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

[Michael Mozina]

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:

Your first post made a false accusation. Care to address that point?

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.

Your continued distortion of my statement is also laughable. I guess it's the only thing you have left to clutch to at this point eh? You can't find a single freshman textbook to support your claim, so you go right back to ignoring the fact I was discussing your EXPERIMENTS, not your math, and specifically criticizing Priest's violation of Gauss's law of magnetism in a pathetic attempt to ignore the role of CURRENT.

You've lied twice now about the books I've read. Knock it off. If you ever do bother reading Alfven's books and papers for yourself, you'll discover how idiotic it is to be suggesting that he supported the MR concept. He did his best to nail shut to the coffin on that form of "pseudoscience".

Note that not a single one of your so called "experiments" passes Alfven's smell test, not one.

It's just ironic as hell, that for all your claims about Purcell, he never one mentioned "magnetic reconnection" in his book. Do you mean to tell me that neither book mentions your "freshman" experiment, or do you mean to tell me they all use the terms "attraction" and "repulsion", not "reconnection"? Now remember when you answer my question, that you never tell lies, right?

 

[Reality Check]

More like "pure embarrassment"...

You are wrong - it is Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge that states that they do not happen inn plasma.
It is your inability to tell the difference between the title and contents of the section that might be embarrassing.
You can though really embarrass myself and other posters in this thread by contacting Anthony Peratt and showing that we are wrong.

What the hell you would ask him is:

Dear Anthony Peratt,
Can you clarify a point that has been raised about your book.
Section 1.5 has a title of 'Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma' and has a first sentence with what I think is the entire definition of an electrical discharge ("An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.").
This implies that it is about electrical discharges that happen within plasmas.

However other people have the interpretation that this is the standard definition of electrical discharge that excludes it from happening in plasma. They have pointed out that the section continues with "This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.".
There are no examples of electrical discharges that happen within plasma (just electrical discharges in solids and gases) in that section or elsewhere in your book.
There are no discussion of electrical discharges that happen within plasma in that section or elsewhere in your book.

Which interpretation is correct?

If electrical discharges can happen within plasmas then could you point me to publications that explain this process in fuller detail?

Regards,
Michael Mozina
​

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.

Wrong: You are the one making the claim. You need to support it.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: What is the magnetic field around a single current carrying rod

You can't find a single freshman textbook to support your claim, so you go right back to ignoring the fact I was discussing your EXPERIMENTS, not your math, and specifically criticizing Priest's violation of Gauss's law of magnetism in a pathetic attempt to ignore the role of CURRENT.

There are a few things wrong with this:

1. Every freshman textbook on electromagnetism supports his claim (that you can demonstrate magnetic reconnection with a simple experiment - experiment I've been suggesting ).
   All you do is apply basic electromagnetiism (the magnetic fields produced by current carrying rods and how they superimpose) to the propose3d experiment.
2. You have shown no violaton of Gauss's law of magnetism.
3. No one ignores the role of CURRENT.

His demonstration of magnetic reconnection is the application of electromagnetism to a simple undergraduate experiment. But we can go through it in small steps:

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

 

[GeeMack]

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.

It's a non sequitur to suggest Alfvén's lack of writing a paper on some topic somehow means he didn't accept or support that topic. He didn't write a paper on worms. He didn't write a paper on macaroni and cheese. It's fairly certain that he accepted the existence of worms. It's possible he loved macaroni and cheese. As simple as this concept seems to me, I can see how it might be abstruse to others.

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.

This is irrelevant since nothing in my comment has anything to do with acknowledging or denying anything. That makes it a non sequitur, too, in an ironic but ultimately meaningless sort of way.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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:

Your first post made a false accusation. Care to address that point?

I already have, but I'll address it again in more detail.

If my first post made a false accusation, it was unintentional and more a matter of poor phrasing than anything else. I said I had read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism. The only one I've read is Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, so that was the text I had in mind. I then said "you haven't", thinking of Purcell, but it came out as a statement that you haven't read any freshman-level textbooks on electromagnetism.

I still don't know whether that's true or false, because you still haven't given me a straight answer to my second question. After ignoring that question at first, you eventually said you've read so many books that you must have read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism somewhere along the line. On the other hand, you don't seem to recall any titles, authors, or technical content.

I'm very sorry to have to admit that I don't have enough knowledge of the situation to rule out the possibility, no matter how remote, that you haven't actually read any freshman-level electromagnetism textbooks, and just want us to think you have so you can act indignant, accuse me of lying, and generally carry on in the hope that no one will notice that your knowledge of electromagnetism is about what we'd expect from someone who hasn't ever studied the subject at university level.

I do know you haven't read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism.

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.

Your continued distortion of my statement is also laughable.

That's a false accusation. I haven't distorted your statements. To refresh your failing memory, here's exactly what you wrote:

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

That's horrifically silly, but it's what you wrote.

If you're trying to say you didn't really mean what you wrote, then there's an easy way to set the matter straight. Why don't you just give us a clear statement, in your own words, of the distinction between magnetic flux and field-aligned currents?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I already have, but I'll address it again in more detail.

If my first post made a false accusation, it was unintentional and more a matter of poor phrasing than anything else. I said I had read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism. The only one I've read is Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, so that was the text I had in mind.

Fine, one issue down, 2 or 3 to go and we'll see eye to eye.

So pick one (only one) of my 'issues' to work on, while I keep repeating myself endlessly over your personal pet peeve.

Would you like to retract your claim that I misrepresented Alfven's opinions on the topic or magnetic reconnection theory, or would you like to come clean about your attraction repulsion 'experiment'. You know, I notice the the question you DIDN'T answer. You didn't tell me if your 'experiment' was included in either of the two freshman textbooks in your possession, the two the that do NOT mention "magnetic reconnection"? Inquiring minds would like to know?

If you're trying to say you didn't really mean what you wrote, then there's an easy way to set the matter straight. Why don't you just give us a clear statement, in your own words, of the distinction between magnetic flux and field-aligned currents?

FYI, I've addressed your "issue" now on several occasions. Nothing like taking ONE SENTENCE and building a federal case over it. Alfven outright rejected MR theory in ONE SENTENCE by the way. It's the yellow ones I highlighted in the last quote from Alfven.

Now Mr Pitbull, let me try again, just in case you're actually interested in listening to reason:

My "introduction" to MR theory in debate started over at space.com. It's a pity they took down the boards, or I'd cite the conversation for you. The very first paper that I was handed to evaluate on the topic of MR theory just so happened to be a paper written by Priest that was ENTIRELY oriented around the B orientation of Maxwell's equations. From a mathematical orientation, it was actually pretty simple. There weren't very many equations to translate. I thought it might be interesting to see if I could personally translate the formulas to an E orientation. I got to a specific equation however and found out that the energy transfer mechanism Priest was using was a "monopole", something that literally violates the laws of physics, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism. I cried fowl over the whole notion of "magnetic flux transfer" using such a device. Everyone went ballistic and tried to defend the concept even though it clearly violated the laws of physics.

DISCLAIMER: In *FAIRNESS TO PRIEST*, it wasn't his best paper on this topic. I've read MUCH better materials from him since that date and time.

I was then handed a new paper to evaluate from an author called "Birn". It was a MUCH better paper in the sense that it clearly described the "current' that flowed along the magnetic line that created and sustained the "magnetic field" along that so called "line". That "line" however turns out not to be a simple "line", is a "field aligned current". The total "energy flux" through that line is directly related to the flow of current through that field aligned current "line".

I understand the difference on *PAPER* Clinger, but when I wrote that line you decided to build a federal case over, I was specifically thinking of that first paper by Priest that attempted to 'dumb down' an entire current carrying event to a "magnetic flux' event. That's all I meant by that particular sentence. If you can't accept that rather LENGTHY explanation, I really don't know what else to offer you. You go right ahead and harp on that one sentence all you like, but you'll need to come clean on one of my two issues as well.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's a non sequitur to suggest Alfvén's lack of writing a paper on some topic somehow means he didn't accept or support that topic.

But he did publicly denounce the concept! You're ignoring historical fact AGAIN! That's not NEW behavior by the way, you're just carrying it to OUTRAGEOUS extremes. I've seen creationists show more common sense in debate. Let's recap and I'll highlight the part where he goes from an "weak atheist" on the topic to a 'strong atheist' on the topic.

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.

Care to 'translate' the yellow parts for us and tell me how you've turned a strong atheist on this topic into a theist for us?

He didn't write a paper on worms.

He did write and give speeches on the topic of MR theory however. Denial won't save you from history GM.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are wrong - it is Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge that states that they do not happen inn plasma.
It is your inability to tell the difference between the title and contents of the section that might be embarrassing.

FYI, I tripled my normal order of irony meters this week and they came Fedex overnight.

You can though really embarrass myself and other posters in this thread by contacting Anthony Peratt and showing that we are wrong.

Why should I bother. You've embarrassed yourself for months on end on this ONE shipwreck already. If you'd like to contact him yourself and post the results, I would LOVE to see them. I won't even bother embarrassing myself with such a stupid question RC because unlike you, I've actually READ HIS BOOK!

What the hell you would ask him is:

Dear Anthony Peratt,
Can you clarify a point that has been raised about your book.
Section 1.5 has a title of 'Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma' and has a first sentence with what I think is the entire definition of an electrical discharge ("An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.").
This implies that it is about electrical discharges that happen within plasmas.​

Of course you start with a LOADED question. (Edit: Actually it's not all that loaded of a question, just not very concise) How about making it really simple for him RC and put all your beliefs into one sentence. How about:

"It is my (stupid) opinion that since plasmas are conductors, no charge build up is possible, therefore it's impossible for any type of electrical discharges to occur inside of plasmas. Is that true?" Feel free to leave out the part in "()" if you like, but I guarantee you that you won't like the answer you receive. FYI, I've already handed you other papers AND a video of discharges inside of "discharge chambers" RC. ​

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Would you like to retract your claim that I misrepresented Alfven's opinions on the topic or magnetic reconnection theory,

Although you continue to misrepresent my position, I stand by what I wrote on 13 January 2011:

I have suggested that Michael Mozina may have been misrepresenting Alfvén's position.

For a full account of my position on this, please read that entire post.

You didn't tell me if your 'experiment' was included in either of the two freshman textbooks in your possession, the two the that do NOT mention "magnetic reconnection"? Inquiring minds would like to know?

Only part of the experiment I've been suggesting is described by Purcell and by Jackson. Reality Check (bless his heart) has been trying to simplify that part of the experiment so you can understand it. I guess he hasn't yet simplified it enough.

By the way, I own only one freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism: Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism. Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics wasn't really written for freshmen.

FYI, I've addressed your "issue" now on several occasions. Nothing like taking ONE SENTENCE and building a federal case over it. Alfven outright rejected MR theory in ONE SENTENCE by the way. It's the yellow ones I highlighted in the last quote from Alfven.

You complained about the cost of irony meters. It would be cheaper to buy just one, and learn how to operate it.

My "introduction" to MR theory in debate started over at space.com....

I accept your gracious concession that the lies I told were true.

I was then handed a new paper to evaluate from an author called "Birn". It was a MUCH better paper in the sense that it clearly described the "current' that flowed along the magnetic line that created and sustained the "magnetic field" along that so called "line". That "line" however turns out not to be a simple "line", is a "field aligned current". The total "energy flux" through that line is directly related to the flow of current through that field aligned current "line".

I understand the difference on *PAPER* Clinger, but when I wrote that line you decided to build a federal case over, I was specifically thinking of that first paper by Priest that attempted to 'dumb down' an entire current carrying event to a "magnetic flux' event. That's all I meant by that particular sentence.

[size=-1]I can't say why, but this reminds me of the fellow in the sports pub who fancied himself an authority on American football. One day, while repeating to all who couldn't get out of hearing that "zone blitz" is just a euphemism for zone blocking, he decided to set his fellow fans straight on the scoring system: Touchdowns really count 4 points each, he said, with another 3 points awarded if the ensuing kickoff is successful.[/size]​

 

[Reality Check]

Why should I bother.

You should bother because otherwise you are just continuing to demonstrate that you are deluded about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge since
There are no examples of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in his book:

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010
​

There is no mention of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in the section and the tile is not a defintion:

Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011
​

The examples he gives in the section which according to you is about 'electrical discharges in plasma' are not in plasma:

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
First asked 3rd February 2011
​

And you (and I and no one else in this thread so far) cannot find any textbook that discusses these 'electrical discharges in plasma':

Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?
First asked 26th September 2011
​

There is no loaded question in:

Dear Anthony Peratt,
Can you clarify a point that has been raised about your book.
Section 1.5 has a title of 'Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma' and has a first sentence with what I think is the entire definition of an electrical discharge ("An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.").
This implies that it is about electrical discharges that happen within plasmas.

However other people have the interpretation that this is the standard definition of electrical discharge that excludes it from happening in plasma. They have pointed out that the section continues with "This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.".
There are no examples of electrical discharges that happen within plasma (just electrical discharges in solids and gases) in that section or elsewhere in your book.
There are no discussion of electrical discharges that happen within plasma in that section or elsewhere in your book.

Which interpretation is correct?

If electrical discharges can happen within plasmas then could you point me to publications that explain this process in fuller detail?

Regards,
Michael Mozina
​

It is just a statement of what you are doing (using only the title and first sentence as the definition) and what other people are doing (reading the entire section and noting the absence of any example of 'electrical discharge in plasma').

But if you want to make it simpler and skip the actual reasons for the interpretations then try this:

Dear Anthony Peratt,
Can you clarify a point that has been raised about your book.
Section 1.5 has a title of 'Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma'. This implies that it is about electrical discharges that happen within plasmas.

However other people have the interpretation that this is the standard definition of electrical discharge that excludes it from happening in plasma.

Which interpretation is correct?

If electrical discharges can happen within plasmas then could you point me to textbooks or papers that explain this process in fuller detail?

Regards,
Michael Mozina
​

Even better - Write your own letter stating your position in your own words and asking if you are correct and for the citations.

P.S. You are probably unaware of the reason for asking for the citations.
In science, one person's opinion does not mean anything. It is that person's opinion backed up by science that matters. The citations provide the backup.

Trying to avoid checking the original source just makes your stance ridiculous. It will just give us more ammunition to embarass you. The implication becomes that you are too scares to check with Anthony Peratt and so all we will get from you is excuses.

However do not worry too much - I will give you a few weeks to verify your source and if you take no action, I will write my own letter stating your position in my words, my position in my words and asking who is correct and for the citations.
This will look like:

Dear Anthony Peratt,
Can you clarify a point that has been raised about your book in the JREF forum thread Electric Sun Theory (mostly about the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges in plasma).
The originator of the thread has cited section 1.5 of your book which has a title of 'Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma' and has the first sentence of "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.".
This is interpreted by them as that the section is about electrical discharges that happen within plasmas.

However I have the interpretation that this is the standard definition of electrical discharge that excludes it from happening in plasma.
I have pointed out that the section continues with "This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.". Also there are no examples of electrical discharges that happen within plasma (just electrical discharges in solids and gases) in that section or elsewhere in your book. And there is no discussion of electrical discharges that happen within plasma in that section or elsewhere in your book. I also cannot find any textbooks or papers which explain electrical discharges within plasma.

Which interpretation is correct?

If electrical discharges can happen within plasmas then could you point us to textbooks or papers that explain this process in further detail?

Regards,
...
​

 

[Reality Check]

Reality Check (bless his heart) has been trying to simplify that part of the experiment so you can understand it.

Thanks W.D.Clinger
MM - in case you have still not read my post, W.D.Clinger is referring to the application of electromagnetism to a single rod:

MM: What is the magnetic field around a single current carrying rod
first asked 18th October 2011.
(use this link - the previous link was to the wrong post)
​

I am not even asking you to 'bark math'!
I am asking you to apply what undergraduate students (and probably high school students) know about the magnetic field generated by a current.

This is basic EM which you should know and agree with. Lets start with a single current carrying rod.
What do you think the magnetic field around it is, MM?

My answer: A circular field coaxial with the rod (right hand grip rule).
Your answer?

Once you answer this, we will look at the magnetic field (again no math) around 2 current carrying rods.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Although you continue to misrepresent my position, I stand by what I wrote on 13 January 2011:

For a full account of my position on this, please read that entire post.

How have I misrepresented his position? He flatly rejected it, and set SEVERE limits on where it might even be considered. He said bluntly that it was wrong. He never wrote a positively supportive statement on the topic. What more can a guy do to reject a concept?

Your argument is without merit since he publicly rejected the concept, particularly in any environment that carries current, which specifically and immediately eliminates most of your experiments by the way.

Only part of the experiment I've been suggesting is described by Purcell and by Jackson.

Which "parts"? Did they use the terms "attraction" or "repulsion" with respect to those "parts"? What scientific verbiage did they use since we know they didn't use "reconnection"?

Reality Check (bless his heart) has been trying to simplify that part of the experiment so you can understand it. I guess he hasn't yet simplified it enough.

By the way, I own only one freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism: Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism. Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics wasn't really written for freshmen.

The really amusing part is now you admitted that you personally have both a freshman and upper class textbook on this topic and neither one of them even MENTIONS reconnection. So much for your whole "it's so simple a freshman can understand it" BS. Evidently it's not even something an electrical engineer needs to know!

You complained about the cost of irony meters. It would be cheaper to buy just one, and learn how to operate it.

RC's comments are just way over the top recently. You've pegged it a few times recently (like when you had to explain to RC that Purcell didn't mention "reconnection"), but RC's recent comments have actually made me spit coffee.

I accept your gracious concession that the lies I told were true.

BS. They were lies. I've informed you now that I HAVE in fact read freshman oriented EM textbooks, not one of which I EVER recall mentioning "magnetic reconnection". Your textbooks don't mention reconnection either, so my memory serves me quite well as it relates to "reconnection" evidently, even if I can't name the author(s) 30 years later.

 

[Reality Check]

Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003

He flatly rejected it, and set SEVERE limits on where it might even be considered.

Michael Mozina, you remain wrong.
The SEVERE limits that he set in the 1980's on where the frozen-in concept can be used meant that magnetric reconenction can happen within those 1980's SEVERE limits.
Science progresses. Those limits still apply to the MHD theory that Alfvén knew about. The modern MHD theory has expanded the limits. The modern observations have strong evidence for magnetic reconnection in the places that Alfvén thought that it could not occur, e.g. in solar activity.


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!

 

[Reality Check]

Alfvén strongly stresses the danger of using the frozen-in concept (not MR)

He flatly rejected it, and set SEVERE limits on where it might even be considered.

You have never quoted where Alfvén 'flatly rejected' magnetic reconnection.

You have quoted Alfvén's keynote speech at a workshop:

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.

(emphasis added)
This is not 'flatly rejecting' MR. This is questioning the application of the frozen-in concept and pointing out where it may be valid.

He has been shown to be incorrect about the "low density regions", i.e. the areas where solar flares occur. A couple of decades later we have: Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003 .

He has been shown to be incorrect about magnetospheric physics (see the citations in this thread, e.g. by tusenfem).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Only part of the experiment I've been suggesting is described by Purcell and by Jackson.

Which "parts"?

Reality Check has already answered that several times.

Did they use the terms "attraction" or "repulsion" with respect to those "parts"?

No.

What scientific verbiage did they use since we know they didn't use "reconnection"?

[latex]
\[
\begin{align*}
\nabla \times \hbox{{\bf H}} - \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf D}}}{\partial t} &= \hbox{{\bf J}} \\
\oint_C \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf l}} &=
\mu_0 \int_S \hbox{{\bf J}} \cdot \hbox{{\bf n}} \; da \\
| \hbox{{\bf B}} | &= \frac{\mu_0}{4 \pi} I R
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dl}{(R^2+l^2)^{3/2}}
= \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{R} \\
H_\alpha &= \sum_{\beta} \mu_{\alpha \beta}^\prime B_\beta \\
\hbox{{\bf H}} &= \mu^\prime \hbox{{\bf B}}
= \frac{\hbox{{\bf B}}}{\mu}
\end{align*}
\]
[/latex]​

 

[GeeMack]

But he did publicly denounce the concept! You're ignoring historical fact AGAIN!

I'm not ignoring anything. I was trying to explain the simple concept of using a non sequitur as an argument, why it has failed so far, and why it will continue to fail.

That's not NEW behavior by the way, you're just carrying it to OUTRAGEOUS extremes. I've seen creationists show more common sense in debate.

The uncivil personal attack is noted, and is, of course, irrelevant. But as an attempt to divert from the topic of the discussion, it's a good example of a red herring, a dishonest tactic, glaringly obvious, and consequently destined to fail. Maybe it will be easier to understand than the concept of a non sequitur.

Let's recap and I'll highlight the part where he goes from an "weak atheist" on the topic to a 'strong atheist' on the topic.

[...]

Care to 'translate' the yellow parts for us and tell me how you've turned a strong atheist on this topic into a theist for us?

I translate it much the same way as Reality Check has. The highlighted part appears to be intentionally isolated from the rest of the text, particularly the parts where Alfvén describes how his comments are conditional to a certain aspect of plasma physics and not to be taken as absolute.

He did write and give speeches on the topic of MR theory however. Denial won't save you from history GM.

History seems to demonstrate that Alfvén didn't reject the concept of magnetic reconnection in every situation, only under certain circumstances. His comments from that speech at a workshop were an acknowledgement that he had been wrong about his previous position. A couple decades of progress in plasma physics since then have shown that Alfvén was even more incorrect than he realized. And the persistent accusation that I'm denying anything is an irrelevant and dishonest diversion which makes it another good example of a red herring.

 

[Reality Check]

But he did publicly denounce the concept!

Just to emphasis what GM and I have been saying: Alfvén did publicly denounce the usage of the concept: Alfvén strongly stresses the danger of using the frozen-in concept (not MR) .

Alfvén explicitly stated there are fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid, e.g. the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region.
This 30 year old opinion has been shown to be incorrect as far as the less dense photospheric region is concerned (see Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003).

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not ignoring anything. I was trying to explain the simple concept of using a non sequitur as an argument, why it has failed so far, and why it will continue to fail.

Your entire argument about it being a non-sequitur is a *LIE*, as is pretty much every statement that comes out of your mouth in this thread. I am NOT basing my argument on what Alfven did NOT say about your stupid theory, but rather what he DID say about it, and the fact the made it OBSOLETE and UNNECESSARY in the very conditions in which you're trying to use it! He did write papers and books to explain coronal loop, flare and magnetospheric activity. All of them were based on circuit theory. None of them were based on 'magnetic reconnection' theory. Your entire argument is an EPIC FAIL because he publicly ridiculed the idea, he didn't just "never write about it" as you're trying to suggest!

The uncivil personal attack is noted, and is, of course, irrelevant.

Please. What would you know about "civil dialog"? For a guy that dishes out the uncivil statements by the bucket load, you're sure "delicate" when it comes your way.

But as an attempt to divert from the topic of the discussion, it's a good example of a red herring, a dishonest tactic, glaringly obvious, and consequently destined to fail. Maybe it will be easier to understand than the concept of a non sequitur.

The only "dishonest tactic" is ignoring his public ridicule of the idea and his direct quotes, such as:

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.

He BLUNTLY rejected your theory in relationship to magnetospheric activity. In fact he BLUNTLY rejected the whole concept:

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.

I translate it much the same way as Reality Check has. The highlighted part appears to be intentionally isolated from the rest of the text, particularly the parts where Alfvén describes how his comments are conditional to a certain aspect of plasma physics and not to be taken as absolute.

Alfven's double layer paper makes MR theory OBSOLETE EVERYWHERE ABOVE THE PHOTOSPHERE.

In fact, the only "gap" left would be HIGHLY DENSE plasma, that absolutely, positively carries no current. You have an every shrinking "mr theory of the gaps" in Alfven's world, and he bluntly rejected it in relationship to solar flare activity and magnetospheric activity.

DEAL WITH IT!

History seems to demonstrate that Alfvén didn't reject the concept of magnetic reconnection in every situation, only under certain circumstances.

Ya, he rejected it bluntly in all the circumstances in which you are trying to use it, including all the circumstances used in your "experiments".

His comments from that speech at a workshop were an acknowledgement that he had been wrong about his previous position. A couple decades of progress in plasma physics since then have shown that Alfvén was even more incorrect than he realized.

Wow! Talk about "spin". He was pissed off at how his earlier work had been KLUDGED from his perspective, and he clearly rejected the "reconnection" concept. Every single instance in which the mainstream today uses the concept of "reconnection" he bluntly rejected the theory, and he used CIRCUIT theory instead. You might as well be claiming that Lennon was "Christian".

And the persistent accusation that I'm denying anything is an irrelevant and dishonest diversion which makes it another good example of a red herring.

Your whole argument is a red herring. He was never silent on the issue.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have never quoted where Alfvén 'flatly rejected' magnetic reconnection.

You have quoted Alfvén's keynote speech at a workshop:

(emphasis added)
This is not 'flatly rejecting' MR. This is questioning the application of the frozen-in concept and pointing out where it may be valid.

Wow. I've seen creationists bend reality like a pretzel before, but this is absolutely incredible. He did flatly reject MR theory in exactly the places you're using it.

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.

Let's look at the WHOLE sentence you picked out:

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.

First of all, he is bluntly rejecting the concept above the photosphere. Secondly, the "concept" he's "ok-ing" in your highlighted part isn't "reconnection" theory, it's the "frozen in" idea that "might be valid" in dense plasmas not reconnection theory. More importantly, Alfven sees and writes about the ENTIRE UNIVERSE as a "current carrying" environment RC. He explains the energy transfer process of current carrying plasmas WITHOUT reconnection! In his mind the whole MR theory is ridiculous. He consistently explains the very same events in LIGHT PLASMAS using "circuit theory" and bluntly rejects the idea in light current carrying environments.

I've seen denial used in debate before, but you three are in a class by yourselves.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think I need a sanity break from this place today. I can only handle so much pure denial in a single week, and you three are WAY over the limit.