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

[Michael Mozina]

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.

They also make it clear that you're utterly full of it about electrical discharges in plasma. I love how you cherry pick what you want to hear, specifically one work "reconnection" and ignore the actual physics involved. It's priceless and classic denial at it's finest.

Neither of them had some alternative meaning hidden in a few selected words tucked away in their writings about magnetic reconnection.

No, they were very upfront about that induced E field and that electrical discharge process. What a pity you're still stuck in pure denial of scientific history.

None of the references or arguments from incredulity and ignorance offered in this thread have refuted their position.

I don't have to refute the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasmas and E field are induced by magnetic field topology changes. I already know these things. I know because I've actually read Somov's work for myself. I've already read Alfven's work for myself. I've already read Peratt's work for myself. You're clueless by choice.

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.

You got that part right Mr. "Electrical Discharges? What electrical discharges"?

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)

False. The actually FAST RELEASE of "stored energy" requires a "conductor". You know that but you keep lying about it anyway.

and that the Sun is a cathode (which doesn't really act like a cathode) is obvious.

It's obvious Birkeland was right about "electrical discharges" and flares too.

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.

Considering the fact you're still in stanch denial of the fact that electrical discharges occur in flares, that was a RIOT!

The burden of proof in this thread is not on the real scientists. It is on those supporting an electric Sun conjecture.

The burden of proof requires that you actually read and respond logically to the materials presented. Since you still deny that electrical discharges occur in flares, that's clearly not happening. I'm not responsible for your personal little denial process.

 

[Tim Thompson]

B and H and Dungey and Reconnection

Do you agree with DUNGEY that ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES occur at that X point, yes or no?

From 7 December 2010 ...

See The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, J.W. Dungey, 1958 (this is the paper that Mozina's "Dungey" comment above refers to).

"Certain other features of flares may be accounted for by the bulk motion resulting from a discharge at a neutral point. The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly. The 'reconnection' upsets the mechanical equilibrium in the neighborhood in a way that can be visualized, if the lines of force are seen as strings. Then the mechanical disturbance will spread from the neutral point and may have energy comparable to the energy of the spot field in the solar atmosphere."
Dungey, 1958, page 139
​

Do you (Mozina) agree with DUNGEY that RECONNECTION of magnetic field lines is an energy source in the plasma?

The act of physically reconnecting the magnets does indeed physically "reconnect" the H lines.

The only magnetic lines that "reconnect" by physically reconnecting the magnets together are the H lines.

I've already agreed that H lines can "reconnect" along with the solid magnets.

OK. After lo these may years, we have an explicit agreement from Mozina: The H magnetic field lines can and do reconnect. However, he maintains that the B magnetic field lines do not.

The H magnetic field is related to the B magnetic field by the following definition: H = B/µ₀ - M (see, e.g., Electromagnetic Fields and Waves by Lorrain & Corson, Freeman 1970 (2nd ed), the text I used as an undergraduate student; page 394). One can also write the same equation as B = µ₀(H + M). Here, the vector M is the magentization due to magnetic fields inside a material body, and M is defined as M = Nm where N is the number of atoms per unit volume and m is the average magnetic moment per atom. So we see that H, B and M are simple vectors and they are related to each other in entirely linear fashion.

The fact that these vectors are all linearly related to each other makes it physically impossible for the H-lines to be able to reconnect while the B-lines cannot. Either they both reconnect or neither does, one has only these two choices. Mozina must now either reverse himself, and drop his assertion that H-lines can reconnect, while B-lines cannot, or Mozina must agree that both H-lines and B-lines can 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.

Whether or not field lines begin or end is a sham argument, since the reconnection process does not require field lines to "end" anyway (that's why back in Alfven's day it was called magnetic merging). The mathematical definitions above do not permit one to reconnect while the other does not, under any circumstances.

 

[Perpetual Student]

What new diversionary tactic will the dodging and dancing Mozina come up with now in response to the above embarrassing demonstration?

 

[Perpetual Student]

 

[Michael Mozina]

From 7 December 2010 ...



Do you (Mozina) agree with DUNGEY that RECONNECTION of magnetic field lines is an energy source in the plasma?

I agree with Dungey, that *IN A PLASMA*, magnetic field aligned (current) energy is being converted into particle kinetic energy *VIA INDUCED E FIELDS* that are created at that X point, which ultimately results in an "electrical discharge" we call a flare as Dungey describes the process, yes.

OK. After lo these may years, we have an explicit agreement from Mozina: The H magnetic field lines can and do reconnect. However, he maintains that the B magnetic field lines do not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

H-field lines begin and end near magnetic poles
Unlike B-field lines, which never end, the H-field lines due to a magnetic material begin in a region(s) of the magnet called the north pole pass through the magnet and/or outside of the magnet and ends in a different region of the material called the south pole. Near the north pole, therefore, all H-field lines point away from the north pole (whether inside the magnet or out) while near the south pole (whether inside the magnet or out) all H-field lines point toward the south pole. (The B-field lines, for comparison, form a closed loop going from south to north inside the magnet and from north to south outside the magnet)

The H-field, therefore, is analogous to the electric field E which starts at a positive charge and ends at a negative charge. It is tempting, therefore, to model magnets in terms of magnetic charges localized near the poles. Unfortunately, this model is incorrect; for instance, it often fails when determining the magnetic field inside of magnets. (See "Non-uniform magnetic field causes like poles to repel and opposites to attract" below.)

Outside a material, though, the H-field is identical to the B-field (to a multiplicative constant) so that in many cases the distinction can be ignored. This is particularly true for magnetic fields, such as those due to electric currents, that are not generated by magnetic materials.

That is the BASIC DIFFERENCE between H and B field lines Tim. I certainly didn't make up the fact that H lines have a beginning and an ending. They point differently inside of the magnet too. These are defining *DIFFERENCES* and characteristics that make H lines different from B lines. I already posted the whole WIKI article on the differences.

The fact that these vectors are all linearly related to each other makes it physically impossible for the H-lines to be able to reconnect while the B-lines cannot.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7734339&postcount=4560

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.

*OUTSIDE* of the magnet, that's true Tim. Inside the magnet however the H lines are DIFFERENT FROM B LINES! They have a beginning and and ending. They start at one pole and end at another. If you physically change the magnetic poles, the H lines have to begin and end at DIFFERENT locations. I'm wondering how much of basic EM theory any of you actually remember at this point. It really seems like you all seem to suffer from "sometimers". Sometimes you remember the key points of EM theory. Sometimes you ignore them completely!

Either they both reconnect or neither does, one has only these two choices.

No Tim, that's a false dichotomy fallacy. Unlike B lines, the H lines have a beginning and an ending. They physically move from one pole to another and they point differently inside the actual physical magnetic. Because they are INTERNALLY unique, it's not an either/or proposition.

 

[GeeMack]

They [...]

... [Dungey and Somov] both made it pretty clear they accept magnetic reconnection as a reasonable, objective, quantitative explanation for the energy release in solar flares and the heating of the corona.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What new diversionary tactic will the dodging and dancing Mozina come up with now in response to the above embarrassing demonstration?

Considering how fast you ran from that electrical discharge in plasma question, you shouldn't be throwing any stones PS. One good authority figure telling it like it is about electrical discharges in plasma, would have ended all this nonsense A YEAR AGO!

 

[Michael Mozina]

... [Dungey and Somov] both made it pretty clear they accept magnetic reconnection as a reasonable, objective, quantitative explanation for the energy release in solar flares and the heating of the corona.

They also agree that the process of transfering magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is a result of *INDUCED E FIELDS* at that X point that result in *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES* in plasma. Go ahead and keep dancing around the physics all you like GM, but you LIED THROUGH YOUR TEETH when you claimed that electrical discharges could not occur in a plasma. Worse still, you've NEVER acknowledged your mistake.

 

[GeeMack]

They also agree that the process of transfering magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is a result of *INDUCED E FIELDS* at that X point that result in *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES* in plasma. Go ahead and keep dancing around the physics all you like GM, but you LIED THROUGH YOUR TEETH when you claimed electrical discharges could not occur in a plasma.

Neither Dungey nor Somov even remotely suggested that the Sun works like a giant cathode or that solar flares and CMEs are somehow analogous to lightning here on Earth. No objective assessment of their research would lead anyone to believe that, and no valid criticism of their positions on magnetic reconnection has been offered in this thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Neither Dungey nor Somov even remotely suggested that the Sun works like a giant cathode....

What a BLATANT dodge! You're still in PURE DENIAL of the SCIENTIFIC FACT that "electrical discharges" occur in plasmas and you refuse to correct your mistake. You latched on to ONE WORD (reconnection) of Dungey's paper and IGNORED that term "electrical discharge" completely. It is a lie that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma and denial is (rightly) considered to be a PATHOLOGICAL behavior. When did you intend to acknowledge the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma?

 

[Perpetual Student]

I made still another vain attempt to engage Mozina in order to see if I could learn the cause of the blockage concerning magnetic reconnection. After all, physicists throughout the world, including specialists in plasma physics, astrophysics, electromagnetism understand this phenomenon, so what is the basis of the Mozina dissonance? Anyone interested can review the exchange over the last two or so pages, although it's quite boring and probably a waste on time.
However, this attempt has helped me understand the root of the problem here. A review of the exchange makes it quite transparent that Mozina is simply not intellectually capable of understanding even the most basic logical argument. Real physics is considerable beyond his capacity, which is why he embraces the delusional pseudoscience of EU -- or whatever it is. Pseudoscience does not require mathematics, or logic for that matter. Pseudoscience only requires belief and so it can defy genuine analysis and scientific scrutiny.
Who knows how long this thread will continue? As long as anyone is willing to try using logic, mathematics or real science, Mozina will counter with his illogical song and dance. I have no doubt that he very much enjoys the chase, while believing he is engaging people who really understand science in an intellectual battle. I've had my fill. For my own piece of mind, he will go back on "ignore" while I tune in here from time to time to gain some insights from those who really understand science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I made still another vain attempt to engage Mozina in order to see if I could learn the cause of the blockage concerning magnetic reconnection. After all, physicists throughout the world, including specialists in plasma physics, astrophysics, electromagnetism understand this phenomenon, so what is the basis of the Mozina dissonance? Anyone interested can review the exchange over the last two or so pages, although it's quite boring and probably a waste on time.
However, this attempt has helped me understand the root of the problem here. A review of the exchange makes it quite transparent that Mozina is simply not intellectually capable of understanding even the most basic logical argument. Real physics is considerable beyond his capacity, which is why he embraces the delusional pseudoscience of EU -- or whatever it is. Pseudoscience does not require mathematics, or logic for that matter. Pseudoscience only requires belief and so it can defy genuine analysis and scientific scrutiny.
Who knows how long this thread will continue? As long as anyone is willing to try using logic, mathematics or real science, Mozina will counter with his illogical song and dance. I have no doubt that he very much enjoys the chase, while believing he is engaging people who really understand science in an intellectual battle. I've had my fill. For my own piece of mind, he will go back on "ignore" while I tune in here from time to time to gain some insights from those who really understand science.

Wow, talk about pegging the irony meter. Between you, GM, RC and Clinger, not a single one of you owns or has read a textbook related to plasma physics. Not a single one of you will accept the WHOLE PROCESS that involves INDUCING an E field at that X point, and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE at that X point. It's like a trip in the twilight zone around here because you all argue from a place of pure blind ignorance, and pure hatred to the E orientation of plasma physics. It's irrational absurd behavior on par with the very WORST type of denial based "creationist" beliefs. The fact your arguments rely on PURE HANDWAVING of cartoons and VACUUM equations is PROOF positive that not only don't you have a credible argument, you don't even understand how to BUILD or PUT FORTH a credible PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC argument. It's pathetic. Not a single one of the real "haters" even owns a textbook, let alone has ever read a textbook on plasma physics, so of course none of you understand the E orientation to plasma physics. It's all just about one word to this ignorant crew, specifically the word "reconnection".

FYI, the term relates to a PROCESS that involves the INDUCEMENT of an E field at that X point that results in an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE IN PLASMA according to the guy that coined the term "reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

I made still another vain attempt to engage Mozina in order to see if I could learn the cause of the blockage concerning magnetic reconnection.

What did you personally use as MATERIAL when attempting to engage me PS? Math? Dungey's work? No. You used an ILLUSTRATION from an UNKNOWN and UNSPECIFIED author with no published background material AT ALL! I've seen creationist build a better scientific argument with actual "published" (if you can call it that) materials and everything. Holy cow! EU haters are just IRRATIONAL, when it comes to scientific debate.

 

[Belz...]

I can't.

Interesting.

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

To point out that some of your posts are pointless.

An "Electric Universe Hater" is someone that HATES any and all EU oriented concepts.

Do you even know what the word "hate" means ? The posters here DISAGREE with the theory. You are far too emotionally invested in it to be rational about it, in my opinion.

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.

That might have something to do with the fact that we know gravity exists.

RC, GM and Clinger for instance are all in STAUNCH denial that electrical discharges can occur in plasma.

You just admitted yourself that such discharges are impossible (at least, impossible to explain by you). Evidence for those discharges ?

 

[Belz...]

What a BLATANT dodge! You're still in PURE DENIAL of the SCIENTIFIC FACT that "electrical discharges" occur in plasmas and you refuse to correct your mistake. You latched on to ONE WORD (reconnection) of Dungey's paper and IGNORED that term "electrical discharge" completely. It is a lie that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma and denial is (rightly) considered to be a PATHOLOGICAL behavior. When did you intend to acknowledge the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma?

Please stop shouting. You accuse others of denial. Ok, fine. But I haven't seen a credible source by you since I started following this thread. I am willing to admit I didn't follow the whole thing and, of course after so many pages it might be a good idea to refresh our memory so... why don't you post the _best_ piece of evidence in favour of the theory you espouse, and we'll work from there.

 

[GeeMack]

Wow, talk about pegging the irony meter. Between you, GM, RC and Clinger, not a single one of you [...]

What did you personally [...]

The purpose of this thread is for any electric Sun proponents to provide support for their conjectures, and specifically to support claims that the Sun is some kind of giant cathode (which doesn't act like a cathode), and that solar flares and CMEs are or are caused by electrical sparks like lightning here on Earth (which is a physical impossibility). So the above quotes, comprised almost exclusively of uncivil personal attacks and lacking any quantitative or objective commentary at all, are irrelevant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Interesting.

Yes indeed. Clinger already started his "reconnection" process with one hand tied behind his back, and he needs them to "reconnect".

To point out that some of your posts are pointless.

Point noted. Now what?

Do you even know what the word "hate" means ? The posters here DISAGREE with the theory.

You can't actually "disagree" with something you don't understand in the first place. Haters don't take take the time, nor make the effort to educate themselves to the topic before "disagreeing" with it.

You are far too emotionally invested in it to be rational about it, in my opinion.

You're too much of a "newbie" to the topic to be educated in your choice IMO. Assuming you read a bit on the topic, I'm confident you'll see my point in short order. Dungey would an appropriate first choice of reading materials for you personally since it will "cut to the chase" on most of these issues.

That might have something to do with the fact that we know gravity exists.

"We" (as in Dungey, Peratt, Alfven, myself, etc) understand that electrical discharges occur in plasmas too. Most "educated" individuals on the topic of *plasma physics* understand this stuff. It's basic stuff actually.

You just admitted yourself that such discharges are impossible (at least, impossible to explain by you). Evidence for those discharges ?

No, that's not what I actually said. I don't have a clue how Clinger expects to reconnect anything in vacuum at two zero points in two magnetic fields while only increasing B "slowly". I'm absolutely clueless how Clinger's handwavy form of "reconnection" is supposed to work (yet). He's not "finished" yet, so I can't comment yet.

Most "magnetic reconnection" papers I've ever read involve "plasma" including lots of lots of electrons and protons etc. They all involve the inducement of E fields at that X point, and an "electrical discharge" at that X point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Please stop shouting.

FYI, honestly, I'm not shouting, I'm simply emphasizing the words in my sentences that I would emphasize in an ordinary spoken conversation. It's more of a "voice inflection" than yelling, at least IMO.

You accuse others of denial. Ok, fine. But I haven't seen a credible source by you since I started following this thread. I am willing to admit I didn't follow the whole thing and, of course after so many pages it might be a good idea to refresh our memory so... why don't you post the _best_ piece of evidence in favour of the theory you espouse, and we'll work from there.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958IAUS....6..135D

I'm not sure this is the "best" piece of evidence, but it's probably the most relevant evidence in terms of resolving some key points of dispute for you quickly, and the easiest one for me to find at the moment. Dungey was (to my actual surprise) the individual that actually coined the term "magnetic reconnection". He describes this energy release process as a process in *plasma* (not a vacuum) that results from an inducement of an E field at the X point, and a resulting "electrical discharge" process. That should pretty much point you in the right direction on most of the key "issues" of dispute. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll try my best to help.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The purpose of this thread is for any electric Sun proponents to provide support for their conjectures,

Yes, but it's a step by step process. Since you won't take the first step off the denial-go-round over the electrical discharges in plasma issue, around and around you go.

 

[Reality Check]

That explains EVERYTHING!

The fact that you have read some books and still cannot understand them explains EVERYTHING!
Including your ignorance of high school science (Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)).