Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[Michael Mozina]

No. You apparently misunderstand Birkeland's research as badly as Michael does.

You don't have a clue about Birkeland's work. You've never once read any of it with an open mind.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Who, of all the scientists on this planet, do you respect enough that if he/she told you you're wrong you would accept it?

Anyone who could actually physically *EXPLAIN* those images on my website would do the trick. Your "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" commentary, combined with your pure verbal abuse methodology of getting what you want, precludes you from serious consideration. You're just a first class jerk.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Please demonstrate where "magnetic reconnection" has been empirically linked here on Earth to any of the following solar processes:

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.

The silence is deafening boys and girls.

 

[GeeMack]

In what way?????? Did he not try to model the sun??

Not in any way that you and crackpots like Michael seem to think he did. The Sun is not made of brass. It's not hollow with a solid shell for a surface. It's made of gasses. The Sun isn't in a room-temperature vacuum chamber. It isn't suspended on a pole with wires inside it. There's not a steel frame acting as an anode only a little over a solar diameter away from it. If you think Birkeland's terrella was any sort of scientific solar model, you clearly don't know very much about the Sun, perhaps less than Michael, and that's going some. Pretty much nothing about Birkeland's terrella was like the Sun other than superficially. The thing about it that most resembled the Sun was the fact that it was round.

Remember, brantc, your qualifications speak for themselves...

Lets just fix this right now. I have no sources for anything I say.

The terrella was no more a solar model, from a scientific perspective, than a plastic Revell scale model of the RMS Titanic is an engineering model of an ocean liner. Michael, in millions of words, mostly repeating the same garbage, hasn't been able to show it was.

Or was it just a magnetized sphere in plasma.....No relation to our solar system.....

Correct. No relation to our solar system. Not for purposes of this discussion.

 

[GeeMack]

Anyone who could actually physically *EXPLAIN* those images on my website would do the trick. Your "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" commentary, combined with your pure verbal abuse methodology of getting what you want, precludes you from serious consideration. You're just a first class jerk.

The question was, "Who, of all the scientists on this planet, do you respect enough that if he/she told you you're wrong you would accept it?" Looking for a name here, Michael. Nobody will ever be able to explain your silly idea about the surface of the Sun the way you want to hear it, because your notion has been demonstrated beyond any doubt to be a delusion, and because nobody else on Earth has such a serious misunderstanding of solar physics and running difference images as you.

The question was, again for the reading challenged, "Who, of all the scientists on this planet, do you respect enough that if he/she told you you're wrong you would accept it?"

But before you get to that, fill us in, quite nicely, like you said you could, how the "circuit/resistor" approach explains heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees. You can keep ignoring this, but every time you do there's another lurker or two wondering why, if you can't explain it, you'd lie about it instead of showing some scientific integrity and admitting that you can't.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The question was, "Who, of all the scientists on this planet, do you respect enough that if he/she told you you're wrong you would accept it?"

You just don't get it, do you? "Names" have absolutely nothing to do with anything. I'm looking for "physical explanations". It could come from Joe Blow in Boise Idaho for all I care. I'm only interested in the "physics", not "names".

You can keep ignoring this, but every time you do there's another lurker or two wondering why, if you can't explain it, you'd lie about it instead of showing some scientific integrity and admitting that you can't.

Funny how you ignored A-E on my list but you expect me to bark math on command for you or admit defeat. I did you one better. I showed you "physical proof" that "electrical discharges" create million degree plasma in real physical labs. Notice how you refuse to admit that you can't do any of those empirical things on my list with any scientific integrity at all on your part? That's called denial baby.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The terrella was no more a solar model, from a scientific perspective, than a plastic Revell scale model of the RMS Titanic is an engineering model of an ocean liner.

That's because you're willfully ignorant beyond belief.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not in any way that you and crackpots like Michael seem to think he did.

You're so hung up on "Michael Michael Michael" that you can't even have a conversation with someone else without bringing me into the conversation. You need help IMO. Truth has become irrelevant to you. The only thing that matters to you is "bashing Michael". That's irrational behavior.

 

[GeeMack]

You're so hung up on "Michael Michael Michael" that you can't even have a conversation with someone else without bringing me into the conversation. You need help IMO. Truth has become irrelevant to you. The only thing that matters to you is "bashing Michael". That's irrational behavior.

I'm not bashing you, Michael. For some reason we haven't explored yet (although if you want to open a thread about analyzing how desperately and why you cling to your delusion, that discussion could prove interesting), it is you who keeps equating criticism of your ideas, your claims, your supposed qualifications, and your flawed presentation with abuse.

I'm a skeptic. I'm pointing out the flaws in your arguments, or more often, the fact that you lack any argument at all to support your crazy claims. If you can't stand that kind of heat, go over to BAUT Forum maybe and see how you fair there. That's a legitimate science site. Not just skeptics. They'll leave your propensity to build your case on logical fallacies out of it. Then they'll proceed to shred your crackpot notions purely for their lack of any sane scientific support.

Oh, and don't you find it curious at all that you'd rather throw a tantrum than to answer an often asked, legitimately scientific question about your claim? Remember, you're still refusing for some reason to address this:

Describe, quite nicely as you said you could, how the "circuit/resistor" approach explains heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees.​

Or maybe you'll have the integrity to admit you were lying when you made that claim? Oh who are we kidding? That's not going to happen in this lifetime, is it?

 

[Ziggurat]

You just don't get it, do you? "Names" have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Sorry, but you're simply not credible when you say this. You keep on harping on Alfven, because to you names (or rather, one name) do matter.

It could come from Joe Blow in Boise Idaho for all I care. I'm only interested in the "physics", not "names".

No, you're looking for pretty pictures. Physics is a quantitative science. And it is quantified with math. Which you can't understand and will not do.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not bashing you, Michael. ...your delusion, your crazy claims...... your crackpot notions.... lack of any sane scientific support.....you were lying

Pure verbal abuse, not to mention pure denial on your part:

Describe, quite nicely as you said you could, how the "circuit/resistor" approach explains heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees.

I took it a step further for you into the realm of PURE EMPIRICAL PHYSICS.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/z290.htm

Achieved 1.6 million degrees C
In a different series of experiments, the accelerator achieved a temperature of approximately 1.6 million degrees Celsius (140 electron volts) in a container the size of a spool of thread.

Other experiments in a still smaller volume target suggest temperatures may eventually be achieved on Z in the range of 2.0 to 2.2 million degrees. The now-realistic goal of reaching 2.0 million degrees is so significant because radiation temperatures in the range of two million to three million degrees are generally considered an essential condition for nuclear fusion.

Or maybe you'll have the integrity to admit you were lying when you made that claim?

What the hell are you talking about? I provided you with an EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION, the one thing you will *NEVER* be able to do! You're in hard core pure denial dude. Not only that, you need help. You aren't even interested in the data or the information being presented. You're only interested in verbally abusing me over and over and over again. You look like a complete fool!

You're the one who's acting from a place that lacks any and all empirical or rational or "sane" support. Get over it. Show me where "magnetic reconnection" can heat plasma to millions of degrees.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, but you're simply not credible when you say this. You keep on harping on Alfven, because to you names (or rather, one name) do matter.

No, actually your problem is a lack of physics there too. None of you can explain what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that is physically and demonstrateably different from ordinary induction and plasma collisions in current carrying plasma.

No, you're looking for pretty pictures.

No, I'm looking for a physical demonstration concept, the one thing you *NEVER* do. All your mythical friends are a "no show" in the lab.

Physics is a quantitative science. And it is quantified with math. Which you can't understand and will not do.

What you don't get is that "math" is not king. PHYSICS, particularly empirical physics is king. I just showed you an empirical demonstration of a "discharge" creating million degree plasma. Can you do that with 'magnetic reconnection', yes or no? Pretty math formulas alone won't cut it, I want to see you demonstrate your claim in a real lab in real experiments. Get it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Please demonstrate where "magnetic reconnection" has been empirically linked here on Earth to any of the following solar processes:

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.

The silence is still deafening. Tick....tick.....tick......

 

[GeeMack]

[*Temper tantrum snipped.*]

What the hell are you talking about? I provided you with an EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION, the one thing you will *NEVER* be able to do!

Oh, you said you could describe quite nicely how the "circuit/resistor" approach explains heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees. Of course the page you linked doesn't mention either circuit or resistance at all. Not a single word. So did you make a mistake in your link, or were you lying when you made that claim? I think we know.

You're in hard core pure denial dude. Not only that, you need help. You aren't even interested in the data or the information being presented. You're only interested in verbally abusing me over and over and over again. You look like a complete fool!

I look like a fool because you throw a tantrum when someone asks you to actually support your silly claims? I look like a fool because you don't understand physics? I look like a fool because you have never once provided any quantitative, legitimately scientific support for any claim you've made? I look like a fool because not one single professional working in the field of physics agrees with your crackpot conjectures?

​

You're the one who's acting from a place that lacks any and all empirical or rational or "sane" support. Get over it. Show me where "magnetic reconnection" can heat plasma to millions of degrees.

We've been going over this burden of proof thing for years and years now, Michael, and you still don't understand. You claimed you can describe quite nicely how the "circuit/resistor" approach explains heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees. You can't do it. You were lying when you said you could.

Who, of all the professional physicists on this planet, understands this stuff well enough that you would accept it if he/she told you that you're wrong? Every single person you've discussed these things with for all these years on the 'net, every one of them who actually knows math and physics and understands science, has told you you're wrong. At least a half dozen of them have said so right in these threads. Name one person who you believe has the qualifications and expertise to tell you you're wrong so you'd finally accept that fact.

 

[Ziggurat]

What you don't get is that "math" is not king. PHYSICS, particularly empirical physics is king.

You wouldn't know physics if it bit you on the rear. Which, in fact, it has, multiple times on this forum. For someone who believes in thermodynamic impossibilities, your claim to prioritize physics is simply laughable.

I just showed you an empirical demonstration of a "discharge" creating million degree plasma.

Driven by charge separation mechanisms that not only does not, but CANNOT, exist in the sun.

Hey Micheal, did you know that ordinary speakers can produce plasmas of about 20,000 K? That's hotter than the surface of the sun. The sun must be powered by audio speakers!

 

[brantc]

Not in any way that you and crackpots like Michael seem to think he did. The Sun is not made of brass. It's not hollow with a solid shell for a surface. It's made of gasses. The Sun isn't in a room-temperature vacuum chamber. It isn't suspended on a pole with wires inside it. There's not a steel frame acting as an anode only a little over a solar diameter away from it. If you think Birkeland's terrella was any sort of scientific solar model, you clearly don't know very much about the Sun, perhaps less than Michael, and that's going some. Pretty much nothing about Birkeland's terrella was like the Sun other than superficially. The thing about it that most resembled the Sun was the fact that it was round.

Remember, brantc, your qualifications speak for themselves...
The terrella was no more a solar model, from a scientific perspective, than a plastic Revell scale model of the RMS Titanic is an engineering model of an ocean liner. Michael, in millions of words, mostly repeating the same garbage, hasn't been able to show it was.

Correct. No relation to our solar system. Not for purposes of this discussion.

Yeah, ya just swing that word crackpot around.

Cant you do anything else besides insult people???

 

[brantc]

Originally Posted by brantc
Yeah. The right hand rule!

brantc, can you please tell us what the "right hand rule" is, in your own words?

When the current goes through some conductor at some other "angle" than the force free one so that you have a curl component. Mostly applied to wire but flux tubes with helicity have this curl component.

Quote:

The rule is: Magnetic fields only change because the current flow changes.

Wrong. For example, the magnetic field in a radio wave in a completely empty vacuum is changing. There is zero current flow.

Why are we talking about radio waves all of a sudden. Do I have to qualify every statement I make. We are talking about plasma.
Why do you guys do that? Bring up some other straw man unrelated to what we are talking about.

Its like you have Tourettes Syndrome.

We are talking about electromagnetism as applied to plasma. Not antenna theory.... Anything I say is generally about flux tubes and reconnection.

Wrong. See above, or a permanent magnet, or any curl-less magnetic field.

Why do you even say that? I thought we were past that discussion about electromagnets and bar magnets...

 

[Tubbythin]

No,

Lets see shall we...

The you will need to tell me how we can determine if this is in fact a unique form of energy exchange because Alfven called your beliefs "pseudoscience". Either Alfven didn't know what he was talking about or you do not. Both of you cannot be correct.

That's translated to "current flow" and "circuit enery" from Alfven's E oriented perspective, the guy that labeled magnetic reconnection "pseudoscience".

The "highly idiosyncratic" understanding/verbiage comes from the "mainstream" because Alfven himself called Parkers "magnetic reconnection" a form of "pseudoscience". Alfven was an electrical engineer by trade and he knew damn well that magnetic lines do not "disconnect' or 'reconnect' to any other magnetic line. The "reconnection" is between two "circuits", not simply two magnetic lines.

Here's how Alfven described a magnetic rope:

It's not "my model", it's "Alfven's/Bruce's/Birkeland's" model.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Al...r Flares.pdf

In Alfven's paper, he's turning that "flux tube" into a part of a "circuit" and when the "circuit" is disrupted, that "magnetic energy" is released. It's a z-pinch that ultimately creates the current disruption process.

The particles in the tube "fly off" away from the tornado like filament due to the current disruption. The release of energy is directly related to the current flow and the disruption of that current flow through the "magnetic rope". Alfven is most certainly using that "rope' as the conductive equivalent of a "wire". When the current flow creates a z-pinch in the tube, the whole thing "explodes".

Read Alfven's paper!

No, but everyone agrees that that is it possible for two current carrying magnetic ropes to "reconfigure" themselves. We can't agree on what that process should be called. As Alfven explained, not a single magnetic line disconnects or reconnects to any other magnetic line, so it is irrational to call it "magnetic reconnection".

Alfven from Cosmic Plasma:

Alfven again from Cosmic Plasma:

We all agree that two magnetic ropes "reconnect". You however seem to have your own personal definition of a 'magnetic rope" since Alfven described a magnetic rope as a current carrying filament of plasma.

Quote:
We all (except you) agree that there is a model of solar flares that has magnetic reconnection happening in loops of magnetic flux (coronal loops).

You're completely ignoring that fact that those same flares can be described in terms of macroscopic circuits. You're in pure denial of that first paper not to mention Alfven's life's work, all of Bruces work, and even Birkeland's empirical experiments with "electricity".

Alfven called that term "pseudoscience".

It means that the filament is acting as a "conductor" or "wire" as in that quote from Alfven. The plasma that makes up the tube is also conducting current flow in the form of electrons.

Not exactly. A "magnetic rope" is "bunched" or "twisted" by the current flow inside the magnetic rope. Here's how Alfven described a rope. It's essentially an ordinary current carrying filament, a scaled up cousin to the filaments inside an ordinary plasma ball. The "magnetic lines" are not straight, but form a spiral, just like an ordinary Birkeland current.

Can those same formulas be converted to an E orientation of MHD theory (if not by me, by someone), yes or no? In your opinion, why did Alfven prefer to use the E orientation in all "current carrying" plasma interactions? How is this physical process any different than a short circuit and topology change of two "circuits"?

If your industry didn't make up so many irrational, self serving labels, it wouldn't be such a pain in the butt understanding what you're talking about. If you used terms like "circuits" as Alfven did, electrical engineers might have a clue what your talking about. When you use terms like 'magnetic reconnection', you make every electrical engineer on the planet go "huh"? "Belching black holes?" Really? Is it any wonder that other scientists don't have a clue what you're talking about?

Like the Geemack, DRD, liar, liar pant's on fire approach to science from your side of the aisle? Please! You don't even have a leg to stand on. I can't even get DRD to read Alfven's work after what now, 4 years of playing pseudoskeptic?

Please. I can't tell you have many times you folks stand on an appeal to authority fallacy. I'm probably guilty of that one by mentioning Alfven's stand on this topic however, so sue me.

You're simply ignoring those papers I provided you with Tim. They clearly show that Alfven's 'circuit' method can be applied to solar flare events. A couple of "circuits" crossing is not "magnetic reconnection" Tim, it's "circuit reconnection", or more specifically it's a short circuit in two current carrying magnetic ropes.

You're using the wrong boundary condition Tim. That is why Alfven switched to the E orientation when describing solar atmospheric events. Like all the other authors listed in that first paper that were cited by the authors of that paper, Alfven was very aware of the current flows inside the solar atmosphere. You're trying to use the B field orientation like a sledgehammer and apply it to everything you see! Instead of selecting the proper boundary condition, and using a "circuit" orientation, you're still stuck in a B field orientation.

This is Alfven's definition of a magnetic rope. Note that the "rope" is a "current carrying" filament in plasma. These ropes are mathematically described in terms of circuits in Alfven's papers and in the first paper I provided on that list of four current papers.

That's just the first ten pages of this thread.

 

[sol invictus]

When the current goes through some conductor at some other "angle" than the force free one so that you have a curl component. Mostly applied to wire but flux tubes with helicity have this curl component.

I'm sorry, but there's no "rule" in there. Try again?

Why are we talking about radio waves all of a sudden. Do I have to qualify every statement I make. We are talking about plasma.
Why do you guys do that? Bring up some other straw man unrelated to what we are talking about.

"Straw man"? You made a statement that's flat-out false. And by the way, it's false in plasma too.

We are talking about electromagnetism as applied to plasma. Not antenna theory.... Anything I say is generally about flux tubes and reconnection.

Well it's wrong there too, as I pointed out. I notice you completely ignored that part of my post.

Why do you even say that? I thought we were past that discussion about electromagnets and bar magnets...

Then why did you ignore the part of my post about plasma, brantc?

 

[tusenfem]

NOTHING!



Oh please. 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.

Discharge needs a insulator that can break down between the two buld up charges.

For the list, it is clear you have not got the foggiest about reconnection. You just take one big broad view of the region and dump everthing you see in your so called discharge, when it is very clear that many effects that you list come from different regions of the coronal loop. But why bother looking at things in detail, when you are still wearing your pre-1980s glasses?

You're a complete and utter fraud. You will *NEVER* demonstrate any empirical link between those million degree coronal loops and "magnetic reconnection" in a lab, not to mention anything else on that list. You're full of it. You hope like hell nobody notices. When presented with evidence you don't (like that macroscopic circuits paper) you simply ignore it! Dude you really shouldn't be throwing stones considering the load of crap you're peddling professionally.

Loops get heated up by currents in the loop, I have stated that many times already in this thread. The EMF created by a vxB force drives currents, which can relax e.g. through return currents.

I have discussed the circuit papers you linked too, and even told you and and shown you what I have done myself with circuit theory.

And all we get from you is bitch bitch bitch. If you would spend as much effort in explaining the circuit/particle reconnection or in explaning the plasma ball discharges this thread would move a lot better. But as you are obviously incapable of presenting even the most basic physics about circuit/particle reconnection apart from generally quoting Alfvén.

So, once more, I have shown lots of explanations here, now we want to see your (i.e. Michael Mozina's) model of circuit/particle reconnection, that shows the, what mainstream calles the X-line or point and the associated Hall currents and magnetic fields and the closing field aligned currents etc. etc. The details of the observations you can find in the two Runov et al. papers that I cited before.