Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[tusenfem]

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.

Well, you might want to adjust this "explanation" of the "right hand rule." The only "right hand rule" I ever learned was to obtain the field around a current carrying wire or get the direction of the cross product and stuff like that. Actually, here is a nice page summing up a lot of "right hand rules."

But let us deduce some what you wrote:

• When the current goes through some conductor so far so fine
• at some other "angle" than the force free one HUH? What exactly does "force free" mean? It is a specific qualification in plasma physics. I basically means that, in the limit of negligible plasma pressure the equation JxB=0 holds, which means that the current is flowing along the magnetic field and one can write that μ₀J= αB. In the case of zero current, this means that the magnetic field is a potential field B=grad(φ). And if the current is non-zere then we have curl(B) = αB and what then happens is whether α is a constant or a function of space. If it is a constant one deduces a Helmholtz equation for the magnetic field -▼²B = α²B
• so that you have a curl component. I don't know what that means, curl of what? I guess the magnetic field, but there is always a curl of the magnetic field, also in a force free setting as we see in the point above.
• Mostly applied to wire but flux tubes with helicity have this curl component. So, I guess you mean "twist" with "curl" and you mean "twist" with "helicity," because helicity is defined as the volume integral of the vector potential A dotted into the magnetic fiedl B.

 

[The Man]

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.

It was already explained to you, magnetic reconnection does not require a plasma.

 

[GeeMack]

Yeah, ya just swing that word crackpot around.

Michael's claims are, by definition, crackpot ideas.

Cant you do anything else besides insult people???

Funny that you quoted my comment but clearly didn't read it. You asked if Birkeland was trying to model the Sun. I said...

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.​

Read it this time. And I said...

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.​

Read it this time. You also asked if Birkeland's terrella had no relation to our solar system. I said...

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

Read it this time. I wrote almost 200 words and it looks like you only read one of them.

Michael believes he's been making a case for a handful of crackpot ideas for over half a decade now. Millions of words in tens of thousands of posts on several forums, and not once has he quantitatively supported any of his positions. I'm pointing out his lack of argument. If you don't like it, make a legitimately scientific argument rather than bitching about being criticized. Stop crying persecution and knock off the tantrums. You guys are pretty quick to address what you perceive as insults while willfully ignoring the valid questions. If you or Michael can actually support your crackpot notions, why in Hell don't you just do it?

 

[sol invictus]

Michael's claims are, by definition, crackpot ideas.

If believing the sun has a solid iron surface isn't crackpot, I don't know what is.

It's in total conflict with the laws of thermodynamics, which are about as empirically supported and thoroughly understood as it gets.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Redux X

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.

Your understanding of both or either math and physics is insufficient. The reality, whether you particularly like it or not, is that mathematics and physics are inseparable. If you can't do one, you can't do the other. The fact is that you do not understand the physics, and because you don't understand the physics you don't know what math needs to be done. So, to hide your own inadequacy, you claim the "moral high ground" by refusing to, as you put it, bark math on command. But the trick fools nobody but yourself.

The point is that physics is a whole, unified intellectual field. You don't get to throw out and ignore the parts you don't like, but you do that constantly, and it is an intellectually fatal error. You point out that electrical discharges are responsible for gamma ray emission from Earth, and that is correct. Then you assume that the same process must be true for the sun, ignoring the simple fact that the sun and Earth are remarkably different places. You show no indication at all of any willingness to even think for a minute about the physics involved. No, you take a hard line and demand that the physical universe bow to your preconception, and in order to do that you simply ignore any law of physics that gets in your way. You demand "circuit reconnection", without ever explaining in any detail what it is supposed to be, and ignoring the fact that simple circuit reconnection violates the law of conservation of energy. You demand that the sun have some kind of iron "crust", ignoring the laws of thermodynamics that make it impossible. You say ... "particularly empirical physics is king" ... but you do not know what the word "empirical" means; you re-define the word to suit your tastes, declaring whole fields of science like astronomy to be no longer science.

The things you are doing are not intellectually defensible. That's why it's you against the world and will always be you against the world. For whatever reason you have no concept of how science should actually be done, and not the slightest will to learn. There is no use at all in talking to you, you will never learn, and are not intellectually capable of learning. The only reason I bother with you at all is a hope of protecting non-scientists, who would not be expected to see how weak your arguments really are. I don't want to see the garbage you pass around to get in the way of real learning on the part of people who really want to learn.

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.

Of course we can, and we already have. But you don't care and don't want to know, so you simply pretend it has not happened.

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?

You could readily answer the question yourself, if you really cared about the answer, by reading a book. I posted this on January 20 but you have yet to respond. Have you read any of these books? have you even looked at any of them? Can you point out specific errors in the physics contained therein? If you are not interested in even opening a book, why should anyone think that you care at all about the truth? These are the sources you could consult, if you cared to, and find the answers to your questions about physical uniqueness of magnetic reconnection and the difference between it and induction.

How many plasma physics classes have you taken?
How many plasma physics laboratory experiments have you performed yourself, or assisted with?

Well, what's the answer? Have you ever had a class in plasma physics or a related topic? Have you any experience working in a plasma physics laboratory? Do you have any real experience of your own to call on?

You ask what is "physically unique" about magnetic reconnection. You ask for an "empirical demonstration" of magnetic reconnection. You claim that no one has even tried to answer. You know that all of those questions have been answered, but you don't care.

So, once again we cover old ground: Magnetic Reconnection. Been there, done that, but lets do it again. Magnetic reconnection is a fundamental physical process that is extremely well developed and described both in theory & practice. Anyone who actually wants to learn about it need not look too far. I suggest the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Any textbook on magnetohydrodynamics and most textbooks on plasma physics will cover the topic, but this one will do. There are also numerous laboratory experiments studying the phenomenology of magnetic reconnection in detail, such as the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment in the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory at Princeton University. One might as well deny the validity of physics altogether as to deny the validity of magnetic reconnection, they are quite the same thing to do.

Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection).

The argument that magnetic field lines are without physical substance, and therefore cannot reconnect, is purely a semantic argument with no basis in physics. The lines represent the topology of the magnetic field, and the change in the topology of the magnetic field is the physical manifestation of magnetic reconnection. The phenomenological consequence is a transfer of energy from the magnetic field (which loses internal energy) to the plasma (which gains kinetic energy). As noted in the papers cited above, the observations of laboratory plasma are consistent with the predictions based on magnetic reconnection theory. Furthermore, we know that double layers are not involved, because the topology of the field is observable before, during and after reconnection, so double layers would be obviously visible. Furthermore, the result of a collapsing double layer is observationally distinguishable from that of reconnection. The observations in fact are consistent with the latter, and inconsistent with the former.

Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon verified by controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments. See, for instance, the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory. MRX has been measuring magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma since 1995, but there are experimental observations of reconnection that predate that.

One must also observe that the theory of magnetic reconnection is well developed, and is commonly described in plasma physics text books (i.e., Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications, Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000, concentrates in detail on magnetic reconnection; other books typically include chapters on magnetic reconnection, i.e., Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, Paul M. Bellan, Cambridge University Press, 2006 (Bellan heads the Bellan Plasma Group at Caltech, which does an outstanding job of simulating solar prominences in in the laboratory); Plasma Physics for Astrophysics, Russell M. Kulsrud, Princeton University Press, 2005; The Physics of Plasmas, Boyd & Sanderson, Cambridge University Press, 2003; Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics, Dieter Biskamp, Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics, 1993).

Magnetic reconnection, as a physical phenomenon, regardless of the argument over words, is an integral & fundamental aspect of plasma physics. Denying the validity of magnetic reconnection is quite the same as simply denying the validity of laboratory plasma physics altogether.

You have been directed to books which cover the physics of magnetic reconnection and include discussions of controlled laboratory experiments which fully demonstrate the physical reality and the unique physical properties of magnetic reconnection as opposed to induction (e.g., Magnetic Reconnection Redux VII & Magnetic Reconnection Redux V). You have even been directed to papers which describe the experiments, and even directed to the experiments themselves. If you actually cared about the truth you would pursue these leads and either demonstrate their specific failures, or admit there is more to magnetic reconnection than you thought. But in fact you simply ignore all of it, and with ruthless intellectual dishonesty you even dare to claim that no one has even bothered to answer you.

Magnetic reconnection is a real physical process that is unique & demonstrable in a laboratory setting, as well as in observations of nature in situ (all of which you wrongly reject as not "empirical"). All of this has been demonstrated already in this thread, more than once. You either claim falsely that no such thing has been done, or simply reject everything without reason or thought. You have nothing at all to justify any argument you make. This thread is now dead, condemned to an eternity of you whining that people don't do what they actually do, you constantly repeating the same nonsensical claims, you constantly proclaiming your profound ignorance of science in general & physics in particular, for all the world to see. Be my guest. Show off as much as you want, it's good for the occasional laugh, but will produce nothing of intellectual value from you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lets see shall we...

And if the topic was related to GR, I might reference Einstein many times too. So what? How about the rest of statement?

....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.

The basic problem here is that this can all be described in terms of ordinary processes in double layers, and interactions between 'circuits' experiencing an ordinary "electrical discharge". Discharge theory as Bruce, Birkeland and Alfven all described it a a much simpler, much more easily demonstrated "natural" process. It fact Birkeland empirically 'predicted' these things over 100 years ago. I think Lord Kelvin suggested it 110 years ago if I recall correctly. Birkeland wasn't even the first guy to propose an electric sun theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your understanding of both or either math and physics is insufficient.

I have provided you with links to discharge events on Earth that have created million degree plasma. You don't really have to "understand" a whole lot of physics to understand a smoke screen when you see one. Instead of admitting you *CANNOT* empirically link the items on my list to 'magnetic reconnect", it's right back to the same tired ad homs. Yawn. You guys are so predictable at this point it's absurd. What I clearly understand is that you can't admit that there is no link to the items on my list and "magnetic reconnection", so your right back to pure evasion.

The reality, whether you particularly like it or not, is that mathematics and physics are inseparable.

Yes, and I've provided you with mathematical links too, all of which you ignored, just like that white light image I asked you to find and you claimed wasn't on the CD.

If you can't do one, you can't do the other. The fact is that you do not understand the physics,

I understand you can't produce any actual "physics" that doesn't start and end with 'current flow".

and because you don't understand the physics you don't know what math needs to be done.

Even if that were so, so what? No scientific theory rises and falls on my personal math skills. I've provided you with ample links. You simply won't deal with them.

So, to hide your own inadequacy, you claim the "moral high ground" by refusing to, as you put it, bark math on command. But the trick fools nobody but yourself.

Holy cow Tim. I provided you with this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

I provided you with links to experiments at Los Alamos where million degree plasmas were created. I have done everything anyone is supposed to have to do, short of personally doing all the work for you on command, at your personal leisure.

The point is that physics is a whole, unified intellectual field. You don't get to throw out and ignore the parts you don't like, but you do that constantly, and it is an intellectually fatal error.

You're the one that is ignoring that paper on macroscopic currents in the solar atmosphere, not to mention the visual evidence you have refused to deal with since day one.

You point out that electrical discharges are responsible for gamma ray emission from Earth, and that is correct. Then you assume that the same process must be true for the sun, ignoring the simple fact that the sun and Earth are remarkably different places.

I never ignored that fact Tim, that's your silly strawman. I provided you with that paper which you willfully ignore. I provided you with satellite evidence which you also willfully ignore and sidestep every time I mention it.

You show no indication at all of any willingness to even think for a minute about the physics involved.

Bull. I *SHOWED YOU* the physics involved. You simply are unwilling to consider it in an intellectually honest manner.

No, you take a hard line and demand that the physical universe bow to your preconception, and in order to do that you simply ignore any law of physics that gets in your way.

Oh please. All of your "physics" is missing. You rely strictly and completely on math, and math alone. There is no physical link to anything on my list and 'magnetic reconnection'. There is however a known physical link to every single item on that list and "electrical discharges".

You demand "circuit reconnection", without ever explaining in any detail what it is supposed to be,

I've explained it clearly enough Tim. It's a "short circuit" between two "magnetic ropes", or a "topology change" between two magnetic ropes in your "magnetic reconnection" lingo.

and ignoring the fact that simple circuit reconnection violates the law of conservation of energy.

LOL! The whole MR theory is a violation of the laws of conservation of energy because at a null point there is no magnetic energy in the first place. A "short circuit" is not a violation of any sort of conservation of energy. The 'circuits" provide all the energy released in the event.

I'm stopping here because there is pure baloney and it's a beautiful day outside.

Talk to me Tim when you've made a physical empirical link between anything on that list of mine and "magnetic reconnection". Is is just a pure coincidence in your opinion that everything on that list has already been linked to "electrical discharges"? I'd like an intellectually honest answer to that last question please.

 

[tusenfem]

Just one more question for MM on late sunday evening.

Take a loop on the Sun, with current and all, and use the circuit representation of this loop, i.e. a voltage drop, resistors R, capacitances C and inductions L.

The question is: What is the time scale that this circuit can change?

 

[GeeMack]

This bears repeating...

Your understanding of both or either math and physics is insufficient. The reality, whether you particularly like it or not, is that mathematics and physics are inseparable. If you can't do one, you can't do the other. The fact is that you do not understand the physics, and because you don't understand the physics you don't know what math needs to be done. So, to hide your own inadequacy, you claim the "moral high ground" by refusing to, as you put it, bark math on command. But the trick fools nobody but yourself.

Michael, you've already proven that you're a liar by claiming you could describe quite nicely how the "circuit/resistor" approach explains heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees when you know perfectly well that you can't. So I won't continue to embarrass you with that question (although I may remind you of it from time to time if you have the nerve to deny that you're a liar).

Now how about you try this... 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.

 

[brantc]

Originally Posted by brantc
Originally Posted by SolInvictus
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.

Well, you might want to adjust this "explanation" of the "right hand rule." The only "right hand rule" I ever learned was to obtain the field around a current carrying wire or get the direction of the cross product and stuff like that. Actually, here is a nice page summing up a lot of "right hand rules."

But let us deduce some what you wrote:

• When the current goes through some conductor so far so fine
• at some other "angle" than the force free one HUH? What exactly does "force free" mean? It is a specific qualification in plasma physics. I basically means that, in the limit of negligible plasma pressure the equation JxB=0 holds, which means that the current is flowing along the magnetic field and one can write that μ₀J= αB. In the case of zero current, this means that the magnetic field is a potential field B=grad(φ). And if the current is non-zere then we have curl(B) = αB and what then happens is whether α is a constant or a function of space. If it is a constant one deduces a Helmholtz equation for the magnetic field -▼²B = α²B
• so that you have a curl component. I don't know what that means, curl of what? I guess the magnetic field, but there is always a curl of the magnetic field, also in a force free setting as we see in the point above.
• Mostly applied to wire but flux tubes with helicity have this curl component. So, I guess you mean "twist" with "curl" and you mean "twist" with "helicity," because helicity is defined as the volume integral of the vector potential A dotted into the magnetic fiedl B.

Yes, thats pretty much what I mean. I can kinda grasp the math. I work with a couple math majors, one from MIT, that I talk to about this stuff.

If you think about electrons flowing along a parallel field, then you can see that they have a gyromotion, which actually makes it so there is no curl component because they are not flowing straight like in a wire. As the current become denser that gyromotion becomes more of parallel flow leading to curl and that breaks the force free condition(becomes pinch like).

I have not figured out the dynamics on the flux tubes with the field aligned current at the core wrapped with a curl >0 shell like what has been observed on the solar surface and by CLUSTER in the magnetotail.

 

[brantc]

Heating vs Getting hotter.

Resistivity of plasma.
When the density of the plasma increases so that you have more collisions, thereby thermalizing the plasma(thermal equilibrium over some area). This would also be called Ohmic heating, having to do with resistance or collisions.

Many causes.

Anomalous resistivity.
A condition in a homogeneous plasma where the space charge of a particular species increases its concentration in a local area thereby increasing the local resistance.

Cause. Unknown?

The meaning of "Getting hotter."
Acceleration of a particular species of particles in a plasma.
Different than thermalization which is actually the loss of energy through collisions which leads to heating of the local area + radiation.... Is that right??

So if you talk about the heating of the flux tubes/corona you really mean the acceleration of the particles as the leave the photosphere.

None of the loops are in thermal equilibrium so I dont think thermalization can really apply here even though there is a small thermal spectrum..

I think these are the correct definitions.

 

[Tubbythin]

And if the topic was related to GR, I might reference Einstein many times too. So what?

In terms of the legitimacy of some bit of physics, unless you have reason to believe the creator of some theory to be a fraud, then the name is irrelevant. Name are for historians. What matter's is whether you can support the theory with evidence. You have repeatedly failed to support your argument with anything but one or two names. You are not doing science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In terms of the legitimacy of some bit of physics,

Let's go through the list again and compare it to "empirical physics"

A) The temperatures associated with these events.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/z290.htm
Los Alamos has already demonstrated a clear *PHYSICAL* link between million degree plasmas and electrical discharges. Never happened with "magnetic reconnection".

The physics score is now 1 to nothing in favor of electrical discharges through plasma. MR theory looks weak at best in the first "test".

B) The speed of propagation of the event which Bruce demonstrated in the 50's.

Oh look, Bruce already demonstrated a link between the speed of propagation of these solar events and discharges in the Earth's atmosphere.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

Unless you have a link demonstrating propagation speed of the events with "magnetic reconnection" in a lab, I'm afraid that 0 for 2 and your pet theory is looking kinda sad and lonely.

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.

Oh look, it's been done in a lab with "electrical discharges", and oh ya, "magnetic fields".

Unless you have a physical demonstration of loops in an atmosphere from "magnetic reconnection", that's 3 to nothing. Typically we'd just call that a strike out for MR whereas the electrical discharges Birkeland photographed 100 years ago speak for themselves.

D) produce x-rays galore

We almost always produce x-rays with "electricity" here on Earth, and every atmospheric discharge emits them. Got any empirical verification that "magnetic reconnection" emit x-rays?

E) produce gamma rays "naturally" in our own atmosphere.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16795

So that's now 5 to nothing in favor of electrical discharges. In terms of pure empirical physics, you don't have a single leg to stand on, whereas I just provided you with 5 empirical demonstrations of a link between atmospheric electrical discharges and all the events in question.

This denial thing is really off scale, particularly when you consider that papers have linked these same types of solar images with "macroscopic circuits" in the solar atmosphere.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

You have repeatedly failed to support your argument with anything but one or two names. You are not doing science.

IMO this is ignorance on a stick. I just provided you with a whole list of at least 5 very key observations that can directly be traced to "discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere, that also can be observed on Earth in labs and in solar activities. This is not a "coincidence".

It's your side that has produce squat in terms of empirical support. Even the "experiments" you cite to support "magnetic reconnection" require "current filaments" to make them work. Turn off the circuit and the show is over. Honestly, your whole argument reeks to high heaven and it's completely and utterly unnecessary. It doesn't even come close to surviving and Occum's razor argument. Give it up. It's at least 5 to zip in favor of electrical discharge theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, you've already proven that you're a liar by claiming you could describe quite nicely how the "circuit/resistor" approach explains heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees when you know perfectly well that you can't.

Quote me where I claimed that *I PERSONALLY* could do anything other than present you with published materials to support my case? Who's lying?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Make that 6 to nothing. Discharge theory matches the pretty pictures too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This bears repeating...Tim's comments.....

Considering the fact this criticism comes from the dynamic duo that brought us "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" and "White light images? What white light images?", your criticisms don't "sting" very much.

 

[GeeMack]

Quote me where I claimed that *I PERSONALLY* could do anything other than present you with published materials to support my case? Who's lying?

You have been wholly unable to support your claim. The one article you linked had nothing whatsoever to do with the "circuit/resistor" approach explaining heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees. So since you ask, you're lying.

And why the continued ignorance of this question?...

Now how about you try this... 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.

Who would it be, Michael?

 

[GeeMack]

Oh look, it's been done in a lab with "electrical discharges", and oh ya, "magnetic fields".

Birkeland's work does not show what you think it shows. Your incorrectness on this point has been demonstrated unequivocally several dozens of times over several years.

 

[GeeMack]

Considering the fact this criticism comes from the dynamic duo that brought us "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" and "White light images? What white light images?", your criticisms don't "sting" very much.

You can keep lying about that if it makes you feel good. The fact is I explained every single detail of your precious running difference image, right down to the pixel. Yet when I asked you to explain it, you slinked away pouting.

But this thread isn't about that insane solid surface of the Sun crap. It's about magnetic reconnection, which incidentally has been shown to occur beyond any doubt and regardless of your steadfast ignorance.

Now if you'd like to discuss that crackpot surface of the Sun stuff, and if you'd like to embarrass yourself here at the JREF the same way you've embarrassed yourself at the BAUT Forum and on several other sites, please open a new thread about it. Wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit to see you flounder around in that silly stuff again. It's highly entertaining.

 

[Reality Check]

Oh look, it's been done in a lab with "electrical discharges", and oh ya, "magnetic fields".

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

Oh look, a really pretty picture that displays your ignorance as already pointed out to you for 8 months now:
Is Saturn the Sun?
First asked 14 July 2009

Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun.

• The first image is Birkeland's attempt for an analogy of Saturn (fig. 247a). It is in visible light.
• The second image is a soft X-ray (not visible light) image of the Sun.

Birkeland obviously confuses Michael Mozina by starting section 128 (page 661) with a discussion of Saturn's rings so that Birkeland can then speculate about the Sun having the same ring-like structures.

We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in \\ ch these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe
[Figures 247a and b]
be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin; ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm.
It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments, it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.

The absense of evidence for such a ring is one of the failed predictions in Birkeland's book. The fact that Saturn's rings have nothing at all to do with his experiments is another failed prediction. Basically the things Birkeland got right in his book were

• His theory for the Earth's aurora.
• His expectation that the solar wind would be electrons and ions.
• Observations about electrical discharges from metallic spheres in various magnetic fields.