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

[Reality Check]

Nope....

Nope. The magnetic reconnection experiments experiment on .... magnetic reconnection !
This is basic English MM.

 

[Reality Check]

In terms of many of the papers, particularly Priest's monopole paper, that's EXACTLY what he meant.

Can you cite Priest's monopole paper?

I hope that you have not returned to your earlier confusion:

It is not Priest's paper - it is Priest's book that you have been ignoring for over a year:
Magnetic Reconnection Redux V, 30 December 2009

And what do 'monopoles' have to do with this thread other than you arguing from wither incredibility or maybe ignorance?

 

[Reality Check]

Priest was the one that tried to do magic tricks with "monopoles" as I recall.

Let us see if your memory is as bad as you knowledge of physics .
Citation for Priest's 'magic tricks with "monopoles"'.

ETA
Maybe this other forum post

Magnetic Reconnection by E.R. Priest and T. Forbes

More specifically, this statement in the paragraph spanning pages 133 and 134:

"Thus, if the inflow field is potential, the distortion may be regarded as being produced by a series of monopole sources along the x axis between |x|=L and |x|=Le, say."

This does not sound like actual monopoles (which may or may not exist) but a mathematical treatment of the distortions.

And if you want an actual Priest paper: The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field, Demoulin, P.; Priest, E. R. (1992) (PDF)

In a highly conducting plasma, the magnetic field topology determines where, for example, current sheets can form, which is of great importance as a potential coronal heating source. With the classical extrapolation of a continuous weak photospheric field, the determination of topology is in general a difficult challenge. Because of the concentration of the photospheric field at intense flux tubes in supergranulation boundaries a more realistic field representation may be a description in terms of magnetic singularities located just below the photosphere. In this paper we analyze in detail the generalization to linear force-free fields of the standard multipole expansion for singular potential fields. Solutions are presented in spherical coordinates with the constraint that all singularities are located in the half-space z is less than 0 below the solar photospheric plane (z = 0). A great variety of solutions is shown to exist depending on two continuous and one discrete parameter. The properties of monopole and dipole solutions in particular are discussed and it is shown that isolated magnetic charges exist only in the potential limit and not in a linear force-free field.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Nope, that's your problem, not mine. I understand ATTRACTION and REPULSION. That's clearly further than you got.

Clearer to you than to anyone else, I'm afraid.

If you can't find a paper that corroborates your claim about your so called "experiment" being an example of "magnetic reconnection", then your claim *IS A LIE*. I'll stand by that claim when I call you a liar.

I have never claimed that the experiment I suggested is described by a published paper. Indeed, I have explained why I think it is unlikely to appear within any published paper.

In other words, you're threatening to call me a liar because I have told no lies.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let us see if your memory is as bad as you knowledge of physics .
Citation for Priest's 'magic tricks with "monopoles"'.

ETA
Maybe this other forum post

This does not sound like actual monopoles (which may or may not exist) but a mathematical treatment of the distortions.

Nothing like violating the laws of physics to attempt to hide the fact that CURRENT does all the actual work, "charged particles" carry the kinetic energy, and the FLUX in the "magnetic line" he described is a direct result of that CURRENT.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Clearer to you than to anyone else, I'm afraid.


I have never claimed that the experiment I suggested is described by a published paper. Indeed, I have explained why I think it is unlikely to appear within any published paper.

In other words, you're threatening to call me a liar because I have told no lies.

No, I'm calling you a liar because you have repeatedly and consistently tried to pass off an "attraction/repulsion" process as an example of 'magnetic reconnection'. You can't find a printed example to support your erroneous claim because there ISN'T one, never was one, and never will be one.

 

[Reality Check]

Nothing like violating the laws of physics to attempt to hide the fact that CURRENT does all the actual work, "charged particles" carry the kinetic energy, and the FLUX in the "magnetic line" he described is a direct result of that CURRENT.

Nothing like displaying your ignorance to display your ignorance!
There is no violation of physcs in Magnetic Reconnection by E.R. Priest and T. Forbes

The laws of physics state that the MAGNETIC FIELD does all the actual work, "charged particles" carry the kinetic energy WHICH IS A SMALL PART OF THE TOTAL ENERGY THE REST OF WHICH IS CARRIED IN THE MAGNETIC FIELD , and the FLUX in the "magnetic line" he described is a direct result of that MAGNETIC FIELD (a clue - magnetic flux).

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it does not. (At any rate, my copy of the first edition doesn't mention magnetic reconnection.) Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics (third edition) doesn't seem to mention it either.

How many times do they mention "magnetic attraction" or "magnetic repulsion" Clinger?

 

[Michael Mozina]

How about "induction"? Do they mention that?

 

[Reality Check]

How about "induction"? Do they mention that?

Priest & Forbes do: Magnetic Reconnection Redux V, 30 December 2009
A pity you continue to be unable to understand the physics that means that solar flares cannot produce their energy through induction.

 

[Reality Check]

How many times do they mention "magnetic attraction" or "magnetic repulsion" Clinger?

How many times will we have to explain basic electromagnetism to you, Michael Mozina?
My guess is forever unless you surprise us and actually learn that magnetic attraction and repulsion are described by magnetic fields
See the force between magnets Wikipedia article

Magnetic force due to non-uniform magnetic field
Magnets are drawn into regions of higher magnetic field. The simplest example of this is the attraction of opposite poles of two magnets. Every magnet produces a magnetic field that is stronger near its poles. If opposite poles of two separate magnets are facing each other, each of the magnets are drawn into the stronger magnetic field near the pole of the other. If like poles are facing each other though, they are repulsed from the larger magnetic field.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If you can't find a paper that corroborates your claim about your so called "experiment" being an example of "magnetic reconnection", then your claim *IS A LIE*. I'll stand by that claim when I call you a liar.

In other words, you're threatening to call me a liar because I have told no lies.

No, I'm calling you a liar because you have repeatedly and consistently tried to pass off an "attraction/repulsion" process as an example of 'magnetic reconnection'. You can't find a printed example to support your erroneous claim because there ISN'T one, never was one, and never will be one.

In other words, you called me a liar because you don't understand freshman-level electromagnetism.

How many times do they mention "magnetic attraction" or "magnetic repulsion" Clinger?

Those terms do not appear in the indexes to Purcell's (first edition) or Jackson's (third edition) textbooks.

On the other hand, both of those indexes include entries for diamagnetism, paramagnetism, and ferromagnetism. Is that what you mean by "magnetic attraction" or "magnetic repulsion"? Jackson discusses those things on pages 15 and 16. Purcell discusses them in chapter 10, which may give you some idea of the difference between freshman-level electromagnetism and a more advanced course in electrodynamics.

Unfortunately for you, both Purcell's and Jackson's discussions of those things assume their readers already understand the concepts of magnetic flux density and magnetic flux, which Purcell (first edition) discusses in chapter 6 and section 7.3. So long as you cling to your belief that magnetic flux is a euphemism for field-aligned currents, you will remain unable to understand diamagnetism/paramagnetism/ferromagnetism at the freshman level.

How about "induction"? Do they mention that?

Yes. Once again, both Purcell and Jackson use the concepts of magnetic flux density and magnetic flux to discuss induction. So long as you cling to your belief that magnetic flux is a euphemism for field-aligned currents, you will remain unable to understand induction at the freshman level.

So long as you remain unable to understand induction at the freshman level, I doubt whether you will be able to comprehend that induction is not the same thing as magnetic reconnection.

Calling me a liar will not diminish your ignorance. I recommend you do something more productive, such as reading Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In other words, you called me a liar because you don't understand freshman-level electromagnetism.

No. You're a liar because it's *YOU* that doesn't understand freshman-level electromagnetism. If you did, you would have ACKNOWLEDGED your mistake. Since you refuse to do so, you're wearing your error like a badge of honor.

Unfortunately for you, both Purcell's and Jackson's discussions of those things assume their readers already understand the concepts of magnetic flux density and magnetic flux, which Purcell (first edition) discusses in chapter 6 and section 7.3.

That's fine until you or Priest start claiming that "monopoles did it".

 

[Michael Mozina]

A pity you continue to be unable to understand the physics that means that solar flares cannot produce their energy through induction.

It's a pity you don't read or understand your own references.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Ask Peratt whether your 'electrical discharges in plasma' assertion is correct

It's a pity you don't read or understand your own references.

A pity that you are lying:
I read what Tim Thompson quoted Priest & Forbes
Magnetic Reconnection Redux V on 30 December 2009

The conversion of magnetic energy into a current always operates on a time-scale characteristic of the system, and that time scale is controlled by the ability of the magnetic field to move through the conductor, in order to create a dB/dt term from which the current is generated. That time-scale in a plasma is rather different than it is for a fixed conductor. Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes:

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6
​

All of this occurs in the first few pages of the book, but evidently Mozina has not even bothered to look at it.

The quote is easy to understand. I understood it on 30 December 2009. I understand it now.

Or are you projecting your own inability to understand references on me, e.g. Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge which you have to quote mine in order to fit your assertion about electrical discharges in plasma.

Which reminds me:
MM: Ask Peratt whether your 'electrical discharges in plasma' assertion is correct!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In other words, you called me a liar because you don't understand freshman-level electromagnetism.

No. You're a liar because it's *YOU* that doesn't understand freshman-level electromagnetism. If you did, you would have ACKNOWLEDGED your mistake. Since you refuse to do so, you're wearing your error like a badge of honor.

Oh, this is priceless!

MM, do you appreciate just how hilarious what you write is?

Suggestion: try adding 'they laughed at Galileo too' to your routine, it's sure to get a few extra laughs.

Remember when I said this, a while ago? "The point's been made - multiple times, by many people, over several years - that you, MM: [...] e) have failed - spectacularly - to convince anyone of the validity of your ideas."

What I'm about to say will come as no surprise to you, nor - most likely - to most of the regulars on this thread; however, for many lurkers and newbies it will. Indeed, it may even be quite shocking.

The Thunderdolts Forum is THE place to hang out, if you are an Electric Universe (EU) fan. It too is quite a good place to go for light relief. In terms of their standards for acceptance of whacky, crackpot, nonsense ideas ... well, let's just say that they're not very discriminating, and the their bar is set extremely low.

Now you'd expect that they'd welcome your crazy ideas, MM, with open arms, especially since you are loud in your proclamations as to them being EU. But no. In fact, they devote considerable effort to making it quite clear they regard MM's pet ideas as quite unacceptable: link1, link2, link3, link4, link5. Ouch!

 

[ben m]

Now you'd expect that they'd welcome your crazy ideas, MM, with open arms, especially since you are loud in your proclamations as to them being EU. But no. In fact, they devote considerable effort to making it quite clear they regard MM's pet ideas as quite unacceptable: link1, link2, link3, link4, link5. Ouch!

That's hilarious. Their reasons for rejecting Iron Sun are just as crackpotty as the Iron Sun itself. It's like watching Time Cube get refuted by Harold Camping.

What else is funny? This makes me realize I've actually seen Oliver Manuel in person. I saw a crackpot talking about solar-wind metal abundances give a contributed talk at an APS meeting. (Usually APS quarantines them in an all-crackpot side session, but the scheduling always forces a few out into the open---or, worse, forces a real talk into the crackpot room. This was an example of the former.)

Reading the above reminded me of this talk, so I looked up the meeting, and---there he is!

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR03/APR03/baps/abs/S4090010.html

It's him! The man himself. What a terrible talk. I don't remember anything else from the session, but I remember this vaguely muttered pile of nonsense. I remember that someone in the audience tried to ask a question. Am I misremembering that Manuel is the one who made the session chair wheel out the transparency projector?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, this is priceless!

MM, do you appreciate just how hilarious what you write is?

It's rather hilarious to me that you personally won't lift a finger to help poor confused Clinger find a paper or a freshman text book that claims his so called "experiment" is an example of "magnetic reconnection". One paper, and you'd be able to prove your whole point about me Nereid! What's the problem? This is finally your chance to prove everything you said about me is true. Aren't you going to demonstrate your point?

Now you'd expect that they'd welcome your crazy ideas, MM, with open arms, especially since you are loud in your proclamations as to them being EU. But no. In fact, they devote considerable effort to making it quite clear they regard MM's pet ideas as quite unacceptable: link1, link2, link3, link4, link5. Ouch!

Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news Nereid, but evidently their primary "complaint" with Manual's theory seems to relate to the makeup of the core, and their personal aversion to "neutron stars" and internal solar power sources in general. In case you didn't notice my website, and Birkeland's solar model actually uses a different (fission) core. So sorry to disappoint you. Unlike Manual, I'm not emotionally attached to a neutron core. I entertain a variety of internal power sources including fusion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What else is funny? This makes me realize I've actually seen Oliver Manuel in person. I saw a crackpot talking.....

More cultesque behaviors involving attacks on the individual. Yawn. If you folks didn't attack individuals, you'd be absolutely defenseless.

 

[GeeMack]

That's hilarious. Their reasons for rejecting Iron Sun are just as crackpotty as the Iron Sun itself. It's like watching Time Cube get refuted by Harold Camping.

There are, in a sort of sci-fi fantasy way of looking at it, two opposing iron Sun conjectures. Oliver Manuel sees the Sun built as layer upon concentric layer, starting with the iron in the middle as a core and moving outward through lighter and lighter elements to a gaseous surface. His notion is that the Sun is separated in these layers by mass, right down to the isotope.

That notion diametrically contradicts the conjecture so often offered in this thread which has the iron as a solid or rigid surface residing just below the photosphere. (Hence the continued insistence that the photosphere, regardless of the definition of the word and empirically demonstrated opacity, isn't opaque at all.) Oliver Manuel has specifically rejected this iron near/at the surface position in statements he made at the BAUT forum a few years ago. Neither conjecture, of course, is based on any sort of physical reality.

Maybe more germane to this thread, nobody has ever postulated a connection between the (any) iron Sun ideas and the equally impossible notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic electrical sparks like lightning bolts. No explanation has ever linked such a fantasy Sun, iron inside or out, with the idea that it's some kind of cathode spewing a wind of positive and negative ions. Some vague mention has been made about iron surface *mumble mumble* Birkeland's hollow brass ball with an electromagnet inside *mumble* electrical discharge. But there has been no actual cause, effect, physics, scientific, objective connection described. Ever. It's reasonable to assume no such connection exists, even in the minds of those who support one or the other of the iron Sun notions.

What else is funny?

Geeze, where would ya even start?