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

[Michael Mozina]

If you read it and understood basic physics, you wouldn't be claiming that induction is fast enough for solar flares just because the EXPERIMENTAL time scales are small.

They EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRATED (even by my standards) that induction *IS* fast enough and IS the actual energy exchange mechanism! All you have to do is scale the size of the double layer! Your whole argument just went up in smoke in the lab. They even provided you with those maths you claim to love so much. They involve INDUCTION, not "magnetic reconnection". Sorry, you've actually empirically PROVEN that induction did it.

 

[Reality Check]

No, the double layer just needs to be scaled to size.

This has nothing to do with DL's being scaled.
It is the plasma physics that has to be scaled.

You're still IGNORING the fact they USED INDUCTION to explain the energy exchange process,
...lies anout INDUCTION in the paper...

You are WRONG: I am not IGNORING that fact INDUCTION is mentioned in Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment (1982) PDF

But you are IGNORING that the lab plasma is much smaller than a solar flare
Magnetic Reconnection Redux V on 31st December 2009

 

[Michael Mozina]

This has nothing to do with DL's being scaled.
It is the plasma physics that has to be scaled.

 

[Reality Check]

They EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRATED (even by my standards) that induction *IS* fast enough and IS the actual energy exchange mechanism! All you have to do is scale the size of the double layer! Your whole argument just went up in smoke in the lab.

They EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRATED (even by my standards) that induction *IS* fast enough and IS the actual energy exchange mechanism on the length scales of the lab plasma!

All you have to do is scale the size of the plasma and see that the time scale of the induction is millions of years!

Your whole argument is just a load of ignorance because you still cannot understand: Magnetic Reconnection Redux V on 31st December 2009 .

 

[Tim Thompson]

Solar Flares & Double Layers: The Saga Continues

Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment (1982) PDF
DLs forming after magnetic reconnection causes current disruptions as described in the introduction and throughout the paper.

You really should read your own links once in awhile RC. This particular one pretty much blows your entire "induction is too slow" argument out of the water by the way, not to mention the fact that you're outright ignoring the actual sequence of events.

FYI, I don't recall ever reading that particular paper on current sheet disruptions, but it's one of the best written papers I've read on this topic to date. It's a pity you don't understand it, or how it blows your "induction is too slow" argument out of the water. It's an EXTREMELY well written, and clearly explained paper.

OK: "EXTREMELY well written, and clearly explained". So I assume you had no problem understanding this part:

Using magnetic probes with a digital data acquisition system the transverse magnetic field topology is mapped point by point by repeating the experiment (t_rep ≈ 2 sec). Figure 1a shows that during the current rise (t ≤ 80 µsec) the self-consistent reconnection of magnetic field lines in a plasma [Dungey, 1958] establishes a neutral line (B ≈ 0 for -25 ≤ x ≤ 20 cm; z ≈ 0). [...] This configuration models the relevant reconnection geometry in the magnetotail and forms the basis of our current disruption experiment.

So, do you or do you not agree with the explicit statement by the authors that (a) magnetic reconnection happened in their experiment, and (b) magnetic reconnection happens in Earth's magnetotail plasma?

The current sheet shown in figure 1a is what forms the double layer, and the current sheet is the site of magnetic reconnection (c.f., Stenzel, Gekelman & Wild, 1983). So without magnetic reconnection there would be no current sheet and there would be no double layer. It's all right there in the paper.

All you have to do is scale the size of the double layer! Your whole argument just went up in smoke in the lab. They even provided you with those maths you claim to love so much. They involve INDUCTION, not "magnetic reconnection". Sorry, you've actually empirically PROVEN that induction did it.

No you can't "just scale the size of the double layer", and the only thing they proved in this experiment is that they could make double layers a few centimeters across accelerate charged particles over a few tens of volts. But as has already been pointed out to you many times now, over a few years, magnetic induction cannot possibly power solar flares all by itself, physics does not allow it. You can't make one big fat double layer to power a solar flare all by itself since double layers in current carrying plasmas become unstable too quickly to allow it (e.g., Volwerk & Kuijpers, 1994). And you don't have time to create a whole bunch of double layers in succession, the time scale of the flare itself is much too short to allow it.

The 1982 paper you refer to does not by any stretch "prove" anything about solar flare mechanisms, and the authors knew that when they said in their abstract: "These laboratory observations qualitatively support recent models of magnetic substorms and solar flares.". Their use of the word "qualitative" instead of the word "quantitative" does prove that they knew you could not simply scale up the size of the double layer, or they would have said so explicitly, since it would obviously strengthen their argument. All they are really doing is pointing out that double layers in a laboratory plasma can lead to charged particle acceleration, which a mechanism that was used in solar flare models at the time; a "qualitative" connection between their experiment and real solar flares. If it were possible to play fast & loose with "scaling up" the size of the double layer, these authors would have done that, and thereby changed their argument from "qualitative" to "quantitative", the latter being a much stronger position.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK: "EXTREMELY well written, and clearly explained".

Very clearly explained in fact. A little too clearly for your liking I'm afraid. Somewhere in these threads you explained MATHEMATICALLY what is "unique" about "magnetic reconnection" and what makes it different (from induction). Which formulas did these authors use to explain the energy transfer process Tim, induction formulas, or the ones you claimed were specifically related to "magnetic reconnection"? Just a simple answer will do.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, RC was kind enough to provide the link to your "magnetic reconnection" maths in his last post so you shouldn't have any trouble finding them.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

Ah, another hater comes out of the woodwork. Whats wrong Nereid, you haven't had any good heretic burnings over at BAUT recently?

Have you even personally read Cosmic Plasma yet? When did I first recommend you read that book? Let me guess? You're a clairvoyant physicist too?

How does it go? An internet connection, $20 a month; reading MM's hilarious posts, priceless!

That you did not respond to a) and b) is not surprising (after all, you've spent thousands of posts desperately trying - but failing - to convince others otherwise)

That you did not respond to c) and d) is also not surprising; it is, however, rather disturbing. I mean, if you so fundamentally disagree with the foundations of physics (astronomy, etc) that have been in place for several centuries, surely you'd have twigged to the necessity of moving the discussion to said foundations, shouldn't you?

I guess the most charitable inference is ... (see below).

That you did not respond to e) is rather surprising ... unless (see below).

Cosmic Plasma contains errors; all book-length publications do.

Some of those errors are mere typos; suppose I were to say that I'd found a typo somewhere on a page that contains no math, in the first ten pages of the book. I do not doubt that you'd be able to find it (given enough time). However, if I said there was a typo in a formula in some part of the book, I'd be astonished if you could find it, even if I gave you a small page range!

Now I've no need to do this exercise; you've already demonstrated - in spades - that you cannot understand the (math) contents of a much longer book, one that is as dear to your heart (the author is a certain Birkeland).

Doesn't this abject failure cause you pause?

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.

Well, at least I'm entertaining which is more than I can say for you.

Here is the 'below': thanks for the confirmation, MM. I now understand that your primary intention, in posting in this part of JREF, is to entertain. You are - or would like to be - a comedian, with a rather unusual choice of comic material.

So, thanks for all the laughs.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, thanks for all the laughs.

I really think you aught to spend your time and all your mathematical talent helping Tim answer my last question instead of attacking individuals. He got real quite, real fast. I think he needs your help.

It seems you folks love to dodge the *DIFFICULT* (show busting) questions by attacking the individual. What pathetic cult-like hater behavior. What's wrong Nereid, did you already burn all the really entertaining heretics at the stake at BAUT? Come here trolling have you?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I really think you aught to spend your time and all your mathematical talent helping Tim answer my last question instead of attacking individuals. He got real quite, real fast. I think he needs your help.

Unlikely.

I, however, am in need of your help so I can understand your point. I read the post you mentioned, but I have no idea what formulas you might mean by the highlighted phrase below.

Very clearly explained in fact. A little too clearly for your liking I'm afraid. Somewhere in these threads you explained MATHEMATICALLY what is "unique" about "magnetic reconnection" and what makes it different (from induction). Which formulas did these authors use to explain the energy transfer process Tim, induction formulas, or the ones you claimed were specifically related to "magnetic reconnection"? Just a simple answer will do.

Magnetic reconnection is a matter of topology, not formulas of vector calculus.

At this point, my best guess is that you saw a discussion of magnetic reconnection on page 1 of the paper followed by extensive references to induction within the same experiment, and misinterpreted that proximity as confirmation of your belief that magnetic reconnection and induction are the same thing.

 

[Krikkiter]

Hi all,

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Although I understand very little regarding the hard science of this thread (and I apologise if I'm disrupting things with my lack of knowledge), I'd just like to say thanks to everyone for stimulating my interest.

The one comment I'd like to make is that this thread should be presented as evidence that Critical Thinking 101 should be mandatory in all high schools.

Thanks again.

Krikkiter.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Hi all,

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Although I understand very little regarding the hard science of this thread (and I apologise if I'm disrupting things with my lack of knowledge), I'd just like to say thanks to everyone for stimulating my interest.

Thank you.

As a long time lurker, you know our habitual state of knowledge is "lack" (which we reveal in hope of altering that state).

 

[dasmiller]

(and I apologise if I'm disrupting things with my lack of knowledge)

Not to worry; it's been demonstrated repeatedly that one cannot disrupt this thread with a lack of knowledge.

 

[Krikkiter]

:
As a long time lurker, you know our habitual state of knowledge is "lack" (which we reveal in hope of altering that state).

Seems like this is the case for most people. Kind of inspiring when those with so much obvious knowledge are willing to admit they lack.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[Krikkiter]

Not to worry; it's been demonstrated repeatedly that one cannot disrupt this thread with a lack of knowledge.

Makes for some great entertainment.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I really think you aught to spend your time and all your mathematical talent helping Tim answer my last question instead of attacking individuals. He got real quite, real fast. I think he needs your help.

You're doing a great job MM, your comedy lines are very effective (at producing laughs, that is)!

It seems you folks love to dodge the *DIFFICULT* (show busting) questions by attacking the individual.

And this one's even better!!

I particularly like the sheer chutzpah of claiming that your questions are "show busting". Combine this with the wide range of tactics you've used to dodge the questions that bust your show ... it's a command performance, MM.

Have you considered giving Leno a call?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're doing a great job MM, your comedy lines are very effective (at producing laughs, that is)!



And this one's even better!!

I particularly like the sheer chutzpah of claiming that your questions are "show busting". Combine this with the wide range of tactics you've used to dodge the questions that bust your show ... it's a command performance, MM.

Have you considered giving Leno a call?

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I said in the last post. You folks have a habit of defecting the conversation from the issue (my question) by attacking the individual. The EU haters cult is fixated on attacking individuals to the COMPLETE EXCLUSION of physics.

Let me explain why it's a "show busting" question for you. Those three authors understood that "reconnection" is "discharge" process caused by "INDUCTION". They even mention Dungey's work, including his ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE paper. They even mention AND USE Alfven's work on double layer induction processes in the double layer.

Worse yet for you folks, they DEMONSTRATE that the actual CAUSE of particle acceleration is INDUCTION. You folks just blew your own case. There is nothing "special" about "magnetic reconnection", or "magnetic flux". These are euphemistic terms for "induction driven discharge" and "field aligned currents".

At the level of mathematics and physics, that last paper clearly demonstrates that that what you're calling "reconnection" directly related to INDUCTION. It's an "explosive release of stored (circuit) energy", namely an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE! MR theory is utterly redundant and unnecessary in current carrying plasma.

FYI, you'd already know all this too if you actually bothered to educate yourself and read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma instead of arguing from ignorance for YEARS ON END!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hi all,

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Although I understand very little regarding the hard science of this thread (and I apologise if I'm disrupting things with my lack of knowledge), I'd just like to say thanks to everyone for stimulating my interest.

The one comment I'd like to make is that this thread should be presented as evidence that Critical Thinking 101 should be mandatory in all high schools.

Thanks again.

Krikkiter.

Welcome to the party.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not to worry; it's been demonstrated repeatedly that one cannot disrupt this thread with a lack of knowledge.

Amen brother, Amen!

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, do you or do you not agree with the explicit statement by the authors that (a) magnetic reconnection happened in their experiment, and (b) magnetic reconnection happens in Earth's magnetotail plasma?

I was in a rush to get out the door on Friday and I missed a couple of key points I'd like to comment on.

Sure, I'll let you call it "reconnection" as long as you agree with Dungey that such events are also called "electrical discharges". I've already offered to meet you in the middle Tim. What else can I do?

The current sheet shown in figure 1a is what forms the double layer, and the current sheet is the site of magnetic reconnection (c.f., Stenzel, Gekelman & Wild, 1983). So without magnetic reconnection there would be no current sheet and there would be no double layer. It's all right there in the paper.

No! The whole "experiment" is powered by "electrical current" Tim, not "magnetic reconnection". There is already PARTICLE KINETIC ENERGY flowing through the ENTIRE EXPERIMENT. What you're euphemistically calling a "reconnection" event is an INDUCTION driven process that releases CIRCUIT ENERGY at the point of the DISCHARGE.

You ABSOLUTELY have to "scale the double layer" Tim. That's what PLASMAS DO! Of course it's an "unstable process". That is because it's a "discharge" process as Dungey clearly explained too! You want to pick and choose and only listen to HALF of Dungey's explanation.