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

[Belz...]

I'm willing to risk it. Education is always a good thing.

Are you willing to be educated ?

 

[Belz...]

It's entirely possible that after reading Dungey's paper or Paratt's quote, or any of the other references that I've provided that you'll come to understand and accept the fact that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas.

1) Explain to me how you can have electrical discharge without electrons.

2) What does it have to do with me ?

That *SINGLE* revelation/piece of knowledge would put you way ahead of every EU hater in this thread.

"Hater" ? What does that mean ?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course! How else can the magnetic lines change their topology, if lines are not broken and reconnected? However, whether reconnection is a "feature of attraction and repulsion" -- as you phrase it -- or whether it is a simultaneous event not involved in the forces -- I'll allow the physicists answer that. Clearly both attraction/repulsion occur while lines are breaking and reconnecting.


I have not dodged this question; it simply makes no sense. It seems to me to be a naive way of looking at this. I cannot imagine other than reconnecting happens as soon as there is any movement, even if it is on a microscopic level. You seem to be implying that attraction happens and then reconnection happens at different times, which makes no sense. As I said above, clearly both attraction/repulsion occur while lines are breaking and reconnecting.

Emphasis mine. Thanks for that. At least I now have SOME idea of what you're talking about.

Do you have the mathematical formulas that were used to create those images you've posted? AFAIK, they are simple "cartoon-like depictions'' (not real in any way) of what actually happens to the magnetic lines. If those images do happen to be created mathematically (which I doubt), the formulas themselves should resolve the issue. Do you have them? Do you have ANY background information on those cartoons/images?

As far as I can tell, you're talking about MAGNETIC FLUX. You would agree that the movement of the magnets creates a change in the B fields in that area?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are you willing to be educated ?

Of course. That's why I'm here in fact. How about you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

1) Explain to me how you can have electrical discharge without electrons.

I can't.

2) What does it have to do with me ?

I don't know. Why did YOU ask that question? Why are you participating in this specific thread?

"Hater" ? What does that mean ?

An "Electric Universe Hater" is someone that HATES any and all EU oriented concepts. It doesn't really matter if it's "electric comet" theories, or "electric sun" theories, or "electric anything in space" theories, they're all over it because they HATE the possibility that the universe we live in is ELECTRICAL in nature.

EU haters argue like creationists. It's mostly a denial based belief system. RC, GM and Clinger for instance are all in STAUNCH denial that electrical discharges can occur in plasma. Not one of them has ever produced a reference that actually makes such a claim, but they handwave away anyway. Clingers whole "experiment" for instance is a pure handwave. He's provided NO published references related to HIS experiment specifically. RC FINALLY found a reference from Somov about reconnection but Somov specifically associates "reconnection" with "electric fields", induced E fields at that X point, and current reconnection. In other words they typically don't present any published materials to support their SPECIFIC claims, they simply HANDWAVE away, hoping nobody notices they have no real scientific data to support their claim.

They typically aren't even particularly knowledgeable in the topic. Most of them do not own, nor have ever read a book on plasma physics. They love to attack the individual just like a creationists. In this realm they can't call me "evil'', so they use other types of derogatory terms like "crank", "crackpot", yada yada yada.

PS's claim for instance is a great example of a hater's argument. It seems to be based entirely upon a CARTOON that he found somewhere on the internet, it's not even a MATHEMATICAL or a published argument. What am I supposed to do with that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

J W Dungey's 1958 paper (to which Michael Mozina refers almost daily) contains even clearer examples of magnetic reconnection in the B field.

I can't believe your still trying to use DUNGEY to support your claims. Do you agree with DUNGEY that ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES occur at that X point, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

PS,

If I understand your argument correctly, you're associating a "topology change in the magnetic lines of attraction (and repulsion?) between the two magnetic fields" with "magnetic reconnection". Do I properly understand your argument? Are you including or excluding the lines of repulsion in terms of "flux" and/or "reconnection"?

 

[GeeMack]

I can't believe your still trying to use DUNGEY to support your claims.

James Dungey, whose name is generally not shouted by legitimate scientists by the way, was one of the pioneers in assembling the theories of magnetic reconnection as it applies to activity in the solar atmosphere. Either Dungey can be used as a reference here, in which case we accept magnetic reconnection as a genuine observable phenomenon, or we leave Dungey aside and get back to the pseudoscience of the electric Sun conjectures.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
Do you have the mathematical formulas that were used to create those images you've posted? AFAIK, they are simple "cartoon-like depictions'' (not real in any way) of what actually happens to the magnetic lines. If those images do happen to be created mathematically (which I doubt), the formulas themselves should resolve the issue. Do you have them? Do you have ANY background information on those cartoons/images?

When we go from: [N<<<<<<<S][N<<<<<<<S]

to: [N<<<<<<<S] ................................................. [N<<<<<<<<S]

if you accept ∇∙B = 0, every time magnetic lines break they must instantaneously reconnect. What more is there to say?

The mathematical formulas that were the basis of the actions in those animations must start with this fundamantal law of physics.

PS,

If I understand your argument correctly, you're associating a "topology change in the magnetic lines of attraction (and repulsion?) between the two magnetic fields" with "magnetic reconnection". Do I properly understand your argument? Are you including or excluding the lines of repulsion in terms of "flux" and/or "reconnection"?

What? Magnetic lines are magnetic lines; there is no distinction between those of flux, repulsion/attraction, reconnection, etc. The only difference I can discern (from your abuse of these terms) is that in reconnection and when in flux, the magnetic lines are moving, whereas in repulsion/attraction they may or may not be moving.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When we go from: [N<<<<<<<S][N<<<<<<<S]

to: [N<<<<<<<S] ................................................. [N<<<<<<<<S]

if you accept ∇∙B = 0, every time magnetic lines break they must instantaneously reconnect. What more is there to say?

The mathematical formulas that were the basis of the actions in those animations must start with this fundamantal law of physics.




What? Magnetic lines are magnetic lines; there is no distinction between those of flux, repulsion/attraction, reconnection, etc. The only difference I can discern (from your abuse of these terms) is that in reconnection and when in flux, the magnetic lines are moving, whereas in repulsion/attraction they may or may not be moving.

http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/articles/Falthammar_MovingFieldLines_2007.pdf

 

[Michael Mozina]

James Dungey, whose name is generally not shouted by legitimate scientists by the way, was one of the pioneers in assembling the theories of magnetic reconnection as it applies to activity in the solar atmosphere.

Yes, and he explained as Somov explained that an E field was INDUCED at that X point and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE occurs as a result.

Either Dungey can be used as a reference here,.....

Well, we all know that YOU, RC and Clinger can't use him as a reference because you're all in complete denial of the FACT that electrical discharges occur in plasmas.

On the other hand I'm fine with his math and his basic explanation of the PROCESS, he just picked a ridiculous name to describe the reconnection of a couple of *field aligned currents*. The only complaint I have about his work is the ridiculous NAME he gave to an E INDUCING, electrical discharge producing, *INDUCTION* based process.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI PS,

I can't for the life of me figure out how you decided if an individual line actually "broke" somewhere away from the magnets and "reconnected" to a different broken field line away from the magnets. For all I can tell from your simple cartoon, the lines simply form, stretch, dissipate over distance, and new B lines form between the magnets to compensate for the movement. I have no evidence from your simple cartoon that any lines were actually "broken" in space or "reconnected" to other individual lines.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(Whether they withdraw or merge depends on whether you reduce or increase the current in the rods.

FYI, I just LOVE the irony of the fact that your device has to be "plugged in" and turned on (with current), but you can't accept the fact that we live inside of an ELECTRIC universe.

 

[Perpetual Student]

FYI PS,

I can't for the life of me figure out how you decided if an individual line actually "broke" somewhere away from the magnets and "reconnected" to a different broken field line away from the magnets. For all I can tell from your simple cartoon, the lines simply form, stretch, dissipate over distance, and new B lines form between the magnets to compensate for the movement. I have no evidence from your simple cartoon that any lines were actually "broken" in space or "reconnected" to other individual lines.

Look, the animations are not presented as evidence. They are illustrations intended to focus the mind on the processes going on. Using Humanzee's two still pictures from that animation, how can any lines dissipate as they evolve from the first into the second picture? Can you posit any way that ∇∙B = 0 can be maintained when a line breaks if it does not instantaneously reconnect as shown below?
The only way I know that magnetic lines can dissipate is if a current supporting it decreases. There are no currents here to decrease, since the magnetism is due to the intrinsic properties of the magnets. How can a magnetic line from a bar magnet dissipate?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Look, the animations are not presented as evidence. They are illustrations intended to focus the mind on the processes going on. Using Humanzee's two still pictures from that animation, how can any lines dissipate as they evolve from the first into the second picture?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Ho7a8Owac&feature=related

Look, I'm not using this cartoon/illustration as "evidence", but how can Yosemite Sam take those cannonballs to the face and that not be a real physics demonstration that cannonballs to the face are not lethal?

 

[Perpetual Student]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Ho7a8Owac&feature=related

Look, I'm not using this cartoon/illustration as "evidence", but how can Yosemite Sam take those cannonballs to the face and that not be a real physics demonstration that cannonballs to the face are not lethal?

This is the kind of adolescent debating that makes you so infamous as a nuisance and a fraud. You made no effort to address the substance of my comment while taking my use of an illustration out of context. Do you have any genuine interest in this subject or are you just here to gain pleasure from your obfuscating? My patience is running thin. Do you have any serious response to my comment (repeated below) or are you admitting magnetic reconnection is a real process?

Using Humanzee's two still pictures from that animation, how can any lines dissipate as they evolve from the first into the second picture? Can you posit any way that ∇∙B = 0 can be maintained when a line breaks if it does not instantaneously reconnect as shown below?
The only way I know that magnetic lines can dissipate is if a current supporting it decreases. There are no currents here to decrease, since the magnetism is due to the intrinsic properties of the magnets. How can a magnetic line from a bar magnet dissipate?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is the kind of adolescent debating that makes you so infamous as a nuisance and a fraud. You made no effort to address the substance of my comment while taking my use of an illustration out of context. Do you have any genuine interest in this subject or are you just here to gain pleasure from your obfuscating? My patience is running thin. Do you have any serious response to my comment (repeated below) or are you admitting magnetic reconnection is a real process?

Oy Vey! You're trying to use SOME RANDOM IMAGE YOU FOUND ON THE INTERNET to make your *ENTIRE* case PS! No published paper comes with it. No math comes with it. Nothing at ALL comes with it. It's just a CARTOON for all I know! Talk about BLATANT FRAUD!

You never even responded to the paper I offered you to EXPLAIN that process.

As best as I can tell, the lines FORM, stretch, change shape and eventually new lines take the place of old lines and old lines simply "fade away". I really can't tell ANYTHING about what occurs between two CARTOON/ILLUSTRATION images PS. It's not even rational to ask me to "explain" some random image you found on the internet without a SHRED of background information about the image.

It seems to me that what you're describing PS amounts to nothing more than "changing magnetic fields over time". Add a conductor like plasma to the mix and like Somov suggests, an E field will be INDUCED between the magnets. So what? Do you agree with Somov that an E field will be induced at that X point? Do you agree with Dungey that induced E field will eventually result in an "electrical discharge" in plasma?

Don't dodge my direct questions this time. Answer them.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Mozina, read this carefully so you understand my position here:

Oy Vey! You're trying to use SOME RANDOM IMAGE YOU FOUND ON THE INTERNET to make your *ENTIRE* case PS! No published paper comes with it. No math comes with it. Nothing at ALL comes with it. It's just a CARTOON for all I know! Talk about BLATANT FRAUD!

I initially posed a question involving two bar magnets to gain an understanding of what is meant in this thread by magnetic reconnection. I used a simple diagram to pose my question. Then, I found the animation in question and posted it because it provided a good image for my question. My question was (and still is): The magnetic fields of two separate magnets has a different topology than when they are combined. How can the these two different topological shapes come about if magnetic lines do not break and reconnect? Perhaps, if you have not studied topology, you do not understand the significance of this point -- is that the problem?
We also have Gauss (∇∙B = 0), which makes it impossible for magnetic lines to break without simultaneously reconnecting.

You never even responded to the paper I offered you to EXPLAIN that process.

The paper you "offered" had nothing to do with bar magnets and you "offered" no accompanying comments to reveal its relevance.

As best as I can tell, the lines FORM, stretch, change shape and eventually new lines take the place of old lines and old lines simply "fade away". I really can't tell ANYTHING about what occurs between two CARTOON/ILLUSTRATION images PS. It's not even rational to ask me to "explain" some random image you found on the internet without a SHRED of background information about the image.

OK, that's fine. There is nothing wrong with not understanding. Obviously, you do not know why or how the magnetic fields topologically change when bar magnets are brought together and then pulled apart. That is really the end of this discussion. Others here have made it clear that the process comes about through magnetic reconnection. Thanks for playing.

It seems to me that what you're describing PS amounts to nothing more than "changing magnetic fields over time". Add a conductor like plasma to the mix and like Somov suggests, an E field will be INDUCED between the magnets. So what? Do you agree with Somov that an E field will be induced at that X point? Do you agree with Dungey that induced E field will eventually result in an "electrical discharge" in plasma?

Don't dodge my direct questions this time. Answer them.

I have no idea why you think my opinions about the above have any value, but I'll do my best even though I am not a plasma physicist and I know very little about electrical discharges and plasmas.
I can say that if a conductor is introduced in a changing magnetic field a current will be induced. Whether that current is a discharge (if the conductor is a plasma -- based on previous discussions here) seems to be a matter of semantics.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, and he explained as Somov explained that an E field was INDUCED at that X point and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE occurs as a result.

Tough. Dungey and Somov both made it pretty clear they accept magnetic reconnection as a viable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and the heating of the corona. Neither of them had some alternative meaning hidden in a few selected words tucked away in their writings about magnetic reconnection. None of the references or arguments from incredulity and ignorance offered in this thread have refuted their position. And no amount of silly semantic games, gross distortions of actual plasma physics, or cherry picked terms will make the real science of magnetic reconnection go away.

Also, the lack of support for the claims that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of giant bolts of lightning (which is impossible within a conductor) and that the Sun is a cathode (which doesn't really act like a cathode) is obvious. All the glaringly wrong criticism of contemporary solar physics, even if it wasn't wrong, would not be support for alternative explanations. The contemporary magnetic reconnection solar model stands pretty well on its own, regardless of how poorly understood it may be by some. The burden of proof in this thread is not on the real scientists. It is on those supporting an electric Sun conjecture.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mozina, read this carefully so you understand my position here:

I initially posed a question involving two bar magnets to gain an understanding of what is meant in this thread by magnetic reconnection.

The problem is that there seems to be any number of different meanings depending on whom you ask. In all the textbooks on plasma physics that I own, the process is an E inducing, electrical discharge process associated with PLASMA and only plasma.

Clinger's definition is RADICALLY different since he's not got a single plasma particle to his name, and he's fine with "solid magnet reconnection" as an example of "magnetic reconnection". Who's DEFINITION are we using, Dungey's plasma discharge definition or Clinger's vacuum handwave thingy?

I used a simple diagram to pose my question. Then, I found the animation in question and posted it because it provided a good image for my question. My question was (and still is): The magnetic fields of two separate magnets has a different topology than when they are combined. How can the these two different topological shapes come about if magnetic lines do not break and reconnect?

I've already agreed that the H fields can and do "reconnect" with the solid magnet reconnection process. The B lines stretch and change too, but they don't begin or end. The "reconnection" process however would be INSIDE the material, not OUTSIDE of it.

Perhaps, if you have not studied topology, you do not understand the significance of this point -- is that the problem?

No. The problem seems to be related to the fact that you're essentially describing topology changes (not necessary reconnection) in the magnetic field that would in fact tend to INDUCE an E field in plasma as DUNGEY is describing the process. I'm doing my best to relate your analogy BACK TO PLASMA PHYSICAL PROCESSES where the term is actually used in a real published textbook or paper on the topic.

We also have Gauss (∇∙B = 0), which makes it impossible for magnetic lines to break without simultaneously reconnecting.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that new lines can form (or existing lines become stronger), old lines can dissipate and nothing needs to necessarily disconnect or reconnect in that illustration. The "long" line between the magnets may simply have formed or become stronger between images and the other two lines may have "dissipated" due to the formation of the new line. I can't even be sure what the author of that image had in mind when he drew that image PS. Surely he's not show ALL the lines, just a few.

The paper you "offered" had nothing to do with bar magnets and you "offered" no accompanying comments to reveal its relevance.

You're right, I'm sorry, I should have explained. The relevance is that it addresses those magnetic field topology changes you're worried about. The topology changes will induce an E field in plasma. Nothing much is going to happen in a vacuum in terms of a release of energy, and Clinger's experiment is DOOMED because he's trying to change dB/dt "slowly" and nothing much is going to happen. He doesn't have a single electron to his name to work with, so I have no idea how he expects to release energy from that contraption yet. All I know so far is that he's painting himself into an energy corner in terms of kinetic energy and it's nothing like the electrical discharge process Dungey describes.

OK, that's fine. There is nothing wrong with not understanding. Obviously, you do not know why or how the magnetic fields topologically change when bar magnets are brought together and then pulled apart. That is really the end of this discussion. Others here have made it clear that the process comes about through magnetic reconnection. Thanks for playing.

Huh? I explained awhile back that I personally really, *REALLY* suck at mind reading. I'm TERRIBLE at it. I can't read the mind of the author of that image about what he was trying to imply with those two frames of that video. I have no idea if he meant to suggest a new line formed or simply became stronger between the frames and the two existing ones faded in strength so he drew the more POWERFUL one. I have no idea what he THOUGHT about what occurs BETWEEN his two images. Neither of the two images show anything actually "reconnecting" and I can't speak for the authors intent because I don't even know who the author might have been! Evidently you read minds better than I do.

I have no idea why you think my opinions about the above have any value,

After you called me a fraud today for not reading your illustrators mind today, I assure you I don't think much of your opinions today.

but I'll do my best even though I am not a plasma physicist and I know very little about electrical discharges and plasmas.

You can read Dungey's writings, correct? He does use that term doesn't he? This is the "dodging" part that I find really frustrating. In terms of plasma physics, there is a clear right or wrong answer. Either electrical discharges do or they do not occur in a plasma. Which is it?

I can say that if a conductor is introduced in a changing magnetic field a current will be induced.

There you go. You already know a HELL of a lot more than Clinger understands. As Somov explained, those changing magnetic fields your talking about will induce currents in the plasma, and an E field at that X point. You'll need a hell of powerful change in the magnetic field to induce an electrical discharge powerful enough to release x-rays and gamma rays and produce neutron capture signatures. Clinger is still trying to change his B field "slowly". Guess who's experiment is going to be a total dud?

Whether that current is a discharge (if the conductor is a plasma -- based on previous discussions here) seems to be a matter of semantics.

Baloney. It's a matter of PHYSICS!