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

Status
Not open for further replies.
FYI, RC, you're in pure denial. Dungey already provided you with a second reference on electrical discharges in plasmas.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, RC, you're in pure denial. Dungey already provided you with a second reference on electrical discharges in plasmas.
Click to expand...
FYI, MM you are lying.
Dungey is not a reference to electrical discharges in plasma.
He is a reference to high current density (which he calls an electrical discharge) in magnetic reconnection. It is a 60 year old reference to a magnetic reconnection specific use of the term that is AFAIK not used any more.
You are thus also lying about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge being a definition of 'electrical discharge in plasma because the 2 defnintions are different.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya RC, I know you can DANCE around that word *IN*....
Click to expand...
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2). On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.
Click to expand...
Ya MM , I know you can
 
Reality Check said:
You are thus also lying about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge being a definition of 'electrical discharge in plasma because the 2 defnintions are different.
Click to expand...

More pure denial. :covereyes :(

They aren't different RC. Both men use the term "electrical discharge" in relationship to plasma events. You're splitting hairs to the point of pure absurdity. Both men describe and accept the term ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES inside of plasma! Both men expect to see powerful electric currents involved in that electrical discharge process in plasma. You're only lying to yourself.
 
Last edited:
This is as good an excuse as any to add a relevant factor to the last equation in my post #4304.

Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes. I have cited quite a few published sources, including Purcell, Jackson, Priest&Forbes, Yamada et al, even Dungey. You ignore, deny, or (in the case of Dungey) misinterpret them.

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
You will have no right to judge anyone until you read and understand the basic concepts of freshman-level electromagnetism.

For example: You have been denying the relevance of

[latex]
\[
\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0}
\frac{1}{8 \delta^3} \oint_{S_\delta(r,\theta,z)} \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf A}} = 0
\]
[/latex]​
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Yes. I have cited quite a few published sources, including Purcell, Jackson,
Click to expand...

Please provide the book title or paper, page numbers, and paragraphs from both books that use the term "reconnection". I would have SWORN you told RC that neither author even mentioned that term in the books you own.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
This is as good an excuse as any to add a relevant factor to the last equation in my post #4304.


Yes. I have cited quite a few published sources, including ..... Priest&Forbes, Yamada et al, even Dungey. You ignore, deny, or (in the case of Dungey) misinterpret them.
Click to expand...

How exactly do you figure that I misinterpreted the term "electrical discharge"? Which of Priests or Yamada's published papers claims that YOUR EXPERIMENT (not anything they happened to be writing about) is an example of "magnetic reconnection"?

If you can come up with some kind of actual published paper that actually supports YOUR experiment and claims THAT experiment is an example of "magnetic reconnection", we might actually get somewhere.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
You will have no right to judge anyone until you read and understand the basic concepts of freshman-level electromagnetism.
Click to expand...

You will have no right to claim the topic of 'reconnection' is even a "freshman-level" topic in the first place until and unless you can provide us with a freshman textbook that actually discusses the topic. That's never going to happen so you might as well get over the personal attack BS. It's not going to work.
 
Michael Mozina said:
They aren't different RC.
Click to expand...

They are different so you are lying.
If we take your other lie (quote mine) about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge then Dungey's definition remains different since there is no 'sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy' in Dungey's usage of the term 'electrical discharge'
Originally Posted by Dungey (1953 paper)
A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
Yep. I asked him whether they did cover magnetic reconnection and W.D. Clinger specifically answered that they did not.
And you then get all obsessed with that Purcell and Jackson do not mention magnetic reconnection :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...

Ya, I'm obsessed with truth. Those books did NOT support his "reconnection" claims.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)

Michael Mozina said:
You will have no right to claim the topic of 'reconnection' is even a "freshman-level" topic in the first place until and unless you can provide us with a freshman textbook that actually discusses the topic. That's never going to happen so you might as well get over the personal attack BS. It's not going to work.
Click to expand...
Pure BS, Michael Mozina.
Magnetic reconnection is not discussed in freshman EM textbooks. What is disucssed in freshman EM textbooks, is freshman EM :jaw-dropp !
What W.D. Clinger and I and sol invictus and others are claiming is that magnetic reconnection can be understood with a freshman-level of electromagnetism.

I go a step further - in order to understand the concept of magnetic reconnection, all you really need is high school-level science (or be able to read a map), e.g. the right hand rule. What the freshman-level gives is a better understanding of why the right hand rule works (it is often taught as fact in high school).

This brings up
Reality Check said:
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!
Click to expand...


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

Given your displayed ignorance of high school science this is probably beyond your abilities though.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, I'm obsessed with truth. Those books did NOT support his "reconnection" claims.
Click to expand...
The science in those books DO support magnetic reconnection. Nothing in them states that magnetic reconneciton is impossible (they do not even mention it!). Anyone who has read them can apply the science to magnetic fields and see that MR is trivially possible.

Even the EM taught in high schools supports magnetic reconnection.
If you knew high school science (Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule) ) then you could describe the magnetic field around a current carrying rod. The extension to magnetic field lines reconnecting is easy.

It is the science in Purcell, Jackson that suports magnetic reconnection.
It is Priest&Forbes that set out the MHD theory of MR.
It was Dungey who was a pioneer in MR theory (so citing a supporter of MR is dumb!).

And what you have been ignoring (as usual):
Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003
(you know - all of the observations that Alfvén's circuit theory cannot match)
 
Michael Mozina said:
They both describe electrical discharges in plasma so you're only lying to yourself RC.
Click to expand...
Neither describes electrical discharges in plasma so you're only lying to yourself MM.
Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6630724#post6630724
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010
Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
First asked 3rd February 2011
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6630724#post6630724http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6630724#post6630724

Their definitions are different and so your are doubly deluded, MM. You need to pick one as the definition of the 'electrical discharges in plasma' that you are fantasizing about.
13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different
 
This conversation is *EXACTLY* like arguing with creationists. You guys NEVER actually read or respond to the materials and you make stuff up as you go. No RC, "reconnection" is trivially *IMPOSSIBLE* in basic theory because magnetic lines have no beginning and no ending and no ability to "disconnect" or "reconnect". If we "connect" two zero points in a magnetic field, 0+0=0 and there is no kinetic energy that might "reconnect" to anything else, let alone heat plasmas to millions of degrees! Now *IF* we do like Dungey did and drive an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE through that neutral point, THEN we have (drum role please) fast "reconnection" between CURRENTS!
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The science in those books DO support magnetic reconnection. Nothing in them states that magnetic reconneciton is impossible (they do not even mention it!).
Click to expand...

By your logic both of Clinger's books also support God and astrology too because neither author mentions them. Holy cow! Yep, this is *EXACTLY* like arguing with creationists.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom