Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[Perpetual Student]

What a bizarre thread this is! We have page after page of vacuous arguments made by an ignorant layman countered by knowledgeable people who persist in giving him a forum to indulge in his narcissistic fantasy that he understands physics far better than accomplished professionals. Come on guys, figure it out. He loves the unwarranted attention. You are only feeding his delusions and narcissism, nothing more!

 

[Michael Mozina]

What a bizarre thread this is! We have page after page of vacuous arguments made by an ignorant layman countered by knowledgeable people who persist in giving him a forum to indulge in his narcissistic fantasy that he understands physics far better than accomplished professionals. Come on guys, figure it out. He loves the unwarranted attention. You are only feeding his delusions and narcissism, nothing more!

That's at least the third time you've accused me of narcissistic behavior and talking to hear myself talk, but I'm one of only three participants in this thread to have actually read Cosmic Plasma, and/or Peratt's book. You haven't read either books, nor found any flaw in Alfven's work, so why exactly are you participating in this thread other than to feed your own narcissistic need for attention?

 

[Tubbythin]

That's just another perfect example of pure denial on your part:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

No amount of denial on your part is going to change history GM. You're essentially in pure denial of the science *AND* the history behind "cathode sun" theories that are over 100 years old.

Why do you continue to post these two images of different things which look quite different. What is it supposed to be evidence of?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why do you continue to post these two images of different things which look quite different. What is it supposed to be evidence of?

They provide direct empirical evidence that "electrical discharges" form into nicely constrained, highly energetic atmospheric "loops" given the right conditions.

Care to demonstrate such a thing with "magnetic reconnection" that doesn't *BEGIN AND END* with "cathodes" and "current flow"? You guys have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and you absolutely positively refuse to admit it. The most telling issue however comes right back to "cause/effect' relationships. Each and every single one of the "experiments" cited to date demonstrates that "current flow comes first" and "reconnection" is the EFFECT OF the current flow, not the CAUSE of it.

 

[Tubbythin]

They provide direct empirical evidence that "electrical discharges" form into nicely constrained, highly energetic atmospheric "loops" given the right conditions.

Erm. Please quantify "nicely constrained" and "highly energetic".

Care to demonstrate such a thing with "magnetic reconnection" that doesn't *BEGIN AND END* with "cathodes" and "current flow"?

Impossible without quantiative definitions for the above phrases.

You guys have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and you absolutely positively refuse to admit it.

You have the argument by pretty picture in front of the argument by quantitative analysis of data, measurement of uncertainties and critical assessment of potential bias horse.

The most telling issue however comes right back to "cause/effect' relationships. Each and every single one of the "experiments" cited to date demonstrates that "current flow comes first" and "reconnection" is the EFFECT OF the current flow, not the CAUSE of it.

And the quantitative evidence for this is...?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Erm. Please quantify "nicely constrained" and "highly energetic".


Impossible without quantiative definitions for the above phrases.


You have the argument by pretty picture in front of the argument by quantitative analysis of data, measurement of uncertainties and critical assessment of potential bias horse.


And the quantitative evidence for this is...?

If you're seriously looking for a quantitative "explanation" that directly ties back to satellite imagery, I suggest you study that paper by Mann and Onel. It's worth a Nobel IMO.

It's time for us to all lay our cards on the table now. Which experiment on MR theory starts with magnetic field energy and turns it into particle kinetic energy? So far, each and every single one of them begins with charge separation, and/or particle kinetic energy and *THEN* reconnection happens. Your experiments all demonstrate that you have the magnetic flux cart in front of the electric flux horse.

 

[GeeMack]

They provide direct empirical evidence that "electrical discharges" form into nicely constrained, highly energetic atmospheric "loops" given the right conditions.

No, they don't. The left panel is a photo of one of Birkeland's experiments as he was considering the possible makeup of the rings of Saturn. It has nothing to do with the Sun. It has nothing to do with magnetic reconnection. It is entirely unrelated to the subject at hand. And, since there is no accompanying documentation, it is not empirical evidence of any particular thing. Not only that, this image has been explained by so many people, so many times, in so many posts here and at other forums, it would take an act of abject ignorance for anyone involved in any of those discussions to claim it supports the claim that there are problems with the physics of magnetic reconnection.

Care to demonstrate such a thing with "magnetic reconnection" that doesn't *BEGIN AND END* with "cathodes" and "current flow"?

Well, the magnetic reconnection going on all the time in the solar atmosphere pretty much meets that criteria.

You guys have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and you absolutely positively refuse to admit it. The most telling issue however comes right back to "cause/effect' relationships. Each and every single one of the "experiments" cited to date demonstrates that "current flow comes first" and "reconnection" is the EFFECT OF the current flow, not the CAUSE of it.

Again, a handful of sciency sounding words surrounded by quote marks used in unconventional ways but not defined. It's not an argument for or against anything. It's gibberish.

 

[GeeMack]

If you're seriously looking for a quantitative "explanation" that directly ties back to satellite imagery, I suggest you study that paper by Mann and Onel. It's worth a Nobel IMO.

Where do Onel and Mann provide a quantitative explanation for anything that "directly ties back to satellite imagery" related to that particular image? Where do Onel and Mann reference that particular image in any way, at all, for any reason?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's gibberish.

As always, your entire response was gibberish born of pure ignorance of Alfven's work, and pure denial of the scientific facts.

The fact of the matter is that *EVERY SINGLE EXPERIMENT* that has been cited to date to support MRx theory *STARTS WITH* charge separation and/or electron/particle current that *CAUSES* a "reconnection/reconfiguration" of the "current flow patterns'. In each and every single case that has been sited so far, the charge separation is the electric horse that does the actual work, and the magnetic field topology is directly related to the current flow pattern.

What's completely missing is a demonstration that starts with magnetic field energy and turns that magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. That's the part you are all in pure denial of.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, they don't. The left panel is a photo of one of Birkeland's experiments as he was considering the possible makeup of the rings of Saturn. It has nothing to do with the Sun.

That is another of your many, many, many, many, many, many lies. It's an example of a discharge pattern that forms around a cathode sphere in a relative vacuum under very specific conditions. It just so happens that his original experiments with cathode spheres, and this image, were in fact first designed to study Saturn's rings. However, he specifically and intentionally relates these cathode terella experiments right back to solar events in his book, and in that NY Times article. Your whole denial routine is getting old and I doubt many folks are buying your dissinformation routine at this point.

 

[Tubbythin]

If you're seriously looking for a quantitative "explanation" that directly ties back to satellite imagery, I suggest you study that paper by Mann and Onel. It's worth a Nobel IMO.

Do they explicitly discuss these images in quantitative terms?

 

[GeeMack]

As always, your entire response was gibberish born of pure ignorance of Alfven's work, and pure denial of the scientific facts.

The fact of the matter is that *EVERY SINGLE EXPERIMENT* that has been cited to date to support MRx theory *STARTS WITH* charge separation and/or electron/particle current that *CAUSES* a "reconnection/reconfiguration" of the "current flow patterns'. In each and every single case that has been sited so far, the charge separation is the electric horse that does the actual work, and the magnetic field topology is directly related to the current flow pattern.

What's completely missing is a demonstration that starts with magnetic field energy and turns that magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. That's the part you are all in pure denial of.

As usual the argument above is a bunch of words stuck together, undefined, some in quote marks, some shouted, comments that seem like bare assertions wholly unsupported but might be something else because we can't have any idea what they really mean. As an argument for or against anything, it is another failure.

So how about those alleged problems with magnetic reconnection that supposedly were going to be described in this thread? We've come well over 600 posts and still nothing.

 

[Tubbythin]

That is another of your many, many, many, many, many, many lies. It's an example of a discharge pattern that forms around a cathode sphere in a relative vacuum under very specific conditions.

And thus bares no resemblance to the Sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And thus bares no resemblance to the Sun.

That's absolutely untrue. Those discharges that he imaged look and act very similarly to the loops in the solar atmosphere that follow the magnetic "lines" of the sun. There's really no difference in fact, other than your personal aversion to the concept of the sun acting as a cathode compared to 'space". Have you even read the part of his book where he compares his experiments with a cathode terella to solar events?

 

[Tubbythin]

That's absolutely untrue. Those discharges that he imaged look and act very similarly to the loops in the solar atmosphere that follow the magnetic "lines" of the sun.

And I suppose you have unequivocal quantitative evidence for this?

There's really no difference in fact, other than your personal aversion to the concept of the sun acting as a cathode compared to 'space".

I'll believe that when I see the quantitative evidence.

Have you even read the part of his book where he compares his experiments with a cathode to solar events?

Nope. Could you summarise the quantitative evidence he supplies for me?

 

[GeeMack]

Let's take a quick look at an example of how this discussion so often goes...

No, they don't. The left panel is a photo of one of Birkeland's experiments as he was considering the possible makeup of the rings of Saturn. It has nothing to do with the Sun.

That is another of your many, many, many, many, many, many lies.

Followed almost immediately by...

It's an example of a discharge pattern that forms around a cathode sphere in a relative vacuum under very specific conditions. It just so happens that his original experiments with cathode spheres, and this image, were in fact first designed to study Saturn's rings.

So it wasn't a lie at all. Not one of many, many, many, many. Not one of many. Not even one.

And in the exuberance of wanting to call me a liar, and being demonstrably wrong in doing so, any comments relating to the subject of this thread are conspicuously absent. So how about it? Any progress in uncovering those alleged problems with magnetic reconnection?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So how about it? Any progress in uncovering those alleged problems with magnetic reconnection?

So how about it? Any progress in coming up with an MRx "experiment" that isn't actually being "caused" by "discharges" inside of a "discharge" chamber, or one that doesn't begin the the flow of electrons? I'm still waiting for an MRx experiment that begins with magnetic field energy and turns that magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. So far all I've seen are experiments that begin with particle kinetic energy that "causes" a "reconnection" between "currents/circuits".

 

[Michael Mozina]

IMO it's very damning that most of your MRx experiments require cathodes and discharge chambers. Even the laser experiment is damning to your case IMO. You're using streams of photons to create moving streams of electron that interact across a "separatrix/double layer". All of your "reconnection" experiments are actually "caused by" current flow. All of them involve the flow of current *FIRST* which is then called a "reconnection' process. Your own experiments demonstrate that you have the magnetic cart in from of the electric horse. Not one of them starts with magnetic field energy that "causes" particle kinetic energy. It's always the current that is changing direction, which you're then calling "magnetic" reconnection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do they explicitly discuss these images in quantitative terms?

They specifically discuss "more modern" high energy satellite imagery of solar flares and how those images relate back to Alfven's circuit theory. They (and Alfven) explained the cause of the flare via charge separation and circuit changes, and they explained the constraining mechanism of the plasma filament as being related to a Bennett Pinch process in plasma. They, like Aflven, explain the solar flare event in terms of a "circuit" oriented approach. The Hinode side of that image from my websites is just *AN* example of a high energy image of the sun, but it's an older, lower resolution image, not one they actually used in their paper.

 

[Tubbythin]

They specifically discuss "more modern" high energy satellite imagery of solar flares and how those images relate back to Alfven's circuit theory. They (and Alfven) explained the cause of the flare via charge separation and circuit changes, and they explained the constraining mechanism of the plasma filament as being related to a Bennett Pinch process in plasma. They, like Aflven, explain the solar flare event in terms of a "circuit" oriented approach. The Hinode side of that image from my websites is just *AN* example of a high energy image of the sun, but it's an older, lower resolution image, not one they actually used in their paper.

So, in other words, you have no quantitative evidence that your pictures show what you claim they show.