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

[Perpetual Student]

This debate is senseless:
Inductance is a property of a circuit element (an object like a coil, an inductor) -- it's a measure of its ability to store energy in a magnetic field, whereas,
Permeability is the ability of a material to support a magnetic field (the degree of magnetization that can be supported) which is why some object's permeability can be seen as inductance per unit length (henry per meter).
A device that is made of a material that has x permeability will have an inductance (henries) based on its size and construction. It only takes a little logic and rudimentary mathematics to understand the difference. Note that inductance is the measure of the property of an object; permeability is the measure of the property of a material.


Magnetic reconnection is a process (not a property) that has nothing to do with either of the above. Neither permeability nor inductance are processes. How in the name of logic/sanity can anyone confuse this with either of the above electromagnetic concepts?
Mozina: Don't bother answering me; you remain on "ignore."

 

[Perpetual Student]

As an old guy who worked in electronics in the old days of tubes, capacitors, inductors and resistors, which were hard wired in elaborate circuits, the above may be intuitive for me. However, it would take someone only a minimal effort to get all this straight before wasting hundreds of posts while being so wrong. Good grief!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Magnetic reconnection is a process (not a property) that has nothing to do with either of the above.

The only "process" it actually refers to is the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy (induction), and the topology change of two field aligned currents (current reconnection)! If you were CONSISTENT in your argument, you would have accepted the term "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection" as just as ACCURATE a term for the PROCESS. So what if inductance happens? So what if magnetic field energy is converted to particle kinetic energy? Neither of these two issues and processes is in any way related to the "rate of magnetic reconnection". Magnetic lines do have beginnings or endings. They are physically INCAPABLE of "disconnecting from" or "reconnecting to" any other "magnetic line".

Oh, and don't worry, my response wasn't intended for you anyway.

 

[Perpetual Student]

By the way, induction and inductance are also different concepts. I noticed that they are being used interchangeably here. Induction is the creation of an electric current by a moving magnetic field -- very different from inductance. Of course, one must have inductance to produce induction.
On the other hand, why bother. Mozina will will redefine any word to suit his fantasies.

 

[Michael Mozina]

By the way, induction and inductance are also different concepts. I noticed that they are being used interchangeably here. Induction is the creation of an electric current by a moving magnetic field -- very different from inductance. Of course, one must have inductance to produce induction.
On the other hand, why bother. Mozina will will redefine any word to suit his fantasies.

I've never redefined any words or concepts. You're the ones claiming that B field lines without a beginning or ending are magically capable of "reconnecting" to other lines, not me. You're the one redefining a typical freshman experiment that demonstrates BASIC INDUCTANCE as an example of "magnetic reconnection" even though nothing in the formulas relates to a "rate of reconnection"!

 

[Belz...]

Oh, I get it now !! You use the irony meter when you don't understand a point. It all makes sense, now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, I get it now !! You use the irony meter when you don't understand a point. It all makes sense, now.

Er, no, but thanks for playing.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Apparently this will continue to be ignored.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Apparently this will continue to be ignored.

Tim's claim was false to begin with (as usual). I never claimed to have found a MATHEMATICAL flaw in any of Priest's work. I simply balked at his use of a MONOPOLE as the energy transfer mechanism. Monopoles violate Gauss' law of magnetism. No amount of dancing around that issue is going to change the fact that MONOPOLES VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

 

[Belz...]

Er, no, but thanks for playing.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
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.

Please someone, let me know when he produces this mathematical masterpiece; I'll take him off ignore, read it and -- with profuse apologies -- acknowledge his genius.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Belz, I don't suppose you found any actual flaws in Alfven's circuit orientation to solar coronal loops and solar flares? It's awfully cute that you want to 'involve' yourself in this 100+ page thread, but unless you actually read the materials, you're essentially arguing from a place of pure, blind, arrogant, ignorance. I don't think you'll be happy with the results over time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Please someone, let me know when he produces this mathematical masterpiece; I'll take him off ignore, read it and -- with profuse apologies -- acknowledge his genius.

Please let me know when monopoles have been found and everyone agrees that they exist and Gauss' law of magnetism has been blown away and is nothing more than dust in the wind. If and when that finally happens, I'll take Priest's use of monopoles as the energy transfer mechanism off ignore.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

pure, blind, arrogant ignorance

It's awfully cute that you want to 'involve' yourself in this 100+ page thread, but unless you actually read the materials, you're essentially arguing from a place of pure, blind, arrogant, ignorance. I don't think you'll be happy with the results over time.

Michael Mozina is happy to argue from a position of pure, blind, arrogant ignorance.

He hasn't read the relevant materials in thirty years. He must not have understand them even then. For example:

You're the ones claiming that B field lines without a beginning or ending are magically capable of "reconnecting" to other lines, not me. You're the one redefining a typical freshman experiment that demonstrates BASIC INDUCTANCE as an example of "magnetic reconnection" even though nothing in the formulas relates to a "rate of reconnection"!

It takes a lot of pure, blind, arrogant ignorance for Michael Mozina to argue that Gauss's law for magnetism prevents magnetic fields from changing their topology over time, or to shout that Ampère's law demonstrates "BASIC INDUCTANCE".

If Michael Mozina wanted to make less ignorant arguments, he'd have answered these questions:

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.

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).

Lets start with a single current carrying rod.
What do you think the magnetic field around it is, MM?

Had Michael Mozina answered any of those questions, he'd have run the risk of learning something about freshman-level electromagnetism.

He can't afford to learn anything about electromagnetism. It would destroy his arguments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina is happy to argue from a position of pure, blind, arrogant ignorance.

No Clinger, unlike you I actually read Cosmic Plasma. I actually read Peratt's book myself. I read and understood Alfven's double layer paper that puts more nails in the coffin of the "pseudoscience" called "magnetic reconnection" in any current carrying environment.

He hasn't read the relevant materials in thirty years. He must not have understand them even then. For example:

You haven't read Alfven's book *AT ALL*, EVER! I don't know how long ago you actually read a freshman book on physics, but they all mention that magnetic lines have no beginning and no ending. They all mention that INDUCTANCE is called INDUCTANCE, not "reconnection" too.

It takes a lot of pure, blind, arrogant ignorance for Michael Mozina to argue that Gauss's law for magnetism prevents magnetic fields from changing their topology over time,

I've already "admitted" that "FIELD ALIGNED CURRENTS" can and do change their topology over time. You're the one insisting that a line without a beginning or an ending somehow "reconnects".

or to shout that Ampère's law demonstrates "BASIC INDUCTANCE".

I was talking about your LAST line that is in fact BASIC INDUCTANCE, as were all the permeability variables related to a "vacuum".

Had Michael Mozina answered any of those questions, he'd have run the risk of learning something about freshman-level electromagnetism.

He can't afford to learn anything about electromagnetism. It would destroy his arguments.

You personally have absolutely nothing to teach me about electromagnetism. It's extremely clear that you're completely ignoring the prime directives of magnetic field lines and their INABILITY to begin or end. It's clear you're confusing INDUCTANCE per unit length with "reconnections" per unit length. You don't care one iota about KINETIC ENERGY and PARTICLES either. Tim didn't even notice the permeability variable in your five formulas even AFTER I pointed them out to him again nicely and EVERYTHING. In fact he called ME a physics "twit", even though HE BLEW the whole permeability issue entirely. Talk about irony. RC is in pure denial that "electrical discharges" can occur in plasmas. You three have nothing to teach me about plasma physics or EM theory. You and RC are in fact arguing from pure arrogant ignorance, and you've both been doing it for MONTHS if not YEARS now.

If you had anything that actually "destroyed" Alfven's claim that MR theory is pure "pseudoscience", and irrelevant in current carrying plasma, you would have provided it by now. You didn't even bother reading his work for yourself, so you don't even understand his basic criticisms of the concept, nor have you acknowledged that MR theory is IRRELEVANT in double layers.

 

[GeeMack]

If you had anything that actually "destroyed" Alfven's claim that MR theory is pure "pseudoscience", and irrelevant in current carrying plasma, you would have provided it by now. You didn't even bother reading his work for yourself, so you don't even understand his basic criticisms of the concept, nor have you acknowledged that MR theory is IRRELEVANT in double layers.

This dishonest and ill informed misrepresentation of Alfvén's position does not constitute a valid criticism of magnetic reconnection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This dishonest and ill informed misrepresentation of Alfvén's position does not constitute a valid criticism of magnetic reconnection.

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science
Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozenin magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.
I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.

Speaking of "dishonest" and "ill informed", did you ever read Cosmic Plasma yet?

 

[GeeMack]

Speaking of "dishonest" and "ill informed", did you ever read Cosmic Plasma yet?

The nonsensical non sequitur, the repeated cherry picking of Alfvén's comments, and the dishonest effort to shift the burden of proof are noted. Also noted is the continued ignorance of this issue...

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 nonsensical non sequitur, the repeated cherry picking of Alfvén's comments, and the dishonest effort to shift the burden of proof are noted.

Huh? The "dishonest" behavior is you claiming to know SQUAT about Alfven's position based on your "clairvoyant" understanding of his position. You've never read his book, so your behaviors are purely dishonest. You're clueless about what Alfven thought *BY CHOICE*!

Also noted is the continued ignorance of this issue...

You guys ride the denial-go-round on virtually every issue. Let me repeat again: I didn't claim to find a mathematical flaw in Priest's work, just a PHYSICAL (qualitative, not quantitative) error. There are no monopoles in nature. Monopoles do not physically exist in nature to the best of our knowledge. They violate Gauss' law of magnetism. Deal it it. Denial won't save you.

 

[GeeMack]

Huh? The "dishonest" behavior is you claiming to know SQUAT about Alfven's position based on your "clairvoyant" understanding of his position. You've never read his book, so your behaviors are purely dishonest. You're clueless about what Alfven thought *BY CHOICE*!

You guys ride the denial-go-round on virtually every issue. Let me repeat again: I didn't claim to find a mathematical flaw in Priest's work, just a PHYSICAL (qualitative, not quantitative) error. There are no monopoles in nature. Monopoles do not physically exist in nature to the best of our knowledge. They violate Gauss' law of magnetism. Deal it it. Denial won't save you.

The continued avoidance of addressing any substantive issues about the electric Sun conjecture is noted.