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

[Reality Check]

MM: these were your inane questions that had nothing to do with sol invictus's post:

Originally Posted by sol invictus
Michael, we've discussed this issue many times before. It's true that B-field lines cannot start or end. Nevertheless, they can reconnect, so long as they do so at a point where the magnitude of the B field is zero. This does not violate Maxwell's equations, and it does not require magnetic monopoles. In fact we've several times given you explicit examples of magnetic fields that solve Maxwell's equations and reconnect.

Years ago I gave you the example of contour lines on a map. Those can't begin or end either - but they can reconnect, for instance at a saddle point (a pass between two hills) during an earthquake (i.e. as the topography changes with time).

Do electrical discharges as Peratt defined them occur in plasmas sol, yes or no? Did Alfven reject MR theory in current carrying environments, yes or no? Why? How much KINETIC ENERGY is located at two ZERO points in a couple of magnetic field lines? How come all the equations in question are based on INDUCTANCE per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection per distance unit? How is "magnetic reconnection' not "inductance" when every single formula is based on INDUCTANCE? Why do I even need 'magnetic reconnection' theory in the first place in a current carrying environment when I can simply use Alfven's double layer paper instead?

So if we ignore the fact that these have nothing to do with what sol invictus stated (and so he is unlikely to answer other than with a "nothing to do with my post, Duh !") then the answers are reveal your delusions and ignorance again:

• No: Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
• No: Alfvén criteria is about the current through the surface of a finite volume of plasma.
• As much KINETIC ENERGY as electrons in the current sheet contain (which is usually much smaller than the MAGNETIC FIELD ENERGY as pointed out to you before again and again and that you will ignore this time and again and again and again).
• Because "magnetic reconnection per distance unit" is gibberish.
• Every single MR formula is based on MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS.
• You need magnetic reconnection theory to explain the details of what actually happens in the universe, e.g. for solar flares Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003 and the Earth's magnetosphere by THEMIS (Google Scholar) or even Mercury's: MESSENGER Observations of Magnetic Reconnection in Mercury’s Magnetosphere

If you use Alfven's double layer paper then all you get is the total energy released from the flare. You do not get any details about what actually happens.

 

[Vermonter]

I for one am looking forward to Peratt's response. Hopefully that'll settle some of this nonsense once and for all. My prediction? Goalposts will be moved via electric discharges. I eagerly await my $1,000,000 check.

 

[Belz...]

FYI, it's not a shouting thing, it's an emphasis thing.

You're not supposed to emphasize HALF OF YOUR SENTENCE !!!!

Indeed. That's why I've provided lots of links in this thread including the work by Mann and Onel, Alfven, Bruce, Birkeland and many, many, many others.

So your "yes" is, in fact, a "no" ? Why do people keep doing that ?

How many of them have you read?

Irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

Magnetic reconnection does not involve field lines ending

I seem to recall this very thing being told to him for quite a while, now.

 

[sol invictus]

FYI, I have absolutely no idea why you personally would step back into this mess having read a little of Alfven's work for yourself sol. You're about the only one here besides me that seems to appreciate the fact that photons are a form of kinetic energy, so I'm sure you'll see my point sooner or later.

Since you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound now my friend. How about some direct answers to the following questions:

Do electrical discharges as Peratt defined them occur in plasmas sol, yes or no? Did Alfven reject MR theory in current carrying environments, yes or no? Why? How much KINETIC ENERGY is located at two ZERO points in a couple of magnetic field lines? How come all the equations in question are based on INDUCTANCE per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection per distance unit? How is "magnetic reconnection' not "inductance" when every single formula is based on INDUCTANCE? Why do I even need 'magnetic reconnection' theory in the first place in a current carrying environment when I can simply use Alfven's double layer paper instead?

Michael, the point of my post was to remind you that Gauss' law for magnetism - the law that says that magnetic field lines cannot begin or end - is fully consistent with magnetic reconnection. I think we should settle that first, and then afterwards I'd be happy to answer your questions.

So - do you agree with that statement? To be completely explicit, do you agree that "Gauss' law for magnetism - the law that says that magnetic field lines cannot begin or end - is fully consistent with magnetic reconnection"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, the point of my post was to remind you that Gauss' law for magnetism - the law that says that magnetic field lines cannot begin or end - is fully consistent with magnetic reconnection. I think we should settle that first, and then afterwards I'd be happy to answer your questions.

So - do you agree with that statement? To be completely explicit, do you agree that "Gauss' law for magnetism - the law that says that magnetic field lines cannot begin or end - is fully consistent with magnetic reconnection"?

Without you answering any of my other related questions, and without any "real" solid definition of the term "magnetic reconnection", it's virtually impossible to answer your question logically sol.

What exactly does anyone mean by that term? The term "reconnection" seems to be slapped on to just about everything from inductance through various materials, to the topology change of field aligned currents. What *EXACTLY (at the level of particle physics) do you mean by 'reconnection'. Please explain to me what "reconnects" at the level of particle kinetic energy? If you're suggesting that charged particles that are traveling in "circuits" can "reconnect" at a "short circuit location" in the plasma, sure, electrical discharges happen. If you're saying "induction happens", sure. If you're saying magnetic field lines disconnect from their original "line" and some end point in that line, and then "reconnect" to some other magnetic line from some other field at a 90 degree angle, "forgetaboutit".

 

[Michael Mozina]

So your "yes" is, in fact, a "no" ? Why do people keep doing that ?

No, my answer was "yes" but you failed to do your part and actually read and educate yourself to the materials I have presented in this thread as demonstrated by your next statement:

Irrelevant.

It's highly relevant material. I suggest you read it. If not, you could end up looking as silly as GM and RC. "Discharges? What discharges"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nevermind... thought this was the sun-made-of-iron thread.

FYI, every single "electric sun" theory that I'm aware of involves "electrical discharges" in the solar atmosphere. I don't know of ANY electric sun theory that doesn't involve "circuits" and "discharges" in coronal loops and flare events. If you folks can't get that far, it's a complete waste of time to even start to discuss how the E orientation of plasma physics and circuit theory might apply to various electric solar models, including Birkeland's solar model.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I for one am looking forward to Peratt's response. Hopefully that'll settle some of this nonsense once and for all. My prediction? Goalposts will be moved via electric discharges. I eagerly await my $1,000,000 check.

I suspect that even if Peratt answers RC, he'll either:

A) never post the response
B) twist his statements like a pretzel, just like he twisted his DEFINITION of an electrical discharge in a plasma like a pretzel.

If he kludged Peratt's statements like that and splits hairs to ignore the fact that Dungey also stated that discharges occur in plasmas, what hope is there that he's going to actually accept Peratt's email statements in a rational fashion?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I misjudged Michael Mozina.

This is not found in textbooks & published papers for the simple reason that is is both obvious & trivial. Contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, it is actually not true that literally everything is found within the covers of a book or on the pages of a scholarly paper. These are the same people who think that every question has an answer in the "solutions manual", if you can find it; thinking not required, just look it all up. It is just one more example of appeal too authority rather than an independent examination of the actual physics involved.

To be fair, the ill-informed people who think all answers are found within some holy text insist upon appeals to authority because they just aren't capable of conducting an independent examination of the actual physics involved.

Michael Mozina isn't that guy, because he read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism some thirty years ago. Although he can't remember anything about its title, author, or electromagnetism, I'm sure it will all come back to him after he's worked out a few trivial exercises, such as the one I've been suggesting to him for almost a year.

I was wrong. Michael Mozina is that guy:

When you provide me with a PUBLISHED work that makes the claim that your particular INDUCTANCE experiment is an example of "magnetic reconnection", I'll consider doing your math assignment, and not a MINUTE before then.

But I was right about some other things:

What exactly does anyone mean by that term? The term "reconnection" seems to be slapped on to just about everything from inductance through various materials, to the topology change of field aligned currents. What *EXACTLY (at the level of particle physics) do you mean by 'reconnection'. Please explain to me what "reconnects" at the level of particle kinetic energy?

If you're suggesting that charged particles that are traveling in "circuits" can "reconnect" at a "short circuit location" in the plasma, sure, electrical discharges happen. If you're saying "induction happens", sure.

If you're saying magnetic field lines disconnect from their original "line" and some end point in that line, and then "reconnect" to some other magnetic line from some other field at a 90 degree angle, "forgetaboutit".

So apart from the correction shown below, I got the highlighted parts completely right:

Since magnetic reconnection does indeed occur within the experiment, and Michael Mozina's denials of that fact are based on nothing more than his total lack of understanding of magnetic reconnection, this shows that magnetic reconnection is consistent with Gauss's Law for Magnetism, despite repeated protests from people one particular individual who literally does not know what they're he's talking about.

[size=-1]ETA (not that it will do Michael Mozina any good):

If you're saying magnetic field lines disconnect from their original "line" and some end point in that line, and then "reconnect" to some other magnetic line from some other field at a 90 degree angle, "forgetaboutit".

Perhaps you should start by trying to understand an even simpler change of the magnetic field lines' topology: Start with just one current-carrying rod, and reduce the current to zero. That experiment will make the magnetic field lines disappear.

Reversing that experiment will make the magnetic field lines reappear. Once a field line of some given intensity reappears, it can be made to move by increasing the current further.

Once you understand that magnetic field lines can disappear, reappear, and move, you will be in a better position to understand how they can reconnect.
[/size]​

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina's denials of that fact are based on nothing more than his total lack of understanding of magnetic reconnection, this shows that magnetic reconnection is consistent with Gauss's Law for Magnetism, despite repeated protests from people one particular individual who literally does not know what they're he's talking about.

The irony here is that any confusion on my part is directly related to the fact that various papers and various individuals slap that term on DIFFERENT (non "reconnection") processes, from INDUCTANCE (in your case), to the reconnection of "field aligned currents". Since the term is so damn ambiguous, nobody trying to understand the idea is likely to "get it". None of you do, or each and every one of you would in fact accept the term "circuit reconnection", or "current reconnection" as an accurate description of the processes described in the actual papers written about 'reconnection' theory.

Your "experiment" isn't even a published work, it's a pure handwave from a single individual and a COMPLETE LACK OF PUBLISHED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE to support that BS claim. When in fact I demonstrated to you that every formula listed used *INDUCTANCE* per unit distance you scurried away from the tough questions like a scared rabbit. What happens to the INDUCTANCE when we change the materials of your "air" or your "vacuum" to something OTHER then either of those two materials? Will your INDUCTANCE change accordingly?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Just thought I would check in to see if any progress is being made here. I see that little has changed -- all semantics with no logic or science from Mozina -- why would I have expected otherwise?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just thought I would check in to see if any progress is being made here. I see that little has changed -- all semantics with no logic or science from Mozina -- why would I have expected otherwise?

What "logic or science" did your side offer me? You offered me INDUCTANCE and tried to pass it off as "reconnection" even though no freshman textbook ever mentions the term 'reconnection', but they all typically point out that field lines have no beginning or ending. Your side has offered me nothing other than inductance to work with, and you simply MISLABELED INDUCTANCE as "magnetic reconnection". The fact we can swap out Clinger's air or his vacuum in his so called "reconnection experiment" and watch the INDUCTANCE change accordingly clearly demonstrates that INDUCTANCE is the actual ENERGY TRANSFER MECHANISM, not "magnetic reconnection".

 

[Belz...]

No, my answer was "yes"

No, you're very confused. I said you didn't have content, only form. You said "indeed", which is a "yes" as in "no content". Then you proceed to say the opposite, which makes your answer a "no".

but you failed to do your part and actually read and educate yourself to the materials I have presented in this thread as demonstrated by your next statement:

You proceed from a false premise. Namely, that I need to read anything to understand from this thread that you disagree with most of today's physicists on these matters.

And it might have something to do with the fact that you don't understand physics, as demonstrated by this statement:

Please explain to me what "reconnects" at the level of particle kinetic energy?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The irony here is that any confusion on my part is directly related to the fact that various papers and various individuals slap that term on DIFFERENT (non "reconnection") processes, from INDUCTANCE (in your case), to the reconnection of "field aligned currents". Since the term is so damn ambiguous, nobody trying to understand the idea is likely to "get it". None of you do, or each and every one of you would in fact accept the term "circuit reconnection", or "current reconnection" as an accurate description of the processes described in the actual papers written about 'reconnection' theory.

As you have demonstrated, no one who confuses magnetic flux with field-aligned currents, identifies everything with inductance, and insists upon talking about "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" in regions of space that contain no circuits or currents is likely to get it.

Your "experiment" isn't even a published work, it's a pure handwave from a single individual and a COMPLETE LACK OF PUBLISHED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE to support that BS claim.

Mathematics is hand-waving? You don't think the basic equations of electromagnetism have been published?

What you're really saying, I think, is that you don't understand the math, and are therefore incapable of understanding how the published equations support our claims.

As for how you can go from that position of honorable ignorance to the certainty of your shouted denials, I'm inclined to credit Kruger and Dunning's explanation.

For example: You don't understand permeability and the various notions of inductance, but you've heard there's some connection between them. And so, when you see an equation you don't understand at all, you focus on the one thing you recognize (the universal constant μ₀) and start shouting about induction:

When in fact I demonstrated to you that every formula listed used *INDUCTANCE* per unit distance you scurried away from the tough questions like a scared rabbit. What happens to the INDUCTANCE when we change the materials of your "air" or your "vacuum" to something OTHER then either of those two materials? Will your INDUCTANCE change accordingly?

 

[Perpetual Student]

What "logic or science" did your side offer me? You offered me INDUCTANCE and tried to pass it off as "reconnection" even though no freshman textbook ever mentions the term 'reconnection', but they all typically point out that field lines have no beginning or ending. Your side has offered me nothing other than inductance to work with, and you simply MISLABELED INDUCTANCE as "magnetic reconnection". The fact we can swap out Clinger's air or his vacuum in his so called "reconnection experiment" and watch the INDUCTANCE change accordingly clearly demonstrates that INDUCTANCE is the actual ENERGY TRANSFER MECHANISM, not "magnetic reconnection".

Actually, I can easily discern that you still have no idea what induction means. I recall many months ago when I introduced the term induction to you in this thread; you seized on the word while demonstrating no comprehension whatsoever of its meaning or significance. If you disagree with this, you can easily establish your credibility by giving us a simple explanation of induction and then explaining why it is being conflated with magnetic reconnection by the world of physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As you have demonstrated, no one who confuses magnetic flux with field-aligned currents, identifies everything with inductance, and insists upon talking about "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" in regions of space that contain no circuits or currents is likely to get it.

Oh, I "get it" all too clearly. You're ERRONEOUSLY trying to pass off inductance as "reconnection", in spite of the fact that your experiment PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that "inductance did it".

Mathematics is hand-waving? You don't think the basic equations of electromagnetism have been published?

Ya, but they all involved INDUCTANCE, not "reconnection". Evidently you forgot that the B field lines do not begin or end.

What you're really saying, I think, is that you don't understand the math, and are therefore incapable of understanding how the published equations support our claims.

Pure BS and pure denial. I showed you where your *OWN* equations use *INDUCTANCE* per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection" per distance unit! Your math is the thing that conclusively busts your show! No "reconnection" happens in that experiment, just "inductance". "Inductance" has a proper scientific name already. It's not "reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, I can easily discern that you still have no idea what induction means. I recall many months ago when I introduced the term induction to you in this thread; you seized on the word while demonstrating no comprehension whatsoever of its meaning or significance. If you disagree with this, you can easily establish your credibility by giving us a simple explanation of induction and then explaining why it is being conflated with magnetic reconnection by the world of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)

Every single one of Clinger's equations evokes permeability:

Permeability is the inductance per unit length. In SI units, permeability is measured in henries per metre

I know inductance isn't "reconnection". Inductance has a proper scientific name. Start using it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, you're very confused. I said you didn't have content, only form.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7601955&postcount=3356
This erroneous statement only demonstrates to me that you haven't been following the thread, nor read any of the materials I've presented. When did you intend to rectify that situation?

You proceed from a false premise. Namely, that I need to read anything to understand from this thread that you disagree with most of today's physicists on these matters.

So your whole argument amounts to a appeal to authority fallacy does it?

And it might have something to do with the fact that you don't understand physics, as demonstrated by this statement:

Pfft.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Actually, I can easily discern that you still have no idea what induction means. I recall many months ago when I introduced the term induction to you in this thread; you seized on the word while demonstrating no comprehension whatsoever of its meaning or significance. If you disagree with this, you can easily establish your credibility by giving us a simple explanation of induction and then explaining why it is being conflated with magnetic reconnection by the world of physics.

So, where is it? Please explain to me (perhaps with a little electric circuit analogy, if you can't do it with mathematics?) why "induction" is at work here instead of non-existent magnetic reconnection. Just a little simple explanation will do. Here's your chance to establish your credibility.