Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Nobody denied that. But photons can frequently be ignored because the classical description is sufficient.

At the point of "reconnection" it's "sufficient" to call it "induction" too. If we're going to look at what physically occurs in the plasma based on a more "modern" understanding of the process, we see this is simply "particle reconnection" between electrons, ions and photons.

Likewise individual particles of a fluid can frequently be ignored and only the continuum properties (density, viscosity, etc) considered, as in the Navier-Stokes equation.

Alright, sure under *SOME* circumstances we're better off looking at the process from the "field" orientation. In light current carrying plasma however (everywhere in space) it is often important to consider the particle/circuit orientation and note the boundary conditions due to the circuit configurations.

And in MHD? The individual particles (including photons) are also ignored. It is a classical continuum theory. Nobody denies that the particles exist, but there's simply no need to treat them individually.

Sometimes you must treat an electron differently than a proton inside the same plasma. You can't simply ignore the individual properties of individual particles.

So we don't. Yes, yes, Alfven mentions individual particles when describing electrodynamics in his intro.

And yes, yes, Maxwell's equations apply to all the charged particles in the plasma, both individual and collectively.

Ever heard of the concept of a "test charge"? That's what he's talking about. The actual equations, the actual math that Alfven does with MHD, is all continuum.

Indeed, but you folks *IGNORE* the math you don't like. You ignored his "solutions" to these same solar activities in terms of "circuits". Why?

But you wouldn't know that, because you've never actually done a calculation in your life.

Man are you folks desperate or what?

And once again, even in quantum electrodynamics, the energy stored in electric and magnetic fields is not kinetic energy.

Please explain then how electrons start moving in the secondary in an ordinary coil. Where do they get their kinetic energy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

OK, that should be easy enough to demonstrate ...

... please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings"

Cosmic Plasma, page 6, chapter 1

I .3 . Field and Particle Aspects of Plasmas

We have discussed the translation of results from one region to another . However, another translation which is equally important is the translation between a magnetic field description and a current description of plasma phenomena. Space measurements of magnetic fields are relatively easy, whereas dri ect measurements of electric currents are very difficult, in many cases impossible . Hence, it is natural to present the results of space exploration (from spacecrafts and from astrophysical observations) with pictures of the magnetic field configuration . Furthermore, in magnetohydrodynamic theories, it is convenient to eliminate the current (i = current density) and to represent electric currents by curl B. This method is acceptable in the treatment of a number of phenomena (see Figure I .4).
However, there are also a number of phenomena which cannot be treated in this way, but which require an approach in which the electric current is taken account of explicitly.

The translation between the magnetic field description and the electric current description is made with the help of Maxwell's first equation
The displacement current can usually be neglected . However, it is often convenient to account for the kinetic energy of a magnetized plasma by introducing the permittivity e = eo (1 + (c/VA )2 ), where c and VA are the velocities of light and of hydromagnetic waves (CE 3 .4.4) . If this is done, the displacement current is often large.

If you want the rest of the math formulas, go look them up for yourself.

 

[Ziggurat]

At the point of "reconnection" it's "sufficient" to call it "induction" too.

We've been over this before too, Michael. Nobody cares if you have semantic objections to the term "magnetic reconnection".

Sometimes you must treat an electron differently than a proton inside the same plasma. You can't simply ignore the individual properties of individual particles.

Which is why MHD can sometimes fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
"MHD is a continuum theory and as such it cannot treat kinetic phenomena, i.e. those in which the existence of discrete particles or of a non-thermal velocities distribution, are important."
Regardless of what you think is important, regardless of what is important, MHD does in fact ignore the properties of individual particles. Those properties appear nowhere in the equations of MHD.

Please explain then how electrons start moving in the secondary in an ordinary coil. Where do they get their kinetic energy?

There is a transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy. Freshman physics, Michael.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

OK, that should be easy enough to demonstrate ...

... please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings"

Cosmic Plasma, page 6, chapter 1



If you want the rest of the math formulas, go look them up for yourself.

Let's remind ourselves of my actual question, shall we?

Here it is, in bold:

please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings" AND its derivation (together with a sufficiently unambiguous reference), and explain how plasmas (or a plasma) are (is) treated as particles.

For avoidance of doubt, my question is about an equation and its derivation.

The first part, immediately after "BOTH", is "an MHD equation".

Now I appreciate that for you, MM, mathematics more advanced than arithmetic is extremely challenging; however, your post contains no MHD equations, let alone any derivations of them.

Would you like to try again?

 

[GeeMack]

Indeed, but you folks *IGNORE* the math you don't like.

This from a guy who ignores all math!

​

So how's the work coming along on that experiment, Michael? I'm sure you agree that unless you can show the experiment that demonstrates a method for seeing below several thousand kilometers of opaque plasma by looking at graphs of mathematical equations created from data obtained several thousand kilometers above that opaque plasma, it doesn't meet your standards of evidence. Oh, and if you ever do come up with the experiment, make sure it can be done right here on Earth, is mathematically reasonable and physically consistent, repeatable, with no fudge factors and nothing metaphysical. And do make sure it's objective, you know, so that other people performing the same experiment can be expected to come to the same conclusion you have.

Or how about you just take down that running difference graph from your web site like an honest person who doesn't live with an unsupportable delusion would do? Like a rational, sane, intelligent person would do? After all, you wouldn't want anyone thinking you're not, like, honest, sane, or intelligent, would you, Michael?

(Another tantrum? Probably. Maybe more sheer ignorance? Likely that, too. Any way about it I'd be willing to bet $50 paid to my favorite charity against Michael's $50 paid to his that he won't offer up the experiment... again.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's remind ourselves of my actual question, shall we?

Here it is, in bold:

please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings" AND its derivation

I'm not your math mommy. If you're interested in a derivation, go look it up for yourself!

Would you like to try again?

Er, no. Like I said before, I'm not going to bark math for you on command anymore. I did that one time for you on a public forum and that's all you will *EVER* get from me. You ignored my last mathematical presentation, pretty spread sheet and everything, so it's clear you have no interest in the math, it's just 'busy work'.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We've been over this before too, Michael. Nobody cares if you have semantic objections to the term "magnetic reconnection".

Alfven rejected it too. Why? It's not personal to "Michael Mozina", and the guy with the Nobel prize also rejected that notion as "pseudoscience". Why do you suppose *HE* did that?

Which is why MHD can sometimes fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics

Ya, I noticed there is a "citation needed" comment right after than line too. As if Wiki is the most accurate of scientific information too, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

A current sheet (as shown) may be present but is not required for reconnection to occur. This process is not well understood: once started, it proceeds many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by calculation from first principles.

You mean to tell me that the current sheet is actually "optional"? Please demonstrate that Wiki claim for me too.

Regardless of what you think is important, regardless of what is important, MHD does in fact ignore the properties of individual particles.

No, it does not. It fully recognizes that electrons and protons will act differently in the presence of EM fields.

There is a transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy. Freshman physics, Michael.

How does it do that? The answer to that isn't going to be found in "Freshman physics".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Let's remind ourselves of my actual question, shall we?

Here it is, in bold:

please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings" AND its derivation

I'm not your math mommy. If you're interested in a derivation, go look it up for yourself!

Would you like to try again?

Er, no. Like I said before, I'm not going to bark math for you on command anymore. I did that one time for you on a public forum and that's all you will *EVER* get from me. You ignored my last mathematical presentation, pretty spread sheet and everything, so it's clear you have no interest in the math, it's just 'busy work'.

(quoting MM's post, reply, in full, for the record)

As you wish.

MM's inability, so far, to provide any objective, independently verifiable, evidence to back his (outrageous, ridiculous) claim that "MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits as any of Alfven's later writings will attest" is hereby noted.

 

[Ziggurat]

Alfven rejected it too. Why?

I don't really care.

It's not personal to "Michael Mozina"

That will be relevant once Alfven starts posting here. But for the moment, you are the one voicing an objection.

Ya, I noticed there is a "citation needed" comment right after than line too. As if Wiki is the most accurate of scientific information too, right?

Wikipedia is convenient. And that claim is correct. Which is why you can't show anything that contradicts the part I quoted. If it's wrong, that should be quite easy: just show a MHD equation which takes into account the particle nature of the charge carriers. But you won't do that. In fact, you can't do that, because MHD is indeed an explicitly continuum theory.

No, it does not. It fully recognizes that electrons and protons will act differently in the presence of EM fields.

Wrong again, Michael. MHD makes no reference to protons and electrons. Neither do Maxwell's equations. Both distinguish between positive and negative charges, but the particle nature of those charges is not included.

How does it do that? The answer to that isn't going to be found in "Freshman physics".

Yes, actually, the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy is indeed covered in Freshman physics. But you've long had trouble grasping the concept of potential energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(quoting MM's post, reply, in full, for the record)

As you wish.

MM's inability, so far, to provide any objective, independently verifiable, evidence to back his (outrageous, ridiculous) claim that "MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits as any of Alfven's later writings will attest" is hereby noted.

DRD's inability to read or respond to the materials written by Alfven that have already been provided are so noted.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...eq=no_params&author=Alfven, Hannes&db_key=AST

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

If it's wrong, that should be quite easy: just show a MHD equation which takes into account the particle nature of the charge carriers. But you won't do that. In fact, you can't do that, because MHD is indeed an explicitly continuum theory.

[...]

(bold added)

MM's is now 0 for 2 in this regard; maybe if GM, RC, si, tusenfem, TT, ... were to ask the same question, each would have the pleasure of not being answered by MM too ...

But wait! Didn't tusenfem already ask a similar question, and get a non-answer? Perhaps MM is really 0 for 3 already?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't really care.

You don't really care because it doesn't suit you to care. If you did care, you would have to figure out why you're in direct disagreement with the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory on this topic. You would have to figure out *WHY* you disagree with *HIM* on this topic and that would blow your entire show.

That will be relevant once Alfven starts posting here. But for the moment, you are the one voicing an objection.

I'm simply quoting the author of MHD theory on this topic Zig. My math skills or lack thereof have nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. It's not *MY* personal objection, it's Alfven's objection too. It's "pseudo-science" because it's "pseudo-accurate'. The "more accurate' way to address these issues is via the "particle" and yes, he calls it the "particle" side of MHD theory. That is the side of MHD theory you simply ignore but that Alfven applied to many, many, many,many, many different topics related to space plasmas. You're welcome to read any of those papers anytime you like.

Alfven was first and foremost an electrical engineer. He realized that all transactions inside the double layer were driven by larger "circuits" and he explicitly explains astronomical events in terms of circuits and even uses the term "short circuits" in his presentations. You aren't going to change history simply by ignoring it and these are his views, not just mine. I don't actually agree with all of them personally, but hey, I'm closer to his position on the universe than to yours.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But wait! Didn't tusenfem already ask a similar question, and get a non-answer? Perhaps MM is really 0 for 3 already?

Um, you're now something like 0 for 200+ papers that Alfven personally wrote on these topics. I could not *POSSIBLY* do any worse than you at non-responsiveness, like your inability to address anything at all in any of the images on my website, starting with the RD and Kosovichev Doppler images. You utterly suck at responding to anything.

 

[Reality Check]

MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits according to Alfven

MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits as any of Alfven's later writings will attest

First asked 29 July 2009
MHD theory is defined as

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magnetofluiddynamics or hydromagnetics) is the academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.
The idea of MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which create forces on the fluid, and also change the magnetic field itself. The set of equations which describe MHD are a combination of the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics and Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. These differential equations have to be solved simultaneously, either analytically or numerically. MHD is a continuum theory and as such it cannot treat kinetic phenomena, i.e. those in which the existence of discrete particles or of a non-thermal velocities distribution, are important.[citation needed]

(emphasis added)
Thus by definition there are no particles in MHD theory.

MHD is used to describe plasmas. Se there are descriptions like "the plasma flows along the magnetic field". There are also descriptions like "the particles in the plasma flows along the magnetic field".
Thus descriptions of the applications of MHD theory to plasmas can mention particles.

Can you give a citation to where Alfven states that he derives the equations of MHD from collections of particles rather than a fluid?

This should be easy. Just read his book. These should be lots of sums over particle properties, e.g. the sum of the magnetic fields of particles.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't suppose *ANY* of you have actually looked at or responded to that the white light flare I cited in the LMSAL video? Didn't you see the loops light up the photosphere? Why not? I cited the timestamp on the image for you and everything and I explained how to download it. As long as you all refuse to address any of the visual evidence, or any of the many papers on this topic, or any of the many other materials on this topic by Bruce and Peratt and many others, how exactly did you expect to learn anything? 256 papers on these topics from Alfven himself? What 256 papers? Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Sheesh.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you give a citation to where Alfven states that he derives the equations of MHD from collections of particles rather than a fluid?

Can you cite a single paper he wrote in the last 20 years of his life that didn't describe space plasmas in terms of "circuits" and from the "particle" side of MHD theory?

 

[Reality Check]

Can you cite a single paper he wrote in the last 20 years of his life that didn't describe space plasmas in terms of "circuits" and from the "particle" side of MHD theory?

Please cite the paper where he derived the MHD theory using particles.

No one thinks that he did not describe the appliaction of MHD to plasmas in terms of circuits and particles. That is a sensible thing to do. Plasmas contain particles. So you can say that a plasma flows or that the plasma particles flow.

You are the only one here (and probably in the world) that has the idea that MHD theory is derived from particles.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm simply quoting the author of MHD theory on this topic Zig.

Which matters... why? Because he's automatically right? No, Michael. Argument from authority is a fallacy. You, and Alfven, have failed to point to any actual errors. Alfven doesn't like the terminology at least in part because he thinks it confuses the issue, but regardless of the merit of that position, it's still a mere semantic objection. If he had any factual objections, well, they're wrong.

My math skills or lack thereof have nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. It's not *MY* personal objection, it's Alfven's objection too.

You still need to be able to back up what you say, Michael. And you can't.

It's "pseudo-science" because it's "pseudo-accurate'.

"pseudo-accurate" is meaningless. And the accuracy or inaccuracy of an idea is not what makes it psuedo-science.

The "more accurate' way to address these issues is via the "particle" and yes, he calls it the "particle" side of MHD theory.

Nope. That's not MHD. Apparently you're still having trouble grasping the "hydro" part. Alfven may well have gone beyond MHD, but that's a separate issue. MHD includes nothing about individual particles.

Alfven was first and foremost an electrical engineer. He realized that all transactions inside the double layer were driven by larger "circuits" and he explicitly explains astronomical events in terms of circuits and even uses the term "short circuits" in his presentations.

You do know, don't you, that electrical engineers very rarely use a particle description of electrodynamics, don't you? No, I guess you don't.

Really, Michael, the easiest way to disprove me is to point me to an MHD equation which uses the particle nature of the charge carriers. But you haven't done so. You haven't even tried to do so. Which makes me wonder if you would even be able to recognize whether or not an equation was a continuum equation or not. I'm guessing you can't. But go on, prove me wrong.

And I'm still waiting for you to quantify any of your ideas, Michael.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't suppose *ANY* of you have actually looked at or responded to that the white light flare I cited in the LMSAL video? Didn't you see the loops light up the photosphere? Why not? I cited the timestamp on the image for you and everything and I explained how to download it. As long as you all refuse to address any of the visual evidence, or any of the many papers on this topic, or any of the many other materials on this topic by Bruce and Peratt and many others, how exactly did you expect to learn anything? 256 papers on these topics from Alfven himself? What 256 papers? Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Sheesh.

Why should we waste our time?
You know that two people have already looked at the video where you stated this "white light flare" existed and could not see any such thing.
So you either

• Told them to download the wrong video or
• Told them to look at the wrong place in the right video or
• The "white light flare" does not exists except in your mind.

Given your track record ("mountain ranges" in the corona from RD animations!), I would go for the last.

As you know we have addressed all of the visual evidence. The problem that you have with understanding it is your problem not ours.

 

[Tubbythin]

Sure we are. We are simply improving our understanding of the entire physical process by recognizing that there is a carrier particle of the EM field.

Nope. Since MHD is by definition the coupling of Maxwell's equations and the Navier-Stokes equations and neither of these allude to any specific information on the particles involved then MHD can quite clearly not include a single particle perspective. As has been pointed out to you previously, the clue is in the name.