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

[Tim Thompson]

The Circus Side Show ...

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. [...]

1. What is induction?

2. Why is induction confused with magnetic reconnection?

It's not really all that amazing. Mozina never answers direct questions like that, for the simple reason that he can't and he knows it. So he always evades the issue, avoids answering real questions, and hides behind sham arguments about words & semantics. This thread became a circus-freak side show a long time ago, with Mozina in the starring role.

Like you, I thought I had asked perfectly reasonable questions. For instance ...

You tell me if the equations from Stenzel, Gekelman & Wild, 1982 look like the equations in my post.
You tell me if you think their equations and my equations address the same physical processes.
You tell me if you think their "induction" and my "induction" are the same thing, physically (not the same word, but the same thing physically).

How you answer these questions will determine the details of my further responses.

But Mozina flatly refused to answer them.

I asked ...

This is an interesting story that invokes several questions.

Can you identify the paper by Priest that you falsified?
Can you show us the "monopole" equation you wound up with and its derivation?
Can you identify the paper by Birn?
Can you identify specific points, in the paper by birn, where you can demonstrate where his "magnetic field line" is in reality a "field aligned current"?

But Mozina ignored them altogether.

Back on February 1st 2010 I asked Mozina directly to explain why he chooses to redefine the concept of "empirical", away from that used by the entire scientific community at large, and into a form peculiar unto his own ...

Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
​

Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?

I have repeated this several times since then, but Mozina has always simply ignored it, as if the question itself did not exist at all. Indeed, nearly a year before that I started an entire thread devoted to the very same problem of Mozina's corruption of the very essence of science (Fundamental Question on the Nature of Science). But Mozina ignored the thread and never participated.

Sol Invictus has even shown Mozina a movie of magnetic field lines reconnecting (e.g., post #4124, post #4156) and asked the simple question, whether or not the movie and Gauss's law are mutually consistent, but Mozina once again steadfastly refuses to answer (e.g., post #4163), again hiding behind a sham argument without bothering to acknowledge that all he really has to do is watch the movie.

There is no sense to even bothering to ask Mozina a real, direct question, he will never answer. He prefers to obfuscate, to avoid any real science or real physics; see my question above about the paper by priest. Mozina claims quite explicitly that he literally falsified one of Priest's papers, and that in so doing, he (Mozina) has literally falsified the entire science of magnetic reconnection. This means that, according to Mozina, he has already derived equations that falsify an entire discipline of physics, the topic of numerous text books and thousands of pages of technical papers. Yet given the opportunity to show us the equation; indeed, asked directly to show us the equation and its derivation, he simply refuses. I don't doubt there are people here in this very discussion who would gladly help Mozina publish the demolition of an entire branch of plasma physics, if he needed any help (as an experienced author of scientific papers one would think he would have published such a result already on his own). But, no. Rather then demonstrate the explicit physics by which he himself claims to have falsified the physics of magnetic reconnection, Mozina would much rather engage in a flurry of snips & snipes over whether or not it's right to call one thing an "electrical discharge", or another thing "dark energy", or whether or not there is a cute green stripe on a press release image. Is this supposed to make some kind of sense in an allegedly sane world?

The truth is that Mozina is so incredibly ignorant of physics, that any pretence towards an intelligent conversation is a sham. We don't do this for him, and maybe not even to make sure the "lurkers" learn real physics rather than Mozina's corrupted pseudo-physics. We do it because it's a laugh a minute. How many side-bets do you supposed there are there on "what will Mozina post next?" (a body could get rich on this thread). Just consider this ...

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

The fact that Mozina has, in several posts now, gone back to an instance on "kinetic energy" is by itself one of the clearest examples of truly profound ignorance that one can see in a thread like this. Kinetic energy is the energy that results from the relative velocity of motion of a particle that has a non-zero mass. Energy related to its electric charge is not kinetic. But more importantly, the energy of a field is also not kinetic. By hiding behind the serious misuse of the word "kinetic", Mozina at once removes all fields from the discussion; he bans magnetic fields, electric fields, gravitational fields, and any other fields you can come up with. It is not possible to answer Mozina's question because it has no meaning consistent with physics as we know it.

We can all take a lesson from tubbythin in 2009:

I think one can become very educated by listening to MM. Why? Because just about everything he says is the exact opposite of reality. So by paying attention and then remembering to revert everything he says one learns quite a lot.

I agree; it was true then and it's still true today.

 

[Reality Check]

How are they physically different RC?

• inductance
• magnetic reconnection

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, and he did it *WITHOUT* reconnection theory. MR theory is UNNECESSARY and redundant.

Yes, and he did it *WITHOUT* reconnection theory.
It is really stupid to conclude that MR theory is UNNECESSARY and redundant based on one paper that expressly avoids using it. MR theory was not needed in that 1 paper for the simple reason that Alfvén choose not to use it!

You seem determined to record your ignorance for the world to read for as long as the Internet exists.
MR theory is NECESSARY to explain many observations, e.g. actual observations of solar flares: Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003

 

[Reality Check]

It's not really all that amazing. Moina never answers direct questions like that, for the simple reason that he can't and he knows it. So he always evades the issue, avoids answering real questions, and hides behind sham arguments about words & semantics.

Just to emphasis Mozina's inability to answer direct questions, here are some of the questions that I have asked him and not got any coherent answer back (yet):
Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work
(11 questions dating from July 2009)
Outstanding questions for Micheal Mozina
(a couple of questions dating from July 2009)
And the biggy with ~60 questions!
Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked!

 

[Perpetual Student]

This is baffling. Inductance is a property, and magnetic reconnection is a process. How can this discussion go on and on about their identity?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is baffling. Inductance is a property, and magnetic reconnection is a process. How can this discussion go on and on about their identity?

Someone must have been pretty darn confused.

Michael Mozina asked what "scientific verbiage" Purcell and/or Jackson had used to describe the magnetic fields in the experiment I've been suggesting for most of the past year. Although Jackson had used cgs units in previous editions of Classical Electrodynamics, he switched to SI units for the third edition, which is the one I own. Because of that trend toward SI units, I quoted Jackson's formulations of the five equations, not Purcell's.

With SI units, several of the equations contain the magnetic constant µ₀, which is also known as the permeability of free space, or vacuum permeability. Its value is

µ₀ = 4π×10⁻⁷ V·s/(A·m)
​

As you can see, that's just a geometric factor (the 4π) times a power of 10 (to take care of various arbitrary powers of 10 that appear within the relevant SI units). In short, it's just a units-dependent constant.

Michael Mozina, being totally ignorant of electromagnetism, saw the Greek letter µ in those equations, looked it up, saw that it had something to do with permeability, knew or looked up that permeability had something to do with inductance, and began shouting.

In CGS units, Ampère's law doesn't contain µ₀. Since the other equations I quoted are derived from Ampère's law, Michael Mozina's argument about inductance is equivalent to believing that SI units are more real than cgs units.


Move along, folks, nothing to see here: It's just the same old preacher on the same old soapbox on the same old corner.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Michael Mozina, being totally ignorant of electromagnetism, saw the Greek letter µ in those equations, looked it up, saw that it had something to do with permeability, knew or looked up that permeability had something to do with inductance, and began shouting.

 

[sol invictus]

Not really, no. In terms of pure kinetic energy, I have no idea what it is that you believe actually heats plasmas to millions of degrees, generates gamma rays, produces neutron capture signatures, etc, at a zero point in two magnetic fields. Until I grok what you think produces that extreme amount of kinetic energy, I have no idea how to answer your question.

So you can't answer my simple question about magnetic field lines - about something you said about magnetic field lines, actually - until I tell you what I think about hot plasma?

I'm sorry, Michael, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you can't answer my simple question about magnetic field lines - about something you said about magnetic field lines, actually - until I tell you what I think about hot plasma?

I'm sorry, Michael, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure it does sol. Sticking a couple of broke guys together in a bar with nothing in their pockets and no credit cards to their name isn't going to explain how that million dollar (degree) bar tab got paid for. Something more than a couple of zero points in a magnetic field are necessary to explain that "discharge" event.

FYI, I'm enjoying the SDO 193A images of a dark filament eruption this evening so I won't bother with the induction reconnection band this evening, but I'll keep my eye out for any responses from you.

It's going to take a whole lot more than connecting a couple of zero points in a magnetic field to explain even BASIC solar flare behaviors.

Like that old lady from the Wendy's commercial said: "Where's the beef"? In this case: "Where's the kinetic energy coming from?"

 

[Reality Check]

Sure it does sol. Sticking a couple of broke guys together in a bar with nothing in their pockets and no credit cards to their name isn't going to explain how that million dollar (degree) bar tab got paid for.

Sure it does not MM. To use your analogy:

Sticking a couple of broke guys together in a bar with nothing in their pockets and no credit cards to their name isn't going to explain how a million dollar (degree) bar tab in a different bar in a different city in a different continent got paid for.
​

Of course are no guys (broke or otherwise) and no bar.
What there is is sol invictus's question:

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"?

There is no plasma involved in the question at all. There are only 2 things in it:

• Gauss' law for magnetism
• magnetic reconnection (the reconnection of magnetic field lines as in the post referred to).

The post referred to was on 25th October 2011:

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).

I think I know where your attempt to move the goalposts to magnetic reconnection in plasma comes from though. Your ignorance of electromagnetism means that you have the impression that magnetic reconnection only happens in plasma (and you even deny that!). Thus whenever you see 'magnetic reconnection' you always put it in the context of plasma.

If you actually read sol invictus's post then you will see that he is talking about the specific change in topology in a magnetic field (wherever it is) that 'reconnects' points that were no not connected. This is called magnetic reconnection.

Of course if you look at a book such as Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0-521-48179-1, contents and sample chapter online then they deal with MR in plasma because the fact that magnetic field lines reconnect is very obvious.

 

[Reality Check]

Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0-521-48179-1, contents and sample chapter online

If you bother to read the sample chapter (the introduction) then you will find that

• "Reconnection provides an elegant, and so far the only, explanation for the motion of chromospheric ribbons and flare loops during solar flares"
  This is what we have been telling about Alfven's circuit model - it did not and will never describe the details of solar flares. MR does.
• "At the same time, it also accounts for the enormous energy release in solar flares".
  This is the only thing that Alfven's circuit model of solar flares actually does.
• "The ejection of magnetic flux from the Sun during coronal mass ejections and prominence eruptions necessarily requires reconnection; otherwise, the magnetic flux in interplanetary space would build up indefinitely".
• "Reconnection has also been proposed as a mechanism for the heating of solar and stellar coronae to extremely high temperatures"

 

[Vermonter]

It's even simpler than that. Plasma is a conductor, not an insulator. If plasma was an insulator, every single engineer and scientist would realize it. It's impossible to have a discharge in plasma since there is no charge separation. Plasma can be generated by electrical discharges, but it itself does not experience discharges.

 

[sol invictus]

Sure it does sol.

I asked you a simple question about magnetic field lines, and you flat-out refuse to answer it. That's despite the fact that you repeatedly posted Gauss' law for magnetism, apparently under the belief that it forbids magnetic field lines from reconnecting - but you won't even confirm or deny that.

Anyway, there's plainly no point in having a conversation.

 

[Reality Check]

It's even simpler than that. Plasma is a conductor, not an insulator. If plasma was an insulator, every single engineer and scientist would realize it. It's impossible to have a discharge in plasma since there is no charge separation. Plasma can be generated by electrical discharges, but it itself does not experience discharges.

This is something Michael Mozina cannot understand despite being told about it for months.
He is obsessed with his fantasy of solar flares being 'electrical discharges in plasma' despite the fact that he is incapable of actually defining 'electrical discharges in plasma'. And when he looks in the literature he fixates on

• 60 year old, magnetic reconnection papers by Dungey (and others) that describe high current densities as electrical discharges.
  This of course means that solar flares are magnetic reconnection events, not 'electrical discharges in plasma'.
• Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge (the standard definition for which Peratt gives the example of lightning) which Michael Mozina then quote mines. The quote mining results in a nonsensical definition which includes things that no intelligent person would call an electrical discharge, e.g. light emission from atoms.

It is actually possible to have charge separation in plasmas. These are double layers. Double layers do accelerate charged particles and are a possibility for the cause of beams of electrons observed in some solar flares. They have even been observed to happen after current disruption caused by magnetic reconnection.

 

[Belz...]

You erroneous claimed I provided no content.

Indeed. Exploding irony meters, repeatedly, are not content.

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.

The amusing aspect of this conversation is, in fact, that you still think we are discussing your ideas, rather than those contentless posts I was addressing.

 

[Belz...]

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).

Translation: "I am unable to answer your questions, Perpetual Student. But maybe if I keep typing stuff, you won't notice."

 

[Vermonter]

This is something Michael Mozina cannot understand despite being told about it for months.
He is obsessed with his fantasy of solar flares being 'electrical discharges in plasma' despite the fact that he is incapable of actually defining 'electrical discharges in plasma'. And when he looks in the literature he fixates on

• 60 year old, magnetic reconnection papers by Dungey (and others) that describe high current densities as electrical discharges.
  This of course means that solar flares are magnetic reconnection events, not 'electrical discharges in plasma'.
• Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge (the standard definition for which Peratt gives the example of lightning) which Michael Mozina then quote mines. The quote mining results in a nonsensical definition which includes things that no intelligent person would call an electrical discharge, e.g. light emission from atoms.

It is actually possible to have charge separation in plasmas. These are double layers. Double layers do accelerate charged particles and are a possibility for the cause of beams of electrons observed in some solar flares. They have even been observed to happen after current disruption caused by magnetic reconnection.

That's good to know, thank you. I don't have a science degree, but I have been following this topic since the BABB (pre-BAUT), since I'm a huge astronomy buff. So, let's say it is possible for plasma to experience a discharge in the manner that Michael is claiming (that is to say, without the use of double layers). How would one go about proving it? If Michael professes that these things must be done in a lab, then he should be able to prove his hypothesis using lab equipment. Or is the argument going to be that "Birkeland did it with his terrella experiment"?

Granted, even with my rudimentary knowledge, the explanation of magnetic reconnection works well for me, and the animated sequence GIF, to me, is a very good demonstration of what it looks like. From how it's explained, it seems to be inevitable that reconnection happens. Magnetic field lines intersect and snap together as a result of collisions when certain energy requirements are met. Though, as it seems to be said, it's demonstrated by pulling a fridge magnet off of the fridge (correct me if I'm wrong!).

This also seems to have a fairly simple explanation for it as well, in addition to a useful image. I find this stuff to be extremely fascinating, and it seems to be far better understood than some give it credit for.

ETA: It also seems like MRX has a lot of predictive power behind it, which is something that can be tested. To me, that's an indication of a good, workable theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you can't answer my simple question about magnetic field lines - about something you said about magnetic field lines, actually - until I tell you what I think about hot plasma?

I'm sorry, Michael, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

Your questions isn't as "simple" as you make it sound sol. Can we "connect" (not reconnect) a couple of zero points in a magnetic line? Sure. Do a couple of NULL points in a magnetic field line have any energy to heat plasma to millions of degrees, produce x-rays, etc? No.

It's pretty clear from your responses that you really don't want to have a real "conversation" with two way dialog and real give and take. All you want me to do is give a yes or no answer to a question that has no meaning IMO.

There's nothing physically "reconnecting" at two null points in two magnetic lines because there's no magnetic field energy there to "reconnect" anything to anything. There is literally no field strength at that location to work with, so it's physically impossible for two NOTHINGS to "reconnect". You might be able to "connect" the two NULL points, but quite literally NOTHING will happen since there is no energy at a zero point to work with.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's good to know, thank you. I don't have a science degree, but I have been following this topic since the BABB (pre-BAUT), since I'm a huge astronomy buff. So, let's say it is possible for plasma to experience a discharge in the manner that Michael is claiming (that is to say, without the use of double layers). How would one go about proving it? If Michael professes that these things must be done in a lab, then he should be able to prove his hypothesis using lab equipment. Or is the argument going to be that "Birkeland did it with his terrella experiment"?

Granted, even with my rudimentary knowledge, the explanation of magnetic reconnection works well for me, and the animated sequence GIF, to me, is a very good demonstration of what it looks like. From how it's explained, it seems to be inevitable that reconnection happens. Magnetic field lines intersect and snap together as a result of collisions when certain energy requirements are met. Though, as it seems to be said, it's demonstrated by pulling a fridge magnet off of the fridge (correct me if I'm wrong!).

This also seems to have a fairly simple explanation for it as well, in addition to a useful image. I find this stuff to be extremely fascinating, and it seems to be far better understood than some give it credit for.

ETA: It also seems like MRX has a lot of predictive power behind it, which is something that can be tested. To me, that's an indication of a good, workable theory.

Somewhere in this thread I actually posted a youtube video of a "discharge" taking place to the side of a wall inside of a "discharge chamber". I'll look it up again for again you if you want and you promise to really check it out this time.

The circuit is the basic energy storage mechanism in plasma, and the double layer is the energy release mechanism. If the current overwhelms the plasma filament it literally PINCHES the circuit apart and releases all the circuit energy at once.

I feel most sorry for folks like you that are following along with this thread. It's amazing to me that RC is "allowed" to make ridiculous handwaving claims ("electrical discharges cannot occur in plasmas"), produce *NO* references whatsoever to support that BS claim, and then IGNORE everyone like Dungey and Peratt who literally falsify that claim.

Clinger did the same handwave and dodge thing with his so called "experiment" too. Never ONCE has he produced a published work that claims his "experiment" is an example of "magnetic reconnection". He just keep asserting his BS claims as FACT, and nobody but me busts his chops about the fact he's produced NOTHING to support his ridiculous claim.

This conversation has become SO much like talking to creationists, it's scary. Eu haters ad creations don't support their claims with written or published materials. They don't actually produce any physical evidence to support their claims. They just keep handwaving away, even though their claims are DISPOVEN by other works which HAVE been provided.

Talking to EU haters is *EXACTLY* like talking to creationists IMO. The personal attacks are exactly the same (pick on the individual and ignore the topic), only the enemy is slapped with the derogatory term "crackpot" rather than "evil". In every other respect, it's just like talking to creationists. They don't stick to the subject material. They don't support their handwave claims with any published materials. They don't care what evidence has been presented that falsifies their position either. It's all about denial, denial, and more denial.

Oy Vey.

 

[GeeMack]

That's good to know, thank you. I don't have a science degree, but I have been following this topic since the BABB (pre-BAUT), since I'm a huge astronomy buff. So, let's say it is possible for plasma to experience a discharge in the manner that Michael is claiming (that is to say, without the use of double layers). How would one go about proving it? If Michael professes that these things must be done in a lab, then he should be able to prove his hypothesis using lab equipment. Or is the argument going to be that "Birkeland did it with his terrella experiment"?

That, and implicitly claiming that all the professional solar physicists, astrophysicists, and plasma physicists on Earth either don't know what they're talking about, or they're all hiding the truth because they're scared of losing their funding.