That's not true, and you know it. It's no wonder that people keep calling you a liar.
The only think I know Tim is that what you have described could be described as "induction" and "circuit reconnection". Period. That's all I know.
I also know that there are only a few basic particles to work with in a plasma, electrons, protons, ions, and the carrier particle of the EM field, the photon. From the standpoint of physics, that's all we have to work with Tim, and that's it. What you have described isn't a new thing, it's "induction".
Are you trying to add me to the list?
Well, it would seem I already did (well, in a round about way).
I have already done that many times. I said it was a change in the topology of the magnetic field, and that certainly is not induction by any stretch of the imagination.
How can it be anything different?
Besides, induction is strictly limited by the diffusion timescale of the plasma, whereas reconnection is impulsive. The two processes are distinctly different both in theory and in practice. Impulsive energy release, such as a solar flare, is quite impossible for any induction process.
I take it you've never played with a coil in car before?
Had you bothered to read any of the source material you have been directed to (for instance the book Magnetic Reconnection by Priest & Forbes) you would already know this, since it is spelled out in detail (I would be more specific but I am 1000 miles from home and the book at the moment). That's why I say I don't believe you when you say you are really interested in learning. Anyone truly interested in learning would naturally consult the books & papers they are referred to.
I've done that many, many, many, many, many times now. I've lost count of how many "magnetic reconnection" papers I've been through now, and how many "textbook" descriptions I've read now. Have any of you actually read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven yet? Why wouldn't you naturally consult the guy the wrote MHD theory to see how it is "properly" applied to objects in space?
I see no indication that you do that.
Oh boloney. I've picked out flaws in PPL papers, flaws in other "magnetic reconnection" papers that tried to attribute the process to "monopoles", and a few papers that I can only describe as "circuit reconnection" in it's proper form since Birn described the "magnet line" as a steam of moving charge particles.
As it stands, you appear to implicitly assert that you know more about physics than everyone else,
Nope. I will explicitly assert that *ALFVEN* knew more about MHD theory and it's proper application to plasma an objects in space, and he vehemently rejected "magnetic reconnection" theory till the day he died. I will assert that you cannot physically explain what is unique about it because I have heard a number of attempts now and none of them come even close to being described as a unique form of energy exchange or release.
and simply ignore everything else. It should come as no great surprise that few people have confidence in your alleged expertise in this field.
It's hard for me to have much confidence in most of the so called 'experts' that peddle a concept that Alfven called pseudoscience, because in the last three or four years now I think I've met maybe one so called expert that had even read much if any of Alfven's material. I've never heard a logical explanation of 'magnetic reconnection" that could not equally or better be described as "circuit reconnection". What you are calling a change in the topology of the "magnetic field" is actually a change in the topology of two "Birkeland currents", or two ordinary current carrying filaments in light plasma. It's a short circuit in plasma, nothing more.
The other think I know is that magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting". That is standard electrical theory. That is why Alfven framed all of these events as "circuits" and describe the process in terms of "circuit energy". The only thing that is even capable of creating such powerful magnetic fields in the plasma is the fact that the plasma filament is carrying powerful currents.
Until and unless you can tell me what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection", I can only look at the facts. Alfven rejected the idea as pseudoscience for his entire life and saw several renditions of the concept. He rejected them all as pseudoscience. That is very logical from what I've seen and read too because what is described in these papers and books can almost always (I've never seen one so far) easily explained as either induction or circuit "reconnection/reconfiguration". There's no unique process here Tim, just circuits and short circuits and changes in the topology of *ELECTRO*magnetic fields, not sterile "magnetic fields".
):