non baryonic forms of matter?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's a phrase concerning horses, leading, water, and drinking that springs to mind ...

I often think the same thing about you and those solar images that you keep avoiding like the plague.

 

[tusenfem]

Circuit reconnection can happen in MHD theory. Particle reconnection can happen too. Magnetic reconnection cannot happen because magnetic fields lack physical substance and they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning, and without end. This is straight out of standard electrical engineering and Alfven was first and foremost an electrical engineer. He certainly understood that magnetic lines in a continuum could not "disconnect" or "reconnect" in any physical way.

Then why in the world would you call this energy exchange process between two flowing "circuits", "magnetic reconnection"? It's irrational IMO.

Ahhhh we're at the beginning again. The reason why we call it magnetic reconnection is because of the topology change of the magnetic field. Here is a picture, you seem to like pictures. See how first you have vertical field lines on the left and then you get these U or V shaped lined in the right panel. Now, you are probably right that magnetic field lines have no "substance" but these U or V shaped lines do have energy stored in them, the so called magnetic tension. Alfvén only discusses the magnetic pressure (Cosmical Electrodynamics, page 144) but the tension comes from the same equation, and indeed the tension of the magnetic field lines were at the base of his ground braking paper on what we now call Alfvén waves.

But I do believe in "reconnection". I believe in "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection", just not "magnetic reconnection". I reject that notion just like Alfven, for undoubtedly the exact same reason. Many electrical engineers reject "magnetic reconnection", but not all type of 'reconnection'.

Circuit reconnection between the heliosphere and the solar surface and the Earth got in the way and became a "conductor".

Then show us how it works, MM! I have no paper describing your so-called circuit reconnection applied to any (astro/space)physical object.

So what if that is all true? Alfven also rejected your magnetic reconnection theory and he did know how to make it work with circuits and particles and he explained it in great detail in many of his papers, some of which I have cited and posted for you, both here and BAUT as ManInTheMirror.

Alfvén (unfortunately) also lost all his money in a pyramid scam. Are you going to do the same, because he did that?

The unwinding of a flux tube in the Alfvén & Carlqvist paper is the only I can remember that you cited. And that has nothing to do with reconnection. Explain the figure that I linked to above, or give this miraculous EU paper that gives the explanation.

Why? What purpose would that serve you personally? Do you think Alfven could not have done it only because I may or may not be able to do so to your personal level of satisfaction? What does any of this have to do with me or my abilities or lack thereof?

That is YOUR claim about Alfvén's abilities, not mine. I claim that YOU, Michael Mozina are incapable of producing such a model.

One can put a lot of energy in an electrical discharge too, and one can sustain that energy over long periods of time, times consistent with hour long coronal loop activities. Turbulence comes and goes. Circuits disconnect and reconnect on much longer timelines.

Turbulence is always driven, it does not just come and go, there is an enormous pile of literature on that (start with the Voros et al. paper that I linked to, and look at the references). The problem with you is that you only have ONE method to do EVERYTHING. Everything has to be an electrical current, and if it is not, than you just redefine what an electrical current is (e.g. equal amounts of positive and negative charge moving at the same speed in the same direction).

Because one of you must be wrong, you cannot both be right. Either magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience as he claimed, or it's a real process as you seem to think. Both of you cannot be correct. One of you is wrong. One of you is right. My money is on Alfven, the guy with the Nobel prize in plasma physics, not some self proclaimed non-expert that fancies himself as smarter than Alfven on a critically important aspect of MHD theory and electrical engineering theory.

Well, too bad you put your money on the wrong guy, guess your money is going to disappear too.

Then maybe you should reconsider Alfven's position on electrical currents in space? What does that sig line of yours say again about keeping an open mind?

Once more, sit on it, MM. I know electric currents in space, read my papers.

Turbulence is not going to explain a million degree coronal loops being sustained for hours on end. An electrical circuit could explain a self luminous thread in plasma that is sustained over hours. You can observe this same process in any ordinary plasma ball. It's a *VERY* basic current carrying process in plasma.

How do you know that? Are you an expert on turbulence too, nowadays?
Oh brother, the bloody plasma ball again.

 

[Ziggurat]

Alfvén (unfortunately) also lost all his money in a pyramid scam. Are you going to do the same, because he did that?

Hmmm... I wonder if scam artists have ever considered specifically targeting physicists who start losing it. Could be a lucrative "target" audience for them.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.scitech.ac.uk/PMC/PRel/STFC/Universe.aspx

Maybe it's four times as much?

How do you know any of it is actually contained in exotic, non baryonic forms of matter?

Maybe it is. Maybe it is not. You still need to find another factor of 50 or so.
ETA: Here is a preprint of the actual paper The energy output of the Universe from 0.1 micron to 1000 micron

Scientists know beacuse of the observations that you know about and are ignoring, e.g.

1. A is a big blob of gas.
2. B is a bib blob of gas.
3. Blob A hits blob A.
   • If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas .
   • If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas .
4. We see 3 blobs.
5. Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

First asked 18 July 2009

Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

Thus the weakly interacting gas is not baryonic matter. We call this nonbaryonic matter.
In addition it turns out that the weakly interacting gas is dark (only seen by gravitational lensing). The gas is made of matter. A good name for it is dark matter.