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

[Tim Thompson]

Freshman Textbooks, Priest & Magnetic Reconnection

Did either of you two come up with a "freshman" textbook that describes this experiment as an example of "magnetic reconnection"?

And the merry-go-round goes 'round & 'round ...

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.

As strange as it seems, freshman physics textbooks deal with the topics that are seen in freshman physics classes. There is generally little plasma physics in the freshman year (or so it was back in my day), and magnetic reconnection is included in the realm of physics not encountered in freshman physics classes, and therefore not encountered in freshman physics text books.

So what? Is somebody, somewhere, supposed to be impressed with this fact? Is it supposed to mean something? Mozina falls flat on his face when trying to deal with real freshman physics; there is no need to resort to such advanced topics as magnetic reconnection to reveal the enormous holes in Mozina's understanding of physics. His failure to recognize the nature of the unit normalizing constant in SI vs CGS equations is just one example of a failure so egregious it would be considered a dumb mistake in a high school physics class. This is not the thread where we look for subtle sophistication, the mistakes are glaring & obvious, fundamental & trivial.

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.

On the other hand, where is Mozina's published refutation of Priest? Here is Mozina boasting that he has falsified magnetic reconnection ...

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.

And here I am asking ...

Can you identify the paper by Priest that you falsified?
Can you show us the "monopole" equation you wound up with and its derivation?

And here is Mozina answering my questions ...



Notice anything missing? Once again, the unpleasant question goes ignored, as one might have guessed from my earlier comments ...

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.

So all I have to say to Mr. Mozina is put up or shut up. You are on record, more than once, explicitly claiming to have derived a mathematical falsification of Priest's paper, and by extension the entire physics discipline of magnetic reconnection. Didn't you even bother to write it down somewhere? Scraps of paper? A notebook? The back of an envelope? Where is your published refutation of Priest and magnetic reconnection? If you are going to scream at everybody else about publications, then you must live in the shadow of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Show us your mathematical falsification of Priest's paper, or stop making that claim.

 

[Reality Check]

Reason 1: Clinger's equations do not in fact involve permeability at all, revealing a critical weakness in Mozina's basic knowledge of electromagnetism.

I should point out that one of Clinger's equations is actually a definition of permeability as the relationship between B and H:

He did copy the set of equations from a freshman EM textbook so I suspect that equation was in the book as the definition.
The rest of the equations are a set of equations that can be used to describe the reconnection of magnetic field lines in vacuum (thus the appearance of the the magnetic constant (vacuum permeability or permeability of free space). So in a sense MM is right - 'permeability' is in the equations, i.e. a specific case of permeability (that of the vacuum) appears as a constant. He is also wrong: There is no no general permeability in the equatons.

So we are back to freshman EM of which MM is demonstrating his ignorance:

MM: What is the magnetic field around a single current carrying rod
first asked 18th October 2011
(soon to become a record of MM's ignorance of high school science!)

MM: Can you answer sol invictus's question about magnetic field lines and Gauss' law
first asked by sol invictus on 27 October 2011
​

 

[Reality Check]

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7689471&postcount=4035

There's no point in even bothering with your other post until you tell me what that little Greek character thingy that looks like a lower case "u" is doing in those last two equations of Clingers "experiment", and you tell me what's going to happen when we do this experiment in various environments, like water, air, a vacuum, etc. Will the INDUCTANCE change accordingly?

This is yet another display of your ignorance, Michael Mozina.

The Greek character μ appears (without a subscript) in one equations that is the defintion of permeability.
The permeability of free space appersa elsewhere.

This emphasisis that W.D.Clinger's experiment I've been suggesting that illustrates magnetic reconnection is magenetic lines in vaccuum.

It is stupid to go onto more complex situations until you show that you can understand this simple situation. You have shown so far that you cannot. You have shown so far that you cannot even understand the high school level physics of the magnetic field around a conducting wire:

MM: What is the magnetic field around a single current carrying rod
first asked 18th October 2011
(soon to become a record of MM's ignorance of high school science!)
​

Thus it is becoming obvious that you are demonstrating the inability to understand the more complex freshman physics of the magnetic field around a pair of conducting rods (or 2 pairs).

This is a general principle in education - it is useless to show a person how to do something complex (e.g. multiplication) until they understand the basics (e.g. addition). Until you can do the EM equivalent of adding 1 + 1, it will be useless to show you the EM equivalent of 12*11.

 

[Michael Mozina]

All of Mozina's carrying on about permeability is dead wrong for two reasons:

Reason 1: Clinger's equations do not in fact involve permeability at all, revealing a critical weakness in Mozina's basic knowledge of electromagnetism.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7696197&postcount=4051

Either your or Clinger is wrong about the permeability aspect. According to Clinger the permeability of his experiment changes from a vacuum to air and is different in those two different environments. Which of you isn't telling me the truth?

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7696197&postcount=4051

Either your or Clinger is wrong about the permeability aspect. According to Clinger the permeability of his experiment changes

from a vacuum to air and is different in those two different environments. Which of you isn't telling me the truth?[/quote] That is a bit obtuse of you MM, they are both telling the truth! Read Tim Thompson's post

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson All of Mozina's carrying on about permeability is dead wrong for two reasons: Reason 1: Clinger's equations do not in fact involve permeability at all, revealing a critical weakness in Mozina's basic knowledge of electromagnetism.

Those equations are for magnetic fields in general (any material) as anyone who knows freshman EM can see (hint: μ). W.D.Clinger addresses the fact that his proposed experiment is in air and suggests that it can be done in vacuum. (changes the permeability of air to the permeability of free space, i.e. a factor of 1.00000037). Two different posts with both authors telling you the truth about each case (general, air and vacuum).

 

[Michael Mozina]

from a vacuum to air and is different in those two different environments. Which of you isn't telling me the truth?

That is a bit obtuse of you MM, they are both telling the truth!
Read Tim Thompson's post

Those equations are for magnetic fields in general (any material) as anyone who knows freshman EM can see (hint: μ).

W.D.Clinger addresses the fact that his proposed experiment is in air and suggests that it can be done in vacuum.
(changes the permeability of air to the permeability of free space, i.e. a factor of 1.00000037).

Two different posts with both authors telling you the truth about each case (general, air and vacuum).

You really do spin reality like a pretzel when it suits you. It's an EITHER/OR proposition. Either the process involves permeability or it doesn't. Clinger already admitted it does involve "permeability", including the permeability" of a vacuum. Tim's wrong *AGAIN* for the second time in the last week or two. He also tried to recollect that Dungey didn't use the term "electrical". It's kind of amusing watching you three try to cover up for each other.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And the merry-go-round goes 'round & 'round ...

As strange as it seems, freshman physics textbooks deal with the topics that are seen in freshman physics classes. There is generally little plasma physics in the freshman year (or so it was back in my day), and magnetic reconnection is included in the realm of physics not encountered in freshman physics classes, and therefore not encountered in freshman physics text books.

The merry-go-round keeps going in circles because you and Clinger keep giving me different stories about his HANDWAVY experiment. You claim no permeability is involved. Clinger admits permeability changes between air and a vacuum. Only one of you is right Tim. You or Clinger? You are right about the fact that "reconnection" theory isn't a Freshman topic. That was Clinger's insinuation, not yours. Again, neither of you seems to be capable of providing me with the SAME answer. That why the merry-go-round goes around in circles.

 

[Reality Check]

The merry-go-round keeps going in circles because you and Clinger keep giving me different stories about his HANDWAVY experiment. You claim no permeability is involved. Clinger admits permeability changes between air and a vacuum. Only one of you is right Tim. You or Clinger? You are right about the fact that "reconnection" theory isn't a Freshman topic. That was Clinger's insinuation, not yours. Again, neither of you seems to be capable of providing me with the SAME answer. That why the merry-go-round goes around in circles.

As stated before: Both Tim Thompson and W.D. Clinger are right:
W.D. Clinger is correct for the

• General case (the freshman EM equations he cited)
• In air.
• In vacuum.

Tim Thompson is correct for the general case (with the proviso that one of the cited equations is the definition of permeability).

The only merrry-go-round is your repeated circling around to your ignorance of freshman EM equations.

The newest bit of ignorance is that you cannot understand that in air and vacuum, permeability is just a constant.

 

[Reality Check]

You really do spin reality like a pretzel when it suits you. It's an EITHER/OR proposition. Either the process involves permeability or it doesn't.

You really do spin your ignorance like a pretzel when it suits you. It's NOT AN EITHER/OR proposition.

W.D. Clinger cited the freshman EM equations that you remain ignorant of.

Tim Thompson was incorrect about the cited equations - one was the actual defintion of permeability.

I have never claimed that permeability was not involved in the cited equations. I did point out your delusion that inductance was involved.

 

[GeeMack]

That why the merry-go-round goes around in circles.

I think it goes around in circles because the claims about the electric Sun conjecture aren't ever properly and objectively supported. And and the claims of having objectively demonstrated problems with contemporary solar physics are also never supported.

So all I have to say to Mr. Mozina is put up or shut up. You are on record, more than once, explicitly claiming to have derived a mathematical falsification of Priest's paper, and by extension the entire physics discipline of magnetic reconnection. Didn't you even bother to write it down somewhere? Scraps of paper? A notebook? The back of an envelope? Where is your published refutation of Priest and magnetic reconnection? If you are going to scream at everybody else about publications, then you must live in the shadow of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Show us your mathematical falsification of Priest's paper, or stop making that claim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The newest bit of ignorance is that you cannot understand that in air and vacuum, permeability is just a constant.

Ya, but in a plasma that's going from 6000K to 10 million degrees Kelvin, it's not a constant.

It's also a MEASUREMENT of INDUCTANCE per unit length, not reconnections per unit length.

 

[Reality Check]

MM & the use of monopoles by Priest, etc.

Here is Mozina boasting that he has falsified magnetic reconnection
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

Actually falsified an unspecified Preist paper which colud be:

And if you want an actual Priest paper: The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field, Demoulin, P.; Priest, E. R. (1992) (PDF)

In a highly conducting plasma, the magnetic field topology determines where, for example, current sheets can form, which is of great importance as a potential coronal heating source. With the classical extrapolation of a continuous weak photospheric field, the determination of topology is in general a difficult challenge. Because of the concentration of the photospheric field at intense flux tubes in supergranulation boundaries a more realistic field representation may be a description in terms of magnetic singularities located just below the photosphere. In this paper we analyze in detail the generalization to linear force-free fields of the standard multipole expansion for singular potential fields. Solutions are presented in spherical coordinates with the constraint that all singularities are located in the half-space z is less than 0 below the solar photospheric plane (z = 0). A great variety of solutions is shown to exist depending on two continuous and one discrete parameter. The properties of monopole and dipole solutions in particular are discussed and it is shown that isolated magnetic charges exist only in the potential limit and not in a linear force-free field.

Michael Mozina post contains many problems. The main problem is that magnetic monopoles do not violate any laws of physics. Once again Michael Mozina's ignorance of electromagnetism has poked its ugly head up. Gauss's law is usually quoted in its non-monopole form for the reason that we have not (yet !) detected any magnetic monopoles but they can be incorporated in Gauss's law by setting the divergence of B proportional to the monopole density. If no monopoles exist (the usiual assupmption) then the density is zero and we have Gauss's law (without monopoles).

Secondly "magnetic flux transfer" has nothing to do with the existence or not of magnetic monopoles.


Thirdly, MM tries to learn about magnetic reconnection from an advanced scientific paper! That is foolishness. In fact utter foolishness given his ignorance. The proper cause for MM would be (and continues to be):

1. A refresher course in freshman EM (at least read a modern book on it!)
2. An course in modern magnetic reconnection (so he is not fooled by the 30 year old opinions of one author).

 

[Reality Check]

It's also a MEASUREMENT of INDUCTANCE per unit length, not reconnections per unit length.

What gibberish.
Permeability has the SI units of measurement of henry per meter.
The idiocy of thinking that it is "reconnection's per unit length" should be obvious to you, Michael Mozina.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina post contains many problems. The main problem is that magnetic monopoles do not violate any laws of physics.

Ya, RC, they do. Until and unless you can find any monopoles or unicorns, it's a safe bet the don't exist and Gauss' law of magnetism applies. It's not a "handy rule", it's a LAW OF PHYSICS!

 

[Reality Check]

Ya, RC, they do. Until and unless you can find any monopoles or unicorns, it's a safe bet the don't exist and Gauss' law of magnetism applies. It's not a "handy rule", it's a LAW OF PHYSICS!

Nah, MM, they do not. The lack of monopoles is an observation, not a law of physics.
Here is Gauss's law of magnetism if monopoles do exist:

Modification if magnetic monopoles exist
Main article: Magnetic monopole
If magnetic monopoles were ever discovered to exist, then Gauss's law for magnetism would be disproved. Instead, the divergence of B would be proportional to the "magnetic charge density" ρm, as follows:

  (SI units, weber convention)[7]

  (SI units, ampere·meter convention)[8]

  (cgs units)[9] where

is the vacuum permeability.So far, despite extensive search no magnetic monopoles have been found.

ETA: The idiocy of applying Gauss's law of magnetism to a paper that assumes that they exist is obvious.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What gibberish.
Permeability has the SI units of measurement of henry per meter.
The idiocy of thinking that it is "reconnection's per unit length" should be obvious to you, Michael Mozina.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nah, MM, they do not. The lack of monopoles is an observation, not a law of physics.
Here is Gauss's law of magnetism if monopoles do exist:

The operative word in your sentence is the word "if". They don't exist anymore than unicorns exist. You're SOL. Monopoles are not a valid method of transferring magnetic field energy. PERIOD.

 

[Reality Check]

The operative word in your sentence is the word "if". They don't exist anymore than unicorns exist. You're SOL. Monopoles are not a valid method of transferring magnetic field energy. PERIOD.

Right: The operative word in the sentence is the word "if".
They may exist. They may not exist. That is what "if" means. Duh !

They are assumed to exist in the unspecified Priest paper. Thus they exist in the context of the paper. Therefore it is idiotic to use the wrong Gauss's law.

Monopoles are not used as method of transferring magnetic field energy until you cite the actual method rather than a vague memory. PERIOD.

 

[Reality Check]

x

That was a ignorant use of the irony meter. I stated two facts about this post

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
It's also a MEASUREMENT of INDUCTANCE per unit length, not reconnections per unit length.

• Permeability has the SI units of measurement of henry per meter.
• It is idiotic to think that permeability is measured in units "reconnection's per unit length" (see my first point).

Permeability is not a MEASUREMENT. It is a MEASURE or RELATIONSHIP:

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.

ETA: permeability is not inductance

 

[Michael Mozina]

I already did that and you just read it, it's the post right above yours. There's no point in even bothering with you if you are that illiterate. I am not going to repeat the same thing 10,000 times because you refuse to read what's right in front of your face.

Considering the fact it's YOUR mistake, that's quite ironic Tim.