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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
:) 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.
Click to expand...
You are wrong yet again. If Peratt answers me I will post the answer.

I have not twisted his definition. Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge is quite clear if you are not deluded enough to quote mine the first sentence.
The supporting evidence for that definition having nothing to do with electrical discharges within plasma is:
You cannot find any textbook on 'electrical discharges in plasma'
 
Perpetual Student said:
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.
Click to expand...

Arguing with creationists taught me a long time ago that there is no point in debating someone that is stuck in pure denial. Nothing I say to you is ever going to change your opinion. Nothing Alfven said about MR theory mattered either. Dogma isn't interested in the scientific fact that permeability is measured in *inductance* per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection" per distance unit. Dogma is only interested in sustaining more dogma (and funding).
 
Michael Mozina said:
What exactly does anyone mean by that term? The term "reconnection" seems to be slapped on to just about everything from inductance ...snipped further ignorance...
Click to expand...
That question makes you seem totally ignorant about magnetic reconnection, Michael Mozina.
This ignorance would explain all of the garbage that you have been writing about MR though.

What anyone means by the term magnetic reconnection is the reconnection of magnetic field lines!
This has interesting properties when it happens in a plasma: Magnetic reconnection. The process is really simple to understand
  • There is a magnetic field with a saddle point.
  • Two points to either side of and above the saddle are not connected.
  • Let the magnetic field change so that the saddle rises.
  • The two points become connected by magnetic field lines.
  • Scientists say that the two two points have "reconnected".
Magnetic reconnection is never "slapped onto" inductance except in your head.
 
MM: What is the magnetic field around a single current carrying rod

Michael Mozina said:
Every single one of Clinger's equations evokes permeability:
Click to expand...
Clinger has no equations. It is EM textbooks that have the equations.
There is no 'evoke' needed. The permeability is there explicitly.
In the experiment the one I've been suggesting to him for almost a year, this is the permeability of air. Feel free to replace it with the permeability of free space (i.e. assume the experiment is done in vacuum).

What the permeability does is relate the auxiliary magnetic field H to the magnetic field B

You have obsessed on the units that Permeability (electromagnetism) is measured in. You have completely ignored what it is:
In electromagnetism, permeability is the measure of the ability of a material to support the formation of a magnetic field within itself. In other words, it is the degree of magnetization that a material obtains in response to an applied magnetic field. Magnetic permeability is typically represented by the Greek letter μ. The term was coined in September, 1885 by Oliver Heaviside. The reciprocal of magnetic permeability is magnetic reluctivity.
Click to expand...

P.S.
You are ignoring this question:
It is beginning to look like you are ignorant of high school physics. If you cannot answer the question then I will have to conclude that this is the case.
Please do not force me to turn this simple question into a statement of your ignorance.
 
Michael Mozina said:
...and in Clinger's so called "magnetic reconnection" experiment.
Click to expand...
You are deluded about this - permeability is there explicitly. There is no induction. There is only the fact that permeability can be measured in units of henry per metre and the henry is the SI unit of inductance.

permeability is not inductance (if you cannot understand anything else then understand that they have separate Wikipedia articles!)

Doubly deluded: Clinger's experiment is actually called a "magnetic reconnection" experiment and actually demonstrates "magnetic reconnection"!
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
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%20pdf%27s/46.%20%20Lessons%20from%20Lab..pdf

Read the WHOLE paper.
Click to expand...
Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection - R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
says that you are wrong. This is a paper on magnetic reconnection experiements that contains no circuit theory. Throughout the paper they refer to the energy released from the magnetic field not induction.

This is the paper that disproves the involvement of double layers in magneic reconnection. See Figure 9.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
FYI, MM, citing Alfven's paper does not improve your credibility since he just uses a circuit model of solar flares to match the total energy that is observed from them.
This is not an argument for induction at work. There are no timescales calculated in the paper.

Induction is ruled out by the physics since it would take a million years for a flare to release the observed energy: Magnetic Reconnection Redux V (30 Dec 2009).
 
Michael Mozina said:
Arguing with creationists taught me a long time ago that there is no point in debating someone that is stuck in pure denial. Nothing I say to you is ever going to change your opinion. Nothing Alfven said about MR theory mattered either. Dogma isn't interested in the scientific fact that permeability is measured in *inductance* per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection" per distance unit. Dogma is only interested in sustaining more dogma (and funding).
Click to expand...

What babbling! Creationists? Denial? Alfven? Dogma? Funding? I asked two simple questions, which you were clearly unable to answer. It amazes me that you do not even understand the word induction -- how pathetic and what a waste of time you are, with your make-believe science. Back on ignore you go!
 
Reality Check said:
Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection - R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
says that you are wrong. This is a paper on magnetic reconnection experiements that contains no circuit theory. Throughout the paper they refer to the energy released from the magnetic field not induction.

This is the paper that disproves the involvement of double layers in maggnetci reconnecting. See Figure 9.
Click to expand...

Er, no!

http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/Older Publ. PDF/28. 1982_ Double Layer.pdf
 
Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are really stuck then because there is no "level of kinetic energy" in either ordinary inductance in various materials or magnetic reconnection.
Your question is thus basically gibberish.

You can distinguish between ordinary inductance and "magnetic reconnection" quite simply because they are two different things:
 
Once again, Michael Mozina has cited a paper that demolishes his arguments.

Michael Mozina said:
Perpetual Student said:
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.
Click to expand...

This one does an excellent job too:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
Click to expand...
According to page 140 (page 6 of the PDf), the presence of induction is one of the things that distinguishes their experiment from previous laboratory experiments with magnetic reconnection. In other words, induction did not play a significant role in previous laboratory experiments that demonstrated magnetic reconnection.

That contradicts Michael Mozina's claim that magnetic reconnection is just a synonym or euphemism for induction.

The paper's concluding summary contradicts Michael Mozina on two important points:
Magnetic reconnection has been studied in a laboratory plasma...
Click to expand...
This is not the first time Michael Mozina has cited papers that directly contradict his oft-repeated claim that magnetic reconnection is pseudo-science that can't be reproduced within a laboratory.

Investigation of the third dimension...has shown that reconnection (flux transfer) and dissipation (acceleration by localized electric fields) can be spatially separated.
Click to expand...
The highlighted phrase refers to the effect of induction. In other words, magnetic reconnection was spatially separated from the inductive effects that Michael Mozina believes to be synonymous with magnetic reconnection.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...

You don't have to watch more than a few seconds of video or read any papers to answer the question I asked you. The video shows some lines reconnecting. My question is, "do you agree that magnetic field lines reconnecting like the lines in that video is consistent with Gauss' law for magnetism?"
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
And you are wrong - permeability can be measured in units of henry per metre and the henry is the SI unit of inductance.

permeability is not inductance (if you cannot understand anything else then understand that they have separate Wikipedia articles!)
 
Michael Mozina said:
sol invictus said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is really vague. I need something more specific.
Click to expand...

If you hadn't cut out the other part of my post, which said "Specifically, they can evolve as shown in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKTyf...74A6AD&index=2", you'd have had 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?
Click to expand...

As I said, I'm not going to answer your questions until you answer mine. OK?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
According to page 140 (page 6 of the PDf), the presence of induction is one of the things that distinguishes their experiment from previous laboratory experiments with magnetic reconnection. In other words, induction did not play a significant role in previous laboratory experiments that demonstrated magnetic reconnection.
Click to expand...

:) Ya, "whistler waves did it". You guys seem to slap that term on ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING you see. :)

That contradicts Michael Mozina's claim that magnetic reconnection is just a synonym or euphemism for induction.
Click to expand...

I only said it was a euphamism for inductance in YOUR experiment Clinger.

The paper's concluding summary contradicts Michael Mozina on two important points:

This is not the first time Michael Mozina has cited papers that directly contradict his oft-repeated claim that magnetic reconnection is pseudo-science that can't be reproduced within a laboratory.
Click to expand...

I never said that current reconnection doesn't occur in the lab Clinger, that was your claim. You're just refusing to meet me in the middle. It was ALFVEN HIMSELF that called it "pseudoscience" and made it obsolete in double layers.

The highlighted phrase refers to the effect of induction. In other words, magnetic reconnection was spatially separated from the inductive effects that Michael Mozina believes to be synonymous with magnetic reconnection.
Click to expand...

Their experiment actually explains that whistler waves are involved in the process. So what?
 
The formation of DLs after MR as shown by Stenzel, et all (1982, 1986)

Michael Mozina said:
Er, no!

http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/Older Publ. PDF/28. 1982_ Double Layer.pdf
Click to expand...
Er, yes (sort of).
Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection - R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
This is the paper that disproves the involvement of double layers in magnetic reconnection by showing that current disruption (and so the formations of DLs) happens after the reconnection. See Figure 9.

Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia, 1982 is the earlier experiment that shows that DLs form after the current disruption.

The two papers demonstrate the sequence of events that happens to create DLs in magnetic reconnection
  1. Magnetic reconnection
  2. Current disruption
  3. Double layers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom