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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
You are wrong, MM: W.D.Clinger never claimed that Purcell described magnetic reconnection. He has consistently called the book a textbook on electromagnetism. It is applying electromagnetism to the experiment I've been suggesting that demonstrates magnetic reconnection.

I assumed that a textbook on electromagnetism might mention magnetic reconnection. W.D.Clinger corrected this assumption.
 
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.

As long as we're noting behaviors, and being honest with each other, let me point out that this is another false statement. I don't hate math, I actually like math. I simply don't use it as a crutch to avoid the "physics" aspect of science. Please don't project on me either.
 
Last edited:
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.

Actually the only "delusion" that it's seem I have been guilty of was believing that haters like yourself will ever change their beliefs based on logic, physics, and empirical evidence. Birkeland, Bruce, Dungey and Peratt all claimed that "electrical discharges" occur in plasmas. Why should I believe you are even capable of rational thought when you're in hardcore denial of a BASIC DEFINITION of a discharge in a plasma by Peratt?
 
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.


I'm not ignoring a thing. I'm trying to determine how someone not writing a single paper on something can be construed as a rejection of that thing. To me it seems like an irrational leap. So to try to understand the "logic", I've asked the question several times now in plain English. And several times now the substance of the question has been ignored. I'll try rephrasing it...

As far as we know, Alfvén didn't write a single paper on Bunsen's theories. From that can we somehow logically infer that he rejected Bunsen's theory of the mechanics of geysers?​

To suggest one follows from the other, that Alfvén not writing a paper on some particular thing is somehow the logical equivalent of him rejecting that thing, seems to be a non sequitur.

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


That is a non sequitur.
 
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.


So that entire kerfuffle was nothing more than reading incomprehension.

I accept your gracious concession that, whenever you call me a liar, you're just making stuff up.
 
I'm not ignoring a thing. I'm trying to determine how someone not writing a single paper on something can be construed as a rejection of that thing.

That would be due to the fact that he *did* write other books, and gave speeches that entirely dissed the concept. I've quoted him in this thread. I won't waste my time rounding up the links or quotes.

To me it seems like an irrational leap.

Of course it does. You're in denial of all the BAD stuff he wrote about the theory, so rational thought (from you) doesn't apply.

So to try to understand the "logic", I've asked the question several times now in plain English. And several times now the substance of the question has been ignored. I'll try rephrasing it...

Your phrase itself is false. He did write books that include references to the concept. He rejected it. He gave public speeches at public conferences where he called it "pseudoscience". He also made it obsolete and unnecessary in current carrying plasmas.

The haters crew (the three of you) are absolutely amazing in your inability to accept the fact that Alfven PUBLICLY REJECTED your theory by name. Honestly, I've seen creationists rely on the pathological behaviors of pure denial less often than this crew. This EU haters cult is in a league of their own when it comes to the use of pure denial in debate. It's amazing.
 
Last edited:
So that entire kerfuffle was nothing more than reading incomprehension.

Technically no, just the apology was due to a reading comprehension problem. Actually it was a "trust" problem. I trusted you when you mentioned Purcell in second post and I "assumed" you did so in the first post. I didn't go back to make sure you did not mention him the first time. In other words, I fell for your ruse. I won't make the same mistake of trusting you again.

I accept your gracious concession that, whenever you call me a liar, you're just making stuff up.

Whatever rationalization floats your boat I suppose.
 
So that entire kerfuffle was nothing more than reading incomprehension.

I accept your gracious concession that, whenever you call me a liar, you're just making stuff up.
Michael Mozina confirmed the above by responding thusly:

Technically no, just the apology was due to a reading comprehension problem. Actually it was a "trust" problem. I trusted you when you mentioned Purcell in second post and I "assumed" you did so in the first post. I didn't go back to make sure you did not mention him the first time. In other words, I fell for your ruse. I won't make the same mistake of trusting you again.
I mentioned Purcell in both posts. Here's the relevant part of the first post:

The only difference between us Clinger is that I have actually read (AND UNDERSTOOD) Alfven's work, whereas you have not.
No, that's not the only difference between us. It wouldn't be the only difference between us even if your shouting were true.

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

There is nothing "special" about "magnetic reconnection", or "magnetic flux". These are euphemistic terms for "induction driven discharge" and "field aligned currents".

False.

The magnetic flux through a surface S is ∫SB∙dS. That magnetic flux can be (and often is) nonzero even when no current is flowing through S.


You read Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma without understanding the math.

I read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, understanding most of the math.

That may explain why you don't understand the difference between "magnetic flux" and "field aligned currents", whereas I do.


Here's the relevant part of the second post:

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

Actually the only "delusion" that it's seem I have been guilty of was believing that haters like yourself ...
Yet another delusion: That there are 'haters' on this thread.
There people in this and other threads who are appalled at the ignorant and delusional nature of the EU and Iron Sun proponents. That means that they pity them, not hate them.
For example, these people cannot understand the definition of the photosphere and so have the delusion that light can be detected from under it.

Followed by an blatent lie: Birkeland, Bruce, Dungey and Peratt never claimed that electrical discharges (Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge) happened in plasma.
Bruce claimed that electrical discharges happen between physically impossible dust particles on the Sun. He made the fatal error of ignoring the solar plasma so even if these dust particles could exist, they would immediately conduct through the plasma (currents not discharge).

You still have not provided a reference to any textbook that actually discusses 'electrical discharges in plasma': Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?

You are so obsessed with this idea that you cannot even be bothered to go to the original source:
ETA: In case you are just being lazy:
Biography of Anthony L. Peratt
Anthony Peratt can be reached at [EMAIL="alp@ieeetps.org"]alp@ieeetps.org[/EMAIL]
He may be retired or deceased. The latest activity I can find from him is presentation at a 2008 IEEE conference.
 
Last edited:
That would be due to the fact that he *did* write other books, and gave speeches that entirely dissed the concept. I've quoted him in this thread. I won't waste my time rounding up the links or quotes.


Of course it does. You're in denial of all the BAD stuff he wrote about the theory, so rational thought (from you) doesn't apply.


Your phrase itself is false. He did write books that include references to the concept. He rejected it. He gave public speeches at public conferences where he called it "pseudoscience". He also made it obsolete and unnecessary in current carrying plasmas.

The haters crew (the three of you) are absolutely amazing in your inability to accept the fact that Alfven PUBLICLY REJECTED your theory by name. Honestly, I've seen creationists rely on the pathological behaviors of pure denial less often than this crew. This EU haters cult is in a league of their own when it comes to the use of pure denial in debate. It's amazing.


The point has often been made that Alfvén didn't write a single paper supporting magnetic reconnection, and that comment has typically been followed with the implication that he therefore rejected it. The premise that Alfvén's lack of writing about some particular thing supports the notion that he didn't support it is illogical. It's a non sequitur. One doesn't follow from the other. The fact that he didn't write any papers supporting something, anything, is obviously irrelevant to the discussion.
 
Michael Mozina confirmed the above by responding thusly:

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

Purcell's book specifically is actually irrelevant to your claim. You claimed that I had NOT read "a" (as in any) book on electromagnetism. You then pulled a fast one. You asked me in the second post if I had read A SPECIFIC textbook, one that just so happens to NEVER MENTION magnetic reconnection. You're right, I missed your slight of hand. I won't be fooled twice however. You've erroneously made that claim twice now. It's a pity you can't quote from your supposedly infinitely important book to help you support your FALSE claim that your experiment is an example of "magnetic reconnection". Why? Because it's not!
 
The point has often been made that Alfvén didn't write a single paper supporting magnetic reconnection, and that comment has typically been followed with the implication that he therefore rejected it. The premise that Alfvén's lack of writing about some particular thing supports the notion that he didn't support it is illogical. It's a non sequitur. One doesn't follow from the other. The fact that he didn't write any papers supporting something, anything, is obviously irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not a non-sequitur because Alfven DID WRITE AND SPEAK ABOUT MAGNETIC RECONNECTION THEORY NEGATIVELY. Since you refuse to acknowledge his actual writings and speeches on this topic, you erroneously believe that everyone else is obligated to live in denial with you.
 
It is a non-sequitur because Alfven DID NOT WRITE AND SPEAK ABOUT MAGNETIC RECONNECTION THEORY REJECTING IT ENTIRELY.

The only instance where he didn't reject it outright was when it was used as a pseudonym for the process described in his double layer paper, making it IRRELEVANT.

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozenin magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.
I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

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. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.
 
Purcell's book specifically is actually irrelevant to your claim. You claimed that I had NOT read "a" (as in any) book on electromagnetism. You then pulled a fast one. You asked me in the second post if I had read A SPECIFIC textbook,
You're trying to pull a fast one. Two fast ones, in fact.

To take care of the second fast one first, my second post asked two separate questions:
  • Have you read the specific textbook I read (Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism)?
  • Have you read some other freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism?
You've had a remarkably hard time comprehending and answering those questions, but that doesn't make me a liar.

The first fast one you're trying to pull concerns the relevance of Purcell's (or any other) textbooks. Because I have read Purcell, I understand the difference between magnetic flux and field-aligned currents. Because you haven't read Purcell, and can't recall anything you may have read in other textbooks on electromagnetism (if, indeed, you've read any such texts at all), you think magnetic flux is a euphemism for field-aligned currents.

Your identification of magnetic flux with field-aligned currents is laughable. It's a dead giveaway that you don't know what B even means. You can't possibly understand any technical discussion of plasma dynamics, by Alfvén or anyone else.

Instead of trying to read Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma, you'd have done far better to read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism. At least then you'd have learned the basics of first-year electromagnetism, which would have given you a tiny but robust foundation for learning about plasma physics.
 
The only instance where he didn't reject it outright was when it was used as a pseudonym for the process described in his double layer paper, making it IRRELEVANT.
You really cannot understand simple facts: That is a speech not a paper.
This part of his speech is him stressing the danger of using the frozen-in concept.
B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept.
...
The fact that double layers exist does not mean that magnetic reconnection does not exist. However we can take the last comment more as a hope that all instances of MR could be replaced by DLs. He was wrong.

The double-layer paper is him modeling a solar flare as a circuit model that included a DL. He could then get the toatl energy emitted from a flare by plugging in the releveant numbers. That is nice sceince.
It does not make MR IRRELEVANT. His paper conmpletely fails to model the details of the flare. You need MR (or something else other than just DLs) to explain solar flare details such as the changes in magnetic fields.

See OBSERVATIONAL SIGNATURES OF MAGNETIC RECONNECTION by L. VAN DRIEL-GESZTELYI (PDF) for the evidence for solar MR. Note that this (2003?) review emphasises that MR has not been directly observed on the Sun. But then neither have DLs!
 
So it looks like only laziness will prevent MM from asking Anthony Peratt about 'electrical discharges in plasma'.

More like "pure embarrassment". What the hell would even I ask him? "I know section 1.5 from your plasma physics book is a DEFINITION of an "electrical discharge *IN* a plasma but some guy I met on the internet that has never read your book, and refuses to ever read your book claims that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible?"

Since your the one claiming his DEFINITION of an electrical discharge in a plasma isn't really an "electrical discharge", you should be the one asking him your stupid question, not me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom