Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[cev08241971]

quoting out of context...and poor reading comprehension

And so on. Alfvén is apologizing for his role in promoting the frozen-in concept

As noted by Alfven, this "concept" was just a mathematical approach to treating plasmas, and as also noted it worked, but did not accurately represent the actual process. In this way it was like Ptolemy's epicycles, or the "curved space" contrivance of relativists. The method also produced the right answer, but for "wrong" reasons.

and the non-Maxwellian concept of magnetic field lines that goes with it.

The concept of "magnetic field lines" is a contrivance. These "field lines" are not real, but an imaginary construct. They can not "break" and "reconnect". For this reason, that approach to dealing with plasmas is just as specious as "frozen in" magnetic fields, or ptolemic epicycles. It's a mathematical contrivance that gives the right answer, but does not in any way reflect the reality of the situation. This is actually pretty common when researchers delve wholly into abstract math and never perform experiments to verify their claims.

Ironic, isn't it? In attempting to undo the damage he had done to his field, Alfvén condemned the results of his own previous approach as pseudoscience

He did not say his "previous approach" (early tool) was pseudoscience, he said it was pseudopedagogical, which means it's not a suitable teaching method because it does not satisfactorily explain the underlying phenomenon (though it does give the "right" answer). Alfven's mistake was concluding that because it gave the right answer that it may actually illuminate the process itself. The method was developed as a contrivance, an abstract tool for calculating an answer, not as a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, which should be clear from Alfven's own words that you quoted.

writing words that Michael Mozina and other hobbyists would later interpret as a condemnation of the legitimate Maxwellian concepts of magnetic field lines and magnetic reconnection.

Who has quoted these words, where? I think you're dangerously close to setting up a straw men here.

 

[tusenfem]

He said other people took an abstract tool that only applied to "non-current-carrying" plasmas and tried to apply it in practical calculations, leading to erroneous results, not that Alfven applied this tool improperly, but that other people did. He also said "IMO", which I take to mean "in my opinion".

Welcome to the discussion, cev. Unfortunately, you seem to barge in and give comments that make no sense.

Above in the GeeMac post you go on and on about Alfven, when GeeMac is obviously talking about Birkeland, but that as an aside.

Now you reply to my comment on MM's claim about "dense non-current carrying plasmas" verses "light (whatever that is) current carrying plasmas". As this had to do with possible reconnection in the magnetotail, this comment by MM was stupid, because everyong in space physics knows that there is current flowing across the magnetotail, so so much for this perceived non current carrying.

Then about the frozen in condition. Yes, like I wrote above somewhere tonight, the concept was "abused" as it was new, because people though "what a great tool" and used it wherever. Well, that was decades ago. Now we know when MHD is applicable (actually in a lot of space plasmas) and we know when frozen-in is applicable and when not. I have give actual papers, where people have studied the break down of the frozen in condition (did you read those papers) and I could also give some papers to show that frozen in is a very good approximation for lots of space plasma physical processes, in the Earth's magnetosphere, in the solar wind etc. etc. Naturally, we have be aware (which we are) that there is a limit to this approach, as no physical plasma has an infinite conductivity, and thus every plasma has a finite magnetic diffusion time, thus we can only use the frozen in condition on time scales much smaller than this diffusion time.

Now, what the frozen in condition says is that E + v x B = 0, which naturally is valid in MHD in the co-moving plasma frame. This means that in the laboratory or spacecraft frame, there is an electric field E measured, which should be equal in magnitude as the inductive electric field given by v x B, which happens to be the case in many many processes, with some of the places where it does not hold mentioned in the papers I referenced.

Another place where it does not hold is in regions of magnetic reconnection, in a volume around the so-called X-line. There first is a region where the ions are demagnetized and then further in a region where the electrons are also demagnetized (i.e. they are no longer connected to the magnetic field) and obviously, the frozen in condition would not hold in such a location.

Last but not least, I doubt that Alfvén used "IMO" in any of his writings, but maybe you are mixing up the writings of Mozina with those of Alfvén.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can make a competing claim that is equally valid:
There hasn't been any evidence that the electric sun model is falsified by any experiment.

What electric sun model?

Now, perhaps you've got some particular detailed model in mind when you say this statement. But most of the time when I hear this phrase, it's spoken by people like Michael Mozina, or Zeuzzz, and frequently in reference to ideas like what's found on thunderbolts.org. What I've seen from them isn't nearly coherent enough to qualify as a model, and what little there is can indeed often be falsified. What can't be falsified is either untestable or too vague to evaluate.

It seems to be your contention that people who realize the electrical nature of the sun are incompetent at math. Do you have some support for this blanket generalization?

Well, I know Michael Mozina is. I know the Thunderbolts folks are. You're new here, so we don't know yet.

 

[cev08241971]

Tim Thompson has a long history of pseudoskepticism and failure; Phil Plaitt minus $$

Specifically, I showed you the laboratory experiments more than once.

An experiment to verify "magnetic reconnection" lies outside the realm of the possible. Magnetic field lines are a contrivance, not something physical that can be manipulated or "broke" or "reconnected". People who believe in such things demonstrate just how severely detached from reality they.

...specifically demonstrating confirmed laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection.

Again, such experiments lie outside the realm of the possible. Magnetic field lines are utterly hypothetical, a contrivance used for visualization purposes. They are not real "lines" that can be severed and reconnected. To suggest that they are is a confession of ignorance and delusion.

Not once have you ever actually looked at or considered any of these laboratory experiments.

I, for one, am well familiar with "experiments" that supposedly verify this absurd and cartoonish notion of "magnetic reconnection". No serious physicists entertain this idiotic misunderstanding for more than a few seconds before relegating it to the bin with all the other philosophical and metaphysical gibberish.

 

[cev08241971]

experimental support for "magnetic reconnection" lies outside realm of the possible

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295678&postcount=3652

The Kopp-Pneuman study you reference is not an experiment but mere philosophy. The researchers in the paper, among other things, make it clear that they do not understand the most rudimentary aspects of plasma, repeatedly referring to the phenomena in question in inappropriate physical and mechanical terms like "shockwave" and "condensation", terms which are utterly meaningless when applied to plasmas. It's also worth stressing that this was just a "study", which consists of observation and storytelling, not any kind of experiment. So this falls flat, it is not experimental verification of anything, it may be safely deemed philosophy, not science.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6297439&postcount=3672

Again you cite the Kopp-Pneuman 1976 paper, which I doubt you've even read. It's just as irrelevant now as it was thirty seconds ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6303798&postcount=3698

I find no experiment referenced here. What was the point again?

 

[tusenfem]

If you don't understand the electric sun model, what are you doing trying to refute it? This is truly an astonishing statement from you. I suggest you go learn about the electric star model before you try to dismantle it or ridicule it. You can start by going to Anthony L. Peratt's web site on the plasma universe. Maybe you're familiar with Peratt, he's one of the world's leading physicists, widely published, universally respected in the field, a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Maybe you've heard of Los Alamos as well. It should take you at least a day to cover everything on that site. Come back tomorrow if you've read it all and we can begin to have an intelligent, informed discussion.

There is no specific electric sun model. Most definitely not by Peratt, he may have some mistakes in his modeling of galaxies, which he presents in his book and one or two papers in IEEE, but I doubt you will find him claiming that the sun is electric.

Now, there is e.g. the Juergens' model, which simple calculations can show that it cannot work. I have done the math and showed that near the Earth the magnetic field generated by the current Juergens needs would be several orders of magnitude larger that we actually measure. (apart from that, one would not find the magnetic field to be moving away from the Sun in Juergens' model)

Then there is Alfvén's heliospheric current system. Although this is not thought for powering the Sun, but more more like the Sun acting like a unipolar inductor. Some want to claim this as prove for the electric Sun, however these currents have not been found by e.g. the Ulysses misson crossing over the Solar poles several times at various solar activity rates.

Then there is the notion that the Sun is just a plasma discharge, don't really know who proposed this etc. etc.

However, asking for any detailed model (like we have for the fusion model) we get nothing, zilch, zero, nope. And as this is a public bulletin board, we plasma(astro)physicists and space physicists feel it as our duty to show the general readers of this board that there are claims about e.g. the Sun that are bunk, and not related to anything that is known in mainstream physics nor is claimed by important scientists like Alfvén, Birkeland or Peratt.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you don't understand the electric sun model, what are you doing trying to refute it?

You misunderstood my question. I have heard more than one proposal under the heading "electric sun model". When I ask "what electric sun model", I do not do so because I've never seen such a thing, it's because the term doesn't specify what you're talking about, because there isn't one coherent "electric sun model". So I repeat my question, since you never answered it: what "electric sun model"?

I suggest you go learn about the electric star model before you try to dismantle it or ridicule it.

I've learned plenty about what Mozina and the Thunderbolts folks advocate, and I've already dismantled it, as my above links demonstrate. If you have a different electric sun model, then I'm all ears.

You can start by going to Anthony L. Peratt's web site on the plasma universe. Maybe you're familiar with Peratt, he's one of the world's leading physicists, widely published, universally respected in the field, a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Maybe you've heard of Los Alamos as well. It should take you at least a day to cover everything on that site. Come back tomorrow if you've read it all and we can begin to have an intelligent, informed discussion.

Peratt's "plasma universe" model is a model for the structure of the universe. It is not a stellar model. If you want to talk about plasma cosmology (and not an electric sun theory), then go ahead. But 1) his cosmology has already been falsified (including my own minor contribution on this board), and 2) even if it were correct, it doesn't prove that an electric sun theory has any validity at all. Because (again) Peratt's plasma universe is not an electric sun model.

Oh, and a little tip: before you try patronizing condescension, it helps if you actually know a bit about who you're dealing with, and demonstrate a bit of mastery of the subject yourself. It'll save you from future embarrassment.

 

[tusenfem]

I don't know how you could so completely misunderstand what he said, unless it was deliberate. He said the exact opposite of what you claim, that "magnetic reconnection" is an absurd fantasy, in a nutshell.

mmmm let's look once more at what Alfven said in his paper in Journal of Geophysical Research:

In case the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to speak of a 'field-line reconnection.' We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism may be applicable, but this remains to be proved. In fact, of the most conspicuous nonstationary phenomenon, magnetic substorms are explained by current disruption (survey by Boström [1974]).

So, this hardly sounds like "absurd fantasy, in a nutshell."

And lo-and-behold it has been shown to be exactly, e.g. by Runov et al. in the greatest plasma physic laboratory, the Earth's magnetotail. Everything in agreement with the picture of magnetic reconnection (including the currents that are flowing) and nothing you can model with just a so-called circuit reconnection. And that is just one paper dealing with this process using cluster data. Cluster, the mission designed to measure magnetic field gradients so electic currents could be deduced.

 

[Ziggurat]

An experiment to verify "magnetic reconnection" lies outside the realm of the possible. Magnetic field lines are a contrivance, not something physical that can be manipulated or "broke" or "reconnected". People who believe in such things demonstrate just how severely detached from reality they.

This is a semantic objection. Semantic debates are the most boring of all, and semantic objections are the least substantive of all.

Here's an equation for a magnetic field:
[latex]$\vec{B}=by\hat{i}+ax\hat{j}$[/latex]
Now, does this field satisfy Maxwell's equations? Why, yes it does, for all values of a and b. Test it if you don't believe me. In fact, a and b can vary, and the field will remain a valid solution to Maxwell's equations. It is, therefore, a physically acceptable magnetic field, even with varying a and b.

Now, what do the magnetic field lines look like for this field? Well, here are some of them:

Note that for all a < b, a magnetic field line connects the upper left point to the upper right point. For all a > b, a magnetic field line connects the upper left point to the lower left point. So if we change our magnetic field by varying a and b, we can change the magnetic field line connection of that upper left point. We have just performed magnetic reconnection by varying our field.

Now, you can object to the terminology all you want to, but that really doesn't matter. The actual field configuration experienced a change, we have given this change a name, and nothing about your distaste for the name has any bearing on whether or not the change happened. It did. And it happened in full compliance with Maxwell's equations.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Welcom to JREF, cev08241971!

Juergens calculated the amount of current powering the sun based on "solar wind" observations.

He did?

What was his answer? And where did he publish it?

I had a look at the website you recommended, but could find no answers to these questions at "Anthony L. Peratt's web site on the plasma universe".

Do you happen to know what the estimated power output (energy per unit time) of the Sun is, from Juergens' calculations?

 

[Ziggurat]

You make a common error, that of thinking the collection of fables you learned about the sun (and the rest of the universe, really) is "standard physics". Nothing could be further from the truth. What you seem to be characterizing as "standard physics" is nothing more than wishful thinking and flights of fancy.

And yet, somehow, this claim is never actually backed up.

The electric sun model doesn't conflict with any known, established physical principles

Again, what model?

The only models I've seen DO conflict with known, established physical principles. If you've got some other electric sun model, then please, share it with the class.

Couple that with the fact that electric universe is the only modern cosmology firmly rooted in both experimental verification and direct observation of reality

Except, of course, for all the fundamental observations that conflict with it. Never mind those. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Ignore the red shifts, ignore the CMB, ignore the galactic rotation curves, ignore the violations of the laws of thermodynamics. Stop rubbernecking at the trainwreck of electric universe failures, and pretend that it all went swimmingly.

You aren't demonstrating that you're any better than Michael Mozina. You can't offer up facts, only dogma.

 

[Reality Check]

clearing up some confusion

I'm not a "proponent" of anything. I don't take sides when it comes to science, I let the evidence dictate my beliefs. That way I avoid investing my time and effort into defending ideas that may have no merit. You should try it some time.

I did not say that you were - I said that it looks like you were.
It seems that you are just ignorant of the flaws in the electric sun theory that make it invalid.

You're right, totally irrelevant, why bring it up.

Because you asked the question so I answered it, i.e. Alfven was wrong about Plasma cosmology

Again, irrelevant. I'm not interested in your characterizations of this person, it's not relevant to the discussion and most likely an ill-informed opinion based on your prejudice and ego.

Wrong: It is relevant when someone demonstrates time and time again that they cannot understand the basics of physics, e.g. the siple fact tha plasmas cannot have electrical discharges within them.
That happens to be a characteristic of MM. That characteristic makes it unlikely that he can iunderstand Alfvens works. The fact that he is often wrong about it confirms this.

I wasn't aware it was "his" idea, but it's been pretty firmly established by direct observation that the sun does have a rigid surface

It been pretty firmly established by direct observation that the sun does have a syrface of plsams.

Running difference images from TRACE ...

That is MM's fantasy from his ignorance of what RD movies are. I suggest that you take this to the electric Electric universe theories here. thread.

Spectra indicate it is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock.

That is a lie. Spectra show that the photosphere is made of mostly hydrogen.

Stellar fusion models are falsified by nearly every observable property or behaviour of the sun.

Another lie.

• The observed flux of neutrinos means that fusion must be happening in the Sun somewhere.
  FYI Neutrino oscillation has been confirmed not only for solar neutrinos but also for neutrinos from reactors.
• The lack of the gamma rays produced by fusion means that something must be converting them into other wavelengths, e.g. by absorption and reemission. For example, thousands of km of plasma.

Therefore the sun is powered by fusion at its core where it just so happens conditions (pressure and temperature) happen to be correct for fusion.

Yes, of course, everyone who disagrees with you lies, or is an idiot, or both. I'm familiar with the tactics of troll mafias.

Wrong: Anyone who demonstrates that they are an idiot is an idiot.
Any one who lies is a liar.

Your own statements expose the fallacy of your beliefs. You apparently think in order to be a scientist, somebody has to pay you for it.

Wrong: In order to be a scientist you have to study science. I was never paid for it (in fact I paid for my scientific educations and post graduate work). There are many amateurs who have made valuable contributions to science. It just happens that people who are paid to do science tend to ... do science !

I'm not convinced by anything that you've said that you understand the scientific method. Of course you're free to try and change my mind about that. If you like you can start by defining the scientific method, as you understand it.

I do: Scientific method.

I'm not convinced by anything that you've said that you understand the scientific method.Of course you're free to try and change my mind about that. If you like you can start by defining the scientific method, as you understand it.

I'm not convinced you understand the distinction between science and pseudoscience.

I do: psuedoscience.

Virtually every observable property and behaviour of the sun falsifies stellar fusion.

See above for the fact that you are lying.

Are you speaking about yourself in plural or are you talking about yourself and others?

I am specifically speaking about the list of people I mentioned before - people who have demonstrated a basic knowledge of science in the forum.
I am also talking about anyone who can read and understand the definition of an electric discharge, e.g. anyone who can read Wikipedia.
I am also talking abut anyone who remembers their high school science classes.
I am also talking about anyone who has read a textbook on electromagnetism.

Your claim that "breakdown of a dielectric" is required for electric discharge is a contrivance.
...

Wrong: It is the definition of an electrical discharge.

Plasma is highly conductive, not quite a superconductor, but better than any wires we can as yet fabricate. This is why it's so perplexing when people deny that there is electricity in space (which is over 99% plasma), or when people claim there is electricity in space but it "doesn't do anything". The very idea is absurd on its face if you have even a rudimentary understanding of plasma physics.

Firstly peopld (e.g. astronomers) do not deny that there are elctrical currents in space. They just know what situations thay happen in. Astronomers do happen to concentrate on magnetic fields because

1. They are easier to detect than electrical fields.
2. If you know the magnetic field then you can deduce the electrical field (and vice versa). This is known as electromagnetism.

The very idea of no electric currents in plasmas is absurd on its face if you have even a rudimentary understanding of plasma physics. That same rudimentary understanding of plasma physics puts limits on the size and energy of these electric currents.

 

[tusenfem]

Don't confuse your ignorance of this material with its absence.

I have been longer in this discussion (about 10 years or so) than you. No such model has been agreed on by any of the proponents

I directed you to Peratt's web site because it's a good place to begin your education about plasma. Go read all the information on Peratt's plasma universe web site, it's very illuminating, then you'll have the basis for understanding the majority of the claims made by electric universe adherents.

Thanks that you like to edumacate me, however I already have my PhD in plasmaastrophysics. You did, however, not link to any page, and the plasma universe[.url] is not by Peratt but by Ian Tresman, who also knows little plasma physics, but who actually was willing to learn from what was explained to him. Have not seen him for a long time on JREF, and he is definitely not related to Peratt, he just like to copy Peratt's writings on his wiki pages.

Once you have a grasp for the way plasmas behave, and once you learn that over 99% of the universe is plasma, you're on much better footing to understand the electric universe concepts.

Dear cev, I work with plasmas on a daily basis, the plasma in [url=http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2008JGRA..11308S90V]the Earth's magnetosphere, or near Venus or for that case near the moon Europa. And those are only three of about 100 papers on which I am (co)author.

This is utter nonsense. Juergens calculated the amount of current powering the sun based on "solar wind" observations. Juergens showed the sun's photosphere exhibited "anode tufting", a common effect observed in plasmas subjected to electric currents. Juergens demonstrated the many lines of evidence falsifying the notion the sun was powered internally (by any means, least of all sustained fusion from a self-compressed gas). Juergens noted that all of space was conductive, just as are all stars. The only competing ideas suggest hitherto unverified principles and imaginary beasts that known physics preclude. Juergen's electric star model does a better job of explaining the observed properties of the sun, virtually all of which falsify stellar fusion models.

Really? I remember that most of the model were guesstimations. this is apparently the model but note that it was not written by Juergens, but by the Kronos editor. However, the fact that both electrons and ions move at equal speeds away from the Sun in the solar wind is an easy disproval of the Juergens model.

Feel free to show this again, I can hardly wait.

Just use the search on this forum with my username and e.g. Juergens as a search term.

Magnetic field lines are a contrivance, not something real that can be manipulated or "broken" or "reconnected" or "moved". This fundamental misunderstanding is probably at the root of many people's willful ignorance. They can't let go of this idea, so any conflicting evidence is discarded in favor of comfort zone and ego protection.

Sure, they are not real, anyone knows that, but they serve a purpose, which you don't seem to understand. Using the concept of field lines makes it possible to make various processes visible, e.g. the magnetic tension as the curvature of the magnetic field lines and the magnetic pressure as the density of magnetic field lines or the differnence in magnetic topology from anti-parallel directed magnetic field to bend closed field lines where the field turns from one direction to another.

To sum up, a refutation of the electric sun model is a pipe dream. It is routinely verified by observations, and experiments readily reproduce the phenomena attributed to it. It's a slam dunk. Stellar fusionists are simply dead wrong, and they always have been.

Oh, it's a pipe dream alright, because no such model exist, and thus (if I would smoke) I would have to smoke a lot to see a model to refute. I can only refute bad plasma physics that is presented.

Happy dreams, cev, take another smoke.

 

[cev08241971]

semantics; aka "accuracy"

This is a semantic objection.

Your claim that this is a "semantic objection". By your logic, claims that presents don't come from Santa Claus because Santa Claus is not real is a mere "semantic objection". Nothing could be further from the truth, as I'm sure any reasonable person would agree. Christmas presents don't come from Santa Claus because Santa Claus is not real. Magnetic field lines don't "break" and "reconnect" because they are not real. They certainly don't "move" or become "tangled" as astronogers will frequently quip.

Here's an equation for a magnetic field:

One thing you should always be keenly aware of is that equations are not reality. Math is just a language used to describe reality. I can use language to say "this chair is red" when the chair is in fact blue. I can say "this chair is red because elves made it red" when in fact it had been painted. The universe is not bound by our use of language, be it english, or math. Equations are not reality, equations seek to describe reality (sometimes, other times they're just games for amusement), just as the solar system is not bound by Ptolemy's equations (even though they accurately predicted the position of planets over time).

It is, therefore, a physically acceptable magnetic field, even with varying a and b.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, the equation you cite is an equation, it is not a "physically acceptable magnetic field", as you describe it. An equation is not a magnetic field. A magnetic field is not an equation. Any more than the word "apple" is an apple you can eat or any more than a picture of oxygen can sustain a drowning man.

Now, what do the magnetic field lines look like for this field?

The "field lines" don't really "look like" anything, they are a mathematical contrivance. Your misunderstanding of this goes a long way toward explaining your apparent detachment from reality.

Your cartoon pictures notwithstanding...

 

[Reality Check]

Citations for running difference images, etc. show a rigid surface on the Sun

Running difference images from TRACE, SOHO and a slew of other solar-observing satellites have shown this beyond doubt.

First asked 6 December 2010
cev08241971
Can you give the citations to the scientific literature that demonstrates that running difference images, etc. show a rigid surface on the Sun?

Otherwise I will have to conclude that you suffer from the same delusion the MM has, i.e. that RD images are like photos.

 

[Reality Check]

Citations for "Spectra indicate it is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock"

Spectra indicate it is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock.

First asked 6 December 2010
cev08241971
Can you give your citations to the scientific literature that states that the surface of the Sun (the photosphere) is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock.

 

[tusenfem]

unfortunately, due to Alfvén (amongst others) plasma physics is one of the best mathematically described parts of physics, into the smallest details and just with a few Maxwell equations. Math is very real in plasma physics.

 

[Reality Check]

Citations for "Stellar fusion models are falsified by ... property of the sun"

Stellar fusion models are falsified by nearly every observable property or behaviour of the sun. These same features are readily explained in terms of electric discharge.

First asked 6 December 2010
cev08241971
Can you give a list of citations to the scientific literature that shows that stellar fusion models are falsified by every observable property or behaviour of the sun?

Or should I conclude that thsi is a fantsy of yours backed up by no evidence?

 

[Reality Check]

Citations for every property of the sun in terms of electric discharges

Stellar fusion models are falsified by nearly every observable property or behaviour of the sun. These same features are readily explained in terms of electric discharge.

First asked 6 December 2010
cev08241971
Can you give a list of citations to the scientific literature that readily explains nearly every observable property or behaviour of the sun in terms of electric discharge?

Perhaps you can start with the creation of the observed neutrino flux.

Or should I conclude that thos is a fantsy of yours backed up by no evidence?

 

[Ziggurat]

Your claim that this is a "semantic objection". By your logic, claims that presents don't come from Santa Claus because Santa Claus is not real is a mere "semantic objection".

Well, yes. If you want to say mom and dad are Santa, then presents come from Santa, and the statement is true. You may object to defining Santa that way, but the reality (mom and dad bring presents) is unaffected.

Similarly with magnetic reconnection. You can object to calling certain magnetic field configuration changes "magnetic reconnection". But it doesn't matter: that's what those field configuration changes are called, and those field configuration changes are real.

Which is why, not surprisingly, you haven't actually challenged the field I presented you with. The field I gave you undergoes changes, those changes are real, you can't actually dispute that. All you can do is object to calling those changes "magnetic reconnection". A purely semantic objection of no consequence.

One thing you should always be keenly aware of is that equations are not reality. Math is just a language used to describe reality.

Unless you can demonstrate that either the math is wrong, or that the math does not describe reality, then this is irrelevant. You have done neither.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, the equation you cite is an equation, it is not a "physically acceptable magnetic field", as you describe it. An equation is not a magnetic field. A magnetic field is not an equation. Any more than the word "apple" is an apple you can eat or any more than a picture of oxygen can sustain a drowning man.

You're descending into a rather pathetic form of scientific solipsism.

It was profound in the art world almost a century ago. In the current context, it's just a rather sad attempt to rescue yourself from an argument you're losing.

The "field lines" don't really "look like" anything, they are a mathematical contrivance.

So what? They still represent a change that happens in the actual field. I can still define those field lines unambiguously and rigorously in direct reference to the actual physical fields.

It's funny how insistent you are that electric sun models conform to known physics, and then turn around and try to discard the mathematical basis on which that known physics is, well, known.