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

[Michael Mozina]

I don't really care whether he did or he didn't. It doesn't matter who published what. The laws of the physics do not care. Alfven's words are not immutable.

I never suggested otherwise TBT. Then again, any transfer of energy inside of a double layer is already explained by his work. Unless you can cite a flaw in his double layer paper, I have no reason or need for "magnetic reconnection' theory inside of any current carrying double layer.

Huh? Seriously Michael? What are you talking about? And what makes you think Alfven's work is immutable. You clearly cannot evaluate the relevant maths for yourself.

Oh boloney! I can certainly evaluate the physics for myself. Physically speaking you start with an E field and two Birkeland currents. On paper you dumbed down the physical process to B exclusive orientation just so that you could call it "magnetic reconnection". Unplug your experiment and the show is over. You experiments all use ELECTRICITY, not "magnetic reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

We don't have all the components?

Sure we do. Name an element that's not there to work with? In fact it may be the presence of radioactive elements in the core that help sustain fusion in the first place.

They change from electron to muon to tau. For them to spontaneously and simultaneously all change from neutrino to anti-neutrino or vice-versa would require throwing out the whole of the standard model.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/57

So the Sun is powered by fusion that's what.

So what if it is? Birkeland only expected a transmutation of elements to result in a sustained release of energy. His ideas work for either fusion or fission. It doesn't matter.

I don't think anyone really knows what you mean. Your definitions are extremely fluid.

Ya, because electrical discharges are so darn difficult to comprehend. Please.

You're not making meaningful claims. You've come up with a meaningless definition of breakdown which includes almost everything and a definition of breakdown such that completely opposite situations both fall under the name!

Boloney. Electrical discharges occur naturally around every body in the solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field and sun has the largest of each. It therefore experiences the largest and most powerful discharges of any body in the solar system. Your claims are meaningless because you've never physically associated "magnetic reconnection' with more than 1 out of 7 key observations, whereas electrical discharges have been empirically shown to generate all 7 of those same key observations! It's not even a horse race in the lab!

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5072

Sorry TBT, I think I gave you the wrong link the first time.

 

[Tubbythin]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5072

Sorry TBT, I think I gave you the wrong link the first time.

Two quick questions...
1) How much of that paper did you read?
2) How much of that paper did you understand?

 

[Tubbythin]

Sure we do. Name an element that's not there to work with? In fact it may be the presence of radioactive elements in the core that help sustain fusion in the first place.

I'm not even sure what you are proposing any more.

So what if it is? Birkeland only expected a transmutation of elements to result in a sustained release of energy. His ideas work for either fusion or fission. It doesn't matter.

Ya, because electrical discharges are so darn difficult to comprehend. Please.

No. They're pretty standard. They're the sudden release of energy due to the breakdown of a dielectric medium . The problem is that you use a fluid definition which miraculously equates systems with dielectric media to those without.

Boloney.

Not baloney. Very simple.

Electrical discharges occur naturally around every body in the solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field and sun has the largest of each. It therefore experiences the largest and most powerful discharges of any body in the solar system.

Look. I can't be bother with this anymore. It is nobodies fault but your own that you keep equivocating.

Your claims are meaningless because you've never physically associated "magnetic reconnection' with more than 1 out of 7 key observations, whereas electrical discharges have been empirically shown to generate all 7 of those same key observations! It's not even a horse race in the lab!

Only if you equivocate between two completely and utterly different systems.

 

[tusenfem]

In the sense that the physics is in fact important, sure, but there's a conceptual aspect at stake that even you seem to be trying to ignore.

YOU keep on bickering on the term "discharge" Mr. M. If you want to call a sudden increase in current along a solar plasma tube a discharge, then frakking call it a discharge, I don't care! I have state that several times now, don't bring this back to my doorstep all the time.

There is no conceptual aspect that I am missing at all.

You don't want to accept it because I don't NEED anything else to explain the behaviors of a double layer. Alfven already did that for us. The moment you accept that a discharge takes place through a double layer, Alfven's model applies, and your MR theory becomes irrelevant and unnecessary.

Huh, what? You have NEVER explained the behaviour of double layers. I have asked you how you create a double layer between two parallel Birkeland currents, I have received no answer up to now.

What on Earth is a "discharge through a double layer" supposed to be? I guess you are hinting at the "exploding double layers" by Alfven, which have not been observed in nature, and I have cited a paper which showed that such strong DLs as Alfven posited will not occur.

You have zilch, the only thing you have is your claim that Alfven said ...

In other words, the fact that I don't need your MR theory is in the first place will be avoided at all costs. You will never deal with it.

What does this MRx have to do with your insistence about using the term "discharge" and me rejecting the use of this ill defined term? You still don't get that this silly little word (for which I have listed at least 5 different uses in a post probably a year ago or so) is so incomprehensibly uniimportant, because it does not say anything about the physics involved.

Therefore, I am done with "discharges" like I said before. Learn to live with it. Deal with the actual physics, not the schizofrenic terminology.

 

[tusenfem]

Who give a damn even if that is true? When did GR theory or Alfven's writing rise and fall on my personal math skills? You guys are PATHETIC. If you didn't attack the individual, you'd have nothing to say.

You don't have any math skills nor physics skills.
If you had any of these you would give actual answers about the solar wind not being a current, about double layers apparenly being created between parallel Birkeland currents, etc. etc.

pathetic indeed, why did you ever leave Manuel's employment?

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Citations for Birkeland and solar energy sources.

You and RC are a like twin ministers of disinformation. He *CORRECTLY* predicted the energy source of the sun and correctly predicted it had an internal power source.

Michael Mozina,
Please cite where Birkeland *CORRECTLY* predicted the energy source of the sun. The correct source is fusion which was unknown in his day.
Please cite where Birkeland correctly predicted (i.e. was the first person to do so) that the Sun has an internal power source.

I suspect that you have misunderstood Birkeland yet again. All I have seen is mentions of radiactivity (fission) in relation to his experiments (not the Sun). That the Sun has an internal energy source woud have been common theory at the time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You don't have any math skills nor physics skills.

There you go, right back to attacking the individual. What a pathetic cult of haters.

If you had any of these you would give actual answers about the solar wind not being a current,

It *IS* a current the moment it hits the magnetic field of the Earth! It's mass in motion and the field separates the particles into "current".

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf

You keep ignoring Alfven's work entirely!

about double layers apparenly being created between parallel Birkeland currents, etc. etc.

They form BETWEEN them. In fact, the vast majority of your experiments (perhaps all) begin and end current carrying plasma, and Alfven's work makes MR theory irrelevant in those conditions.

pathetic indeed, why did you ever leave Manuel's employment?

Eh? He's never paid me a dime and I've been self employed for over 18 years. Why do you feel such a strong emotional need to attack individuals anyway? Oh ya, Alfven put nails in your MR coffin in current carrying plasmas so virtually all your own experiments nail the coffin shut on your pseudoscience. All you can do now is attack the individual. What a sad little haters cult.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is so delicious I'm going to quote it twice:

You guys are PATHETIC. If you didn't attack the individual, you'd have nothing to say.

You're ignoring what we say because you don't understand it. Before I elaborate on what I said in the post to which you were pretending to respond, let's take a moment to savor your hypocrisy.

During the past week, within this one thread, you have launched all of the following attacks against individuals:

Until you leave Denialville RC, nobody can save you, not Dungey, not Peratt, not me, not anyone. As soon as you accept that electrical discharges have been associated with solar flare events since as far back as Dungey and Bruce, your whole show falls apart. Since you can't go into PURE denial about Dungey, you'll pull some other pretzelesque bending of logic type of rationalization that defies description. You bend reality to the point of absurdity to avoid the fact that Dungey also claimed that discharges can occur in plasmas. His use of the term "electrical discharge" is absolutely 100% congruent with Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma, specifically the release of stored EM energy. The ionization process isn't the FULL RELEASE OF STORED ENERGY. It's just ONE PART of an ENTIRE RELEASE OF ENERGY. Stop burying your head in the sand. It's not working anymore RC.

You don't care about HONEST dialog.

...your inbred little cult of EU haters..."group think"...you're absolutely full of malarkey...Cults always stick together. Science is irrelevant with EU haters. I've come to realize that over the years.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty! The fact your EU haters in crime let you get away with this nonsense simply demonstrates that EU haters couldn't care less about honest scientific dialog.

Why do you expect me to be your math mommy anyway? Isn't this your personal field of mathematical expertize?

....a couple of RANK amateurs like myself that I met in cyberspace who never even bothered to read either Alfven's book or Peratt's book?

All they care about are distorting scientific historical facts, and continuing to persecute any and all EU oriented theories by attacking individuals. It really doesn't matter what you say to them. They both go right back into pure unadulterated denial of scientific fact.

Your personal bigotry has blinded you to physics.

You're stuck in pure denial...based on pure blind personal bigotry. There's no logic to your statements anymore. There's nothing there but twisted bigotry designed to suit yourself. What's the point?....By DEFINITION Peratt and Dungey claim that it's possible for electrical discharges to occur in plasmas. You claim it's impossible. You or Dungey? According to Dungey, solar flares involve "electrical discharges".

You then intentionally dumb down the math to ignore the presence of that E field and claim "magnetic reconnection did it". What horse pucky.

Neither Dungey or Peratt make such a requirement...Now whom shall I believe, you or Peratt and Dungey? You've never bothered to read Peratt's book like I have, so clearly you're utterly clueless as to it's contents.

Haters are all alike. It's a mob mentality, and the science becomes irrelevant.

Well, at least I've read them which puts me way ahead of you and GM and RC and all the rest of the lazy couch potato commentators around here.

It really doesn't matter what I say, you're all hell bent on engaging in pure hater mentality. Deny, ignore, and deny some more.

In fact you folks act exactly like a cult, including the constant personal attacks (not by you personally mind you). It's still a pack mentality.



I guess I feel a lot less "polite" about the fact that electrical discharges happen in plasma now too, expecially after providing 100 years of evidence in support of that theory, including Birkeland's original lab work, Dugey's work, Peratt's work, Alfven's work, etc, etc, etc. After awhile the pure denial process gets a little old.

When you said i have nothing to say, you were demonstrating your "pure denial" about Dungey's paper.

I'll say more about that below. First, let's savor the continuing low quality of your argument:

You're just assuming I'm assuming, and you're wrong. You're also assuming you understand what Alfvén was rejecting, and you're wrong about that also.

Oh baloney. I've quoted him plenty of times.

You've quoted him more than enough, but you haven't understood him.

Sure attack the messenger some more Clinger, that will surely help. Too bad for you that Alfven demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that mathematical prowess is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.

Alfvén demonstrated no such thing. It's silly of you to say he did.

If you knew enough math to get through freshman physics, you'd know how easy it is to do the math for the simple experiment I suggested that demonstrates magnetic reconnection without plasma and with an E field whose strength never exceeds a threshold you can set arbitrarily close to zero.

At a ZERO point there's NO ENERGY! So what if you get a couple of zero points to "connect"? You can't get infinite energy from zero.

You're completely ignorant of the physics here, because you're completely ignorant of the math. I said nothing about energy. I said, correctly, that magnetic reconnection can be demonstrated without plasma and with an E field whose strength never exceeds a threshold you can set arbitrarily close to zero. Had you understood the math and the two pictures in Dungey's 1953 paper, you'd have known that.

BS. The only time he ever even made a positive quote about the idea is when he called it a pseudonym for the work he describes in his double layer paper. That is the only reason I've personally been willing to compromise with you and call it "current reconnection'. In fact when we look at your laboratory "experiments" you actually reconnected two field aligned *BIRKELAND CURRENTS*! Talk about bait and switch! Your entire industry should be sued for false advertizing IMO. It's damn clear from your "scientific experiments" that "currents" do the "reconnecting", not two dumbed down magnetic lines.

Had you conducted the experiment I suggested, you'd know that the magnetic reconnection occurs without any change within the circuit topology.

That's also clear to anyone who works through the math. After all, it's just a freshman-level exercise in electromagnetism.

As it is, however, you can't do the math and don't understand how easy it is for the rest of us to do that math.

Who give a damn even if that is true? When did GR theory or Alfven's writing rise and fall on my personal math skills? You guys are PATHETIC. If you didn't attack the individual, you'd have nothing to say.

If GR theory or Alfvén's writings rested upon your personal math skills, they'd be falling like a stone.

On the other hand, your personal math skills have (almost) everything to do with your failure to understand general relativity or Alfvén or Dungey. Let's use Dungey's 1953 paper as an example.

On 7 December 2010, you cited Dungey's 1953 paper. For the better part of a year, you've been denying that Dungey's paper is about magnetic reconnection.

On 28 December 2010, I suggested a simple experiment that would have helped you to understand that Dungey's paper is about magnetic reconnection. Everyone who's taken a freshman-level course in electromagnetism knows what the magnetic field around a current-carrying rod looks like. If you have two such rods in parallel, carrying equal currents, and measure the magnetic field in a plane perpendicular to the rods, you get Dungey's figure 2. If you take another pair of parallel rods and run the current in the opposite direction, you get Dungey's figure 2 with the arrows reversed. If you take those two pairs of parallel conducting rods and place them so the null points of their magnetic fields coincide, with the planes running through the two pairs positioned at almost but not quite a right angle, then you get Dungey's figure 1.

Those two figures are the only figures in Dungey's paper.

With steady currents running through all four rods, the E field is zero outside the rods. Increasing the current through one pair of rods yields Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection. If the current is increased slowly, then the E field outside the wires remains nearly zero, but the magnetic reconnection still occurs (more slowly).

I suggested that experiment to you because it would have helped you to understand that

• Dungey is describing magnetic reconnection.
• There is no "circuit reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
• There is no "current reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
• The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.
• The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can occur with a near-zero electric (E) field.

You didn't want to understand those things, so you've said all sorts of false (and generally ridiculous) things about the experiment and about Dungey's paper.

On the other hand, everyone who understands freshman-level vector calculus and electromagnetism can see that Dungey's paper is about magnetic reconnection, and understands that your continuing denial of that fact is just one small part of your continuing denial of basic physics.

 

[Reality Check]

So what's it going to be t? Which is it?

tusenfem chose a third option:

I therefore stated that I accept any definition for the term discharge that MM wanted, and henceforth refrained from actually using the term discharge in any scientific way, unless the general term asks for the use of the word, like a "glow discharge" which I cannot be responsible for.

 

[Reality Check]

That is an absolutely false statement. There is no REQUIREMENT of a dielectric breakdown for an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE to occur in a plasma.

That is an absolutely false statement.

• Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge explicitly has a general REQUIREMENT of a dielectric breakdown for an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE to occur.
• Dungey's 'electrical discharge' is a high current density in magnetic reconnection.

It has only been a day but:
MM: Ask Peratt whether your 'electrical dicharges in plasma' assertion is correct

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
First asked 3rd February 2011

Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?

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

 

[Michael Mozina]

You've quoted him more than enough, but you haven't understood him.

Oh I understood him clearly enough when he called it pseudoscience more than a half dozen times in a room full of physicists. I understood him when he set limits on the concept that EXCLUDES all current carrying plasmas. I understood his double layer paper well enough to understand that I don't have any need of your pseudoscience. The behaviors of all double layers are easily explained without it as Alfven clearly demonstrated.

Alfvén demonstrated no such thing. It's silly of you to say he did.

Nice dodge there. You dodged the key issue. Alfven was your SUPERIOR in math and plasma physics and he rejected MR theory. Your claim that my position is in any way related to mathematical skills or any understanding of Maxwell's equations is pure BS. Alfven had all those same skills and called your ideas "pseudoscience" and never wrote a single paper in support of the concept. He wrote a paper on the behaviors of double layers that nail the coffin shut inside of current carrying plasma.

You're completely ignorant of the physics here, because you're completely ignorant of the math.

This is a lie and a personal attack. Proud of yourself? It's also utterly and totally irrelevant. GR wouldn't cease to be a viable theory if I'd never seen the formulas, let alone had any understanding of them. Alfven's double layer paper speaks for itself without my help. I don't really care what you think of my math skills because the whole world (other than your cult) knows that it is entirely *IRRELEVANT*.

I said nothing about energy.

Don't tell me that I have to educate you to the fact that photons ARE kinetic energy do I? Does ANYONE besides sol understand that?

I said, correctly, that magnetic reconnection can be demonstrated without plasma and with an E field whose strength never exceeds a threshold you can set arbitrarily close to zero. Had you understood the math and the two pictures in Dungey's 1953 paper, you'd have known that.

I know how it works *IN THEORY*. I have no confidence it works in the lab AS DESCRIBED IN THE MATH.

Had you conducted the experiment I suggested, you'd know that the magnetic reconnection occurs without any change within the circuit topology.

You still don't know the difference between 'magnetic reconnection" and "magnetic attraction/repulsion".

That's also clear to anyone who works through the math. After all, it's just a freshman-level exercise in electromagnetism.

So why didn't Alfven buy the theory according to you? Why didn't he write even one single paper on the topic Mr. Clinger?

If GR theory or Alfvén's writings rested upon your personal math skills, they'd be falling like a stone.

GR too probably. So what? Good thing Alfven wrote the math.

On the other hand, your personal math skills have (almost) everything to do with your failure to understand general relativity or Alfvén or Dungey. Let's use Dungey's 1953 paper as an example.

On 7 December 2010, you cited Dungey's 1953 paper. For the better part of a year, you've been denying that Dungey's paper is about magnetic reconnection.

ER, no. I didn't deny that. In fact I CITED THAT FACT to begin with. What you're calling a "reconnection" event has ALWAYS been associated with "electrical discharges" in plasma! That's my entire point!

I'm going to skip the redundant stuff on freshman electromagnetism since Alfven rejected your theory on the same grounds I do, for exactly the same reasons I do. It's UNNECESSARY. You also demonstrate quite clearly that you personally have no idea what you're talking about since what you actually describe is "magnetic attraction/repulsion" and it has absolutely nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection".

 

[Reality Check]

I think it was Jergenson(?) who proposed an external power source and evidently that's the *one* version that you folks always seem to associate with an 'electric sun'.

You missed the circa 1900, i.e. before Birkeland did the prediction you claim for him.
I think that Jergenson(?) you are thinking of was active in the 1950's.

We are smart enough to know that the 'electric sun' fantasies use various ideas as their basis. The science states that they are wrong. The evidence shows that the Sun is powered by fusion at its core as you must know by now. I do not remember any recent claim by you that this is not the case.
The EU proponents though just persist in ignoring the scientific evidence and indulging in their fantasies.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Look. I can't be bother with this anymore. It is nobodies fault but your own that you keep equivocating.


Only if you equivocate between two completely and utterly different systems.

This is ultimately the only point that matters so I'll focus on it if you don't mind. I'm not equivocating in any way. The release of energy from any circuit in plasma is going to generate the same sorts of events in any other type of 'electrical discharge'. It's going to ionize ions to a much higher state. Most plasmas are "dusty" and not fully ionized in the first place so SOME atoms will in fact be ionized by the discharge process itself. They aren't different. They are similar in MOST respects, specifically the FLOW OF DISCHARGE CURRENT. An electrical discharge in the atmosphere isn't OVER the moment the atoms are ionized. It continues until the stored energy is completely released.

 

[Michael Mozina]

tusenfem chose a third option:

Ya, run and hide.

 

[Reality Check]

Oh I understood him clearly enough when he called it pseudoscience more than a half dozen times in a room full of physicists.

Wrong: He called the use of the frozen in concept pseudoscience.

I understood him when he set limits on the concept that EXCLUDES all current carrying plasmas.

That implicitly ALLOWS magnetic reconnection in other plasmas.

I understood his double layer paper well enough to understand that I don't have any need of your pseudoscience. The behaviors of all double layers are easily explained without it as Alfven clearly demonstrated.

You obviously do not understand that his double layer paper applies to solar flares.
As his paper showed, the energy output of solar flares can be explained by using a circuit model to model the flare. Alfven elected to put a double layer in that model. Onel and Mann elected to miss out the DL.

Alfven never demonstrated that all magnetic reconnection in all situations can be replaced by DLs.

And since you seem unable to follow links:
Alfvén acknowledged magnetic reconnection

http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/articles/Alfven_FieldLines_1976.pdf

The first four sections of that short paper describe a gedanken experiment in which the magnetic field is stationary. With a stationary magnetic field, there is obviously no magnetic reconnection.

In section 5, however, Alfvén explicitly acknowledges the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection in non-stationary fields:

Originally Posted by Alfvén
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.

That passage confirms my interpretation of Alfvén's remarks in his keynote address, while refuting Michael Mozina's interpretation of those same remarks. Alfvén acknowledged the physics of magnetic reconnection, and acknowledged the "possibility" that magnetic reconnection "may be applicable" to the scientific problems that concerned him, but he was skeptical about its applicability.

As tusenfem and Tim Thompson have pointed out, magnetic reconnection has been observed in space. The relevance of those observations to the problems that interested Alfvén may not be entirely clear even today, but pseudo-scientists who reject magnetic reconnection out of hand or deny its potential relevance cannot support those prejudices by appeal to Alfvén's authority.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
We blame you for lying about what Alfven actually states. He never rejected MR theory. He rejected the frozen-in field approximation except in special cases.

That rejection is explicit in section 6 of the paper:

Originally Posted by Alfvén
In Cosmical Electrodynamics [Alfvén, 1950] I pointed out that under certain conditions the frozen-in picture was useful. However, the theory of magnetic storms which was summarized in the same monograph contains Bierkeland currents and magnetospheric convection (although in the wrong direction) and other concepts contrary to the frozen-in concept. From the observational evidence available already at that time it was evident that the frozen-in concept was not applicable to the magnetosphere, but the reasons for this did not become clear before space research had supplied us with relevant observational data. Later Alfvén and Fälthammar [1963, 1971] strongly warned against a general use of the frozen-in concept. It is increasingly evident that this concept belongs to the pseudo-plasma formalism which is useful only in special cases.

 

[Reality Check]

Ya, run and hide.

No - tusenfem acknowledges that you have been twisting the usage of the term electrical discharge to suit your own uses and so realizes that there is no point in debating you on the issue.

I on the other hand do not mind recording for everyone to see for the rest of you life (or at least the life of the Internet) that your quote mining of Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge is obvous and dumb. IN addition, your quote mining of Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge makes the definition so general that it is useless. Turing on a light becomes an 'electrical discharge'!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You've quoted him more than enough, but you haven't understood him.

Oh I understood him clearly enough when he called it pseudoscience more than a half dozen times in a room full of physicists.

You don't understand that invited speakers are expected to say outrageous things, and their audiences are expected to laugh.

Nice dodge there. You dodged the key issue. Alfven was your SUPERIOR in math and plasma physics and he rejected MR theory.

I know nothing about plasma physics (or, to put it even more strongly: I don't know much more about it than you do), and Alfvén was undoubtedly my superior when it comes to the math that's relevant to plasma physics.

On the other hand, your opinion of how thoroughly Alfvén rejected magnetic reconnection is nothing more than your opinion, and your opinions in matters scientific are often wrong. It is not silly of me to trust my own interpretation more than yours.

In my opinion, Alfvén rejected the broken version of magnetic reconnection that he himself had accidentally popularized with his "frozen-in" approximation. He also doubted whether magnetic reconnection was relevant to solar physics.

If, as you claim, Alfvén rejected magnetic reconnection, then he was just wrong about magnetic reconnection. It wouldn't have been the only thing he was wrong about. His opinions of plasma cosmology, general relativity, and black holes have not aged well either.

Your claim that my position is in any way related to mathematical skills or any understanding of Maxwell's equations is pure BS.

If you wish to blame your scientific failures on some other root cause, please tell us about it.

Alfven had all those same skills and called your ideas "pseudoscience" and never wrote a single paper in support of the concept.

I doubt whether Alfvén ever heard of me, so I'm pretty sure he never said much about my ideas.

What you should have said is that Alfvén used the word "pseudoscience" (in an invited talk) to refer to a broken concept that he himself had inadvertently popularized.

You're completely ignorant of the physics here, because you're completely ignorant of the math.

This is a lie and a personal attack.

How is that a lie?

It's also utterly and totally irrelevant. GR wouldn't cease to be a viable theory if I'd never seen the formulas, let alone had any understanding of them.

Magnetic reconnection, like GR, remains viable despite your lack of understanding.

I don't really care what you think of my math skills because the whole world (other than your cult) knows that it is entirely *IRRELEVANT*.

When you speak of my "cult", are you referring to mathematicians? To physicists? To all scientists?

No matter which "cult" you mean, you'd have a hard time convincing me that "the whole world" outside that "cult" believes that math skills are "entirely *IRRELEVANT*" to a discussion of physics.

I said, correctly, that magnetic reconnection can be demonstrated without plasma and with an E field whose strength never exceeds a threshold you can set arbitrarily close to zero. Had you understood the math and the two pictures in Dungey's 1953 paper, you'd have known that.

I know how it works *IN THEORY*. I have no confidence it works in the lab AS DESCRIBED IN THE MATH.

I wouldn't expect you to have any confidence that Maxwell's equations describe what happens in the lab. To put it more strongly: I don't expect you to have a clue about anything that happens in a lab.

For most of us, our confidence in Maxwell's equations comes from conducting experiments (as in freshman-level electrodynamics electromagnetism) and from doing things that rely upon Maxwell's equations. Without moving away from this keyboard, I count 8 power supplies, 5 CD drives, 5 hard disks, 3 monitors, 4 keyboards, 5 computers, 2 fluorescent lights, 1 electronic piano with MIDI, an electronic temperature control, a motion sensor, 8 Ethernet ports, and 6 AC outlets. All of those things work because Maxwell's equations describe what happens in the real world.

But I wouldn't expect you to know anything about that.

Had you conducted the experiment I suggested, you'd know that the magnetic reconnection occurs without any change within the circuit topology.

You still don't know the difference between 'magnetic reconnection" and "magnetic attraction/repulsion".

You're just flailing. I know far more about this stuff than you do, partly because I've taken some of the relevant physics courses, partly because I understand the relevant math, and partly because I have practical experience with radio and electronics.

That's also clear to anyone who works through the math. After all, it's just a freshman-level exercise in electromagnetism.

So why didn't Alfven buy the theory according to you?

As I have explained previously, Alfvén explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection. Deny that all you want, but everyone can read the paper I cited.

Why didn't he write even one single paper on the topic Mr. Clinger?

Because life is too short to write even one single paper on every possible topic. Alfvén didn't write about paleontology, either, but that doesn't mean paleontology is bogus.

On the other hand, your personal math skills have (almost) everything to do with your failure to understand general relativity or Alfvén or Dungey. Let's use Dungey's 1953 paper as an example.

On 7 December 2010, you cited Dungey's 1953 paper. For the better part of a year, you've been denying that Dungey's paper is about magnetic reconnection.

ER, no. I didn't deny that. In fact I CITED THAT FACT to begin with. What you're calling a "reconnection" event has ALWAYS been associated with "electrical discharges" in plasma! That's my entire point!

Then your entire point is entirely bogus, because the experiment I described demonstrates magnetic reconnection without plasma.

I'm going to skip the redundant stuff on freshman electromagnetism since Alfven rejected your theory on the same grounds I do, for exactly the same reasons I do. It's UNNECESSARY. You also demonstrate quite clearly that you personally have no idea what you're talking about since what you actually describe is "magnetic attraction/repulsion" and it has absolutely nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

You don't understand that invited speakers are expected to say outrageous things, and their audiences are expected to laugh.

Right. You folks call this "intellectual honesty"? That's about the worst rationalization I've ever heard. Using the term "pseudoscience" once in the speech might be a joke. Referring to it as pseudoscience seven times in a single speech isn't a joke, particularly when you talk about putting nails in it's coffin, you also set a ton of limits on where it can be used, and you make it obsolete and unnecessary in current carrying plasmas.

I know nothing about plasma physics (or, to put it even more strongly: I don't know much more about it than you do), and Alfvén was undoubtedly my superior when it comes to the math that's relevant to plasma physics.

On the other hand, your opinion of how thoroughly Alfvén rejected magnetic reconnection is nothing more than your opinion, and your opinions in matters scientific are often wrong. It is not silly of me to trust my own interpretation more than yours.

Fortunately that's not necessary. All you have to do is produce one paper with his name on it that supports the concept. Waiting......