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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
An honest man would not lie about what W.D. Clinger has stated.
He has never stated that the proposed experiment is in a PUBLISHED REFERENCE.
Click to expand...

Then from the standpoint of science and skeptical debate he's no better than a two bit creationist handwaving away!
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina's delusion about Alfvén's solar flare paper

Michael Mozina said:
Clingers use of circuit theory is quite ironic, particularly in current carrying plasma (like Yamada and Dungey) where Alfven's double layer paper makes MR theory OBSOLETE.
Click to expand...
Really ignorant - there is no 'circuit theory' (as in Alfvén's double layer paper) in
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1 and an erratum,
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 2
No circuit. No resistors. No capacitors. No inductors. Not even any double layers!

It looks like we have an old delusion resurrected. Alfvén's paper used a circuit model of solar flares to calculate the total energy emitted in a flare (and got it right!).
  1. This circuit model only applies to solar flares.
  2. This circuit model can never explain any details of the solar flare. That needs MR theory:
    Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003
    (you know - all of the observations that Alfvén's circuit theory cannot match)
It is delusional to think that this one paper on one phenomena that cannot explain much makes 'MR theory OBSOLETE'.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Then from the standpoint of science and skeptical debate he's no better than two bit creationist handwaving away!
Click to expand...
A rather idiotic comment.
Magnetic reconnection in vacuum (or air) is so trivial that no one seems to have bothered to publish a detailed description of it.

W.D. Clinger's posts are based on science, not your or creationist fantasies
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1and an erratum,
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 2
 
Reality Check said:
A rather idiotic comment.
Magnetic reconnection in vacuum (or air) is so trivial that no one seems to have bothered to publish a detailed description of it.
Click to expand...

Ya and "God created the universe 6000 years ago" is so trivial, nobody bothered to publish any scientific data on it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
From the standpoint of skeptical debate and reason, you're up a creek without a published paddle.
Click to expand...
From the standpoint of knowledge of science and any dispolayed ability to learn, you're up a creek without a intellegent paddle:
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length"
Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule).

I actually do have a published paddle (sort of) though!
Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990
In an vacuum, magnetic reconnection is trivial process...
Click to expand...

ETA: An actual published paddle:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
"Section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" covers this topic in a page and a half :jaw-dropp!
​
So now we have a published source for magnetic reconnection in vacuum, you should admit that it exists (but of course you will continue with your delusional belief that it does no :eye-poppi )
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
From the standpoint of knowledge of science and any dispolayed ability to learn, you're up a creek without a intellegent paddle:
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length"
Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule).

I actually do have a published paddle (sort of) though!
Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990


ETA: An actual published paddle:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
"Section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" covers this topic in a page and a half :jaw-dropp!
​
So now we have a published source for magnetic reconnection in vacuum, you should admit that it exists (but of course you will continue with your delusional belief that it does no :eye-poppi )
Click to expand...

It's really ironic to me that you don't bother actually reading or comprehending the materials that you cite. That specific author explicitly uses the terms "current" and "induced E fields" RC. He simply names the PROCESS "reconnection". I have no problem with "current reconnection" inside a "separatrix/double layer" which "encloses both currents". :) The behaviors of that "double layer/separatrix" are already explained in Alfven's double layer paper *WITHOUT* MR theory. Essentially Boris (like Dungey) agrees with Alfven that "magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than a pseudonym for current sheet acceleration and he clearly explains the E field that is INDUCED by the magnetic field changes. Nice job shooting yourself in the foot there RC. :)
 
Last edited:
FYI, page 105 has a paragraph about "reconnecting current sheets" in plasma. Like I said, I have no problem with "current reconnection". Current flow (Dungey's electrical discharges) into the X point can indeed provide the kinetic energy necessary to explain those million degree temperatures and those gamma rays. Two "magnetic lines" connected at a couple of ZERO points isn't going to posses any particle kinetic energy to "reconnect" to anything else, but two CURRENTS is a completely different matter. I have no problem with "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection" or something that explains the actually kinetic energy exchange process ACCURATELY.
 
Last edited:
Wow RC, you struck the motherload with that author. Turn to page 108.

Read section 4.5 entitled: "Acceleration in current sheets, why?"

He even uses the term "reconnecting current sheets". I don't know how much clearer he could be about the "reconnection" process being a pseudonym for "current sheet acceleration" just like Alfven said!
 
This is rapidly becoming more and more farcical.

The projection in this thread on MM's part is almost pathological.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Hey RC, if you need more reference material for electrical discharges in solar flares, why don't you do a Google book search on that topic too?
Click to expand...
Bacuase you are the one with that unphysical fantasy.
You need to provide the citations from Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!:
Remember to quote the full text rather lying (quote mining) as you doo about Anthony Peratt's book).

P.S. You will find plenty of results since any references to Dungey (which any such book should include) will adopt his usage: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom