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

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

So what? It's still an INDUCTION process with permeability measured in *INDUCTANCE* per unit distance, not "magnetic reconnections".

Your remain deluded: Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
And maybe: Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length" !

And unable to read . This section is describing the process of reconnection in a vacuum.
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov

Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
...
This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.

Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since
[equation 4.65]
where A is the vector potential of magnetic field,
[equation 4.66]
In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65)
[equation 4.67]
the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.

The inductive electgric field is generated by the chnage in magnetic field potential as in equation 4.67.
The mention of the induction of an electric field is after the description of magnetic reconnection.



You have repeated this inability to understand what you read enough to make this into another delusion: The delusion that a chapter

• titled "Reconnection in a Vacuum"
• which describes magnetic reconnection (in a vacuum!)
• and then shows an electric field is induced by the change in magnetic field potential

is about induction.

And another minor deletion - there is no permeability in that section !

 

[Reality Check]

He also has CURRENT flowing through his X points.

Thus just demonstrates your inability to understand what you read

• There is only 1 X point.
• The currents are to either side of the null point.

Sure, as long as you realize it is INDUCTION that transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy.

Sure, so long as you realize that you are continuing to be DELUDED about INDUCTION transferring magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy during magnetic reconnection.
MM: Induction = solar flares take a million years to happen (31st December 2009)

The rest of your post is your usual rant.
But you do get one thing right - it is just the usual induction of electric fields by a changing magnetic field.
A pity you do not understand what you wrote - the changing magnetic field is the magnetic reconnection that Somov has just described !

 

[Reality Check]

The dB/dt Clinger refers to is what INDUCES the E fields according to Somov, it doesn't result in any "disconnected" or "reconnected" B lines.

Somov has an equation for the electric field generated from a magnetic potential A that is changing. This is related to the magnetic field (B = curl A).

According to Somov, magnetic field lines merge and reconnect. It is that which INDUCES the E fields according to Somov.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Do you realize your mistakes about W.D. Clinger's experiment

I'm still waiting to see how you get kinetic energy out of a couple of zero points in a magnetic field, without induction and without current.

We are still waiting for you to realize your mistakes.

• There are no such things as 'zero points' - they are called null points or the older term (as in Dungey) neutral points .
• There is only one null point in W.D. Clinger's experiment.
• There are no plasma particles in W.D. Clinger's experiment.
• there is current (in fact 2 of them!)
• there is induction of electric fields (changing magnetic fields always induct E fields).

W.D. Clinger's experiment is basically Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov, 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
The only difference is that W.D. Clinger has the currents in rods and being done in air so that it can be done as an actual experiment.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Do you agree that Bruce's idea that there is lightning on the Sun is wrong

If you knew a little bit about plasma physics, you might know that electrical discharges occur in plasmas.

Only a total idiot would state that electrical discharges occur in plasma because the usual definition of electrical discharges states that this cannot happen (no dielectric medium to breakdown). See Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.
Even you are idiotic enough to claim that lightning happens in plasma !
Though you sometimes slip and cite Bruce's debunked lightning in plasma work.
So let us check this out:
Michael Mozina,

Do you agree that Bruce's idea that there is lightning on the Sun is wrong?
​

His hypothetical dust particles cannot exist because the temperature of the Sun is ~5700 K at the photosphere.
If they existed then they would be embedded in a conductive plasma, i.e. no dielectric medium to breakdown and so there will be currents, not electrical discharges.
These hypothetical dust particles have never been observed in the many decades since he proposed them.

Where the idoicy lies is in that you have not been able to find and stick to a definition of electrical discharge that happens in plasma.
You have cited 60 year old (not modern) usage by Dungey and not understood that means that solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

You have this consistant fantasy: Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!:
(including lying about the definition ).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Only a total idiot would state that electrical discharges occur in plasma ....

You know Belz, my honey-do list today is rather lengthy so I don't have time to respond to RC's nonsense at the moment.

After you've read that first paper by Dungey, you might try explaining to RC that he's effectively calling Dungey a "total idiot". Maybe you can talk some sense into him. I've tried now for over a year but he seems to be incapable of listening to reason. I think even a quick conversation with RC over this issue will give you some insight into my pure exasperation with his ridiculous statements.

 

[Reality Check]

http://books.google.com/books?id=5v...&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

FYI, I guess Giovanelli was also the first one to suggest that the process involved *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES*.

FYI, I guess Giovanelli was the first one to call a high current density, an *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* and the Dungey followed the same practice: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

I know Giovanelli was not the first one to call this physical process magnetic reconnection. So guess again !

From the book that you have been ignoring for years:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0-521-48179-1, contents and sample chapter online

If you bother to read the sample chapter (the introduction) then you will find that

• Dungey was the first to suggest that "lines of force can be broken and rejoined". According to you this makes him very stupid because thay cannot break and reconenct .
• It was Parker in his 1957 paper who
  

  coined the words "reconnection of field lines" and "merging of magnetic fields"

 

[Reality Check]

After you've read that first paper by Dungey, you might try explaining to RC that he's effectively calling Dungey a "total idiot".

Displaying your inability to read again, MM?
Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Anyone idiotic to confuse Dungey's usage of the term with lightning is the one implying that Dungey is an idiot (and proving themnselves totally ignorant as a byproduct).
That is not me.
I am hoping that it is not you. Maybe you can confirm this by confirming that you know that Dungey's 'electric discharge' is high current density in magnetic reconnection?

 

[Perpetual Student]

For centuries people would read and recite passages from the Christian bible in Latin. Most of these people did not understand the passages, but often they had some sense (from authorities) about what they were reading, but their understanding was generally flawed. They did these readings and recitations because they believed such recitations gave them knowledge and yielded magical benefits.
Sound familiar?

 

[Reality Check]

I don't know. I don't even agree that the black lines are NECESSARILY H lines, or that any of the colors of the lines mean anything in particular. How do you know that the colors are even relevant?

No labels for the GIFs but you bother to read Experiments with magnets and our surroundings then will find

Magnets in Motion
This page shows how the magnetic fields twist and bend as magnets are moved about with respect to each other.

This is usually the B field but "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.".

 

[Michael Mozina]

No labels for the GIFs but you bother to read Experiments with magnets and our surroundings then will find

......the lines twist and bend but they don't say a darn thing about "reconnection", PS just handwaved that in for himself? That's hardly surprising. EU haters never get the facts straight.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is usually the B field but "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.".

Yes, I already explained that to PS and again to Tim. Whatever "reconnection" happens in the H field happens INSIDE the magnet.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I guess Giovanelli was the first one to call a high current density, an *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* and the Dungey followed the same practice: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

Only a total idiot would state that electrical discharges occur in plasma ....

Congrats. You just proved that Dungey and Giovanelli before him were total idiots. I guess we can just toss out "magnetic reconnection" theory altogether then eh?

 

[GeeMack]

James Dungey was one of the forerunners in understanding and developing the theories of magnetic reconnection as it applies to solar physics. To suggest that he didn't actually mean almost anything he wrote on the issue and really meant to say the Sun operates like a giant cathode with lightning bolts dancing around on its surface would be...

[...] effectively calling Dungey a "total idiot".

 

[Reality Check]

......the lines twist and bend but they don't say a darn thing about "reconnection",
...insane haters' stuff snipped...

Wrong: The lines twist, bend, break and reconnect. They say that magnetic field lines outdide of the magnets twist, bend, break and reconnect.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, I already explained that to PS and again to Tim. Whatever "reconnection" happens in the H field happens INSIDE the magnet.

You really cannot understated what you read:

1. The magnetic files lines twist, bend, break and reconnect outsdie of the magnets.
2. "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."

The magnetic field lines are outside of the magnetics so B and H are equivalent (to a multiplicative constant).

 

[GeeMack]

Congrats. You just proved that Dungey and Giovanelli before him were total idiots. I guess we can just toss out "magnetic reconnection" theory altogether then eh?

Dungey never once suggested that some kind of lightning-like phenomenon was occurring in the conductive plasma of the Sun's atmosphere. He certainly wasn't stupid enough to write, suggest, or even imply anything like that. And no matter how he might have used the terms "electrical" and/or "discharge", together or apart, he certainly wasn't advocating anything as ridiculous as the pseudoscience known as the electric Sun conjecture. In large part James Dungey's work in solar physics was the original development of the magnetic reconnection theories, a concept that is generally rejected in its entirety by all the electric Sun proponents.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You really cannot understated what you read:

1. The magnetic files lines twist, bend, break and reconnect outsdie of the magnets.
2. "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."

The magnetic field lines are outside of the magnetics so B and H are equivalent (to a multiplicative constant).

There is no evidence, no demonstration, no mathematics, no logic that will penetrate. He is incapable of understanding scientific concepts.

 

[Reality Check]

Congrats.

You have demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding what you read yet again, starting with a little quote mine:

Only a total idiot would state that electrical discharges occur in plasma ....

when the full text is:

Only a total idiot would state that electrical discharges occur in plasma because the usual definition of electrical discharges states that this cannot happen (no dielectric medium to breakdown). See Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.

(emphasis added because you obviously did not read it)

Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection (based on Giovanelli's usage).
I have proved all along that Dungey and Giovanelli before him were totally competent scientists. They were not idiotic enough to use the usual definition of electrical discharges, making it quite clear that their usage was different.
This was pointed out to you 10 months ago:
Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
13th January 2011 (10 months and counting)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong: The lines twist, bend, break and reconnect. They say that magnetic field lines outdide of the magnets twist, bend, break and reconnect.

http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/magmotion.htm

The two pieces are pulled apart, and reconnected, N to S.

What a load of crap. They are specifically talking about the PHYSICAL MAGNETS that "reconnect", not the B field lines! You don't even understand the text on the webpage where you got the image from! Holy Cow. EU haters are just BIZARRE! You can't tell an electrical discharge process in a plasma from a physical reconnection of two magnets. EU Haters are hopeless.