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

[Michael Mozina]

Alfven liked modeling things as circuits, and disliked reconnection? What a surprise. I'm amazed, I don't think I've ever heard about that before. You certainly haven't mentioned it eighty or ninety times. Tell me again, why don't you, maybe it will sink in. I can't believe that people on this thread have been arguing that reconnection actually happens, and that circuit "theory" is only an approximation to the microphysics, without knowing that Alfven had contrary "preferences" and "distastes"! Surely they'll change their minds in light of this new and never-before-posted fact.
</sarcasm>

Look, I was willing to go the extra mile and call it "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection'. It's you guys that INSIST that we call "current reconnection" in the lab "magnetic reconnection" because that's what your dumbed down math formula has left in it (B's and no E's).

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, not true, because the reconnection is already going on in, say the x-direction,

So what if you did happen to connect a couple of ZERO points of a non existent (because currents are flowing) (zero point) of a couple of magnetic fields? Nothing + nothing is nothing. The magnetic fields at ZERO have NOTHING to offer in terms of energy. It's the CURRENT that contains the actual KINETIC ENERGY, not a ZERO point in some mythical perfect ZERO location.

and at a certain point the current in the y-direction can form double layers, but as was clear in the paper, the reconnection magnetic field structure was already in place.

There was NO ATTEMPT AT ALL to know which came first, the current or the reconnection! Virtually every single experiment begins and ends inside of a CURRENT carrying plasma.

You just don't understand basic plasma physics.

Boloney. Alfven understood basic plasma physics, in fact he wrote the book on it and he rejected your claims as pseudoscience till the day he died.

Your magnetic reconnection claim is a blatant example of bait and switch false advertizing when we get to the lab. In the lab you start with two BIRKELAND CURRENTS and you reconnect two BIRKELAND currents. You dumbed down all the math to B's however just so that you can insist that we call it "magnetic reconnection". Your stuff doesn't work without electricity and CURRENT! It can't possibly be a bonafied example of "magnetic reconnection", because you're reconnecting nothing but a couple of BIRKELAND CURRENTS, in CURRENT CARRYING PLASMAS. In all such environments, Alfven's double layer paper makes your theory unnecessary, unlikely and unappealing "pseudoscience".

Worse yet, it's a wimpy 1 of 6 in the lab and I had to give you some current and a hell of a lot of sympathy for you to even get THAT FAR!

 

[ben m]

Look, I was willing to go the extra mile and call it "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection'. It's you guys that INSIST that we call "current reconnection" in the lab "magnetic reconnection" because that's what your dumbed down math formula has left in it (B's and no E's).

That wasn't "going the extra mile", that was more of the same flailing nonsense.

Magnetic reconnection means that B field lines are reconnecting. This can happen in the presence of an E field, it can also happen with no E fields.

It's also possible to build a circuit that "reconnects" with the same sort of topology changes as magnetic reconnection. This is not the same thing as magnetic field line reconnection.

Magnetic reconnection is not a "dumbed down" version of anything. We are not saying "circuit reconnection happens but we call it magnetic reconnection". We are not saying "circuits never reconnect". We are not saying "magnetic reconnection is real enough because E==0".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Although the PR piece appeared to me to be a composite of 211Å, 193Å, and 171Å filtered images, I don't know that for sure. I'm sure we all agree a more valid analysis can be made from data closer to the source.

The original images were "close up" and relatively high resolution to start with. It really doesn't matter which colors or wavelengths they used. You already separated them by wavelength. Just go the extra mile now and create 3 running difference images of the three wavelengths that you already extracted by color and post the best resolution images that you can give us. What do you have to hide? What are you waiting for? I mean come on. This is your shining moment. This is YOUR field of expertise that we're talking about. Virtually nobody else here has the video equipment and software necessary to pick apart that original image like you do. Show us your stuff now and run it through a RD routine and give us your best shot!

 

[Michael Mozina]

That wasn't "going the extra mile", that was more of the same flailing nonsense.

Magnetic reconnection means that B field lines are reconnecting. This can happen in the presence of an E field, it can also happen with no E fields.

Prove it. Provide an example where it occurred in the presence of no E fields or preexisting currents.

It's also possible to build a circuit that "reconnects" with the same sort of topology changes as magnetic reconnection. This is not the same thing as magnetic field line reconnection.

But Ben, your own experiments show that you actually reconnected two field aligned currents or "Birkeland currents". The magnetic field topology change is directly related to the change in the currents!

Magnetic reconnection is not a "dumbed down" version of anything.

Of course it is! I don't see any mention of the E fields that sustain your experiments in those formulas! You intentionally took OUT the E's! You've dumbed down an E driven process to LOOK LIKE only B's are involved!

We are not saying "circuit reconnection happens but we call it magnetic reconnection". We are not saying "circuits never reconnect". We are not saying "magnetic reconnection is real enough because E==0".

You haven't given me any reason to doubt Alfven, nor have you given me any reason to NEED your stuff in the first place. Alfven's own maths explain the behaviors of plasmas inside of double layers *WITHOUT* your mythical reconnection theory. Why do I need it?

 

[GeeMack]

I have no idea why the hell you'd invade my personal privacy like that and put my picture on a video. You've essentially turned this thread into a private smear campaign. What pathetic behavior.

It's satire. Just good humor.

I also have no idea or why you would post such a low resolution and useless image, but thanks anyway. Even your rudimentary RD image lays waste to Tim's stupid "hopping shockwave" theory. The right angle turn takes place right to some other "persistent structures" that are even visible in what you posted, not that made any serious attempt to do it "professionally" as you first claimed.

There is no right angle turn. A right angle is like this ---> L

There is a shockwave that makes a curve, several curves actually. Some of the curves make swirls of more than 360°, just as we'd expect in any turbulent atmosphere. Much of the curving action we see in those two dimensional images is ripples moving towards us and away from us. The atmosphere of the Sun works in three dimensions, and any legitimate objective consideration for what is going on in those videos wouldn't neglect that third axis of movement. In fact we can watch videos from some time prior to that particular flare and very clearly see similar shockwaves under conditions where the vertical movement and the curvature of that movement is strikingly obvious. It's at least as interesting as the flare from 09:30, maybe even moreso.

There are no persistent structures hovering up there thousands of kilometers into the solar atmosphere. The entire idea of such a thing is unsupportable, a violation of the laws of physics. All the data that was acquired to make the original images from which those difference graphs were derived came from the corona, a region of the solar atmosphere thousands of kilometers above any allegedly solid or rigid surface.

There is data available from lower parts of the solar atmosphere that would be more appropriate to use if there were any support for the claim that the Sun has a solid or rigid surface. The fact that more appropriate data is avoided appears to demonstrate that the claim is knowingly unsupportable.

I'm still interested in hearing what objective connection there is between the Sun allegedly having a solid or rigid surface and the notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of huge electric sparks. If there is no connection, I'll move any further video analysis demonstrating that no such surface could exist to the thread which already exists for the purpose.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's satire. Just good humor.

Invasion of my privacy isn't funny.

There is no right angle turn. A right angle is like this ---> L

There is a shockwave that makes a curve, several curves actually. Some of the curves make swirls of more than 360°, just as we'd expect in any turbulent atmosphere.

Ya, any atmosphere above a SOLID SURFACE!

Much of the curving action we see in those two dimensional images is ripples moving towards us and away from us. The atmosphere of the Sun works in three dimensions, and any legitimate objective consideration for what is going on in those videos wouldn't neglect that third axis of movement.

Nobody other than Tim is neglecting that third axis. He's trying to avoid it in fact with a "hopping shockwave". Unfortunately your RD image makes it clear that the valley at 2 experiences the same shockwave. It's just the area directly behind 3 that shows little influence from the shockwave.

In fact we can watch videos from some time prior to that particular flare and very clearly see similar shockwaves under conditions where the vertical movement and the curvature of that movement is strikingly obvious.

Ya, because they all bounce off the same surface features!

It's at least as interesting as the flare from 09:30, maybe even moreso.

So post your best high resolution RD images already!

There are no persistent structures hovering up there thousands of kilometers into the solar atmosphere. The entire idea of such a thing is unsupportable, a violation of the laws of physics.

Fortunately nobody here made that claim.

All the data that was acquired to make the original images from which those difference graphs were derived came from the corona, a region of the solar atmosphere thousands of kilometers above any allegedly solid or rigid surface.

That's the part I dispute. Do you comprehend that?

There is data available from lower parts of the solar atmosphere that would be more appropriate to use if there were any support for the claim that the Sun has a solid or rigid surface. The fact that more appropriate data is avoided appears to demonstrate that the claim is knowingly unsupportable.

Nobody is avoiding anything other than you're avoiding posting any high resolution RD images. Why is that? Suddenly the guy with video skills up the wazoo can't post a single high resolution image?

I'm still interested in hearing what objective connection there is between the Sun allegedly having a solid or rigid surface and the notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of huge electric sparks. If there is no connection, I'll move any further video analysis demonstrating that no such surface could exist to the thread which already exists for the purpose.

Just post the images and quit stalling. This is supposedly your moment in the sun so to speak. If there ever was a time where your professional video skills might be useful, this it is. Now or never?

 

[tusenfem]

So what if you did happen to connect a couple of ZERO points of a non existent (because currents are flowing) (zero point) of a couple of magnetic fields? Nothing + nothing is nothing. The magnetic fields at ZERO have NOTHING to offer in terms of energy. It's the CURRENT that contains the actual KINETIC ENERGY, not a ZERO point in some mythical perfect ZERO location.

Clearly you have not understood a thing about the papers you "read".

There was NO ATTEMPT AT ALL to know which came first, the current or the reconnection! Virtually every single experiment begins and ends inside of a CURRENT carrying plasma.

There will alway be a current between two regions of oppositely directed magnetic fields. That is basic electrodynamics. In the middle of that current sheet there is the reversal, where the magnetic field can get zero (in the absence of a guide field). Please NOTE that that current is flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field direction.

Boloney. Alfven understood basic plasma physics, in fact he wrote the book on it and he rejected your claims as pseudoscience till the day he died.

Yes, Alfven probably did understand plasma physics and simplified it into MHD.
That said, your "answer" is a non-answer, because I said that *YOU* don't understand plasma physics. So, unless *YOU* are Alfven (and I think not) the above is boloney, it does not say anything about what *YOU* know about plasma physics, which is basically zilch.

Your magnetic reconnection claim is a blatant example of bait and switch false advertizing when we get to the lab. In the lab you start with two BIRKELAND CURRENTS and you reconnect two BIRKELAND currents. You dumbed down all the math to B's however just so that you can insist that we call it "magnetic reconnection". Your stuff doesn't work without electricity and CURRENT! It can't possibly be a bonafied example of "magnetic reconnection", because you're reconnecting nothing but a couple of BIRKELAND CURRENTS, in CURRENT CARRYING PLASMAS. In all such environments, Alfven's double layer paper makes your theory unnecessary, unlikely and unappealing "pseudoscience".

Worse yet, it's a wimpy 1 of 6 in the lab and I had to give you some current and a hell of a lot of sympathy for you to even get THAT FAR!

blah blah blah, this is getting tiresome,
Such a surprise, that these big machines in the laboratory cannot work without electricity.

Now, please give us the models of your current/circuit reconnection (and no Onel & Mann is NOT that model).
Now, please give us the model of double layer creation by two birkeland currents.
And answer all the other questions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Clearly you have not understood a thing about the papers you "read".

Ya right. I understand that zero plus zero equals zero. If you have something other than zero, current is flowing.

There will alway be a current between two regions of oppositely directed magnetic fields.

Then there will always be current reconnection between them.

That is basic electrodynamics. In the middle of that current sheet there is the reversal,

The "current sheet" cannot contain a ZERO point. Even if it did, it would have ZERO kinetic energy at that location. In no way is a zero amount of energy going to create million degree plasmas and pinch neutrons from the plasma, or generate gamma rays from the plasma. Only ELECTRICAL discharges through the plasma sheet could possibly accomplish that.

where the magnetic field can get zero (in the absence of a guide field).

If it gets to zero there's no energy there!

Please NOTE that that current is flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field direction.

Your experiments all flows a revolving Birkeland currents. It's not nearly so nice and tidy in 3D.

Yes, Alfven probably did understand plasma physics and simplified it into MHD.

In my experience the "simple" answer is typically right, particularly if it scores a 6 of 6 and the closest alternative is a wimpy 1 of 6 .

That said, your "answer" is a non-answer, because I said that *YOU* don't understand plasma physics.

It's quite clear that one's rejection of MR theory has nothing to do with "understanding plasma physics" as you put it. What you mean is "You don't do math as well as I do". Read my lips: So what? No theory rises or falls on my personal math skills and Alfven's math skills didn't automatically lead him to accept your theory. In fact he rejected it for DECADES!

So, unless *YOU* are Alfven (and I think not) the above is boloney, it does not say anything about what *YOU* know about plasma physics, which is basically zilch.

From our discussions on filamentary behaviors, it's clear that while you do understand mathematics, you do not understand the behavior or nature of plasma in any way shape or form. You specifically IGNORE the fact that ZERO PLUS ZERO IS ZERO and you try to get unlimited energy from nothing.

blah blah blah, this is getting tiresome,
Such a surprise, that these big machines in the laboratory cannot work without electricity.

Why do you need it? Should you be able to perform this magic trick with a couple of earth magnets and some non current carrying plasma (before you introduce the magnets)?

Now, please give us the models of your current/circuit reconnection (and no Onel & Mann is NOT that model).
Now, please give us the model of double layer creation by two birkeland currents.
And answer all the other questions.

Ya right. You're right back to ignoring the maths provided and trying to judge the validity of a theory based on my personal math skills. What a crock.

 

[tusenfem]

Ya right. I understand that zero plus zero equals zero. If you have something other than zero, current is flowing.

Then there will always be current reconnection between them.

The "current sheet" cannot contain a ZERO point. Even if it did, it would have ZERO kinetic energy at that location. In no way is a zero amount of energy going to create million degree plasmas and pinch neutrons from the plasma, or generate gamma rays from the plasma. Only ELECTRICAL discharges through the plasma sheet could possibly accomplish that.

So, you basically don't know a thing about electrodynamics. If you have a current sheet in e.g. the xy-plane, flowing in the y-direction, then according to Maxwell's equations you will have an oppositely directed magnetic field at either side of the current sheet. If this is and "ideal" sheet of zero thickness, then the field at both sides is constant (assuming an infinite current sheet). However at the sheet itself the field is zero.
If the current sheet has a thickness then the magnetic field will slowly increase from zero in the centre of the sheet to a maximum value as soon as you leave the current sheet.
This is simple electrodynamics, Michael, if you don't know this, then how on Earth do you want to do plasma physics. Read Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson.

What the "zero kinetic energy" of the "field" is supposed to mean, is a mystery to any real physicist.

A pinch will increase the current density and thus increase the Joule heating. If the shearing of the footpoints of a coronal loop increases the current will increase, more heating, no problem at all. However, those are the loops that are lighting up in your images. And then about these "neutron emissions" that you keep on claiming. Here is an Z pinch experiment where they say that:

To enhance the effect of energy accumulation, a≤1-mm-diameter neck was made in the central region of the load. An agar-agar foam of mass density 0.1 g/cm3 with an additive of deuterated polyethylene was used as a plasma-forming material. The formation of a hot plasma in the Z-pinch constriction was accompanied by the emission of soft X-ray (E = 1–10 keV), hard X-ray (E ≥ 30 keV), and neutron pulses with a minimum pulse duration of ≤10 ns. The neutron energy measured by the time-of-flight technique in three directions relative to the load axis (0°, 90°, and 180°) was found to be 2.5 ± 0.3 MeV, which corresponds to the dd reaction. The total neutral yield during the development of one constriction with a characteristic size of 100 μm attained 10⁸ neutrons per pulse.

So, there is the dd reaction taking place in this pinch, and only because they added a deuterated polyethyline as plasma forming material.

If it gets to zero there's no energy there!

says the guy who cannot stop to say that the field is a continuum. The energy is stored in the whole field, it is not a local quantity

Your experiments all flows a revolving Birkeland currents. It's not nearly so nice and tidy in 3D.

Nope, as the Earth's magnetotail is a good laboratoy, you are quite wrong here.

In my experience the "simple" answer is typically right, particularly if it scores a 6 of 6 and the closest alternative is a wimpy 1 of 6 .

It's quite clear that one's rejection of MR theory has nothing to do with "understanding plasma physics" as you put it. What you mean is "You don't do math as well as I do". Read my lips: So what? No theory rises or falls on my personal math skills and Alfven's math skills didn't automatically lead him to accept your theory. In fact he rejected it for DECADES!

I see that you are hiding behind Alfven. Your math skills or rather plasmaphysical skills ARE important, because that will show us whether you actually understand electrodynamics, MHD, circuit theory or actual plasma physics. You have not shown any of this.

Alfven may have rejected reconnection, but so what. He was a great scientist, deservedly got the Nobel price for MDH, but was completely wrong with respect to reconnection. Also geniusses make mistakes.

From our discussions on filamentary behaviors, it's clear that while you do understand mathematics, you do not understand the behavior or nature of plasma in any way shape or form. You specifically IGNORE the fact that ZERO PLUS ZERO IS ZERO and you try to get unlimited energy from nothing.

zero plus zero is zero? what is that supposed to mean? and you don't get unlimited energy form MRx, the energy that has been stored in the field is release.

Why do you need it? Should you be able to perform this magic trick with a couple of earth magnets and some non current carrying plasma (before you introduce the magnets)?

Move two bar magnets away from eachother. What do the field lines do, how do they behave in time?

Ya right. You're right back to ignoring the maths provided and trying to judge the validity of a theory based on my personal math skills. What a crock.

Well YOU are the one who makes the claim that double layers get created between two parallel Birkeland currents.
YOU make the claim that MRx is circuit reconnection of current reconnection.
What do we get as proof? Alfven rejected MRx, and misunderstandings about physics.
Crock indeed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, you basically don't know a thing about electrodynamics.

It turns out that conceptually at least I understand it a whole lot better than you do hot shot. It still hasn't dawned on you that I don't need your MR theory to explain flares or to explain a change in field aligned current topology. Alfven already explained the behaviors of double layers and current carrying plasmas so your MR theory becomes meaningless and redundant.

If you have a current sheet in e.g. the xy-plane, flowing in the y-direction, then according to Maxwell's equations you will have an oppositely directed magnetic field at either side of the current sheet.

You will also have a scenario where Alfven's double layer paper does a great job explaining the particle interactions in that layer *WITHOUT* your precious MR theory. Why do I need it in the first place?

If this is and "ideal" sheet of zero thickness, then the field at both sides is constant (assuming an infinite current sheet). However at the sheet itself the field is zero.

But it's NOT an "ideal sheet of zero thickness", it's current sheet of God only knows what thickness.

If the current sheet has a thickness then the magnetic field will slowly increase from zero in the centre of the sheet to a maximum value as soon as you leave the current sheet.

Oh for goodness sake. If current flow within the sheet I don't need your concepts whatsoever. I can simply view the process conceptually as an "electrical discharge". I can empirically link "electrical discharges" to every key observation in a flare too. What's the empirical alternative again? A wimpy 1 of 6 player that I felt sorry for in the first place? Give it a rest. At the level of conceptual physics, your current sheet eliminates MR theory from contention according to Alfven, and according to the basic laws of physic! Discharges are KNOWN to cause the events we see, whereas a magnetic line with ZERO field strength has no ability to materially effect ANYTHING!

This is simple electrodynamics, Michael, if you don't know this, then how on Earth do you want to do plasma physics. Read Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson.

I've read more about your ridiculous theory than most amateurs combined. We've gone through paper after paper, experiment after experiment and each and every one of them connects "field aligned currents" and the current topology changes over time. Big deal.

What the "zero kinetic energy" of the "field" is supposed to mean, is a mystery to any real physicist.

No. It's a mystery to a lot of "cosmologists" and a FEW physicists evidently. Tim made the same mistake you did too by the way. It's clear from these conversations that only sol appreciates physics at the level of subatomic physics. The rest of you seem oblivious to the fact that photons (the carrier particle of the Em field) are a form of kinetic energy. That's another example of a conceptual problem you have with "physics" by the way. If you understood it well, you'd know EXACTLY what I mean.

Your zero point is devoid of energy t. It's an empirical wuss. It has no ability to change the direction of current at that point. As a result the CURRENT topology changes over time. Nothing about that ZERO point generates any energy. It's an empirical dud.

A pinch will increase the current density and thus increase the Joule heating.

It will also "naturally" form in any current carrying plasma or discharge process.

If the shearing of the footpoints of a coronal loop increases the current will increase, more heating, no problem at all. However, those are the loops that are lighting up in your images. And then about these "neutron emissions" that you keep on claiming. Here is an Z pinch experiment where they say that:



So, there is the dd reaction taking place in this pinch, and only because they added a deuterated polyethyline as plasma forming material.

So what? Do you figure there's no plasma forming material in the solar atmosphere?

says the guy who cannot stop to say that the field is a continuum. The energy is stored in the whole field, it is not a local quantity

Well yes, but then the total energy is really the stored CIRCUIT energy, not just the magnetic field energy. There's another conceptual issue you seem to ignore. You may understand the math better than I do, but conceptually, you're light years behind.

Nope, as the Earth's magnetotail is a good laboratoy, you are quite wrong here.

Half of you folks can't tell the difference between a real "experiment" with actual control mechanisms and an "observation combined with a leap of faith. What's your control mechanism t?

I see that you are hiding behind Alfven.

No. I'm using his math skills and the math skills of Onel and Mann to make explain solar flares from the perspective of circuit theory and double layer theories. It's you that simply refuse to recognize the E orientation of Maxwell's equations.

Your math skills or rather plasmaphysical skills ARE important, because that will show us whether you actually understand electrodynamics, MHD, circuit theory or actual plasma physics. You have not shown any of this.

Likewise you have shown little or no conceptual understanding of actual laboratory plasma physics. You seem to think a ZERO point in a magnetic field is capable of generating high speed particles. You're ignoring the fact that I don't need your MR theory in the first place, and you're right back to trying to compare human beings and theories based on MY personal math skills. What a crock!

Alfven may have rejected reconnection, but so what.

The "so what" part is that he didn't just REJECT it t, he explained double layer behaviors WITHOUT IT! I don't need it. So what if you have an MR theory? Does it score a six of six? If not, it's not even "competition" in the first place!

He was a great scientist, deservedly got the Nobel price for MDH, but was completely wrong with respect to reconnection. Also geniusses make mistakes.

If he did you have yet to demonstrate it. In fact the fact you don't understand that magnetic field energy is stored photon kinetic energy, and you're trying to get kinetic energy from a ZERO point demonstrates he was right!

zero plus zero is zero? what is that supposed to mean? and you don't get unlimited energy form MRx, the energy that has been stored in the field is release.

The release of stored EM energy is called an "electrical discharge". I don't care HOW you think you're releasing energy from a ZERO point, but go ahead and explain that from the standpoint of kinetic energy. What's accelerating the plasma at a ZERO point to two magnetic fields?

Move two bar magnets away from eachother. What do the field lines do, how do they behave in time?

They repel or attract, they don't "reconnect". The physical magnets themselves could "reconnect", but that would simply be an example of SOLID MAGNET reconnection.

Well YOU are the one who makes the claim that double layers get created between two parallel Birkeland currents.

Anywhere inside the current sheet that isn't a "zero" point has "current" running through it.

YOU make the claim that MRx is circuit reconnection of current reconnection.

I demonstrated it too with your own "experiments" where you reconnected a couple of "field aligned currents" and your "control mechanism" is an "electrical switch"!

What do we get as proof? Alfven rejected MRx, and misunderstandings about physics.
Crock indeed.

Baloney! I specifically looked at your experiments t. I didn't ignore them. I showed you that your reconnected two field aligned currents in a huge "bait and switch" experiment. No "magnetic fields" were actually "reconnected", just two field aligned BIRKELAND CURRENTS. I've also provided SDO solar images that show those currents forming in the solar atmosphere. We can even see them ROTATING in the image in fact. Would you like me to find it again for you?

At no time did I just "take Alfven's word for it", nor did I COMPLETELY agree with him. I was willing to compromise and call it either "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" but your side refuses to compromise. You absolutely refuse to see and accept the E orientation. That's not my fault, that's your fault. FYI, that's ANOTHER example of a conceptual problem you have. You refuse to conceptually accept that the E orientation is equally valid.

 

[Reality Check]

Ding, ding, ding, give the man a cookie. His intent was to make MR theory irrelevant by explaining double layer interactions from the perspective of particle physics.

Ding, ding, ding, give the man a cookie.
I hope that you now understand that you were wrong when you stated that Alfven rejected MR theory. He accepted that the theory was correct which is not a surprise since 'MR theory' is the application of MHD theory to specific situations. So if he said that MR theory was pseudoscience then he was saying that much of his life's work was pseudoscience.

What he did not accept was the application of forozen-in approximatuion as the speech you quote (and then quote mine)

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.
...
I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

The subject of the first paragraph is "the frozen-in concept" and the danger of using it. It is this concept that he calls "a gigantic pseudo-science".
The second paragraph I quote emphasizes that he did not threw out all of MR papers. He threw out some (or even a majority) of those papers.

Until and unless you can show me an experiment that DID NOT begin with two "currents",

Now you go into that total inability to read again:

• Fast magnetic reconnection in laser-produced plasma bubbles
• Magnetic Reconnection and Plasma Dynamics in Two-Beam Laser-Solid Interactions
• Observation of Megagauss-Field Topology Changes due to Magnetic Reconnection in Laser-Produced Plasmas
• Bidirectional jet formation during driven magnetic reconnection in two-beam laser–plasma interactions

And why you think using currents to establish the magnetic fields means anything remains hidden. You seem to be confusing current with double layers.


It has been known for decades that DLs form after the reconnection

• Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption (and double layers)?
• Magnetic Field Line Reconnection Experiments, 5. Current Disruptions and Double Layers (1983)
• Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment (1982) PDF

P.S. Where are Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma?

 

[GeeMack]

Invasion of my privacy isn't funny.

It's a matter of perspective... and irrelevant.

There is no right angle turn. A right angle is like this ---> L

There is a shockwave that makes a curve, several curves actually. Some of the curves make swirls of more than 360°, just as we'd expect in any turbulent atmosphere.

Ya, any atmosphere above a SOLID SURFACE!

No. Just as we'd expect in any turbulent atmosphere. The solar atmosphere is in a constant state of turbulence, always churning under the influence of some pretty extreme magnetic field movement. Also, the turbulence we see in any 211Å, 193Å, or 171Å filtered images is happening in the corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. It would be nonsense to suggest that a mythical surface no solar physicist has ever seen, thousands of kilometers deeper than the point where any light can escape the Sun, is somehow affecting the movement of plasma thousands of kilometers above in the corona.

Much of the curving action we see in those two dimensional images is ripples moving towards us and away from us. The atmosphere of the Sun works in three dimensions, and any legitimate objective consideration for what is going on in those videos wouldn't neglect that third axis of movement.

Nobody other than Tim is neglecting that third axis. He's trying to avoid it in fact with a "hopping shockwave". Unfortunately your RD image makes it clear that the valley at 2 experiences the same shockwave. It's just the area directly behind 3 that shows little influence from the shockwave.

Running difference graphs are simply a way to visually indicate the change in color or brightness between a particular pixel in one image and the corresponding pixel in another image. A running difference video is a series of these graphs. They are no more a picture of something solid than the gas gauge on the dashboard of a car is a picture of gasoline. If we had a bar chart showing the number of new buildings started in New York over a period of years, we cannot look at the bars on the chart and see buildings. It would, of course, be equally ridiculous to suggest that comparing the brightness values of pixels between one image and the next somehow magically allows us to see some actual things. Certainly not when those alleged actual things are thousands of kilometers away from the data used to make the graphs.

In fact we can watch videos from some time prior to that particular flare and very clearly see similar shockwaves under conditions where the vertical movement and the curvature of that movement is strikingly obvious.

Ya, because they all bounce off the same surface features!

Nothing in the Sun's corona is bouncing off anything which supposedly exists several thousand kilometers below the photosphere.

It's at least as interesting as the flare from 09:30, maybe even moreso.

So post your best high resolution RD images already!

See my comment above. Nothing about running difference videos allows us to magically see stuff that could not possibly have been in the data used to create the original images.

There are no persistent structures hovering up there thousands of kilometers into the solar atmosphere. The entire idea of such a thing is unsupportable, a violation of the laws of physics.

Fortunately nobody here made that claim.

The bright pixels in images from those 211Å, 193Å, and 171Å filtered instruments are created by a certain range of thermal characteristics. Any darker pixels represent areas cooler or hotter than the range of data acquired by a particular filter. The thermal movement we see in the graphs is occurring thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.

All the data that was acquired to make the original images from which those difference graphs were derived came from the corona, a region of the solar atmosphere thousands of kilometers above any allegedly solid or rigid surface.

That's the part I dispute. Do you comprehend that?

I understand there has been a simple assertion made to that effect. I also understand that no objective quantitative argument has ever been put forth to support that assertion.

There is data available from lower parts of the solar atmosphere that would be more appropriate to use if there were any support for the claim that the Sun has a solid or rigid surface. The fact that more appropriate data is avoided appears to demonstrate that the claim is knowingly unsupportable.

Nobody is avoiding anything other than you're avoiding posting any high resolution RD images. Why is that? Suddenly the guy with video skills up the wazoo can't post a single high resolution image?

Leaving aside the uncivil personal remarks and the fact that the above comment in no way addresses the issue, one reason I haven't posted images and videos is because they seem, at this point, irrelevant. Nothing about running difference videos allows us to magically see stuff that could not possibly have been in the data used to create the original images. And no objective connection has ever been drawn between the various electric Sun conjectures and some solid/rigid surface which allegedly resides thousands of kilometers deeper than the point where no light can escape from the Sun.

But to reiterate the comment which was not addressed: There is data available from lower parts of the solar atmosphere that seems more appropriate to use if attempting to support a claim that the Sun has a solid or rigid surface. The fact that data from the corona is supposed to be meaningful while data from closer to the photosphere is being ignored appears to demonstrate that a solid surface conjecture is knowingly unsupportable.

I'm still interested in hearing what objective connection there is between the Sun allegedly having a solid or rigid surface and the notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of huge electric sparks. If there is no connection, I'll move any further video analysis demonstrating that no such surface could exist to the thread which already exists for the purpose.

Just post the images and quit stalling. This is supposedly your moment in the sun so to speak. If there ever was a time where your professional video skills might be useful, this it is. Now or never?

Forgetting that the above comment in no way addresses the issue, my professional video skills are available for a fee. Anything I choose to do as a volunteer project is at my discretion. Demanding that I do something is fairly certain way to be sure I won't. Politely requesting and thanking me for my time is likely a much more effective way to get my cooperation.

But back to the issue: First, no objective connection has been made between the electric Sun conjectures and some solid surface which is contrary to the laws of physics. And second, if solar satellite imagery is relevant to the conjecture that a solid surface exists under the photosphere, ignoring data acquired closer to the alleged surface while dwelling on data from thousands of kilometers above doesn't seem like a reasonable way to go about looking for that surface. Maybe I'll make a piece of satire showing how that solar flare affected the regions below the corona.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's a matter of perspective... and irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant if you KNOCK IT OFF!

No. Just as we'd expect in any turbulent atmosphere. The solar atmosphere is in a constant state of turbulence, always churning under the influence of some pretty extreme magnetic field movement. Also, the turbulence we see in any 211Å, 193Å, or 171Å filtered images is happening in the corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. It would be nonsense to suggest that a mythical surface no solar physicist has ever seen, thousands of kilometers deeper than the point where any light can escape the Sun, is somehow affecting the movement of plasma thousands of kilometers above in the corona.

This denial, rinse, repeat routine is really getting old. I don't believe you that the atmosphere from the surface of the of the shiny layer to the solid surface below is 'opaque'. When did you intend to accept that is my position rather than continuing to tilt at windmills of your own design? The strawman stuff is getting old. Yes, I know that it's opaque (sol's definition) according to you folks. I don't believe you. Got it? The only surface that is 'opaque' in that image is the solid surface that is 4800KM +- 1200KM under the surface of that shiny bright layer we observe in 1700A and 4500A and in HMI images.

Running difference graphs are simply a way to visually indicate the change in color or brightness between a particular pixel in one image and the corresponding pixel in another image.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, nothing useful......typical.

Before I invest in any "services" to pick apart colors in a particular video, I'll be investing in some better software first. I don't care what video skills you may have. When the time came to put them to good use for us and create a few RD images, you chose not to. You used those skills to ridicule individuals instead. I wouldn't pay a vindictive person a dime for their skills, no matter how skilled they might be.

But back to the issue: First, no objective connection has been made between the electric Sun conjectures and some solid surface....

FYI, the whole point of asking you to create the three RD images from the colors you had already separated from the original image, was to demonstrate that I could 'predict' that a "rigid, persistent feature" exists right where the shock wave is split in two and redirected. I've already posted movies of the same timeline showing no persistent MAGNETIC FIELD features at that same location.

Maybe I'll make a piece of satire showing how that solar flare affected the regions below the corona.

Maybe you could disprove my 'prediction' with a few high/full resolution images but maybe you can't. Nevermind, I'll create them myself from the original SDO images.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ding, ding, ding, give the man a cookie. His intent was to make MR theory irrelevant by explaining double layer interactions from the perspective of particle physics.

Ding, ding, ding, give the man a cookie.
He accepted that the theory was correct which is not a surprise since 'MR theory' is the application of MHD theory to specific situations. So if he said that MR theory was pseudoscience then he was saying that much of his life's work was pseudoscience.

 

[GeeMack]

It's only irrelevant if you KNOCK IT OFF!

No. Just as we'd expect in any turbulent atmosphere. The solar atmosphere is in a constant state of turbulence, always churning under the influence of some pretty extreme magnetic field movement. Also, the turbulence we see in any 211Å, 193Å, or 171Å filtered images is happening in the corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. It would be nonsense to suggest that a mythical surface no solar physicist has ever seen, thousands of kilometers deeper than the point where any light can escape the Sun, is somehow affecting the movement of plasma thousands of kilometers above in the corona.

This denial, rinse, repeat routine is really getting old. I don't believe you that the atmosphere from the surface of the of the shiny layer to the solid surface below is 'opaque'.

Belief is for religion and pseudoscience. In real science, the point where we can't see any deeper into the Sun is the bottom of the photosphere, the place where it ends. It's how the word is defined, very rudimentary solar physics terminology. Anything that goes on below that point, past the place where any light is emitted from the Sun, is by definition not part of the photosphere. Anything down beyond there has a different name.

When did you intend to accept that is my position rather than continuing to tilt at windmills of your own design? The strawman stuff is getting old. Yes, I know that it's opaque (sol's definition) according to you folks. I don't believe you. Got it?

Believing doesn't make something true. Maybe that's how it works in religion and pseudoscience, but this is about the definition of the word, and it doesn't change based on anyone's belief. A simple way to look at it is this: As we look into the Sun's atmosphere there's a layer where the depth and density start to limit our view, and eventually it becomes deep and dense enough that we can't see anything at all through it. There's a word for that layer. It's called the photosphere.

The only surface that is 'opaque' in that image is the solid surface that is 4800KM +- 1200KM under the surface of that shiny bright layer we observe in 1700A and 4500A and in HMI images.

Nobody can see anything deeper than about 500 kilometers into the photosphere, not optically. Not with any equipment. Not with any processing. And although the assertion has often been made, there has never been any objective description of any method that might allow us a deeper view.

An objective explanation of such a method would be one that other people can apply and achieve the same results. Looking at images taken from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and declaring that something is visible thousands of kilometers below the photosphere is not objective. It's subjective. But more importantly it's physically contradictory. It's like standing on the beach in Florida and claiming to see Hawaii. It is so impossible that the mere assertion is nonsense.

The only way to "see" deeper than about 500 kilometers into the photosphere is by use of helioseismology.

Running difference graphs are simply a way to visually indicate the change in color or brightness between a particular pixel in one image and the corresponding pixel in another image.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, nothing useful......typical.

When the simple description of a running difference graph is misunderstood or ignored, I may explain it again. It is objective. It is a quantitative process, a series of pretty straightforward mathematical calculations that other people can apply and achieve the same results. It's barely more than a slightly fancy bar graph or pie chart.

Before I invest in any "services" to pick apart colors in a particular video, I'll be investing in some better software first. I don't care what video skills you may have. When the time came to put them to good use for us and create a few RD images, you chose not to. You used those skills to ridicule individuals instead. I wouldn't pay a vindictive person a dime for their skills, no matter how skilled they might be.

Nobody has ever made a connection between the claim that solar flares and CMEs are or are caused by something like giant bolts of lightning, and an alleged, but physically impossible, solid/rigid surface on the Sun. No objective explanation has ever been offered as to the "good use" of a difference graph made from data acquired several thousand kilometers above the photosphere when trying to support a claim that something exists several thousands kilometers below the photosphere. It appears to be an illusory correlation.

But back to the issue: First, no objective connection has been made between the electric Sun conjectures and some solid surface which is contrary to the laws of physics.

FYI, the whole point of asking you to create the three RD images from the colors you had already separated from the original image, was to demonstrate that I could 'predict' that a "rigid, persistent feature" exists right where the shock wave is split in two and redirected. I've already posted movies of the same timeline showing no persistent MAGNETIC FIELD features at that same location.

There is no prediction involved in a subjective interpretation. There's a dark spot in that image so I predict there'll be a dark spot in that image. That's not a prediction. It's not science. It's wishful thinking. It's pseudoscience.

And interestingly enough, with all that wishful thinking about images created from data taken in the corona, the notion of analyzing data from much closer to the physically impossible alleged surface continues to be ignored.

It's also interesting that no objective connection has ever been made between the unsupported assertion that the Sun has a rigid surface and the unsupported assertion that solar flares are caused by a phenomenon analogous to lightning here on Earth.

Maybe I'll make a piece of satire showing how that solar flare affected the regions below the corona.

Maybe you could disprove my 'prediction' with a few high/full resolution images but maybe you can't.

Attempting to deflect the burden of proof is a dishonest logical fallacy. I don't have a horse in this race and have no responsibility to disprove anything. If there is any validity to the conjecture that the Sun has a solid surface and/or that solar flares and CMEs are caused by some kind of massive electrical discharges like lightning on Earth, the responsibility of supporting those claims falls to those making them. Any other approach would be pseudoscience.

Nevermind, I'll create them myself from the original SDO images.

There's nothin' to it. It's a simple mathematical process.

 

[Reality Check]

... dumb usage of teh exploding irony meter snipped....

Posts: 7,519


Originally Posted by Reality Check
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Ding, ding, ding, give the man a cookie. His intent was to make MR theory irrelevant by explaining double layer interactions from the perspective of particle physics.

Ding, ding, ding, give the man a cookie.
He accepted that the theory was correct which is not a surprise since 'MR theory' is the application of MHD theory to specific situations. So if he said that MR theory was pseudoscience then he was saying that much of his life's work was pseudoscience.



Now you are just hinting that your knowledge of English is as bad as your knowledge of physics and mathematics !

Your incorrect assertion was that Alfven thought that MR theory was wrong. Irrelevant is not wrong. Look it up in a dictionary.

What he did not accept was the application of frozen-in approximatuion as the speech you quote (and then quote mine ).
B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science quote
The subject of the first paragraph is "the frozen-in concept" and the danger of using it. It is this concept that he calls "a gigantic pseudo-science".
The second paragraph I quote emphasizes that he did not threw out all of MR papers. He threw out some (or even a majority) of those papers.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Until and unless you can show me an experiment that DID NOT begin with two "currents",

Now you go into that total inability to read again:

• Fast magnetic reconnection in laser-produced plasma bubbles
• Magnetic Reconnection and Plasma Dynamics in Two-Beam Laser-Solid Interactions
• Observation of Megagauss-Field Topology Changes due to Magnetic Reconnection in Laser-Produced Plasmas
• Bidirectional jet formation during driven magnetic reconnection in two-beam laser–plasma interactions

And why you think using currents to establish the magnetic fields means anything remains hidden. You seem to be confusing current with double layers.
It has been known for decades that DLs form after the reconnection

• Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption (and double layers)?
• Magnetic Field Line Reconnection Experiments, 5. Current Disruptions and Double Layers (1983)
• Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment (1982) PDF

P.S. Where are Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Belief is for religion and pseudoscience. In real science, the point where we can't see any deeper into the Sun is the bottom of the photosphere, the place where it ends.

Oh, you mean the *SOLID SURFACE* of the sun. Now I get it.

It's how the word is defined, very rudimentary solar physics terminology.

You know, the irony of course is that you don't seem to realize that your of "beliefs" are just as open to scrutiny, starting with the notion that the layer you call the photosphere is even *REMOTELY* "opaque" (sol version) to every wavelength under the sun, and your "belief" the sun is made of nothing but "mixed plasmas".

Anything that goes on below that point, past the place where any light is emitted from the Sun, is by definition not part of the photosphere. Anything down beyond there has a different name.

Everything below the surface I cannot see in satellite imagery, RD images or otherwise. Everything in the "atmosphere" above the solid surface is visible in solar satellite imagery. In fact the main reason you're afraid to post those RD images is due to the fact that the terrain features where the shock wave is reflected are clearly visible in the RD images.

Believing doesn't make something true.

Right back at you gas model theorists. RC "believed" that magnetic field arrangements did it, but one SDO overlay image blew that concept away. Nothing even remotely like a "bunched" or unusually powerful sort of field exists in that region, let alone a RIDGELINE of magnetic fields.

Maybe that's how it works in religion and pseudoscience, but this is about the definition of the word, and it doesn't change based on anyone's belief. A simple way to look at it is this: As we look into the Sun's atmosphere there's a layer where the depth and density start to limit our view, and eventually it becomes deep and dense enough that we can't see anything at all through it.

Note that you are describing YOUR beliefs, but I have yet to hear you personally even try to explain the trajectory of the shockwave, and I have yet to see you post a single high resolution RD image of any of the three wavelengths you separated from the original image. Your behaviors tell the whole story. You've already put the RD images together. I know this for a fact because to even post that stupid image on Youtube, you necessarily created the image. The fact you refuse to post your work in high resolution says *VOLUMES* about what you saw in the high resolution images.

There's a word for that layer. It's called the photosphere.

That's "your" word, from "your" belief system. I don't care if YOUR belief is POPULAR, it's still just a BELIEF you hold, nothing more. It's just as open to scrutiny as any theory. In fact the mass flow patterns we observe in SDO and Hinode images BLOW YOUR THEORIES AWAY.

Nobody can see anything deeper than about 500 kilometers into the photosphere, not optically.

PROVE IT!

There's nothin' to it. It's a simple mathematical process.

Yes, with the right software and experience I'm sure it's really quite easy. It's a real pity you went to all the trouble to create the images in question but are too afraid of the content to post a high/FULL resolution image. Fear sucks doesn't it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your incorrect assertion was that Alfven thought that MR theory was wrong.

RC, your scientific credibility in this thread has quite literally been shot to hell IMO.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

You are now trying to sweep scientific history under the carpet. He didn't just reject your theory RC, he MADE IT UNNECESSARY. He explained the conditions in which it was to be IGNORED, specifically in all current carrying plasma. He then explained the energy exchanges inside of a current sheet/double layer *WITHOUT IT*. Oh, and by the way, Alfven believed that the entire universe was a current carrying environment. In other words he rejected the whole concept of MR theory *EVERYWHERE* in spacetime.

You've also tried to take a DEFINITION of an electrical discharge in a PLASMA to attempt to deny the fact that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas! Honestly RC, this is like a twilight zone episode at this point. I've seen YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS evoke pure denial less often and less vehemently than you have done in this thread. Hoy Vey. Give it a rest already.

 

[Tubbythin]

Ya, and I thought a 10 year old could understand Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma too. Go figure.

The point I was making was all quite simple Michael. Really really simple. Lightning does not occur in plasmas. So anything with similar properties to lightning that occurs in the stellar atmosphere is merely a coincidence.