• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

Ziggurat said:
And they don't resemble the Z-machine. So... epic fail.
Click to expand...

They do. So....epic denial on your part.

You can't even understand the models you're advocating.
Click to expand...

You can't even begin to imagine how funny that sounds from my perspective.

The irony continues unabated.
Click to expand...

The denial goes unabated too. The answer is *NO*. You can't demonstrate your claim via empirical physics, whereas a "discharge" approach has already been empirically shown to heat plasma to millions of degrees.

Nobody can resolve that denial thing you have going except you.
 
Ziggurat said:
The proposed model in the paper you just linked to cannot be demonstrated in a lab. I understand that you are probably unaware of this, but the model consists of more than just having an electrical discharge.
Click to expand...

It *REQUIRES* an electrical discharge! OMG! This denial thing is pure garbage. I handed you a *PHYSICAL DEMONSTRATION* that shows that discharges can and do heat plasma to millions of degrees. Instead of just acknowledging that point, and *ADMITTING* that you can't do that with "magnetic reconnection", you're hanging out in pure denial and hoping nobody notices. I noticed. I think others will also notice you failed to deliver any "physical proof" of your concept.
 
Michael Mozina said:
They do. So....epic denial on your part.
Click to expand...

Nope. Here's a hint: how does the Z-machine produce large voltages? How does the model in your paper produce large voltages? Do they resemble each other? And is the mechanism of voltage creation important? I'll let you figure out the answer to the first three questions, but the answer to the last one is yes. Yes it is.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nope. Here's a hint: how does the Z-machine produce large voltages? How does the model in your paper produce large voltages? Do they resemble each other? And is the mechanism of voltage creation important? I'll let you figure out the answer to the first three questions, but the answer to the last one is yes. Yes it is.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you can't just admit that *NO* you can't do the same thing without a "discharge" through the plasma?

The only thing that "similar" is the fact they create discharge filaments due to charge separation. The mechanical aspects of how the separation occurs is irrelevant. You're still just in epic denial.

It's really not that painful to admit that the answer to my question is *NO* you can't empirically demonstrate that magnetic reconnection can heat plasma to millions of degrees. Swallow your pride, get over it, and just admit it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
IMO it's their responsibility to do that. He did in fact invent the mathematical formulas and he was an electrical engineer. His entire approach is fully consistent with electrical theory and fully consistent with particle physics theory. Magnetic reconnection theory is consistent with neither branch of physics.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Which bit of particle physics theory or "electrical theory" (whatever that i)s, do you think it violates?

That alone says volumes as to the legitimacy of his approach and the stupidity of theirs.
Click to expand...
Nope. It says volumes about your ability to talk out of your rear-end.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The mechanical aspects of how the separation occurs is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, um... no. How charge separation occurs in the first place is absolutely critical to any solar model involving discharge. If the charging doesn't happen, then neither does the discharging. It's a requirement of Maxwell's equations, those things you claimed (incorrectly) that magnetic reconnection violated.
 
Tubbythin said:
What are you talking about? Which bit of particle physics theory or "electrical theory" (whatever that i)s, do you think it violates?
Click to expand...

The term "violates" was yours, not mine. Alfven's approach was simply 'consistent with' electrical engineering (he used circuits) and particle physics theory (he talked about the kinetic energies of the particles). The term 'magnetic reconnection' is simply a form of pseudoscience and always well be a form of pseudoscience because all the action is happening inside in "double layer". Curl B is not "zero" inside those "magnetic ropes", or the double layer.

Nope. It says volumes about your ability to talk out of your rear-end.
Click to expand...

When you produce million degree plasma with "magnetic reconnection", tell me then who's talking out of their backside. Right now your whole argument sounds well, rather pathetic.

I even quoted Alfven for you in a published paper. He devoted almost the whole paper to this specific topic. He explained why it was wrong from every angle he could possible think of. He explained it for you mathematically too, all of which you simply ignored.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, um... no. How charge separation occurs in the first place is absolutely critical to any solar model involving discharge. If the charging doesn't happen, then neither does the discharging. It's a requirement of Maxwell's equations, those things you claimed (incorrectly) that magnetic reconnection violated.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely irrelevant how it happens, it only matters that *it does happen*. A discharge theory explains:

A) The temperatures associated with these events.
B) The speed of propagation of the event which Bruce demonstrated in the 50's.
C) The "looping nature" of the discharges themselves as Birkeland actually *predicted* (real empirical predictions too, not your fudge factor, after the fact stuff) over 100 years ago.
D) produce x-rays galore
E) produce gamma rays "naturally" in our own atmosphere.

Each and every one of these items has already been demonstrated on Earth, has been shown to occur naturally on Earth, and are not 'mysterious" or difficult to produce.

Show me even *ONE* of these things that has been *empirically* (in the lab, not on paper) linked to "magnetic reconnection".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Let me see you physically demonstrate that nifty trick. Birkeland's empirical experiments showed that they start at the "surface". How the heck would a "beam" form in pure plasma if not inside a "magnetic rope", another "current carrying" structure?
Click to expand...


No. Birkeland did not empirically show any such thing. If he did, you know really, outside of your personal crackpot fantasy, why is it that no professional physicist on the face of this planet agrees with you?
 
Ziggurat said:
And it's irrelevant. Conditions in the Z-machine don't resemble conditions in the sun. And nobody with half a brain is claiming they do.
Click to expand...


[Bolding mine.] Yep. You're getting to the source of the issue right there.
 
GeeMack said:
[Bolding mine.] Yep. You're getting to the source of the issue right there.
Click to expand...

You're right. I think with a *WHOLE* brain whereas you two are willfully and intentionally ignorant by choice and never bother to educate your brain. In fact you intentionally starve it to death. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
You're right. I think with a *WHOLE* brain whereas you two are willfully and intentionally ignorant by choice and never bother to educate your brain. In fact you intentionally starve it to death. :)
Click to expand...


Oh, you missed this one, Michael. I've asked it so many times it actually looks like you're ignoring it on purpose. Why is it that no professional physicist on Earth agrees with your assessment of Birkeland's work? Why is it that everyone in the profession thinks you're just plain wrong? Does the obvious answer scare you so badly you will continue to simply ignore it? You claim you're right and all the people educated and working in the field of physics are wrong. That's thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people, and not a single one agrees with you. Why? Really.

ETA: Oh, and why is it you can take the time and trouble to get all pissy about some valid criticism of your crackpottery, yet you won't even attempt to support your claim I've asked about so many times? Remember this post, and all the previous ones you continue to ignore? Get to explaining, quite nicely as you said you could, how the "circuit/resistor" approach applies to heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees.

Ignorance again?

Another tantrum?

It's obvious by now that you won't be supporting your claim. And it's certain that you won't be displaying the honesty and integrity of admitting that you can't. After all, that's what a real scientist would do, now isn't it? :D
 
Last edited:
Well I define fundamentalism as the attempt to impose a single 'truth' on a plural world. And what really lies behind it is fear, a profound insecurity that makes you feel when you meet someone who is not like you, or doesn't agree with you, that that challenge is a threat against your very being. Aggression is always a sign of insecurity. And insecurity is always, at bottom, a lack of faith, not a presence of faith

—Jonathan Sacks

Thoust can keepst on giving the same answers if thoust chooses, but all that backeth the answers up seems t'be your faith that it is "true" and veracious.

And still I bet if I asked a relative physics newbie what magnetic reconnection is, judging from the vague and differing definitions given in this thread, they would not have a clue.

Thats may be why peoples whos mathematical comprehention may not be as up to scratch as some others have tended to avoid this thread (dancing david, et al [ no offence meant, you admitted yourself that your calculus is not good, mine neither tbh! ]). As I dont think even they have a clue what MR is and how they would go about testing it.
 
What spheromaks are: Spheromaks are plasmas with very large internal currents and internal magnetic fields that are aligned so as to be in a nearly force-free equilibrium, i.e., the currents are very nearly parallel to the magnetic fields. The spheromak equilibrium is a `natural' state since magnetic turbulence tends to drive magnetically dominated plasmas towards the spheromak state.

http://ve4xm.caltech.edu/Bellan_plasma_page/How1.htm

Why spheromaks are interesting: Spheromaks are inherently three-dimensional and involve the concept of magnetic helicity which is a measure of the twistedness of a magnetic flux tube. Spheromaks have been proposed as the basis of magnetic fusion confinement schemes and as a means for refueling tokamaks. The physics of spheromaks is closely related to the physics of astrophysical jets.
http://ve4xm.caltech.edu/Bellan_plasma_page/spheroma.htm
Click to expand...


Controlled Laboratory Experiments on expanding magnetic flux ropes
Nakamoto, Mio; Chen, James; Pribyl, Patrick; Connolly, Kevin
American Physical Society, 47th Annual DPP Meeting, October 24-28, 2005, abstract #KP1.118

A laboratory experiment which was designed to study the expansion of a magnetic flux rope in a geometry similar to that of Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) is underway at UCLA. A 10 cm cathode and adjacent, movable anode are placed at the lower edge of a plasma column in a three meter long, one meter diameter plasma column. The cathode and anode, which constitute the stationary footprints of the flux rope during each run, are housed within solenoidal magnets (oriented at right angles to the device axis) are pulsed at the same (1 Hz) repetition rate as the background plasma ( n = 10^12 cm-3, Dia = 30 cm , 200 G < Bz< 700 G). The arched and magnetized flux rope rises into the background plasma. The experiment is diagnosed with magnetic probes, Langmuir probes and Mach probes. The issues to be addressed are the relationship between the flux rope and ambient magnetic field. The experiment will examine the scaling of the acceleration and expansion of the flux rope and the separation of the anode/cathode (flux rope footprints) as well as heating and coupling of the flux rope and ambient plasma.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005APS..DPPKP1118N
Click to expand...

Helicity is from the right hand rule. It is not from some mechanical twisting of the magnetic field below or at the tube footprint..
MHD is misapplied. And it should show the right hand rule.
And if it is from helicity, then the flux tube is formed by the current flowing through it.
 
Last edited:
Whoa if I ever post using that odd medieval type slang again someone please slap me, makes nearly no sense on a re-read! Maybe only works outloud. Will leave un-editted though or this post wont make much sense.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Let me see you physically demonstrate that nifty trick.
Click to expand...
Nifty trick physically demonstrated:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
The one paper that I find you citing is: Solar Electron Beams Detected in Hard X-Rays and Radio Waves
Authors: Aschwanden, M. J., Benz, A. O., Dennis, B. R., & Schwartz, R. A.
Journal: Astrophysical Journal v.455, p.347

I suggest that you at least read the abstract. The electron beams are the well-known ones from solar flares. These happen at distances of 10,000 kilometers above the photosphere.
Click to expand...
 
brantc said:
Electron beams require an electric field at both ends of the beam. It is not a jet.
Click to expand...
As soon as the electrons are accelerated they do not need an electric field to retain their speed. Cathode ray tubes do that all the time.
So electron beams are also "jets".

brantc said:
I dont know if the solar plumes could be considered electron beams.
Click to expand...
They are not. As the paper states: "Polar plumes are magnetically unipolar, linear, high-density structures in the polar coronal holes of the Sun."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom