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

[W.D.Clinger]

Er, no. It would however be a personal attack if I UNJUSTLY accused you of not reading Alfven's book, when in fact you had read Alfven's book. You keep accusing me of some strawman past that has nothing to do with my actual education in electromagnetic theory. I've read more books on basic theory than I can count. I've read enough plasma physics texts books in the last five years that I couldn't recall a number of the authors at this point in time. You keep *FALSELY* accusing me of things that are simply not true.

Not true. You are, once again, accusing me of doing something I haven't done.

One of the advantages of telling the truth is that I don't have to remember what I've said. You, however, are having a lot of trouble keeping your story straight.

At one point, you called me a liar for saying you have not read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism. When I insisted you explain your accusation, you conceded that you have not read Purcell's book:

By the way, you called me a liar for pointing out that you have not read Purcell's textbook. If you are unwilling to explain your accusation, then I will conclude you were lying when you accused me of lying.

Unlike you I can admit my mistakes when I make them. I misread what you typed. My mistake. Your turn.

The next day, you decided not to remember whether you've read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism:

Actually, I just don't even remember the authors of all the various books I've read and sold back to various bookstores or given away to local libraries in my lifetime. I may in fact have read his book for all I can recall *30* years later!

That's pretty funny. You remind me of an equally funny French comedy about French intelligence, in which rogue agents decide to blame their skulduggery on a hapless tall blond man with one black shoe, played by a master of physical comedy. The femme fatale is a knockout, and you don't forget her dress.

The plot is so easy to follow, and the comedy so physical, that I eventually forgot whether I had seen it in the original French or dubbed into English. Wanting to see it again, I rented the English version, and quickly learned that I had previously seen only the French version. Had the quintessentially French femme fatale spoken with an Alabama drawl, I'd have remembered.

Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism is like her wonderful dress and that awful Alabama accent: It's not a thing you forget.

On the other hand, you have NOT read Cosmic Plasma, and this has in fact created serious conceptual problems for you.

Try as you might to confuse the issue, you have not read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism. The fact that you have not read Purcell's book, and have not understood any remotely comparable books you may have skimmed, is at the heart of your serious conceptual problems (such as your unshakable (and laughable) belief that magnetic flux is a euphemism for field-aligned currents).

You don't grasp circuit theory as it applies to plasma.

I'm no expert, but I know enough about circuit theory to know you're blowing smoke whenever you try to talk about it.

You really don't grasp how VEHEMENTLY Alfven rejected MR theory

I'm not impressed by vehemence, whether yours or Alfvén's.

I offered to meet you folks in the middle too. Not once have you lifted a finger in over the year long time you've engaged yourself in this conversation to actually read Cosmic Plasma for yourself. Your opinions about Alfven's opinions are therefore based on pure clairvoyance, not "knowledge" you gained by reading any specific materials.

Okay, I'll meet you in the middle: After you have read and understood the first seven chapters of Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, I will purchase a copy of Cosmic Plasma and read the entire thing.

I have to tell you Clinger, you RC and GM have absolutely amazed me in terms of the similarities between arguing EU theory with EU haters and arguing evolutionary theory with "creationists". It really doesn't matter how much material you offer them....Denial and avoidance are ALWAYS the name of the game when discussing scientific topics with 'haters'. Material becomes irrelevant to haters. It's all about an emotional attachment to bashing the individual with haters. You folks can't use the term "evil" so your hater's term is "crackpot". Same hater dance, slightly different lingo. It's still all about avoiding the topic and attacking the individual.

You are using religious language to attack individuals who disagree with you. (Alfvén did that too, especially in "Cosmology---Myth or Science?")

I am not impressed when you or Alfvén use religious/emotional language to compensate for your inability to present compelling scientific arguments. (Alfvén was of course capable of presenting scientific arguments within his own areas of expertise, but he never really understood general relativity and its consequences for cosmology.)

Those "holy texts" provide that "holy math" your always asking me for.

You're saying that on pure faith, because you don't understand the math.

Rather than read the materials I suggest, and respond to the questions I put before you,

You haven't read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, and you have been ignoring all questions that would require you to bark math on the freshman level of that textbook.

Haters run. I'm simply noting a pattern of behavior that haters perform regardless of the topic under discussion. It's all about denial and avoidance with haters.

So long as we're "simply noting a pattern of behavior"...

You hate math. You hate, deny, and avoid modern science because it requires math. Please don't project your emotions onto us.

I've read PLENTY of intro textbooks to electromagnetism. I'll admit it's been awhile, but your claim I never read any such books is a bald faced lie.

Okay, I'll accept that you may have skimmed a couple of freshman-level textbooks on physics for poets, but you can't remember anything about them, and you have demonstrated time and again that you have no grasp of electromagnetism at even the freshman level.

That's why you argument runs like this:

1. You've never read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism,
2. nor can you recall much (if anything) about electromagnetism from the textbooks you claim to have read,
3. but you've read Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma,
4. and think that makes you some kind of expert,
5. so you're certain that magnetic flux is a euphemism for field-aligned currents,
6. which means you can't possibly understand Φ_m = ∫_SB∙da or ∇∙B = 0 or even B,
7. so you don't understand dΦ_m/dt or ∇×E= - ∂B/∂t,
8. which means you don't understand induction.
9. Nevertheless, you are certain that magnetic reconnection is a euphemism for induction.
10. Meanwhile, I've been suggesting a simple experiment
11. whose magnetic fields reproduce Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection
12. as well as both figures of Dungey's paper,
13. which all competent authorities (e.g. Priest&Forbes, Yamada et al) acknowledge as an example of magnetic reconnection.
14. Which makes me a liar.

I was following along real good there until that last step.

[size=-1]"Den letzten Schritt mußt du gehen allein." --- Hermann Hesse[/size]​

 

[Michael Mozina]

Try reading the paper, MM.
You are making yourself seem delusional by stating things that do not seem to be in the paper.

Michael Mozina
Either: Quote the statement of 'fast release of circuit energy' from the Önel and Mann.
Or: Admit you made a mistake and there is no 'fast release of circuit energy' in the paper.

Oh please. This is just sad, sad, sad at this point. Did you even read the conclusions?

The important conclusions of the model presented in this paper are:

1. The energy generated by the photospheric plasma motion is transported electrically into the corona where it is transferred into the flare.

2. The photospheric plasma motion has enough power to support a flare in the corona.

3. The electric fields related with the potential drops at the coronal resistors are oppositely directed so that the electrons are accelerated to two opposite directions leading to a double source of the hard x-ray radiation, as it is usually observed

That's exactly the same power generation and transportation method described by Alfven's coronal loop paper too by the way.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not true. You are, once again, accusing me of doing something I haven't done.

One of the advantages of telling the truth is that I don't have to remember what I've said. You, however, are having a lot of trouble keeping your story straight.

LOL. Irony overload. You definitely can't keep your stories straight. Let me demonstrate:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7683419&postcount=3964

I understand most of your argument:

You've never read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism,
nor have you read any other textbook on electromagnetism,

Emphasis mine. You frigging lied through your teeth!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Another time you falsely accused me:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193096&page=98

I, for example, have actually read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism. You haven't:

You didn't even specify Purcell's book until AFTER you accused me of reading NO freshman level textbooks on the topic. You definitely can't keep your stories straight.

If Purcell claims your experiment is an example of "magnetic reconnection", just quote him! You can't. The term "magnetic reconnection" appears nowhere in the book according to you!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Try as you might to confuse the issue, you have not read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism. The fact that you have not read Purcell's book,

Percell's book doesn't claim that your experiment is an example of "magnetic reconnection" does it Clinger?

and have not understood any remotely comparable books you may have skimmed, is at the heart of your serious conceptual problems (such as your unshakable (and laughable) belief that magnetic flux is a euphemism for field-aligned currents).

You've consistently ignored the fact that I'm specifically talking about your actual "EXPERIMENTS", not the paper math, and specifically Priests evocation of "monopoles" to do his bidding. When did you intend to acknowledge that point? Let me guess? The same time you actually bother to read "Cosmic Plasma": Never.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You've provided not one single paper from Alfven that supports MR theory, and not one quote from Purcell claiming that your "experiment" is an example of magnetic reconnection. When did you intend to finally ADMIT that Alfven did not support MR theory and that your fixation on freshman text books is simply a ruse because Purcell's freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism that you keep talking about never actually discusses the topic of "magnetic reconnection"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I would expect that Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism has a section on magnetic reconnection.

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.

So despite all your bogus repetitious claims about how your experiment that supposedly demonstrates "magnetic reconnection" is taught in freshman classrooms, the concept appears NOWHERE IN THE BOOK? You can't keep ANY of your stories straight Clinger, and your stories contradict one another. If every freshman that is introduced to electromagnetism is taught this as basic stuff, why isn't the concept ever discussed in either book? Holy cow! You definitely can't keep your stories straight.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I understand most of your argument:

You've never read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism,
nor have you read any other textbook on electromagnetism,

Emphasis mine. You frigging lied through your teeth!

Congratulations, Michael: You have just demonstrated that you understand the concept of lying about as well as you understand magnetic flux.

For my statement to have been a lie, I would have to have known that you have read a textbook on electromagnetism. I did not know that at the time, and I do not know it now. Indeed, you appear to be somewhat uncertain about it yourself.

In recent posts, you've been saying you can't remember any of the textbooks on electromagnetism that you'd like for us to believe you've read. That's consistent with the utter cluelessness you have consistently demonstrated with respect to electromagnetism and related subjects. Combining your evident ignorance of electromagnetism with your habit of boasting about the books you actually have read, it was not at all unreasonable for me to assume you have never read a textbook on electromagnetism.

In my most recent summary of your argument, I took note of your objection and said only that you cannot recall much (if anything) about electromagnetism from the textbooks you claim to have read.

Your accusations, therefore, are false. I may have made a false statement, but I could not have known it was false. I was certainly not lying, and I'm beginning to suspect you're being a weensy bit dishonest as you repeat your false claims.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Congratulations, Michael: You have just demonstrated that you understand the concept of lying about as well as you understand magnetic flux.

For my statement to have been a lie, I would have to have known that you have read a textbook on electromagnetism.

No, one can lie intentionally or unintentionally. You did it with INTENT. You just 'made it up'.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I may have made a false statement, but I could not have known it was false.

You could have asked rather than simply ACCUSED couldn't you? Too much work eh?

I was certainly not lying, and I'm beginning to suspect you're being a weensy bit dishonest as you repeat your false claims.

Please refrain from lecturing me about honesty while you continue to misrepresent Alfven's opinion on MR theory, and you continue to confuse ATTRACTION/REPULSION with a topic that isn't even MENTIONED in freshman level textbooks including at least two in your personal possession, one of which is a THIRD EDITION no less.

 

[Reality Check]

Oh please. This is just sad, sad, sad at this point. Did you even read the conclusions?
.

This is just delusional, delusional, delusional at this point. You are displaying a total inability to read the conclusion:

The important conclusions of the model presented in this paper are:

1. The energy generated by the photospheric plasma motion is transported electrically into the corona where it is transferred into the flare.

2. The photospheric plasma motion has enough power to support a flare in the corona.

3. The electric fields related with the potential drops at the coronal resistors are oppositely directed so that the electrons are accelerated to two opposite directions leading to a double source of the hard x-ray radiation, as it is usually observed

Can you read the text 'fast release of circuit energy' in that quote ?
Can you even read "fast', 'release' or 'circuit' ?

There is the word energy though.

The paper states nothing about the speed of the energy transfer from their model. Their model though includes

If there is a magnetic connection between the two oppositely charged areas through the corona, possibly as a result of magnetic reconection, and electric current can close the electric circuit (Alfven and Carlqvist, 1967; Heyvaerts, 1974) through the corona (Fig. 2).

(emphasis added)
So the time scale that are talking about is the scale of this magnetic connection (possibly a magneic reconnection).

Solar flares are observed to suddenly release energy (that is an observation, not a consequence of their model).
That energy is transferred into various things including energetic electrons. Their model is about that transfer as stated in their abstract and in their conclusion above:
Generation of largescale electric fields in coronal flare circuits by Hakan Önel, Gottfried J. Mann

A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet.
This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.

So you still have not answered: MM: Quote 'fast release of circuit energy' from the Önel and Mann paper?

Another thing that may be confusing you: There are actually two 'electric circuits' in the paper. The first one is the physical one that happens after the magnetic connection, i.e. the connection allows a flow of current around a circuit as sketched in Figure 2.The second one is the theoretical one, i.e. the electric circuit model.

 

[GeeMack]

You've provided not one single paper from Alfven that supports MR theory, and not one quote from Purcell claiming that your "experiment" is an example of magnetic reconnection. When did you intend to finally ADMIT that Alfven did not support MR theory and that your fixation on freshman text books is simply a ruse because Purcell's freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism that you keep talking about never actually discusses the topic of "magnetic reconnection"?

It seems Alfvén didn't write a single paper on Bunsen's geyser theory. Following the "logic" in the above comment, should we conclude that Alfvén did not support Bunsen's theory?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It seems Alfvén didn't write a single paper on Bunsen's geyser theory. Following the "logic" in the above comment, should we conclude that Alfvén did not support Bunsen's theory?

We've already discussed that. He *DID* write NEGATIVE things about it, and he wrote a paper that he specifically claimed would put "nails in the coffin" of a theory he referred to a "pseudoscience". You're entire gig seems to be "denial, denial and more denial, lather rinse repeat".

FYI, he also used "circuit" theory, and double layer theories in each and every instance where the mainstream uses "magnetic reconnection". It's not like he didn't write about the very same events.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is just delusional, delusional, delusional at this point. You are displaying a total inability to read the conclusion:

The important conclusions of the model presented in this paper are:

1. The energy generated by the photospheric plasma motion is transported electrically into the corona where it is transferred into the flare.

2. The photospheric plasma motion has enough power to support a flare in the corona.

3. The electric fields related with the potential drops at the coronal resistors are oppositely directed so that the electrons are accelerated to two opposite directions leading to a double source of the hard x-ray radiation, as it is usually observed

Damn it RC, that was my last irony meter!

 

[GeeMack]

It seems Alfvén didn't write a single paper on Bunsen's geyser theory. Following the "logic" in the above comment, should we conclude that Alfvén did not support Bunsen's theory?

We've already discussed that. He *DID* write NEGATIVE things about it, and he wrote a paper that he specifically claimed would put "nails in the coffin" of a theory he referred to a "pseudoscience". You're entire gig seems to be "denial, denial and more denial, lather rinse repeat".

FYI, he also used "circuit" theory, and double layer theories in each and every instance where the mainstream uses "magnetic reconnection". It's not like he didn't write about the very same events.

It was a yes/no question. Since Alfvén didn't write a single paper on Bunsen's theories, should we somehow conclude that Alfvén did not support Bunsen's geyser theory? Is that a reasonable line of "logic" to follow?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It was a yes/no question. Since Alfvén didn't write a single paper on Bunsen's theories, should we somehow conclude that Alfvén did not support Bunsen's geyser theory? Is that a reasonable line of "logic" to follow?

You are ignoring two key points.

He wasn't silent about your beloved MR theory. He called it pseudoscience. He talked about the conditions where it can be firmly and decisively ruled out, and explained in a simpler way, which just so happens to include every single "experiment" we have looked at. He replaced the concept with his double layer paper in current carrying plasmas, and essentially nailed shut the coffin in EVERY SINGLE EXPERIMENT that begins with current.

He also chose a DIFFERENT explanation in the exact same instances where "magnetic reconnection' is used. He consistently uses circuits to replace your dumbed down "magnetic lines". He consistently describes current carrying transactions in plasma in terms of circuit theory and induction.

Ya, I know. You'll go right back to your "Denial, denial, more denial, lather rinse, repeat" routine.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No, one can lie intentionally or unintentionally. You did it with INTENT. You just 'made it up'.

I accept your gracious concession that any lies I may have told within this thread were entirely unintentional.

ETA: Sorry, I misread what you typed. I now see that you're just making stuff up.

You could have asked rather than simply ACCUSED couldn't you? Too much work eh?

Actually, I did ask:

How is that a lie? Are you saying you've read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism (the freshman-level textbook to which I was referring, and cited explicitly following the colon that ends the excerpt you quoted)?

Or are you claiming to have read (and understood) some other freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism? If so, please name that textbook and explain how it led you to conclude that magnetic flux is the same thing as field-aligned currents.

You ignored those questions at first. After I reminded you of them, quoting that entire passage in full, you answered thusly:

Unlike you I can admit my mistakes when I make them. I misread what you typed. My mistake. Your turn.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You ignored those questions at first. After I reminded you of them, quoting that entire passage in full, you answered thusly:

Yes, however......

When I said I "made a mistake", I didn't catch your "slight of hand" where you went from a GENERAL accusation, to a SPECIFIC author in the post AFTER the original accusation. In other words, my mistake was ever letting you off the hook for your first lie by pulling a "Purcell rabbit" out of your hat and making it "author specific". In effect, you lied, covered it up, and lied again.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The irony of you pulling that Purcell rabbit out of your hat is that your shot your own argument in the foot. You later had to admit to RC that not only didn't Purcell's book mention magnetic reconnection, a third edition version of an electrodynamics textbook from a second author doesn't mention it either. It's a pity that RC blew up all of my irony meters at the moment. You deserve one. I'll order more.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Damn it RC, that was my last irony meter!

Damn it MM, that was yet another dog laughing at your delusions!

The delusion that the phrase 'fast release of circuit energy' is in the Önel and Mann paper (neither is 'fast release' or 'circuit energy' !).
MM: Quote 'fast release of circuit energy' from the Önel and Mann paper?

The delusion that Alfvén wrote 'hundreds' of papers on circuit theory:
Where are Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma?

The delusion that Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge consists of just the first sentence (which makes any emission of light into an electrical discharge !). But don't take my word for it:

MM: Ask Peratt whether your 'electrical discharges in plasma' assertion is correct!
First asked 12th October 2011 (8 days and counting)
​

The delusion that electrical discharges that require a dielectric medium can happen on the Sun (Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge ).

The delusion that Dungey's use of the term electrical discharge refers to the usual definition of the term (Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge ) when is is using it in the context of the high current densities found during magnetic reconnection.
(or alternately the delusion that different definitions of the term electrical discharge all refer to the same process).


The delusion that induction can explain the energy released in solar flares when that energy release would take a million years - Magnetic Reconnection Redux V posted on 30 December 2009


The delusion that Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma book in some way special and so that every person in this (and other) thread has to read this specific book. Alfvén and Peratt are not the only people in the entire world to ever have written books on plasma physics.

The delusion that scientists are so dumb that they conduct experiments on magnetic reconnection, write papers on these experiments that explicitly call it magnetic reconnection but that magnetic reconnection does not exist!
MM: Did Stenzel, Gekelman and Wild say that reconnection happened in their experiment?


The delusion that magnetic reconnection is double layers when the empirical experimental evidence is that magnetic reconnection happens first, then current disruption and then double layers, see

• Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption (and double layers)?
• MM: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption (and DL) II?

The delusion that MR cannot happen in a vacuum - Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo by Tim Thompson on 21st May 2011 refutes this
A simple experiment using fridge magnets refutes this.
W.D. Clinger's experiment I've been suggesting refutes this (but you need some undergraduate knowledge of physics to understand this).
Anyone who knows Maxwell equations can refute this.

I could go on, e.g. about the Iron Sun fantasy and your delusions about Birkeland's book (he never even implies that the Sun is one of his metallic spheres). But this post is long enough!

P.S. MM: What is the magnetic field around a single current carrying rod first asked 18th October 2011.