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

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Actually the UCLA group uses standard circuit theory to explain it, far better than I could I'm afraid:

http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/web pdf's/46. Lessons from Lab..pdf

Read the WHOLE paper.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

This one does an excellent job too:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Then again, you could try Alfven's paper:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

FYI, here's your chance to establish your credibility by acknowledging Alfven's work on this topic.

 

[sol invictus]

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'.

It means that the magnetic field lines - which have a precise definition that I can give if you're in doubt - can evolve in time in such a way that their topology changes. Specifically, they can evolve as shown in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKTyfqDj-HQ&list=PL4D6FF1F22B74A6AD&index=2 .

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".

Please answer my question (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"). Thanks.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It means that the magnetic field lines - which have a precise definition that I can give if you're in doubt - can evolve in time in such a way that their topology changes. Specifically, they can evolve as shown in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKTyfqDj-HQ&list=PL4D6FF1F22B74A6AD&index=2 .



Please answer my question (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"). Thanks.

I guess I'll have to watch the entire video and read the corresponding paper to answer your question sol. How do I distinguish between ordinary inductance in various materials and "magnetic reconnection" at the level of kinetic energy? If you can't answer that question, I don't know how to proceed?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Actually the UCLA group uses standard circuit theory to explain it, far better than I could I'm afraid:

http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/web pdf's/46. Lessons from Lab..pdf

Read the WHOLE paper.

This one does an excellent job too:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Then again, you could try Alfven's paper:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Al...r Flares.pdf

FYI, here's your chance to establish your credibility by acknowledging Alfven's work on this topic.

I have never pretended to have any knowledge in this area so I'm flattered that you think I have any credibility to establish. I am not a physicist; I know some mathematics and I have some background in electronics, so the papers you linked are beyond my skill level. I will ask again; after all, you have posted several hundred times in 104 pages here -- it's a small request. Please provide my with a simple explanation of induction and why it is being confused with magnetic reconnection -- in your own words. I'm sitting at the knee of the master waiting to learn. Here I am: a willing subject ready to be converted to the side of anti-magnetic-reconnection-ism.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It means that the magnetic field lines - which have a precise definition that I can give if you're in doubt - can evolve in time in such a way that their topology changes.

This is really vague. I need something more specific. Do you agree with Clinger that his experiment is an example of 'magnetic reconnection'? If so, how is "reconnection" physically (kinetic energy wise) any different from inductance?

 

[Belz...]

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?

And again you are confused. I am talking about the constant use of the irony meter. Perhaps you are having trouble following.

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

You are, once more, very confused. The fallacy of appeal to authority does not apply to relevant authorities. So far you have not demonstrated that you know what you are talking about.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have never pretended to have any knowledge in this area so I'm flattered that you think I have any credibility to establish. I am not a physicist; I know some mathematics and I have some background in electronics, so the papers you linked are beyond my skill level. I will ask again; after all, you have posted several hundred times in 104 pages here -- it's a small request. Please provide my with a simple explanation of induction and why it is being confused with magnetic reconnection -- in your own words. I'm sitting at the knee of the master waiting to learn. Here I am: a willing subject ready to be converted to the side of anti-magnetic-reconnection.

I already gave you the readers digest version by pointing out that every single formula in Clinger's so called "reconnection" experiment evokes permeability, a feature and measurement that is related to the *INDUCTANCE* of various materials per distance unit, not "reconnection" per distance unit.

Alfven's paper and presentation is really quite simple PS. I'm sure from our previous conversations that you personally have the background necessary to follow his presentation on CIRCUIT theory and how it applies to solar flares *if you are sincerely interested in* a circuit oriented explanation of a flare event.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And again you are confused. I am talking about the constant use of the irony meter. Perhaps you are having trouble following.

You erroneous claimed I provided no content. The exploding irony meter is simply an expression of shear glee/amazement at how irrational his comments have become. RC took a simple discharge definition and Dungey's work on electrical discharges in solar flare activity and turned it into a three ring denial circus. I've seen creationists do a better job of embracing reality and "science".

You are, once more, very confused. The fallacy of appeal to authority does not apply to relevant authorities. So far you have not demonstrated that you know what you are talking about.

The amusing aspect of this conversation is that you're still appealing to (false) authority figures rather than pointing out any flaw in anything I've said. Talk about lame and confused arguments. RC isn't a professionally employed at Los Alamos. Peratt is/was professional employed at Los Alamos and wrote a book about plasma physics. In that book he DEFINES what an 'electrical discharge in a plasma' is (a fast release of stored EM energy). I've even shown RC youtube videos of the process in action. To this day, RC *STILL* claims that electrical discharges cannot occur in a plasma. RC isn't an authority figure on this topic, I assure you. RC has never read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, nor has he ever even bothered to read Peratt's book Physics of the Plasma Universe.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I already gave you the readers digest version by pointing out that every single formula in Clinger's so called "reconnection" experiment evokes permeability, a feature and measurement that is related to the *INDUCTANCE* of various materials per distance unit, not "reconnection" per distance unit.

Alfven's paper and presentation is really quite simple PS. I'm sure from our previous conversations that you personally have the background necessary to follow his presentation on CIRCUIT theory and how it applies to solar flares *if you are sincerely interested in* a circuit oriented explanation of a flare event.

You have expended so many hours of time for eleven months here; all I'm asking is for two simple explanations (you have thought about this so much and written so much, it should be like saying the alphabet):

First: What is induction?

Second: Why is it confused with magnetic reconnection?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have expended so many hours of time for eleven months here; all I'm asking is for two simple explanations...

I gave you more. You don't want to learn so you didn't read or respond to any of the papers I handed you, nor acknowledge the fact that all of Clinger's formulas evoke INDUCTANCE per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection" per distance unit. You just ignored it all! Wow Creationists have NOTHING on EU haters in terms of pure denial of scientific fact.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It means that the magnetic field lines - which have a precise definition that I can give if you're in doubt - can evolve in time in such a way that their topology changes.

This is really vague. I need something more specific. Do you agree with Clinger that his experiment is an example of 'magnetic reconnection'?

Michael Mozina is referring to the experiment described in post #3861.

If so, how is "reconnection" physically (kinetic energy wise) any different from inductance?

 

[Perpetual Student]

You have expended so many hours of time for eleven months here; all I'm asking is for two simple explanations (you have thought about this so much and written so much, it should be like saying the alphabet):

First: What is induction?

Second: Why is it confused with magnetic reconnection?

I gave you more. You don't want to learn so you didn't read or respond to any of the papers I handed you, nor acknowledge the fact that all of Clinger's formulas evoke INDUCTANCE per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection" per distance unit. You just ignored it all! Wow Creationists have NOTHING on EU haters in terms of pure denial of scientific fact.

I don't have the background to follow Clinger's equations. Please help me and simultaneously give yourself some credibility:

First: What is induction?

Second: Why is it confused with magnetic reconnection?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't have the background to follow Clinger's equations.

Then why are you engaged in this conversation?

Please help me and simultaneously give yourself some credibility:

I don't need any "credibility". Scientific fact could care less about "credibility". In scientific fact his formulas are based upon "inductance" (has a proper scientific name) per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection" per distance unit. You don't even technically have to understand the formulas to know that a cat is not a dog.

 

[Perpetual Student]

A simple request directed to Mozina from a layman (who understands some math and a little electronics):

1. What is induction?

2. Why is it confused with magnetic reconnection?

After hundreds of posts by Mozina in 104 pages, this is such a simple request. In your own words please -- no links.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I don't have the background to follow Clinger's equations.

Then why are you engaged in this conversation?

If having the background to understand basic equations of electromagnetism were prerequisite to joining this conversation, then what is Michael Mozina doing here?

Please help me and simultaneously give yourself some credibility:

I don't need any "credibility". Scientific fact could care less "credibility, and in scientific fact his formulas are based upon "inductance" (has a proper scientific name) per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection" per distance unit. You don't even technically have to understand the formulas to know that a cat is not a dog.

Michael Mozina doesn't have to understand the formulas to know ≠

On the other hand, Michael Mozina thinks magnetic reconnection is synonymous with induction. Understanding the formulas would have prevented that confusion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A simple request directed to Mozina from a layman (who understands some math and a little electronics):

If you have a little electronics background then you already know that permeability is measured in *inductance* per distance units, not "magnetic reconnection" per distance units. A cat is not a dog. Please, no denial.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina doesn't have to understand the formulas to know ≠

On the other hand, Michael Mozina thinks magnetic reconnection is synonymous with induction. Understanding the formulas would have prevented that confusion.

FYI, there is a "creationist/fundy" switch on this brand of meter that prevents them from blowing up completely when the irony goes into overload mode, but it's just so much fun watching them explode, and they're relatively cheap.

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

Permeability is the inductance per unit length.

That's why you can't find any author in print that agrees that your experiment is an example of 'magnetic reconnection' by the way.

 

[Perpetual Student]

If you have a little electronics background then you already know that permeability is measured in *inductance* per distance units, not "magnetic reconnection" per distance units. A cat is not a dog. Please, no denial.

OK, suit yourself; After this, I won't ask again. It is amazing that you would spend so much time and effort here for almost a year and yet not make a meager effort to make your position clear and redeem yourself. Many people here have said that you do not understand the physics and mathematics involved and consequently do not understand magnetic reconnection. You could put all this to rest by providing the simple explanations I have requested (no links -- in your own words -- as much or as little mathematics as you choose. I will do my best to follow).

1. What is induction?

2. Why is induction confused with magnetic reconnection?