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

[W.D.Clinger]

Michael Mozina routinely misrepresents scientists. I'd like to comment on several misrepresentations he posted earlier today.

Even very knowledgeable, *EXTREMELY* intelligent, *HIGHLY* educated individuals like Mr. Spock for instance simply are unfamiliar with Alfven's real work. I know this for a fact because Mr. Spock accused me of misrepresenting Alfven's position on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" theory, and I know for a fact that that is not the case. I know this because I have taken the time to read Alfven's books, I've read hundreds of his papers and I've literally been through everything I could find on that topic. Alfven rejected MR theory as "pseudoscience" till the day that he died.

I have suggested that Michael Mozina may have been misrepresenting Alfvén's position.

Michael has often claimed that Hannes Alfvén, winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in physics, consistently dismissed "magnetic reconnection" as pseudoscience. Michael's claim struck me as implausible because magnetic reconnection is a straightforward consequence of Maxwell's equations, and it was hard for me to believe that someone with a Nobel Prize in physics would spend his entire life repeating a straightforward mistake at the level of freshman physics. Although Alfvén had repeated other errors involving cosmology and/or general relativity, I suspected that Alfvén's characterization of magnetic reconnection as "pseudoscience" had been intended as condemnation of some particular theory that involved magnetic reconnection or its relevance to plasma physics.

As time went on, and I became ever more impressed by Michael Mozina's misrepresentations of other scientists' research, I began to suspect that Michael had been misrepresenting Alfvén's opinion of magnetic reconnection. I asked Michael to provide a citation for Alfvén's dismissal of magnetic reconnection as "pseudoscience". Michael gave one and only one citation, which turns out to have been a keynote address rather than a technical paper. It also turns out that the "pseudo-science" he condemns in that keynote address is "magnetic merging" in

"a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen-in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma.

In my interpretation of that keynote address, Alfvén is not dismissing the fact of magnetic reconnection as "pseudo-science" any more than he is dismissing the existence of plasma when he writes "pseudo-plasma".

I could be wrong about that, and Michael Mozina could be right. If Michael Mozina is right, then Hannes Alfvén simply did not understand that Maxwell's equations imply magnetic reconnection, which would imply that Alfvén's opinions on the subject are worthless and should be ignored. I suspect, however, that Michael Mozina doesn't quite understand exactly what Alfvén meant by "magnetic merging", just as Michael Mozina doesn't quite understand the concept of magnetic reconnection itself.

I don't believe he would have rejected Dungey's definition as defined in Dungey's paper that I posted, because Dungey makes it clear that it is an *ELECTROmagnetic* reconnection,not simply a 'magnetic line' that "reconnects".

That is a misrepresentation of Dungey's 1958 paper, which says:

The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly.

Throughout that paper, Dungey's "lines of force" are magnetic lines of force or magnetic field lines. (Dungey is a bit sloppy in that paper, distinguishing lines of force from field lines in some contexts but using the terms interchangeably in others.)

I find myself to personally be uncomfortable with that position. I simply think the proponents of MR theory gave the "process" a horrible title. It should be called "electromagnetic reconnection", or "circuit reconnection"

As I pointed out just two days ago, "circuit reconnection" would be an outstandingly stupid name because magnetic reconnection can occur with fixed circuits.

since magnetic lines form as a complete and full continuum, without the ability for lines to "disconnect" or reconnect". Only particles and circuits "reconnect".

Nonsense. Michael Mozina is demonstrating yet again that his unfamiliarity with mathematics prevents him from advancing a serious argument. If Michael Mozina knew the difference between ∇ ∙ B and ∂B/∂t, he wouldn't have written that nonsense.

Dungey makes it clear that "particles" do the "reconnecting" since he calls it a "discharge" process. The "reconnection" process takes place between plasma particles in motion, not simply "magnetic lines".

That's a misrepresentation of Dungey's article. As quoted above, it is Dungey's "lines of force" that reconnect.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have suggested that Michael Mozina may have been misrepresenting Alfvén's position.

And that tells me that you haven't read his material, or you would not made that accusation.

That's a misrepresentation of Dungey's article. As quoted above, it is Dungey's "lines of force" that reconnect.

Those "lines of force" include "discharge" processes Mr. Spock, and MOVING CHARGED PARTICLES through the double layer. Anytime and every time that currents were involved, Alfven used his double layer approach and utterly, totally and completely rejected "magnetic" reconnection. He did in fact make a couple notes of some papers that talked about "current sheet acceleration" that he did not seem to reject, but *ONLY* because they noted the kinetic energy of the moving charged particle inside the double layer, and only because they referred to the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy as "induction" at the point of "reconnection".

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Mozina continues to accuse Alfvén of incompetence

I have suggested that Michael Mozina may have been misrepresenting Alfvén's position.

And that tells me that you haven't read his material, or you would not made that accusation.

If my suggestion is untrue, and you haven't been misrepresenting Alfvén, then Alfvén's opinions on magnetic reconnection are worthless and should be ignored.

I'd let it go at that if Alfvén's reputation weren't at stake. You have been accusing Alfvén of denying a straightforward consequence of Maxwell's equations. That's a serious accusation. You haven't been able to back it up.

Tim Thompson, posting at the same time I did, confirmed my interpretation of Alfvén's keynote address:

I know for a fact that it is the case, although I doubt you know enough about plasma physics to realize it. Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is based on ideal MHD, which deals with plasmas that have zero resistivity. In fact magnetic reconnection cannot occur in such plasmas, so he was correct as far as he went. However, as far as I know, Alfven dealt little with non ideal MHD, which was not well developed during his lifetime in any case. Non ideal MHD deals with plasmas that have a finite resistivity and in that case magnetic reconnection is not only possible, but actually a necessary consequence (i.e., the physics requires and demands it). So to that extent, Alfven was in fact wrong. While you have your head firmly stuck in the 1950's & 1960's, the rest of us are dealing with real physics the way it really is, not the way you wish it were. The ignorance is yours, not ours; the denial is yours, not ours. You will continue in the grip of both unless you get out of the past and into the present and talk about real physics the way it really is, which you have never yet done even once that I have seen in all your years of arguing.

 

[GeeMack]

Those "lines of force" include "discharge" processes Mr. Spock, and MOVING CHARGED PARTICLES through the double layer. Anytime and every time that currents were involved, Alfven used his double layer approach and utterly, totally and completely rejected "magnetic" reconnection. He did in fact make a couple notes of some papers that talked about "current sheet acceleration" that he did not seem to reject, but *ONLY* because they noted the kinetic energy of the moving charged particle inside the double layer, and only because they referred to the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy as "induction" at the point of "reconnection".

That interpretation has been shown to be seriously incorrect, many times throughout this thread in fact, and most recently just a few posts up the page here in post #1864 by Tim Thompson.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If my suggestion is untrue, and you haven't been misrepresenting Alfvén, then Alfvén's opinions on magnetic reconnection are worthless and should be ignored.

And if you keep accusing me of misrepresenting Alfven on that topic, I will insist you provide published evidence from his own lips to demonstrate that.

 

[nvidiot]

No response for the rest of my post Michael?

 

[tusenfem]

Have you read Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos by Eugene Parker?

Well? Have you read any of these books?

Oh I loved that book!

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped MM's usual "denial" delusion...
They are in his book which I'm sure you haven't read.

I have not - so cite (and maybe quote) some of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma in his book.
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

Or are you lying?

There is a "breakdown" of the "circuit" in the "exploding double layer" RC.

Well that is a lie: An exploding DL explodes. There is no breakdown as Peratt defines it.
And continued ignorance: The circuit never breaks down. The circuit is an electronic circuit created as a model of the system.

Since you are so fixated on a "dielectric breakdown" you refuse to consider any other type of plasma breakdown, circuit breakdown or anything of the sort. You're fixated on a fallacy. No dielectric breakdown is necessary. Both definitions *BEGIN* in an ionized medium ("plasma(Peratt)/"ionized gas"(Dungey).

And more delusions and lies.
The standard definition of an electrical discharge requires dielectric breakdown. I accept that defintion. I have never claimed that dielectric breakdown is necessary except in standard electrical discharges. Do not lie about what I have posted.

There is no breakdown (dielectric or otherwise) in a plasma. There are electromagnetic instabilities in plasma, e.g. exploding DLs, which an ignorant or delusional person could call "breakdowns".

Do not lie about what Peratt stated: His definition does not *BEGIN* in an plasma. His definition is 2 sentences that do not mention plasma.

Originally Posted by Peratt
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

But maybe he uses that defintion later in his book in the physics of plasma:
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different

 

[Michael Mozina]

I know for a fact that it is the case, although I doubt you know enough about plasma physics to realize it.

Then I will expect you then to provide *WRITTEN EVIDENCE* from published works of Alfven.

Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is based on ideal MHD, which deals with plasmas that have zero resistivity.

And since no plasma in the universe has "zero" resistivity, he pretty much *ALWAYS* rejected it with the afformentioned items I listed to Mr. Spock involving INDUCTION at the point of PARTICLE reconnection.

In fact magnetic reconnection cannot occur in such plasmas, so he was correct as far as he went.

Did you see how far he went Tim? He stood in a room full of plasma physicists and called it "pseudoscience" a half a dozen or more times! He specifically talks about the nails in the coffin related to ANY current carrying plasma and ANY double layer event. That's pretty far.

However, as far as I know, Alfven dealt little with non ideal MHD, which was not well developed during his lifetime in any case. Non ideal MHD deals with plasmas that have a finite resistivity and in that case magnetic reconnection is not only possible, but actually a necessary consequence (i.e., the physics requires and demands it). So to that extent, Alfven was in fact wrong.

No, he simply referred to that transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy as "induction". He wasn't wrong. It's not his fault people make up weird terms to describe induction. You can't even physically (at the level of particle physics) tell me how it's "different from" induction.

While you have your head firmly stuck in the 1950's & 1960's,

FYI, Alfven's famous 'pseudoscience" speech took place in 1986. I'm sure he's seen more than few "reconnection" papers by then, don't you think?

the rest of us are dealing with real physics the way it really is, not the way you wish it were. The ignorance is yours, not ours; the denial is yours, not ours.

Let's find out, shall we? If all that you say is true, then you "should" be able to find quotes from Alfven showing how I have either misrepresented Alfven, or should be able to show specific instances of energy releases from "magnetic reconnection' where no "current flows" are involved. Which one can you demonstrate?

 

[D'rok]

And since no plasma in the universe has "zero" resistivity, he pretty much *ALWAYS* rejected it with the afformentioned items I listed to Mr. Spock involving INDUCTION at the point of PARTICLE reconnection.

Completely missed TT's point there Michael. TT's point is that Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is valid only wrt ideal MDH.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not a physicist. Heck I'm not even a scientist. I have no qualifications aside from high school and a burning interest in the world around me. I'm a skeptic, sometimes a cynic, and a half decent gardener. But even someone like me can tell when someone is shoveling bovine excrement.

Evidently not. If you could, you would have busted GM's claim a long time ago. You're a novice at plasma physics just like most skeptics, not that there is any crime in *INITIAL* ignorance of a topic. It's also *EXTREMELY* difficult to tell who's telling the truth and who's lying through their teeth when so many conflicting statements are flying around. When folks claim discharges cannot happen in plasma because it's a "conductor", it might "sound" like a reasonable argument if you really haven't read Peratt's work, or Dungey's work, or Bruce's work, or anything related to such events.

And mate, you're doing it like cows are soon to be an endangered species.

Actually, no, not me. Let's see Tim and/or Mr. Spock come up with a few references from Alfven showing him embracing "reconnection" other than the items/instances/circumstances I cited.

If you want anyone here to take you even half seriously Michael,

I don't want anyone to take *ME* seriously, I want you to take *ALFVEN* (the guy with the Nobel Prize) seriously and read his work. Is that really too much to ask?

here's what you have to do: first, make a quantitative prediction about a feature of the sun.

How many papers that do that are posted in this thread already, either by me or by Haig?

Preferably one which would confirm the hypothesis of an electric sun, and simultaneously disproves the standard solar model.

But here's where we run into conflict *BECAUSE* you somehow see them as "mutually exclusive", whereas Alfven did not make that assumption, Bruce did not make that assumption, Dungey certainly never made that assumption and *I* don't even make that *ASSUMPTION*. Now what?

If it just does the former but not the latter it's not as good, but it's a start at least. Once you make this quantitative prediction, you need to make observations of the feature in question and see if your hypothesis is supported.

Every single paper on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" or whatever you want to call it ultimately supports a 'discharge/electric universe' theory. How many of them would you like?

Here's the thing: if your hypothesis says we should see "X" but in the observation you see "Y", then your hypothesis is wrong. Full stop.

Well, considering the fact that I've already provided links to gamma rays produced by discharges, iron lines produced by discharges, million degree temps in plasma produced by discharges, neutron capture signatures from discharges and that's never happened for "magnetic reconnection", it's pretty much a "full stop" at the moment. How is it my fault nobody can demonstrate these things occur "naturally" via "magnetic reconnection"?

Do you think you, personally and in your own words, can make a quantitative prediction about the sun which can be tested?

What would be the point? If I can't get anyone to comment on or respond to any of the math's I have presented from Calqvist, Bruce, Alfven, Dungey, etc, why should I bother? All anyone will do is look for some flaw in my maths and attempt to use that flaw as an excuse to write off an *ENTIRE PHYSICS THEORY*! Forget it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Completely missed TT's point there Michael. TT's point is that Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is valid only wrt ideal MDH.

No, that's not true. He rejected it *ANY TIME THAT THERE WERE CURRENTS INVOLVED* in favor of his double layer approach. He specifically and intentionally and repetitiously refers to the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy as "induction".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well? Have you read any of these books?

I've read quite a bit of work by Priest actually, some I rejected, some I did not. I can't say read much from the rest of your list, but since I don't personally reject "reconnection" theory (assuming it has a proper name), so what? I don't reject reconnection theory, I just reject the term "magnetic" as the term for the process it describes in terms of what is actually physically "reconnecting". There are PARTICLES that reconnect and INDUCTION process involved, but no magnetic lines actually "reconnect". The math's are fine. The verbiage sucks.

 

[D'rok]

No, that's not true. He rejected it *ANY TIME THAT THERE WERE CURRENTS INVOLVED* in favor of his double layer approach. He specifically and intentionally and repetitiously refers to the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy as "induction".

Sorry, but I have to take the properly qualified poster's interpretation (TT) over yours.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, but I have to take the properly qualified poster's interpretation (TT) over yours.

I've shown you a speech where Alfven called MR theory "pseudoscience" a ton of times in front of room full a plasma physicists. If Tim is correct, he should be able to quote Alfven and make his case. Let's see it.

 

[D'rok]

You know Michael, it would be nice if you would stop dropping all those names as if they all are/were EU/EC advocates. That's really dishonest.

You can have Peratt though. He's completely bonkers.

 

[D'rok]

I've shown you a speech where Alfven called MR theory "pseudoscience" a ton of times in front of room full a plasma physicists. If Tim is correct, he should be able to quote Alfven and make his case. Let's see it.

You know what might be a good contribution to this discussion? If somebody combed through all the threads in which TT makes his always substantial posts and then combines them into one reference thread. Maybe I'll get off my ass and do that one of these days.

That way, you could try actually reading them instead of shamelessly pretending that he hasn't fully explained himself.

 

[GeeMack]

I don't want anyone to take *ME* seriously, I want you to take *ALFVEN* (the guy with the Nobel Prize) seriously and read his work. Is that really too much to ask?

Alfvén wasn't the one who made this ridiculous and apparently unsupportable claim...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

Nope, it wasn't Alfvén who said that, and he didn't say anything like it. It wasn't Birkeland who made that claim. It wasn't Dungey and it wasn't Peratt. It is extremely disingenuous to make unsupportable claims, clearly unsupportable as demonstrated repeatedly right here in this thread, then deflect the responsibility for the claim onto a dead scientist. That argument is an expression of disdain for legitimate science and is spitting in the face of real scientists.

A good place to start would be to define the terms of the claim, since that hasn't happened yet. And then, after the terms are defined in an unambiguous way, provide objective quantitative support for the claim. It seems it would be foolish to do that in the opposite order.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You know Michael, it would be nice if you would stop dropping all those names as if they all are/were EU/EC advocates.

In terms of discharges in plasmas and/or circuit theory, they all were "EU" proponents actually.

 

[Tubbythin]

FYI, I still can't figure out what makes you think these are not congruent statements?

In one you are claiming breakdown occurs, in the other you are claiming it does not.