Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology

[ben m]

I think I'll work your claim from both directions. Let's now note that the sun also has a strong magnetic field which could also factor into an electromagnetic acceleration process. Your mythical sun needs to not only be "charge neutral", it also has to be devoid of a magnetic field to be completely unaffected by an all pervasive EM field expansion process.

The Sun's magnetic dipole moment is 10^22 T-m^2. Sounds big, huh?

The force on a magnetic field is F = grad (m.B). It's the magnetic dipole moment times the gradient of the B field (not the field magnitude) and the gradient drops as the 3rd power of the distance from sources. Given the structure of the galaxy, any possible gradient term has to have a 1/r^3 in it---where r is the distance to the Galactic Center of 8 kiloparsecs. Let's imagine (absurdly) that the Galactic center is such a powerful magnet that it puts out a 1T field near the Sun. Sorry, that gives you a gradient force of 10^22/10^61 = 10^-39 Newtons. Let's be more generous and put the "attracting" magnet right in the Solar neighborhood, a parsec away. F = 10^22/10^49 = 10^-27 N. Sorry, that's enough force to make one small bacterium orbit the galaxy.

In other words: gradient forces are good for the bumping-around of close together objects, and just about as weak as you could possibly imagine for long-distance forces. Anyhow, given that the Sun's B field reverses every 11 years, the Sun would spend 11 years getting attracted to something and 11 years getting repelled. Try again.

Or don't try again. This is exactly what I meant when I said "you cannot possibly find an E&M model that actually describes the Milky Way". I meant that you can try each of the known equations of E&M and none of them will work. Not one by one, not in any combination.

We've ruled out Coulomb's Law on net solar charge. We've ruled out the Lorentz force law on the solar dipole. What else do you have? Lorentz force on the net charge (sorry, same problem as Coulomb)? Electric dipole in a electric field gradient? Nope. Photon pressure? Nope. THAT'S IT. Anything else you add to Maxwell's Equations is either (a) smaller or (b) the product of your imagination.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I apologize for the silly rhetorical question, but ... isn't one of the virtues of having good mathematics that observation and experimentation in physics involve the measurement of numerical quantities and the comparison of their values to quantities calculated in models? Isn't this use of mathematics necessary for empiricism in physics to even make any sense?

It may not have been, in physics, back in the time of Galileo (and before) ... however, certainly since Newton the use of at least simple algebra and arithmetic has been essential.

You missed an earlier series of exchanges with MM, concerning 'known forces of nature'; in his posts on this topic, MM sought to show that the existence of two of these (gravity and electromagnetism) could be objectively, and independently verifiably, demonstrated ... without any math, not even arithmetic! The fact that 'known forces of nature' cannot be defined (in a consistent, objective fashion) without at least arithmetic is, apparently, utterly incomprehensible to MM.

 

[ben m]

This claim:
According to you only .4% of the mass/energy actually resides in stars, so what's the big difference between his model and an ordinary galaxy? Even in a "neutral object" scenario (which is completely bogus) there is still the EM field of the objects themselves to consider. They would still be influenced by these same fields in the simulations.

First, get it straight: 0.4% of the entire Universe's mass-energy resides in stars. Much of the dark part is in empty space between clusters, so 5% of the mass of a galaxy cluster resides in stars. Much of the dark part of that lies in the ICM, so 20% of the mass of a galaxy lies in stars. Much of the dark part is in the halo, so in a disk galaxy nearly 100% of the disk mass lies in stars.

Peratt's model would represent a disk of plasma with a flat rotation curve within which is a collection of stars moving in straight lines. The stars would be like ball bearings dropped onto a record player---the strong EM forces that hold the vinyl together, and accelerating the vinyl molecules, do not imply strong EM forces holding the ball bearings to the vinyl.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I think I'll work your claim from both directions. Let's now note that the sun also has a strong magnetic field which could also factor into an electromagnetic acceleration process. Your mythical sun needs to not only be "charge neutral", it also has to be devoid of a magnetic field to be completely unaffected by an all pervasive EM field expansion process.

What claim is being worked?
What is "an all pervasive EM field expansion process"?

The Sun has a magnetic field. It is strong in comparison to some things and weak in comparison to other things. It factors into "an electromagnetic acceleration process". That factor is that it changes the path of charged particles that have been accelerated away from the Sun by other processes.

[...]

OK ... but no one seems to be pressing MM on the fact that Peratt's simulations did not include stars!

Yet it is the stars in spiral galaxies - especially the bright blue ones - which make their shapes so iconic^ (at least in the optical waveband)!

So, in the absence of a detailed explanation of how stars - in spiral galaxies - come to have a similar, eye-candy level, distribution as the fully ionised plasma Peratt used in his simulations, we are left with "(MM's) god-did-it" as the only viable reason ...

^ in some narrow-band images, it's the HII regions; in others, it's the ... and let's not forget that in some wavebands (x-ray, gamma, ...) spiral galaxies have shapes that do not resemble spirals at all (let alone anything in Peratt's simulations); somehow the need to relate the simulation to the reality via *the empirical observations* seems to be missing (in MM's view ... Peratt clearly did not make this mistake)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

This claim:
According to you only .4% of the mass/energy actually resides in stars, so what's the big difference between his model and an ordinary galaxy? Even in a "neutral object" scenario (which is completely bogus) there is still the EM field of the objects themselves to consider. They would still be influenced by these same fields in the simulations.

First, get it straight: 0.4% of the entire Universe's mass-energy resides in stars. Much of the dark part is in empty space between clusters, so 5% of the mass of a galaxy cluster resides in stars. Much of the dark part of that lies in the ICM, so 20% of the mass of a galaxy lies in stars. Much of the dark part is in the halo, so in a disk galaxy nearly 100% of the disk mass lies in stars.

Peratt's model would represent a disk of plasma with a flat rotation curve within which is a collection of stars moving in straight lines. The stars would be like ball bearings dropped onto a record player---the strong EM forces that hold the vinyl together, and accelerating the vinyl molecules, do not imply strong EM forces holding the ball bearings to the vinyl.

OK ... but as with RC, this misses MM's point!

Keep in mind that MM has not - to the best of any reader of this thread's knowledge, today - posted anything which could be said to be evidence that he understands, let alone can use, math (including arithmetic) in astrophysics.

MM's point about Peratt's simulation was NOT about rotation curves (flat or otherwise) - there's no evidence he understands what these are, let alone appreciates what a flat one might imply - it was ... (drum roll please) ... "Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, which created galaxy-like "structures" in his computer models"^!

This is what MM means by "empirical" ... something like 'can create nice piccies which look like some other nice piccies' (or, if you prefer, bunny picture science).

^ bold added

 

[ben m]

there is still the EM field of the objects themselves to consider. They would still be influenced by these same fields in the simulations.

And this is another repetition of your mind-boggling mistake. EM fields do not exert forces on EM fields. EM fields ignore one another; that's why Maxwells equations are linear. EM fields act on CHARGES, either moving ones (Lorentz) or stationary ones (Coulomb) with a VECTOR force.

All of your "internal" fields are generated by some separation of + and - charge, or of + and - current. Take all of the + charge or current and compute the force due to the external field. Take all the - charge or current and compute the force due to the external field. These forces are exactly equal and opposite, so the net force is zero, with the exceptions I already listed:

a) IF the + and - charges are unequal; it is possible to have 80C of extra - charges on the Sun with no corresponding + charges. The other 10^40 C and 10^-40 C feel cancelling forces, but this extra 80 does not. 80 is a small number and the possible forces are small.

b) IF an E or B field that acts on (e.g) the left side of the Sun is not the same as the B field that acts on the right, AND if the internal charge separation is a bit of +left -right, then there is a force. This is the gradient force on a dipole. The possible forces are incredibly small.

c) There is a force due to electromagnetic radiation. It is tiny and it requires huge amount of energy; you could not push the Sun around under 10^20 Newtons of force without obliterating it with a giant laser beam.

That's it, MM. I did not ignore internal charge separations, I included them in the dipole calculation. I did not include "internal fields" because Maxwell's Equations do not do that.

(Oh: I presume I am not surprising you by revealing that only net forces cause acceleration, and that internal forces---like the attraction between two ends of a dipole---cancel internally? Perhaps it is not just Maxwell that you get wrong but Newton also.)

 

[Reality Check]

This claim:

Originally Posted by ben m
Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles. This has basically nothing in common with the collection of neutral massive objects that make up real disk galaxies.

According to you only .4% of the mass/energy actually resides in stars, so what's the big difference between his model and an ordinary galaxy? Even in a "neutral object" scenario (which is completely bogus) there is still the EM field of the objects themselves to consider. They would still be influenced by these same fields in the simulations.

The claim is correct.
Peratt's simulations used a strongly-coupled plasma made entirely of low-mass, high-charge particles.
That is what his papers state.

The big difference between his model and an ordinary galaxy is that his model applies to another universe where

• Spiral galaxies have no stars between their arms.
• Double-lobed radio galaxies actually have stars distributed in double lobes.
• Gravity does not exist.

Even in a "neutral object" scenario (which is completely valid) there is still the EM field of the objects themselves to consider.

• This will have not effect in Peratt's model because there are no "neutral objects" in Peratt's simulations.
• This has no effect on galaxy formation because it is extremely easy to show that the maximum magnitude of the "EM field of the objects themselves" is many orders of magnitude less than the gravitational effects.

 

[Reality Check]

Are Alfven's formulas wrong or Peratt's model

MM's point about Peratt's simulation was NOT about rotation curves (flat or otherwise) - there's no evidence he understands what these are, let alone appreciates what a flat one might imply - it was ... (drum roll please) ... "Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas, which created galaxy-like "structures" in his computer models"^! ^ bold added

MM still cannot comprehend that Peratt's computer simulations, based on Alfven's formulas did not create galaxy-like "structures !

That leaves him with an additional problem. Either

• Alfven's formulas are wrong or
• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation is wrong.

Which is it MM?

P.S. The answer is Peratt's model.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Plasma Physics & Dark Energy

How about a quick show of hands, how many of the following individuals have actually read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven? ... Tim Thompson ...

You have asked this question about a bazillion times, keep getting the same answers, and then just ask it again like it's the first time. How many times do I have to tell you ... YES ... I have read the book and I have two copies of it in my physics library. I used the book as a reference when I was a graduate student.

So, how about a show of hands from Michael Mozina:
Have you read Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Practice by Priest & Forbes?
Have you read Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics by Deiter Biskamp?
Have you read Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan?
Have you read The Physics of Plasmas by T.J.M. Boyd & J.J. Sanderson?
Have you read Plasma Physics for Astrophysics by Russell Kulsrud?
Have you read Plasma Astrophysics by Toshiki Tajima & Kazunari Shibata?
Have you read Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos by Eugene Parker?

If you have not read any of these, can you tell us what plasma physics books, other than Alfven, you actually have read?
How many plasma physics classes have you taken?
How many plasma physics laboratory experiments have you performed yourself, or assisted with?

I could never teach these folks a lick about math, but I can definitely teach them physics.

Really? Lets see ...
Is "dark energy" electric? No, and here's why.
Is "dark energy" magnetic? No, and here's why.
OK, here's your big chance to teach real, empirical physics. Both myself & ben_m present quantitative arguments based on straight forward classical physics. What did we do wrong? Are the forces wrongly calculated? Can you quantitatively show that is is possible for "dark energy" to be electromagnetic? Can you calculate the force or energy required for "dark energy" to be electromagnetic? If you can't, is that because you don't know enough math, or because you don't know enough physics? Neither? Both?

Even in a "neutral object" scenario (which is completely bogus) there is still the EM field of the objects themselves to consider. They would still be influenced by these same fields in the simulations.

Why is the "neutral object" scenario completely bogus? And when ben_m shows that the fields don't interact, what did he do wrong? Another big chance to teach physics here.

Your models "consistently" fail at level of empirical physics. I have to consistently "have faith" in all your math because you can't for instance demonstrate a single act of "acceleration" with "dark energy" in a lab.

So, is it your opinion that "empirical" physics does not exist outside the confines of a controlled laboratory experiment? Please provide a precise definition of "empirical".

I handed you five recent papers where return currents are seen in solar activity.

I looked back a few pages on the thread and did not find this. Can you (or anyone else) link to the post that includes these papers?

 

[ben m]

The other observation that clearly falsifies your statement is the fact that the solar wind is mostly composed of H+, He+2 and He+1 in that specific order. What is that Ben?

Those are some of the low-mass, high-charge particles I was talking about. Don't forget about electrons. Yes, that order is vaguely what you expect given the solar metallicity and the corona temperature; I'd expect He++ to be quite a lot rarer than He+. What were you trying to falsify? I suspect you are vaguely hoping that if you can poke a hole in any random aspect of my knowledge of the solar corona, then you will be able to ignore your trouble with long-range forces.

 

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
I handed you five recent papers where return currents are seen in solar activity.

I looked back a few pages on the thread and did not find this. Can you (or anyone else) link to the post that includes these papers?

As usual MM is deluded.
He is talking about the 4 papers that he cited (and one other somewhere) in the Plasma Cosmology Woo or Not thread.
Several people have commented on the papers and they seem to be ordinary plasma physics.
I commented on the 4 papers in this thread on the 8th of Jan.
I commented on the 4 papers in the other thread a couple of times.

Of these only one of the 4 papers is about return currents in solar activity:
Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops

MM may be still ignorant that return currents are well known in astrophysics as tusemfem posted.

 

[Dancing David]

I'd suggest you look up Hubble's law. Galaxies apparently recede from one-another at a rate proportional to the distance between them. Hubble's constant is about 74 km/s per Megaparsec. A megaparsec is a million parsecs. A parsec is about 31 trillion km. So galaxies that are 31 million trillion km apart will appear to move away from each other at 74 km/s. Objects only 31 km apart, however, would only move away from each other at a million-trillionth of that speed. Two atoms in a lab? I'd imagine the rate at which they recede due to Hubble's law from one-another is immeasurable, especially compared to whatever sources of error may exist in an attempt at measurement.

What dark energy models are supposed to account for, as I understand it, is an increase over time of the rate of apparent recession between any two objects. This apparent recession only has a measurable effect on things that are already very far away.

Another thing that cannot be measured with atoms in a lab is simple gravitational attraction. The magnitude of the gravitational force between two atoms is too small to measure, but by observing the way the planets move around the sun, the moon moves around the Earth, and the way things fall on Earth, we know gravity exists nonetheless. Asking to demonstrate dark energy with atoms in the lab is absurd for the same reason that asking to demonstrate gravity with atoms in the lab is.

Recently I did a rough calculation, the recession of alpha centauri is ~ 10 cm/sec. At ~ 4 light years.

 

[Tim Thompson]

"return currents" papers

I looked back a few pages on the thread and did not find this. Can you (or anyone else) link to the post that includes these papers?

He is talking about the 4 papers that he cited ...

Oh, those papers. I would never have guessed he was talking about them. I responded too, at least regarding one of the papers. I found it somewhat interesting that Mozina would say this: "They clearly do "rule out" your pseudoscientific magnetic reconnection model in these two flares!" about a paper that said this: "The motion of the mutually wrapped dual-rope ejection through the waist must be accompanied by reconnection of the magnetic field lines of the ejection with those of, or near to, the separatrix surface."

As usual MM is deluded.

An hypothesis which seems so far to be consistent with the observational data.

 

[DazzaD]

So, how about a show of hands from Michael Mozina:
Have you read Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Practice by Priest & Forbes?
Have you read Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics by Deiter Biskamp?
Have you read Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan?
Have you read The Physics of Plasmas by T.J.M. Boyd & J.J. Sanderson?
Have you read Plasma Physics for Astrophysics by Russell Kulsrud?
Have you read Plasma Astrophysics by Toshiki Tajima & Kazunari Shibata?
Have you read Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos by Eugene Parker?

If you have not read any of these, can you tell us what plasma physics books, other than Alfven, you actually have read?
How many plasma physics classes have you taken?
How many plasma physics laboratory experiments have you performed yourself, or assisted with?

Thank you... that was where I was heading with my post about what courses I did at Uni ...

FYI, I didn't ask for your job qualifications, I asked DRD what makes their *skepticism* of inflation any "better" than mine from a quantitative (or qualitative) standpoint. It's an impressive list and all, but it doesn't answer my basic question. DRD evidently also rejects one of the three metaphysical amigo's, so why condemn me for tossing out the other two?

Please...dont be so defensive.. my post wasnt an attack. I know you never asked for my qualifications and I wasnt trying to present them. I was only trying to get across that people DO study plasmas in incredible detail and yet they do not come to the same conclusions as those in the EU/PC arena.

Which of those classes you listed required a thorough reading of Birkeland's work or required you to read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma? Have you ever read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven, yes or no? In all those classes you listed were you exposed to Alfven's cosmology theories in any structured manner?

In the class? No.

But then again there is barely enough time in the class to cover the chosen textbook so that is entirely understandable.

If you mean to present the argument that the theories you mention are 'supressed' somehow then I dont think it holds water. There is not enough time to cover the working mainstream theory in most courses let alone being able to look at many possible 'alternative' theories.

That in itself, proves and means little to either side of our discussion.

That assumes a lot about the required reading in the curriculum IMO. Based upon a rather unscientific sampling over the years, I can tell you few if any folks in your industry have read Cosmic Plasma when asked the first time. I've shamed a couple of folks into reading it, but most never are exposed to Alfven's formal cosmology theories in a structured university setting, or at least have never read his book on this topic.

And most cosmologists at that level have not read Einstein's initial works on relativity (which I find rather dry myself to be honest).

Again, in and of itself it means little.

You are. I handed you five recent papers where return currents are seen in solar activity. Did you read those papers? If you did, you didn't have much to say about them. What's up with that?

I didnt see that they merited comment. Do you mean to say that 'return currents' are only manifestations of your own particular non-mainstream theory?

There is a distinct lack of mathematics in my rebuttals because my objections have zero to do with your math formulas and everything to do with your lack of empirical physical support for any of your key ideas.

Oh but they have everything in the world to do with it.

As others have already mentioned.. can you.. say.. demonstrate "hubble type galaxy expansion" in a lab here on the Earth?

If I am correct in understanding you, if it cannot be replicated here on the Earth in a lab, then it isnt science?

Yes or no have you read Cosmic Plasma? It seems to me if you have not read his work you have no business complaining about my lack of math. It's all been done, you just refuse to read it or consider it unless I personally bark math for you on command. Boloney. I won't play that game with you. I don't have to bark math for you especially since I'm not complaining about your math in the first place. That's simply a red herring so you can avoid those five papers, and that wealth of mathematical modeling done by Alfven. I won't let you live in denial of the empirical flaws in your belief systems only because you have superior math skills. Get it?

I believe I have already answered that question.

In any case, it may well be that I dont need to read the book itself.

As others have politely asked, if you have not read the texts that I hold so dear I could always play the same game and 'poo poo' your ideas because you have chosen not to engage with my pet theories.

That, of itself, is not an argument.

Again, please dont be so defensive here.. I am trying to get into your mind to see your point of view clearly with my posts.

I still fail to see the empirical flaws in my belief system when I have seen, first and second hand, the incredible amount of empirical and experimental evidence stacked up and analysed in the name of cosmological theories.

In any case, you cant argue for mathematical modelling done by Alfven and then dismiss mathematical arguments out of hand in the same paragraph.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Please...dont be so defensive.. my post wasnt an attack. I know you never asked for my qualifications and I wasnt trying to present them. I was only trying to get across that people DO study plasmas in incredible detail and yet they do not come to the same conclusions as those in the EU/PC arena.

After rereading my last post to you, it's quite clear to me that you were the innocent victim of a very stressful week at work. My apologies.

The basic problem here from my perspective is best exemplified by the following statement:

In the class? No.

And therein lies the rub. None of us were taught the relevancy of electrical current to the activities in space. It's not something any of us are exposed to in the classroom. While I had vaguely heard the term "Birkeland currents", I had no idea of the depth of his work until about perhaps 5 years ago. Even then it took me years (I'm still studying it) to fully understand it, and how it applies to events in space. None of us had any exposure to Alfven's cosmology theories either. It's not like any of us were handed a lot of material to read on this topic while in the classroom. Nothing like starting an understanding process with two hands tied behind your back.....

If one wants to comprehend anything at all about PC/EU theory, it's really "necessary" IMO to study Birkeland's work, Alfven's work, and Bruce's work. These folks wrote the book on this topic. Most of us were never even exposed to any of this material, or certainly very little of this material in the classroom setting.

But then again there is barely enough time in the class to cover the chosen textbook so that is entirely understandable.

"Understandable" perhaps from your vantage point, but not from mine, certainly not after studying solar physics and satellite images of the sun for the last 30 years.

The "energy" that was never taught to me in the classroom is the "ELECTROmagnetic" energy that drives the solar wind. The notion that mass cannot "expand" and cannot "accelerate" away from one another is a myth as the EM field of our own solar system demonstrates on a daily basis. The Sun discards 50,000 billion metric ton of H each year in the solar wind. If we're looking for a force of nature that might be driving acceleration, should we fully explore the EM field?

If you mean to present the argument that the theories you mention are 'supressed' somehow then I dont think it holds water. There is not enough time to cover the working mainstream theory in most courses let alone being able to look at many possible 'alternative' theories.

It's not so much "suppression" in the classroom, but rather as you mentioned, it's a matter of time and resources. Even still, that leaves a giant gap in a fully historical perspective in astronomy. IMO that has led to tragic consequences, and many false beliefs.

That in itself, proves and means little to either side of our discussion.

It does demonstrate that you and I had a similar experience (or lack thereof actually) in the classroom and the difference between us is what I've studied for say only the last 6 years or so, all of which was purely self initiated.

And most cosmologists at that level have not read Einstein's initial works on relativity (which I find rather dry myself to be honest).

Actually, I do personally tend to enjoy 'understanding' a topic from the perspective of the guy that wrote the original book on that topic.

Again, in and of itself it means little.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. Had I not never read Einsteins works, I would not comprehend where GR (as Einstein taught it) ends, and where Lambda-Magic theory begins. Sometimes it's extremely helpful to understand history IMO. In the case of Alfven's work, IMO if you want to comprehend how MDH theory 'should be' applied to events in space, his work is "required reading".

I didnt see that they merited comment.

That's sad IMO. There were actually 5 of them as I'll explain to time soon, and they all tied together quite nicely. Did you actually read them, or sort read the abstract, the conclusion and that's about it?

Do you mean to say that 'return currents' are only manifestations of your own particular non-mainstream theory?

No, I mean to say that Alfven "predicted" them, and so did Birkeland. Pure coincidence that a line of empirical physics, and the author of MHD theory predicted such thiings, 100 years before satellites in space confirmed them?

Oh but they have everything in the world to do with it.

As others have already mentioned.. can you.. say.. demonstrate "hubble type galaxy expansion" in a lab here on the Earth?

'

Of course not, but then I can't ignore Arp's work as readily as the mainstream seems to do.

If I am correct in understanding you, if it cannot be replicated here on the Earth in a lab, then it isnt science?

No, that's not quite the idea at all. If however you expect me to believe that something drives "acceleration", I'd like a demonstration of concept if you don't mind.

In any case, it may well be that I dont need to read the book itself.

And it may be that you do need to read the book yourself to really 'get it'. From the standpoint of comprehending the particle/circuit side of MHD theory, I've never seen anything even remotely like it other than the work of Anthony Peratt, for obvious reasons. Alfven's work is actually more financially accessible, and more likely to be found in a library. The bulk of Birkeland's work is freely accessible online, although I am still missing some of his important papers.

As others have politely asked, if you have not read the texts that I hold so dear I could always play the same game and 'poo poo' your ideas because you have chosen not to engage with my pet theories.

The difference here is that Alfven wrote the book on MHD theory and also happened to be the first individual to apply that topic of physics to events in space. Don't you think it's worth reading?

How many of the authors on your list and Tim's list have a Nobel prize for MHD theory?

In any case, you cant argue for mathematical modelling done by Alfven and then dismiss mathematical arguments out of hand in the same paragraph.

Sure I can if all you have are "mathematical arguments". Alfven's ideas are backed by real physics "experiments" with honest to goodness "control mechanisms'.

The point here I would drive home is that a "full education", one that includes PC/EU theories, requires more than simply a "classroom education'. Fortunately the internet has made information that was once almost inaccessible to the average individual very accessible in the 21st century. It still requires an willingness to embrace an "ongoing education", one that goes far beyond the classroom.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, those papers. I would never have guessed he was talking about them.

You missed the original one by Alfven and Carlqvist. Maybe you and I should start there since the first paper on that list references Alfven's earlier works.

It's just pure coincidence in your opinion that the father of MHD theory "predicted" the existence of those return currents we now observe in satellite imagery?

How does that apply to the first of those four other papers Tim, the one that mentions Carlqvist's and Alfven's earlier works?

I responded too, at least regarding one of the papers. I found it somewhat interesting that Mozina would say this: "They clearly do "rule out" your pseudoscientific magnetic reconnection model in these two flares!" about a paper that said this: "The motion of the mutually wrapped dual-rope ejection through the waist must be accompanied by reconnection of the magnetic field lines of the ejection with those of, or near to, the separatrix surface."

The "reconnection" is between two "circuits", and that "separatrix surface" is nothing more than a common double layer in plasma as I will demonstrate to you, but first I want to see you comment on the first of those other fours paper Tim, and how it applies to Alfven's ealier works?

An hypothesis which seems so far to be consistent with the observational data.

Honestly Tim, you're a better man IMO and a better scientist than to engage in personal attack. Let's you and I keep things focused only on the science.

Did you read my earlier post about how Alfven described a "magnet rope" and how he compared it to a "Bennett Pinch"?

 

[Reality Check]

You missed the original one by Alfven and Carlqvist. Maybe you and I should start there since the first paper on that list references Alfven's earlier works.

This is the old and outdated Alfven and Carlquist magnetic discharge theory for the energy produced by solar flares.

Basically observations have made it invalid as in tusemfem's post in the "Electric universe theories here" thread.

Originally Posted by tusenfem
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...

It's just pure coincidence in your opinion that the father of MHD theory "predicted" the existence of those return currents we now observe in satellite imagery?

It is not pure coincidence. It is a consequence of MHD. It predicts return currents. Scientific theories tend to predict stuff !

How does that apply to the first of those four other papers Tim, the one that mentions Carlqvist's and Alfven's earlier works?

It does not apply at all since the first paper in your list is not about return currents. It is Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits.
It does not apply to Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops or the other papers either. MHD predicts return currents!
Even common sense predicts return currents - you have electrons moving one way in a overall neutral plasma. To retain that neutrality there must be a flow of charge the other way.

The "reconnection" is between two "circuits", and that "separatrix surface" is nothing more than a common double layer in plasma as I will demonstrate to you, but first I want to see you comment on the first of those other fours paper Tim, and how it applies to Alfven's ealier works?

He does not really need to comment.
Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits does not apply to Alfven's earlier works. It cites a single earlier paper of Alfven and Carlquist in a list of previous papers that have modelled currents due to plasma flows in the photosphere as electric circuits.

The magnetic reconnection is between magnetic fileds. That is its definition.
The definition of a separatrix surface is the surface the separates domains in a magnetic plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

Please show that "separatrix surface" = double layer

First asked 23 January 2010
You stated:

The "reconnection" is between two "circuits", and that "separatrix surface" is nothing more than a common double layer in plasma as I will demonstrate to you, but first I want to see you comment on the first of those other fours paper Tim, and how it applies to Alfven's ealier works?

But the definition of a separatrix surface is the surface the separates domains in a magnetic plasma.

Please demonstrate that a "separatrix surface" is nothing more than a common double layer in plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK ... but no one seems to be pressing MM on the fact that Peratt's simulations did not include stars!

Yet it is the stars in spiral galaxies - especially the bright blue ones - which make their shapes so iconic^ (at least in the optical waveband)!

So, in the absence of a detailed explanation of how stars - in spiral galaxies - come to have a similar, eye-candy level, distribution as the fully ionised plasma Peratt used in his simulations, we are left with "(MM's) god-did-it" as the only viable reason ...

Er, no, it's more like "iron did it". IMO that particular feature was likely due to Alfven and Peratt believing the mainstream's claim about a non-mass separation of material in stars, and their elemental abundance figures that are all based upon that assumption. I'd love to see Peratt rerun those simulations with Manual's elemental abundance figures. It would likely elevate gravity to a more important role, and no doubt result in actual "clumps" of matter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is the old and outdated Alfven and Carlquist magnetic discharge theory for the energy produced by solar flares.

The theory isn't "outdated", it's "confirmed" by those later four papers!

Basically observations have made it invalid as in tusemfem's post in the "Electric universe theories here" thread.

Boloney. If tusemfem is your plasma guru, you're in serious trouble. He can't describe the difference between simple induction and what he calls "magnetic reconnection" any better than you can.

It is not pure coincidence. It is a consequence of MHD. It predicts return currents. Scientific theories tend to predict stuff !

Birkeland "predicted" these observations empirically in the lab. Alfven "predicted" them in MHD theory as he applied it to the sun. The fact you refuse to notice that what you call a "magnetic line" is actually part of what Alfven called a "circuit" is simply jaw dropping behavior IMO.

It does not apply at all since the first paper in your list is not about return currents.

No, it's about 'circuits' and circuit energy and "short circuits". It's about the E orientation of MHD theory.

The magnetic reconnection is between magnetic fileds. That is its definition.

A magnetic field forms as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. It can't "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines. The "reconnection" is between two "magnetic ropes", something Alfven drew as part of a "circuit".

The definition of a separatrix surface is the surface the separates domains in a magnetic plasma.

The only thing separating domains of *electro*magnetic plasma are double layers.