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

[W.D.Clinger]

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

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.

Unlike you, I and most other participants in this thread read and understood a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism when we studied electromagnetism at university. That basic knowledge of electromagnetism is far more relevant to a discussion of magnetic reconnection than anything Alfvén or Peratt ever wrote.

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.

It's been almost 40 years since I took freshman-level courses in physics. Most of the physics books I read these days are research monographs or were written for upper division or graduate courses. I don't recall reading the highlighted statement in Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, but I can assure you Purcell mentions ∇∙B=0 and explains what it means.

It does not mean what you think it means. You think it means there can be no magnetic reconnection. As sol invictus told you quite plainly, you're wrong about that.

They all mention that INDUCTANCE is called INDUCTANCE, not "reconnection" too.

You're the only person here who's confusing inductance with reconnection.

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".

You're the one who continues to demonstrate ignorance of the difference between ∇∙B and ∂B/∂t.

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

You're shouting because you don't know and refuse to acknowledge the distinction between inductance and a units-specific magnetic constant.

You personally have absolutely nothing to teach me about electromagnetism.

Many people have tried to teach you rudiments of electromagnetism. All have failed. Why should I be different?

It's extremely clear that you're completely ignoring the prime directives of magnetic field lines and their INABILITY to begin or end.

No. What's extremely clear is that you don't understand the meaning of ∇∙B=0.

I actually sketched a proof that Gauss's law for magnetism holds throughout the experiment I've been suggesting to you for most of the past year. When you so ignorantly claimed that my proof demonstrates "inductance", I showed you most of the relevant calculation, leaving only a couple of easy steps for you to complete yourself. You ignored that calculation, probably because you are as ignorant of math as you are of electromagnetism.

It's clear you're confusing INDUCTANCE per unit length with "reconnections" per unit length.

No.

That's one of the stupidest accusations you've ever made, despite plenty of competition. For example:

You don't care one iota about KINETIC ENERGY and PARTICLES either.

Until you understand the concept of a magnetic field, you won't understand how magnetic fields interact with charged particles in motion. Until you understand that the topology of magnetic fields can change over time, as in the experiment I've been suggesting, you won't be able to understand how magnetic fields can interact with plasma.

You and RC are in fact arguing from pure arrogant ignorance, and you've both been doing it for MONTHS if not YEARS now.

Yet your irony meters explode whenever you say such things.

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.

Dungey did that in 1953:

Dungey (1953) showed that such a current sheet can indeed be formed by the collapse of the magnetic field near an X-type neutral point as shown in Fig. 3 and suggested that lines of force can be broken and rejoined in the current sheet. This sheet is called a neutral sheet or diffusion region. When the field lines are reconnected, the topology of magnetic configuration changes and j×B forces result in the conversion of magnetic energy to kinetic energy.

That's from the introduction to

Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud, and Hantao Ji. Magnetic reconnection. Reviews of Modern Physics, volume 82, January-March 2010, pages 603-664.
​

Their Figure 3 is essentially Dungey's Figure 1 from the 1958 paper you've been citing incessantly. The experiment I've been suggesting reproduces the magnetic fields shown in both of Dungey's figures, and also reproduces the magnetic fields shown in Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection.

Without your ample stockpile of "pure, blind, arrogant ignorance", you couldn't continue your pure, blind, arrogant denial of those facts.

 

[Almo]

Wow! You personally really do not grasp basic electromagnetic theory, or the concept of particle kinetic energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Unlike you, I and most other participants in this thread read and understood a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism when we studied electromagnetism at university.

Whatever you "understood" 40 years ago, you've long since forgotten. You've forgotten that you have NEVER produced anything more than handwave to support your claim that your "experiment" has anything to do with "magnetic reconnection". You've "forgotten" that magnetic lines have no beginning and no ending. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting from" or "reconnecting to" any other magnetic line. You've FORGOTTEN that "permeability" is a measurement of INDUCTANCE per unit length, not "reconnections per unit length". You've forgotten that your equations evoke PERMEABILITY, not "reconnection".

That basic knowledge of electromagnetism is far more relevant to a discussion of magnetic reconnection than anything Alfvén or Peratt ever wrote.

BS. If you'd read Alfven's work for yourself you would NEVER have accused me of misrepresenting his position on this topic. You would NEVER have let RC and GM get away with claiming that electrical discharges cannot occur in a plasma. I guess EU hater figure that ignorance is bliss.

It's been almost 40 years since I took freshman-level courses in physics. Most of the physics books I read these days are research monographs or were written for upper division or graduate courses. I don't recall reading the highlighted statement in Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, but I can assure you Purcell mentions ∇∙B=0 and explains what it means.

Then you should accept the fact that magnetic lines do not end or begin or "reconnect".

It does not mean what you think it means. You think it means there can be no magnetic reconnection. As sol invictus told you quite plainly, you're wrong about that.

There was no particle kinetic energy to "reconnect" to anything at two zero points in two magnetic lines. 0+0=0. Dungey added an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE. Current can indeed 'reconnect'.

You're the only person here who's confusing inductance with reconnection.

Boloney. Percell never mentioned squat about 'reconnection', but he SURELY explained PERMEABILITY to you didn't he?

You're shouting because you don't know and refuse to acknowledge the distinction between inductance and a units-specific magnetic constant.

There is no single 'unit specific magnetic constant' in a plasma that's going from 6 thousand K to 10 million K. You're ignoring the whole concept of permeability now only because it suits you.

Many people have tried to teach you rudiments of electromagnetism. All have failed. Why should I be different?

Not a single one of you showed any calculation that is measure in "reconnections" per distance unit. Lot's of folks tried to convince Alfven of MR theory too. He rejected it for DECADES. You're therefor left trying to attack the individual and your argument is DOA because Alfven was your SUPERIOR at plasma physics. It has nothing to do with 'teaching me' anything. You're intent on shoving pseudoscience down my throat using by attacking the individual. Your behavior is PATHETIC!

You're totally and completely full of BS. Never have you shown me a published paper or textbook that supports your claim. You're as bad as the worst CREATIONISTS I've ever seen when it comes to HANDWAVING your claims. When can I expect you to provide a published work to support ANYTHING about your so called "experiment" being an example of 'magnetic reconnection"? NEVER! You pulled that ridiculous and FALSE claim right out of your backside.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

MM explains his confusion, part 4

Michael Mozina thinks this is a scientific argument:

Whatever you "understood" 40 years ago, you've long since forgotten. You've forgotten that you have NEVER produced anything more than handwave to support your claim that your "experiment" has anything to do with "magnetic reconnection". You've "forgotten" that magnetic lines have no beginning and no ending. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting from" or "reconnecting to" any other magnetic line. You've FORGOTTEN that "permeability" is a measurement of INDUCTANCE per unit length, not "reconnections per unit length". You've forgotten that your equations evoke PERMEABILITY, not "reconnection".


Not a single one of you showed any calculation that is measure in "reconnections" per distance unit. Lot's of folks tried to convince Alfven of MR theory too. He rejected it for DECADES. You're therefor left trying to attack the individual and your argument is DOA because Alfven was your SUPERIOR at plasma physics. It has nothing to do with 'teaching me' anything. You're intent on shoving pseudoscience down my throat using by attacking the individual. Your behavior is PATHETIC!

You're totally and completely full of BS. Never have you shown me a published paper or textbook that supports your claim. You're as bad as the worst CREATIONISTS I've ever seen when it comes to HANDWAVING your claims. When can I expect you to provide a published work to support ANYTHING about your so called "experiment" being an example of 'magnetic reconnection"? NEVER! You pulled that ridiculous and FALSE claim right out of your backside.

Michael Mozina thinks this is hand-waving:

[latex]
\begin{align*}
\oint_{S_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} =
& \int_{S^{(r+)}_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} &+
\int_{S^{(r-)}_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} \\
+ &\int_{S^{(\theta+)}_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} &+
\int_{S^{(\theta-)}_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} \\
+ &\int_{S^{(z+)}_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} &+
\int_{S^{(z-)}_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} \\
= & \; 0 + 0 \\
+ &\int_{S^{(\theta+)}_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} &-
\int_{S^{(\theta+)}_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} \\
+ & \; 0 + 0 \\
= & \; 0
\end{align*}
[/latex]​

where the S_δ^(*)(r,θ,z) are as defined in post #4091.

Therefore

[latex]
\[
\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0}
\oint_{S_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} = 0
\]
[/latex]​

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Monopoles do not violate the laws of physics - they are ignored

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.

Ignorance and SHOUTING will not change that fact that monopoles do not violate the laws of physics.
Monopoles are ignored by the usual laws of physics because there is no good evidence that they exist. This is done by putting the density of monopoles equal to zero in Gauss's law for magnetism.

 

[Reality Check]

Cite where Priest uses a MONOPOLE as the energy transfer mechanism

I simply balked at his use of a MONOPOLE as the energy transfer mechanism.

So many things wrong in that post that I have to split it into separate sentences!
Michael Mozina
Cite where Priest uses a MONOPOLE as the energy transfer mechanism.
This sounds like just another unsupported assertion from you in this case probably from a mixture of ignorance and vague memories.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Applying Gauss's law without monopoles to a paper using monopoles is idiotic

Monopoles violate Gauss' law of magnetism.

Michael Mozina,
Do you realize the idiocy of applying Gauss's law of magnetism without monopoles to a paper that assumes that they exist?
(or can be used as a mathematical convenience)

 

[Reality Check]

You're the ones claiming that B field lines without a beginning or ending are magically capable of "reconnecting" to other lines, not me.

It is not just us.
It is thousands of sceintists around the world.
It is the maybe millions of people who are capable of understanding what magnetic field lines can do because they can read a map as in sol invictus's explanation.

Originally Posted by sol invictus
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).

The change in topology of a magnetic field that is magnetic reconnection is a trivial process in vacuum (E.R. Priest, Magnetic reconnection on the sun, 1990, Introduction) that is easy to understood:

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".

MM: Can you answer sol invictus's question about magnetic field lines and Gauss' law
first asked by sol invictus on 27 October 2011
MM: What is the magnetic field around a single current carrying rod
first asked 18th October 2011
Tomorrow (Nov 2 here)to become a record of MM's ignorance of high school science!

 

[Belz...]

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, I don't suppose you've finally understood my point, right ?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina thinks this is hand-waving:

I've seen creationists handwave in a FALSE claim before, but you take the cake. You're like a pitbull of false handwaves and false claims. Not only have you REFUSED to provide a published work to support your handwave of a claim, you refuse to "back off" your BS even when it's SHOWN TO BE BS! You're absolutely amazing!

Maybe you don't really understand how a "scientific" debate is supposed to work? You're supposed to provided PUBLISHED experiments to support your case. You didn't do that. In fact you've NEVER done that with your so called "experiment" on "reconnection". You simply pulled your claim right out of your back pocket. You have NEVER supported your claim about your experiment being an example of anything other than an example of INDUCTANCE in any logical way in fact. All you've done it handwave around a half a dozen or so formulas, none of which actually supports your claim!

Wow! I've seen creationists act irrationally before, but the more I ask you for a published reference, the nastier, meaner and uglier you get. Rather than provide what I asked you for, you attacked me personally. That's just pathetic behavior. Do you have a published reference to support your claim or not? Yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ignorance and SHOUTING will not change that fact that monopoles do not violate the laws of physics.

No amount of denial is going to change the fact that monopoles do not exist in nature and they DO in fact violate Gauss' law of magnetism. Were they to exist, it would require a MODIFICATION to the existing formulas. They don't exist anymore than unicorns exist. You might as well be claiming that unicorns did it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, I don't suppose you've finally understood my point, right ?

Your question would suggest that you don't understand my point yet. In a "scientific" debate one is supposed to provide *PUBLISHED* works to support one's case. Clinger never did that. He refuses to do that. In fact the more I ask him to do the "right thing", the nastier and meaner he gets.

Now one is always free to "read" or "ignore" the published study being presented like Clinger is free to never read Cosmic Plasma. I can't twist his arm to make him read or respond to the materials that support my beliefs. On the other hand if he refuses to address the materials suggested, it simply weakens one's position and makes it clear that one is running from the materials.

You personally haven't commented on ANY of the actual published materials that I have presented. All you seem to be interested in doing is hurling insults from the peanut gallery. I don't think that's really a rational way to respond to the 30 or so papers and books I've presented in this thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina,
Do you realize the idiocy of applying Gauss's law of magnetism without monopoles to a paper that assumes that they exist?
(or can be used as a mathematical convenience)

Do you know idiotic it is to claim that "monopoles did it" without any evidence whatsoever that monopoles even exist?

 

[Belz...]

Michael, I don't suppose you've finally understood my point, right ?

Your question would suggest that you don't understand my point yet.

I'll take that as a "no".

In a "scientific" debate one is supposed to provide *PUBLISHED* works to support one's case. Clinger never did that. He refuses to do that. In fact the more I ask him to do the "right thing", the nastier and meaner he gets.

Completely irrelevant to what I said. You are knee-jerking your posts, at this point.

 

[Belz...]

You personally haven't commented on ANY of the actual published materials that I have presented. All you seem to be interested in doing is hurling insults from the peanut gallery.

No, I'm commenting on your constant use of the irony meters in completely useless posts. Haven't I made that clear by now ? Whatever other arguments you have made are completely irrelevant to that point and you seem entirely unable to grasp that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, I'm commenting on your constant use of the irony meters in completely useless posts. Haven't I made that clear by now ? Whatever other arguments you have made are completely irrelevant to that point and you seem entirely unable to grasp that.

I realize that when RC says something to the effect: "It's not about scaling the double layer, it's about scaling plasma physics", that you really don't grasp the irony of such a comment. Since I've read Alfven's materials and Peratt's materials for myself, I do see the irony in such commentary. I can't help it if you're "out of the loop" and can't appreciate the irony. It's your choice to read the material, not mine.

I've listened to RC being stuck in pure denial now about electrical discharges in plasma for months if not over a year now. After awhile of watching him ignore Dungey's work and Peratt's life's work, one just doesn't "care" much about more the same BS from RC. He doesn't understand ANYTHING about plasma physics.

I admit that after awhile with RC, it's just not worth repeating myself for the 1000th time and I simply enjoy his irrational statements in my own way. If you don't like it, or simply can't understand it, "Oh well".

 

[GeeMack]

I've listened to RC being stuck in pure denial now about electrical discharges in plasma for months if not over a year now. After awhile of watching him ignore Dungey's work and Peratt's life's work, one just doesn't "care" much about more the same BS from RC. He doesn't understand ANYTHING about plasma physics.

James Dungey was one of the earlier developers of the magnetic reconnection concept as it applies to solar plasma physics. Much of the contemporary position on magnetic reconnection was built on a foundation of his work. To reject magnetic reconnection would be to reject Dungey's life's work.

Oh, and an electrical discharge analogous to lightning here on Earth can't occur in a conductive plasma like the solar atmosphere. It's a matter of simple physics. Reality Check is correct on that issue, and none of the dishonest attempts to redefine terms and cherry pick definitions, no amount of quoting a couple of phrases from Peratt while blindly ignoring the rest of what he wrote will change that.

 

[Belz...]

I realize that when RC says something to the effect: "It's not about scaling the double layer, it's about scaling plasma physics", that you really don't grasp the irony of such a comment.

Irrelevant. You are unable to understand my point, or unwilling to understand my point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

James Dungey was one of the earlier developers of the magnetic reconnection concept as it applies to solar plasma physics. Much of the contemporary position on magnetic reconnection was built on a foundation of his work. To reject magnetic reconnection would be to reject Dungey's life's work.

In Dungey's case at least, I fully accept his life's work involving ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES in solar flares. I can see that Dungey understands both the E and B orientation of plasma physics and his "reconnection" process clearly involves "CURRENT". I've always embraced current reconnection, and Dungey has always embraced electrical discharges in plasma in relationship to solar flare events. I'm sure he understands BOTH the E and the B orientations and I'm satisfied that he provides FAST KINETIC ENERGY to the point of "reconnection" (between currents).

Oh, and an electrical discharge analogous to lightning here on Earth can't occur in a conductive plasma like the solar atmosphere.

You're a liar, plain and simple. Even the photosphere has non ionized particles in it that will be ionized by the "discharge". The ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE is a release of stored EM energy, not the act of ionizing elements. The electrical discharges will however ionize iron to a plus 20 state, and that sure isn't it's natural state at 6000K. Pray tells us, what is the ionization state of neon at 6000K? Why do we observe NE+7 in 'electrical discharges/flares' (Dungey used the term)?

It's a matter of simple physics.

No, your argument is based upon an OVERSIMPLIFICATION fallacy, not "physics". You oversimplied the term "electrical discharge" to EXCLUDE plasma! The whole thing is a red herring because neither of you understands the first thing about plasma physics.

Reality Check is correct on that issue, and none of the dishonest attempts to redefine terms and cherry pick definitions, no amount of quoting a couple of phrases from Peratt while blindly ignoring the rest of what he wrote will change that.

I don't suppose either of you two has actually read Peratt's book? Nah, you two ONLY argue from ignorance. You don't know how else TO argue in fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Irrelevant. You are unable to understand my point, or unwilling to understand my point.

I understand why you feel that way, but I also believe that you have no right to judge me until or unless you read and UNDERSTAND the material I've presented. If you don't understand the material and you're just "out of the loop" in terms of the irony factor in RC's comments, it's not my fault.