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

[Michael Mozina]

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

No, I'm referring to just the hard core types that have participated in these threads and seem to get by based on how many personal attacks they can launch rather than any relevant materials they've actually read or understood (Like Cosmic Plasma by Alfven). That would include all the couch potato mud slingers that haven't read Alfven's work for themselves like you, GM, RC and some of the others that tend to avoid the truth by bending it like a pretzel. There are some secondary types around here too, but you three are the primary mud slingers. Only the "fundy" haters like you think they understand plasma physics based on what they get via clairvoyance rather than what they've actually read.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Wow. That's even worse than your "it was all a joke' rationalization. You're reaching new lows now. You mean to tell me that the most important thing in solar atmospheric physics and the "hottest thing" in magnetosphere activity was so boring from Alfven's perspective that he never choose to write a single paper on the topic? That's a terrible rationalization.

I showed you sentences and speeches where he bluntly states "Of course they can be no magnetic merging", and you can't show me a single positive thing he ever wrote about it? See any GLARING problems with your rationalization?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I have highlighted some key words.

Only the "fundy" haters like you think they understand plasma physics based on what they get via clairvoyance rather than what they've actually read.

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

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have highlighted some key words.

Your experiment doesn't demonstrate what you claim. It only demonstrates ordinary magnetic attraction/repulsion and you've made ZERO EFFORT to differentiate between them in your experiment. Epic fail.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Once again you have no idea what 'it' is. The 'it'' in the speech was the application of the frozen-in field concept. This is made clear in the first sentence:

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept.

Alfven's opinion (IMO) was correct. At the time the concept was being applied too widely.

The rest of your remark though is about the science. Alfven's limits, etc. have been made moot by scientific progress. The wide-spread use of resistive MHD (rather than Alfven's ideal MHD) has reduced the usage of the frozen-in field approximation.

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

On Frozen-In Field Lines and Field-Line Reconnection, Alfven 1979 (PDF)
The first four chapters describing a gedanken experiment with a stationary magnetic field have nothing to do with magnetic reconnection.
The rest is him stating what he says in his speech 6 years later - the frozen-in field concept is valid in special cases, which no one disagrees with.

Your statement that Aflven rejected MR theory is wrong since he never says this about MR theory.
Your statement that Alfvén completely rejected the frozen-in field concept is wrong since his own words say that it is applicable in some cases. In his speech he says that it may be applicable to the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region:

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse.

An aside: I am not even sure that his description of the frozen-in field concept as pseudo-science is pseudoscience. He calls a plasma with a frozen-in field a 'pseudo-plasma'. So an obvious extension is that any science involving a 'pseudo-plasma' is 'pseudo-science'.

 

[Reality Check]

Your experiment doesn't demonstrate what you claim. It only demonstrates ordinary magnetic attraction/repulsion and you've made ZERO EFFORT to differentiate between them in your experiment. Epic fail.

Epic fail, MM: The experiment measures the magnetic field lines produced by the 4 rods. That is why it needs a magnetometer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Epic fail, MM: The experiment measures the magnetic field lines produced by the 4 rods. That is why it needs a magnetometer.

How did you eliminate ordinary attraction and repulsion as the culprit?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I have highlighted some key words.

Your experiment doesn't demonstrate what you claim. It only demonstrates ordinary magnetic attraction/repulsion and you've made ZERO EFFORT to differentiate between them in your experiment. Epic fail.

You're wrong.

Being wrong is one of your most consistent traits. In this case, as in so many others, you're wrong because you're just guessing.

Why do you have to guess so often? My guess is that you

• overestimate your own knowledge of math and physics,
• fail to recognize others' knowledge of math and physics,
• and fail to recognize the extremity of your scientific inadequacy.

I am, of course, paraphrasing Justin Kruger and David Dunning. They say your situation is not hopeless: With training, you might eventually come to recognize and even to admit your plight.

So we shouldn't give up on you.

By the way, you can use a backpacker's compass in lieu of a magnetometer. The swing of its needle will demonstrate magnetic reconnection quite adequately.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your statement that Alfvén completely rejected the frozen-in field concept is wrong since his own words say that it is applicable in some cases. In his speech he says that it may be applicable to the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region:

You seem to be ignoring the fact I don't need your MR theory to explain EM transactions inside of a double layer. Alfven already did that WITHOUT MR theory. He did that a FULL DECADE AFTER that paper you cited. You're also ignoring the fact that he explicitly REJECTS it in LIGHT plasmas like we find in the CORONA. He also rejected the idea in all current carrying plasma and Alfven also believed that the corona was a current carrying plasma! He also explains the very same events like FLARES and MAGNETOSPHERIC ACTIVITY in terms of circuit theory. This is just sad watching you two grasp at straws like this. I've see pathetic attempts to rewrite history before RC, but you two are in a league of your own.

 

[Michael Mozina]

By the way, you can use a backpacker's compass in lieu of a magnetometer. The swing of its needle will demonstrate magnetic reconnection quite adequately.

What's your control mechanism Clinger? How did you systematically eliminate ordinary attraction/repulsion from consideration?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're wrong.

Being wrong is one of your most consistent traits. In this case, as in so many others, you're wrong because you're just guessing.

Wow! That was truly an irony overload coming from a guy who's never bothered to even read Cosmic Plasma for themselves. Talk about "guessing".

 

[W.D.Clinger]

By the way, you can use a backpacker's compass in lieu of a magnetometer. The swing of its needle will demonstrate magnetic reconnection quite adequately.

What's your control mechanism Clinger? How did you systematically eliminate ordinary attraction/repulsion from consideration?

Why should you expect me to "systematically eliminate ordinary attraction/repulsion from consideration?" Are you unaware that the magnetic field is defined in terms of the forces you describe as "ordinary attraction/repulsion"? Are you unaware that the dynamics of the "ordinary attraction/repulsion" you experience when pulling two magnets apart probably involves some kind of magnetic reconnection? Are you really that ignorant of the everyday phenomenon you believe Alfvén was dismissing as pseudoscience?

(Those are rhetorical questions. I already know their answers.)

 

[Reality Check]

You seem to be ignoring the fact I don't need your MR theory to explain EM transactions inside of a double layer.

You are ignoring the fact that your "EM transactions inside of a double layer" are not described by MR theory.

MR theory does not describe double layers at all. It describes magnetic reconection.
Duh !

I am not ignoring that fact that Alfvén's opinion was that the frozen-in field approximation should not be applied to LIGHT plasmas like we find in the CORONA.
I am not ignoring that fact that Alfvén's opinion was that the frozen-in field approximation may be applied to DENSE plasmas like we find in the SOLAR INTERIOR and PHOTOSPHERE.

These 2 opinions from Alfvén mean that he never rejected the actual concept - just its application in specific cases.

Alfvén also explains the very same events like FLARES and MAGNETOSPHERIC ACTIVITY in terms of circuit models. That is an approximation that only gives wide-scale properties like total energy releases.

 

[Reality Check]

How did you eliminate ordinary attraction and repulsion as the culprit?

That is idiotic: Eliminate the 'ordinary attraction and repulsion" and you do not have any experiment!
The magnetic fields are how you measure the 'ordinary attraction and repulsion'.
Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo by Tim Thompson on 21st May 2011 explains this:

Yes & No. Magnetic attraction is the direct consequence of magnetic field lines connecting the two poles that are attracted. Magnetic repulsion is a direct result of the magnetic field lines pushing each other away from the poles that are repelling each other. So if you move the magnetic poles from repulsion to attraction, you are moving from a regime where no magnetic field lines cross or connect at all, into a regime where all of the magnetic field lines connect from one pole to the other. These two states are easily demonstrated the old fashioned way, by putting bar magnets under paper with iron filings on them. Anyone can do this and literally see the field lines in both the repelling & attracting, unconnected & connected states, right in front of them. That magnetic reconnection must necessarily happen under such circumstances, in vacuo, is obvious.

All you do is measure the magnetic fields and trace how the apology changes over time. The fields reconnecting are a magnetic reconnection event by definition!

Then there are fridge magnets:
The Man 26th January 2010

MM, take a couple of refrigerator magnets (the flat rectangular business card or credit card company types), they have alternating north south stripes (generally running vertically). If you place two back to back and slide them across each other you will feel those magnetic stripes alternately repelling and attracting each other. When you feel it switching from resisting the sliding to that sliding being easier (and being pulled in that direction) that is magnetic reconnection as field lines from the stripes on one refrigerator magnet reconnect to the next stripes on the other refrigerator magnet. No “magic magnets”, just what magnets do and reconnection that you can experience in your own kitchen or home. You could do the same thing with a compass and a magnet, the compass needle being itself a small magnet. When the magnet is far from the compass the needle is connected to the earths magnetic field as you bring the magnet closer to the compass at some point the felid of the needle reconnects to that of the magnet and the compass points at the magnet. Move the magnet away from the compass and the field of the needle will reconnect to the magnetic field of the earth. Repeat as many times as you feel necessary until you stop believing in "magic magnets".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why should you expect me to "systematically eliminate ordinary attraction/repulsion from consideration?" Are you unaware that the magnetic field is defined in terms of the forces you describe as "ordinary attraction/repulsion"? Are you unaware that the dynamics of the "ordinary attraction/repulsion" you experience when pulling two magnets apart probably involves some kind of magnetic reconnection? Are you really that ignorant of the everyday phenomenon you believe Alfvén was dismissing as pseudoscience?

(Those are rhetorical questions. I already know their answers.)

I have asked you on NUMEROUS occasions to supply a PUBLISHED PAPER that supports ANY of your handwavy claims. When can I expect you to provide a published paper by Alfven that supports "magnetic reconnection" theory? When did you intend to provide a PUBLISHED PAPER to support your claim about your so called "experiment"? (Those are rhetorical questions. I already know their answers.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are ignoring the fact that your "EM transactions inside of a double layer" are not described by MR theory.

MR theory does not describe double layers at all. It describes magnetic reconection.
Duh !

I am not ignoring that fact that Alfvén's opinion was that the frozen-in field approximation should not be applied to LIGHT plasmas like we find in the CORONA.
I am not ignoring that fact that Alfvén's opinion was that the frozen-in field approximation may be applied to DENSE plasmas like we find in the SOLAR INTERIOR and PHOTOSPHERE.

The irony here is that your own bait and switch experiments demonstrate that you are NOT performing them in 'DENSE plasmas", nor in "non current carrying environments. You are therefore VIOLATING all the KEY ELEMENTS that you claim Alfven supported! IRONY OVERLOAD!

I swear, I've seen denial before, and I've even seen YEC's in HARD CORE DENIAL, but you and Clinger are in a class by yourselves. Alfven REJECTED every single one of your experiments because you FAILED to meet any of his requirements. Deal with it.

 

[Tubbythin]

I have asked you on NUMEROUS occasions to supply a PUBLISHED PAPER that supports ANY of your handwavy claims. When can I expect you to provide a published paper by Alfven that supports "magnetic reconnection" theory? When did you intend to provide a PUBLISHED PAPER to support your claim about your so called "experiment"? (Those are rhetorical questions. I already know their answers.)

You want a published paper on the ordinary behaviour of fridge magnets and compass needles?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You want a published paper on the ordinary behaviour of fridge magnets and compass needles?

I want one that claims that such behavior is an example of "magnetic reconnection". It seems you folks can not even differentiate between 'solid magnet reconnection' and "magnetic reconnection", not to mention "current reconnection" from magnetic reconnection. You certainly can't differentiate between ordinary induction and "magnetic reconnection" at the level of actual particle physics. It seems you'll slap that term on just about anything you see.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising

False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising. Truth refers to essentially the same concept, that customers have the right to know what they are buying, and that all necessary information should be on the label.

When you folks get to the lab, you fail to provide any control mechanism to differentiate between ordinary "double layer transactions" as Alfven described them WITHOUT magnetic reconnection, and what you're calling 'magnetic reconnection'. The vast majority of the experiments you have cited begin inside of LIGHT, current carrying plasmas, violating all of Alfven's constraints on the concept pf MR theory. Every single one of them requires "electricity' to operate, and not one of them provides a control mechanisms to differentiate between ordinary plasma interactions in a double layer as described in Alfven's double layer paper and your so called "magnetic reconnection".

IMO this is about a blatant of an example of "false advertising" as I've ever seen in the field of astronomy. It's one thing to be chasing your dark energy rainbows in the sky, but this stuff is just OVER THE TOP! IMO your experiments are pathetically incapable of distinguishing between ANYTHING Alfven wrote about double layer behaviors and your beliefs. The consumer doesn't need "magnetic reconnection" to explain double layer transactions. They've already been explained by Alfven himself. What in the world makes you think you're not just wasting tax payer money on this clearly "bait and switch" process? I mean you've CLEARLY spent time "dumbing down" the mathematics to REMOVE ALL EVIDENCE of the E field that powers the actual experiment. How blatant can you be?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising



When you folks get to the lab, you fail to provide any control mechanism to differentiate between ordinary "double layer transactions" as Alfven described them WITHOUT magnetic reconnection, and what you're calling 'magnetic reconnection'. The vast majority of the experiments you have cited begin inside of LIGHT, current carrying plasmas, violating all of Alfven's constraints on the concept pf MR theory. Every single one of them requires "electricity' to operate, and not one of them provides a control mechanisms to differentiate between ordinary plasma interactions in a double layer as described in Alfven's double layer paper and your so called "magnetic reconnection".

IMO this is about a blatant of an example of "false advertising" as I've ever seen in the field of astronomy. It's one thing to be chasing your dark energy rainbows in the sky, but this stuff is just OVER THE TOP! IMO your experiments are pathetically incapable of distinguishing between ANYTHING Alfven wrote about double layer behaviors and your beliefs. The consumer doesn't need "magnetic reconnection" to explain double layer transactions. They've already been explained by Alfven himself. What in the world makes you think you're not just wasting tax payer money on this clearly "bait and switch" process? I mean you've CLEARLY spent time "dumbing down" the mathematics to REMOVE ALL EVIDENCE of the E field that powers the actual experiment. How blatant can you be?

The point's been made - multiple times, by many people, over several years - that you, MM:

a) do not understand what you read
b) mis-represent what you read
c) do not grok that physics (etc) for the last several hundred years is founded on math
d) do not 'get' math
e) have failed - spectacularly - to convince anyone of the validity of your ideas.

It's also been pointed out - again several times, by several people, over several years - that the two primary values your posts have are:

1) to permit others who do understand (etc) to write highly educational material (putting the 'E' into JREF), for the benefit of other readers
2) amusement, comic/light relief, etc.

I won't even attempt to place a rank on just how amusing and outrageous this statement of yours is, but I'm sure that even you, MM, can see how it comes across to nearly every reader: "When you folks get to the lab, you fail to provide any control mechanism to differentiate between ..."

Remind me, again, please: what labs have you seen the inside of, as a researcher?

Keep up the good work Mikey, one of the certainties of my day is that I will, again, be highly amused by your posts when I take a look at them in a coffee break.