Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Reality Check]

For interested observers, the papers I provided actually *RULED OUT* the signature "Y" release of energy associated with "magnetic reconnection" in favor of "current carrying filaments".

For interested observers, Michael Mozina is *LYING*.

The second paper is about an alternative model for specific flares (in fact only 2 are mentioned). That alternative model is magnetic reconnection between twisted magentic flux ropes. It does not *RULE OUT* the signature "Y" release of energy associated with magnetic reconnection in other (most) solar flares.

None of the papers are about "current carrying filaments". The closest that one gets is the Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops paper that describes streams of electrons flowing down the magnetic field of the coronal loop. Once again the paper is about specfic types of flares. This is does not cause the flare - it is a byproduct of the whatever mechanism causes the flare.

 

[leonAzul]

From the abstract of the second paper:

In other words, they ruled out the standard magnetic reconnection mathematical model in favour of another mathematical model involving twisted magnetic flux ropes.

Reading a draft of the full paper, they clarify that further. The evidence indicates that the magnetic reconnection occurred beneath or near the surface of the photosphere and was so "feeble" that the energy released created a funnel-like structure that extended through the chromosphere and formed a null or apex well into the corona and a loop that extended back down through the chromosphere to a magnetically active area on the surface of the photosphere well remote from the original event(s).

MM, you keep citing these papers. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Quantitatively speaking, what is wrong with any of the following papers?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606657

No dodging, no BS, no playing games anymore. What's wrong with these papers DRD, or are you just in pure denial?

I can answer for DRD.

Nothing is wrong with any of the papers.
They are about the electrical fields and currents that are produced by solar flares from coronal loops (magnetic fields).

[...]

I do not know in what context MM posted these papers (preprints actually), but:

* none have MM as an author

* they all fail MM's 'empirical' test (i.e. if you haven't tested it in a lab, it ain't real)

* none have anything to do with PC or EU ideas (as far as I can tell)

* there are no cosmologically relevant implications from any of these

* none have anything to do with MM's own ideas (e.g. Sun has a solid surface) or those he has associated himself with (e.g. Manuel's Sun has a neutron star in its core)

* and so on.

Let me guess though: MM sees in these papers something which he thinks provides independent support (verification?) of what he thinks he sees in the works of Birkeland and/or Alfvén. If so, then why does MM not accuse the authors of these four preprints of academic fraud? After all, if the ideas therein rely upon Birkeland's and/or Alfvén's published works, then to not cite them is a black-and-white case of intellectual fraud, is it not?

ETA: I see that, in a later post, RC has made the same point (in a slightly different way) ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Here's an outstanding question for you, Ben, DRD, and Tim too I suppose. How long did you folks intend to simply live in pure denial? I've handed you three new papers plus the one Tim gave me and all three of you act like it's nothing, and of no importance whatsoever. What the hell? What do you expect me to do with pure denial?

The denial or ignorance is on your part.

[...]

I think it's ignorance.

Consider this: why is it that MM persists with his tilting at 'magnetic reconnection'? why is that MM has not answered any of the dozens of direct questions concerning *quantitative* aspects of Birkeland's work (per MM's own source)? And so on.

I think the answer can be found in the lengthy exchanges on the Casimir effect (sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up a link), and the exchanges of posts concerning experimental verification of the inverse square part of Newtonian gravity ... MM does not approach physics quantitatively; indeed, it may be that he cannot. Being thus confined to addressing physics questions purely qualitatively, the core of his methodology is pictures created by words (and strongly bolstered by 'bunny picture science'). Curiously, even this highly limited methodology is applied inconsistently ... key terms are never defined, for example, nor is much effort apparently given to establishing consistency of use (of such terms) ...

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do not know in what context MM posted these papers (preprints actually), but:

* none have MM as an author

Huh? So? What does that have to do with anything?

* they all fail MM's 'empirical' test (i.e. if you haven't tested it in a lab, it ain't real)

False. Current flow *always* shows up in a lab and I can produce a "known source" of current flow. Compare and contrast that to say "dark energy" where you can't even tell us where it comes from, let alone produce a known "source".

You really do have a tough time with the concept of "empirical" don't you?

* none have anything to do with PC or EU ideas (as far as I can tell)

You didn't read them very well. Every one of them supports Alfven's description of a solar flare and his papers are even cited in the first paper I selected. Evidently you are in hard core denial?

* there are no cosmologically relevant implications from any of these

Bull. If our sun electrically interacts with the heliosphere, then all suns probably do the same. It certainly has *enormous* implications for cosmology.

* none have anything to do with MM's own ideas (e.g. Sun has a solid surface) or those he has associated himself with (e.g. Manuel's Sun has a neutron star in its core)

This is yet another false statement. There are two major components to Birkeland's solar model, the crust being one of them, the electrical discharge being the other critical "prediction" of his model.

* and so on.

And your denial dance continues eh? Even when I provided you with several supporting papers on Alfven's views, you simply reject them and/or never bother reading them. What can I say? Ignorance is not bliss, and your attitude sucks. If you can't be bothered to read the quantitative papers on this topic, at least stop lying about it every day and claiming they do not exist!

Let me guess though: MM sees in these papers something which he thinks provides independent support (verification?) of what he thinks he sees in the works of Birkeland and/or Alfvén.

Why exactly did the first paper cite Alfven's work in relationship to those return currents if they didn't think it supported Alfven's work?

If so, then why does MM not accuse the authors of these four preprints of academic fraud?

Why would I? They did exactly what I would expect them to do, and wrote about what they observed. They didn't stuff the gaps of their ignorance with make believe entities like dark energies or inflation genies.

After all, if the ideas therein rely upon Birkeland's and/or Alfvén's published works, then to not cite them is a black-and-white case of intellectual fraud, is it not?

Er, no. When you go out of your way to cite their work, that's usually sufficient for the average person to realize that they are "BUILDING UPON" his work, they aren't trying to take credit for it. Evidently you never even bothered to read the first paper on the list. Not surprising actually.

ETA: I see that, in a later post, RC has made the same point (in a slightly different way) ...

Ya, and I'll rip his last few posts to shreds as I get time today.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Duplicate

 

[Michael Mozina]

In other words, they ruled out the standard magnetic reconnection mathematical model in favour of another mathematical model involving twisted magnetic flux ropes.

Yes indeed. And what is a flux rope? Here's Alfven's definition of that MHD "structure":

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents. A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

Follow that link to a "Bennett Pinch" and tell me again that it doesn't involve current flow.

It is obvious that you have not actually read the paper and noticed that they do not cite Alfven, Birkeland or even that crank Bruce.

Really? What's the second reference listed in the first paper RC? Evidently you can't even be bothered to read anything that conflicts with your own viewpoints. No wonder astronomy today is in such disarray. How incredibly sad.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think it's ignorance.

Yes, yours. Evidently you folks can't be bothered to read anything.

Consider this: why is it that MM persists with his tilting at 'magnetic reconnection'?

Because according to Alfven it's "pseudoscience", it's been falsified by the observational data, and none of you can tell us how it is physically different (actual physics) from induction or "circuit reconnection".

why is that MM has not answered any of the dozens of direct questions concerning *quantitative* aspects of Birkeland's work (per MM's own source)? And so on.

I just provided you with a link you can't be bothered to read. What exactly would you like me to do, spoon feed it to you line by line? There are plenty of quantitative papers that support Alfven's views. The fact you can't be bothered to read them is not evidence they don't exist! Hoy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM, you keep citing these papers. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Let's start with the first paper:

A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.

What exactly does that mean to you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

For interested observers, Michael Mozina is *LYING*.

Not me:

A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.

Give it up and actually do some reading.

The second paper is about an alternative model for specific flares (in fact only 2 are mentioned). That alternative model is magnetic reconnection between twisted magentic flux ropes. It does not *RULE OUT* the signature "Y" release of energy associated with magnetic reconnection in other (most) solar flares.

They clearly do "rule out" your pseudoscientific magnetic reconnection model in these two flares! The first paper demonstrates that the "magnetic rope" you keep talking about can be described as a "circuit", and I've already quoted Alfven's definition of a 'magnetic rope'. His circuit orientation for flare events is completely supported by this paper and all these papers. A "magnetic rope" is not simply a "magnetic line". It is a current carrying filament, a large scale cousin of the filaments that form in an ordinary plasma ball!

None of the papers are about "current carrying filaments".

Pure and complete denial on your part:

A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.

Wake up and smell the coffee RC.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's called a "discharge" RC.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

That's a link to Alfven's explanation of solar flares.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes indeed. And what is a flux rope?

A magnetic flux rope is ... a flux of magnteic field in a rope-like structure.

Really? What's the second reference listed in the first paper RC? Evidently you can't even be bothered to read anything that conflicts with your own viewpoints. No wonder astronomy today is in such disarray. How incredibly sad.

Learn to understand what you read MM - I am talking about the second paper. How incredibly sad that you cannot read.
As I posted:

From the abstract of the second paper:

The goal of this paper is to understand the drivers, configurations, and scenarios of two similar eruptive events, which occurred in the same solar active region 9973 on 2002 June 1 and 2. The June 2 event was previously studied by Sui, Holman, and Dennis (2006, 2008), who concluded that it was challenging for popular flare models. Using multi-spectral data, we analyze a combination of the two events. Each of the events exhibited an evolving cusp-like feature. We have revealed that these apparent ``cusps'' were most likely mimicked by twisted magnetic flux ropes, but unlikely to be related to the inverted Y-like magnetic configuration in the standard flare model. The ropes originated inside a funnel-like magnetic domain whose base was bounded by an EUV ring structure, and the top was associated with a coronal null point. The ropes appear to be the major drivers for the events, but their rise was not triggered by reconnection in the coronal null point. We propose a scenario and a three-dimensional scheme for these events in which the filament eruptions and flares were caused by interaction of the ropes.

In other words, they ruled out the standard magnetic reconnection mathematical model in favour of another mathematical model involving twisted magnetic flux ropes.

It is obvious that you have not actually read the paper and noticed that they do not cite Alfven, Birkeland or even that crank Bruce.

First asked 4 January 2010
Michael Mozina
Where in Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare do the authors introduce "Alfven's/Birkeland's/Bruce's discharge theory"?
Can you point me to a textbook containing the "Alfven's/Birkeland's/Bruce's discharge theory"?

 

[Reality Check]

Let's start with the first paper:

A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy

What exactly does that mean to you?

(highlighting added)
What is means exactly to anyone who can read is that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of electric currents. And that under special circumferences currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines.
That is what electromagnetism is about. Where you have magnetism you have electricity and vice versa.

What exactly does that mean to you?

 

[Reality Check]

Not me:
...snip...
Wake up and smell the coffee RC.

Once again you are unable to tell the difference between one paper and another.
Wake up and smell the coffee MM.
Try reading what I said again.

For interested observers, Michael Mozina is *LYING*.

The second paper is about an alternative model for specific flares (in fact only 2 are mentioned). That alternative model is magnetic reconnection between twisted magentic flux ropes. It does not *RULE OUT* the signature "Y" release of energy associated with magnetic reconnection in other (most) solar flares.

None of the papers are about "current carrying filaments". The closest that one gets is the Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops paper that describes streams of electrons flowing down the magnetic field of the coronal loop. Once again the paper is about specfic types of flares. This is does not cause the flare - it is a byproduct of the whatever mechanism causes the flare.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15 April 2001 WL.gif

That's called a "discharge" RC.

That's called a coronal loop MM.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That's called a "discharge" RC.

That's called a coronal loop MM.

And it's called a discharge, because ...? (question for MM)

Here's yet another chance for you MM:

* what is your definition of "discharge"?

* what criteria can be applied to a bunch of pixels (an image of an astronomical object) to assess whether there is a discharge or not?

* where have you presented an objective analysis of those pixels?

* what objective measure(s) did you use to determine the extent to which those pixels correspond to a discharge?

* what is the objective degree of confidence you can give to the conclusion "discharge"?

* what physical parameters characterise a discharge?

* what are the estimated values of those parameters, for that "discharge"?

* what are the uncertainties in those values?

* where have you presented an objective analysis, in support of your conclusions re the quantitative values of the physical parameters (and their uncertainties)?

... and so on.

 

[Tubbythin]

Your elemental abundance numbers are meaningless because they are all based upon the assumption of little or no mass separation. You seem to think Iron and Nickel are going to stay mixed together with wispy light Hydrogen and Helium. Hell, the moon can't even hang on the hydrogen that blows by it every day and it has *tons* of iron in it.

A bit behind the times I know, but what on Earth are you trying to say here?

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

That's a link to Alfven's explanation of solar flares.

Seen that before in another thread (see below). It is an old and rather outdated paper by Alfven and Carlqvist.

This is the Alfven magnetic discharge theory for the energy produced by solar flares. It is not an answer to:

First asked 4 January 2010
Michael Mozina
Where in Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare do the authors introduce "Alfven's/Birkeland's/Bruce's discharge theory"?
Can you point me to a textbook containing "Alfven's/Birkeland's/Bruce's discharge theory"?
​

Naturally, I know that paper by Alfvén, because it has the first description of the formation of a double layer by a density dip in the current carrying plasma.

But note, Alfvén and Carlqvist discuss that there is going to be a pinch and an increase in current, with the creation of a strong electric field along the magnetic field (big loops that close under the photosphere). It is well known that when the flow of the electrons starts exceeding the thermal velocity that instabilities can occur in the plasma.

However interesting this paper may be, it does not discuss a real solar flare. It shows that the stored energy in the magnetic field and the circuit should be sufficient to lead to the accelerations that are observed in solar flares. However, it does not say anything about how the loop that gets unstable will split into two parts (this from real observations) and a "closed cloud" is ejected from the top, whereas a closed loop (closing under the photosphere) remains at the sun. The energy that is released in what A&C call the "discharge" is the (magnetic)energy of the circuit, and they completely ignore the original magnetic field of the loop.

However, the paper is nice, but should be seen in context of the time it was published, 1966. Since then, the field of solar plasma physics and flares has moved on.

You seem to be against all further development of science, it seems. If it were to you, we would only learn what Alfvén wrote in his three books and then nothing. And then only supplement it with some work by O. Manuel and yourself.

Like I have said before and will say again, Alfvén was a great scientist, but also great scientists can get things wrong (heck even I get things wrong sometimes). Alfvén could not accept RX, well okay, so be it. He was also wrong in his book "worlds - antiworlds" and there are things that have never been seen/verified in his "evolution of the solar system". At the time that those books were written, they were probably top notch, but they have not stood the flow of time well, unlike his MHD, his double layers (do you know how much scepticism he, my PhD supervisor and I have gotten?)

Your reasoning that we do not honour Alfvén correctly is the same to say that we dishonour Descartes because we do not accept his model anymore that matter is made of small vortices in some eather.
...snip...

 

[Reality Check]

A bit behind the times I know, but what on Earth are you trying to say here?

I have to agree. MM is termally confused in that post:

Your elemental abundance numbers are meaningless because they are all based upon the assumption of little or no mass separation. You seem to think Iron and Nickel are going to stay mixed together with wispy light Hydrogen and Helium. Hell, the moon can't even hang on the hydrogen that blows by it every day and it has *tons* of iron in it.

He seems to think that the Moon is the Sun !
FYI MM:
The elemental abundance numbers for the Sun are valid because that Sun is a gigantic ball of plasma.
This plasma is

1. at a high temperature (no solids are possible):
   The Suns' surface has an empirically measured temperature of ~6000 K.
   Limb darkening allows us to measure the temperature within the Sun (it increases with depth).
   The empirically measured neutrino flux from the Sun allows scientists to calculate the temperture at the center of the Sun as 13,600,000 K.
2. turbulent on the small scale (as all plasmas have) with lots of convection currents (convective zone).

In another thread:
How do MM's "layers" survive the convection currents in the Sun?

First asked 26 December 2009
How do your layers survive the convection currents in the Sun?