Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Tubbythin · Feb 12, 2009

In response to being told your objection is semantic in nature:

No, it a "real" objection.

In response to being asked for evidence of this:

There's nothing wrong with the equations, just the "title".

Do you not know what semantic means? Or do you just enjoy contradicting yourself?

Tubbythin · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I'm simply noting that BB theory isn't the only theory that "predicts" a background radiation.

Its the only one that predicts a perfect black body... which is what we observe. So your note is completely moot.

The importance of it is undeniable. The idea that you believe you can curve fit the thermal spectrum by introducing metaphysical entities and then try to claim the scientific high ground is absolutely appalling.

Huh? Metaphysical entities like temperature?

sol invictus · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Sure I've seen one.

Then you know it's not a blackbody - so why ask? Looks to me like you're either lying or you don't know the meaning of the terms you're using. Which is it?

I also know that the output of the sun is calculated as though the photosphere is an opaque "black body" radiating at 6000K.

To a rough approximation, yes. And?

No, I don't deny they exist.

So you're just quibbling with the name?

Magnetic lines are not physically tangible and they form as a full and complete continuum. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other "magnetic line".

Slow down there, forrest. You agree the solutions exist. You agree (I assume?) that given a solution to Maxwell, one can draw the field lines. It's a fact - and I can prove it - that in the solutions we're talking about, those lines reconnect.

So what the heck are you talking about?

(I also like how mag lines are not physical, but yet are physically incapable of something. You really do enjoy contradicting yourself in consecutive sentences, don't you?)

There's nothing wrong with the equations, just the "title".

So there we have it - all this bluster and nonsense because you don't like the term professionals use - and after you claimed this wasn't semantic. Well guess what - it's a good term, because it precisely describes what happens, but even if it wasn't it would make no difference at all. It's the mathematical results that matter.

What an incredibly stupid argument.

Dancing David · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
The depends on what solar model you choose to use. I tend to be a "Birkeland purist" in that regard.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

In Birkeland's experiments, the surface had a negative charge.

And where does that charge come from and why doesn't it balance out?

The charge is not necessarily directly related to the amount of light being generated. The sun's photosphere is "lit up" because of the current running through it.

Right and so where does the current come from, how do you maintain a constant flow of current high enough to light the photosphere for an extended time epriod?

None. If the sun is the primary power source, it can provide the current.

Sure, how does it maintain the current?

Million mile per hour solar wind for one, million degree coronal loops for another. Those fusion reactions we observe in Rhessi images would be a third piece of evidence supporting the discharge theory.

I doubt it. For it to be a discharge theory you need one object carrying the negative charge and another of the opposite polarity.

How has the sun managed to shine for 5 billion years?

I don't think such a requirement exists. The sun could shine for many reason.

Click to expand...

Uh huh, and I asked you how it does shine under the electric star model, please strat changing the topic.

The solar wind acceleration however is something that does require charge separation to exist between the photosphere and heliosphere. Only an EU model "predicts" high energy coronal loops in the solar atmosphere.

Click to expand...

And what maintains the magic charge separation?

I don't follow your notion about "repulsive" forces. In Birkeland's experiments the solar wind was "caused" by an *attraction" that takes place between the solar surface and the heliosphere. There are no 'repulsive" forces involved.

Click to expand...

Sure right, Birkeland's experiment with plasma?

let us see , where does this charge come from that drives the current and why is it still there?

tusenfem · Feb 12, 2009

iantresman said:
No argument there. I picked Alfvén because as far as I am aware, he was the first to come up with MHD, and then the first to say that it does not apply to all plasmas.

I wasn't aware of anyone else who says the same, and didn't need anyone else, no matter how much smarter they may be, to say the same thing.

My goodness, ANY SANE SCIENTIST knows and understands that MHD is an APPROXIMATION. Yes, Alfvén was the one who developed it, and everybody who read his derivation of the MDH equations could clearly see and understand that MHD is not valid for all plasmas, because there are the following restrictions:

1. Only valid at length scales larger than the largest gyro-radius
2. Only valid at time scales larger than the largest characteristic time of the plasma

tusenfem · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It would be a lot easier to be a "good communicator" if the mainstream websites allowed for honest and real conversations of these ideas and didn't ban all the effective communicators for having "heretical" beliefs.

If EU/ES/PU/PC would write real papers, showing that they actually learned something from Saint Hannes the Great, and made coherent predictive models, then mainstream journals would publish these papers. Unfortunately, most models of this group are "oh looks like a duck so is probably a goose."

Michael Mozina said:
The point is that he wrote MHD theory, he's a real "expert" on this topic and EU theory is consistent with his teachings, unlike "magnetic reconnection" theory and goofy ideas that the mainstream is talking about. Magnetic lines don't even have physical substance and they form as a full continuum, so it is physically *impossible* for them to "reconnect". Only particles and circuits can "reconnect" in plasma, not magnetic lines. The mainstreamers fancy themselves as quite the experts on MHD theory, but they turn right around and attempt to misuse and abuse the whole concept!

Yeah, there have not been any experts since Saint Hannes, too bad, that's why we do so badly in all kinds of plasma physics and magnetospheric physics.

Naturally, reconnection (exploding double layers!) must come looking around the corner (yawn!). Looked at through an unedumacated pair of pink glasses. Field lines are only lines that are drawn along the magnetic field direction. At a reconnection site, however, (just humour me and try to follow this even though you don't believe it) in the middle there is not magnetic field (oooops surpirise!!) so the whole meaning of field line there is not important anyway. At a certain point, probably below the electron scale, the idea of a field line stops to make sens. Yes, however, we do draw these lines, because it helps visualizing what is happening there.

Interestingly enough, for an idea that is obviously wrong, the measurements by e.g. the Cluster spacecraft around those erroneously labeled reconnection sites are exactly what the model (including Hall field etc.) predicts.

Michael Mozina said:
You'd have to convince me of that. Most folks I've met have never even read his work and have no clue how any of it works.

That is probably because you don't know any plasma physicists. Plasma physics is not something you just buy a magazine for and then become an expert. I had to fragging go 5 years to college, spend 4 more years doing my PhD, and am a plasma(astro)physicist now for 15 years. We are a rare breed, but there are enough of us.

Michael Mozina said:
False. I trust Alfven because he was a real "expert" on this topic. So far, nothing he wrote about in MHD theory has been shown to be in error based upon a physical test.

Nothing in MHD is in error, no, as long as you only apply it to systems that are suitable for MHD.

Why don't you go to college and get a physics and plasma physics education? I know it is hard, but it is doable. Unfortunately, you will not have the luck that I had to meet Alfvén in Stockholm at the Royal Institute of Technology. He was a very kind man.

tusenfem · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Magnetic lines are not physically tangible and they form as a full and complete continuum. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other "magnetic line". The math actually describes what Alfven calls "current sheet acceleration" or "particle reconnection" or "circuit reconnection", but it is physically impossible for magnetic lines to "reconnect" to any other magnetic line.

Magnetic reconnection theory is in fact an application of MHD theory to objects in space, so in a quirky way, it is in fact a part of EU/PC theory, abeit with a weird and quirky, and self conflicted title. The math is fine by the way, it's the *name* they assigned the process that is self conflicted nonsense.

From Alfven in Cosmic Plasma, page 29.

1I .6 .3. ENERGY RELEASE IN DOUBLE LAYERS
If a double layer has been formed by a current I, energy at a rate
P=IV(sub D)

is released in the double layer . This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles. A small fraction is usually dissipated as noise. Of course, the accelerated particles interact with the plasma and produce a number of secondary effects so that the released energy finally is dissipated as heating and radiation. Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which
implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration (II.33, II.53). In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).
Quote:
If so, let's see the math - where's the mistake? Or do you not believe in Maxwell's equations either?

There's nothing wrong with the equations, just the "title". The magnetic lines are simply a function of the current flow. This process is accurately describe as "circuit reconnection", "particle reconnection" or "current sheet acceleration", but at no time can magnetic lines disconnect or reconnect. It is a physical impossibility since magnetic lines lack physical substance and form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end.

I was waiting for Alfvén's double layers to come by. However, what you forget here is that at the supposed reconnection site the plasma (both ions and electrons) are accelerated away from the presumed X-line. This, is utterly impossible with a double layer, which will accelerate ions in one direction and electrons in another. You would have to come up with a model of a double-double layer which in some strange way creates the reconnection magnetic field topology, and creates the outflowing plasma with electrons and ions (which stick to the "non-substantive field lines) to equal velocities?

Now, Michael, tell me, how do double layers work, how do they do it. I must have missed that when I wrote my PhD thesis on Double Layers.

You seem to be hung up on field lines (rather bad pun could this be). Do you actually understand why we use field lines? They are very easy to show some things that happen in the magnetic field, things like curvature, field strength etcetera. If we draw a curved field line, we mean, actually, that there is magnetic tension in the field, if we draw a slowly decreasing number of field lines we are thinking about a gradient in magnetic pressure.

Ah ah, Michael, so much you have to learn, yet.

Michael Mozina · Feb 12, 2009

tusenfem said:
If EU/ES/PU/PC would write real papers, showing that they actually learned something from Saint Hannes the Great, and made coherent predictive models, then mainstream journals would publish these papers.

Boloney. You guys go out of your way to *block* any discussion of this topic. Just look at how you personally moderate over at BAUT! One can't even discuss these ideas openly and you folks are intent on conducting witch trials! Gah. You folks are ridiculous. Fortunately there are IEEE publications.

Unfortunately, most models of this group are "oh looks like a duck so is probably a goose."

Ya, like those million degree atmospheric discharges are cause by "magnetic reconnection"? Give me a break. Your industry is the one that does that.

Yeah, there have not been any experts since Saint Hannes, too bad, that's why we do so badly in all kinds of plasma physics and magnetospheric physics.

There are plenty of 'experts' you just refuse to let them speak freely.

Naturally, reconnection (exploding double layers!) must come looking around the corner (yawn!).

Yawn. Your whole industry hasn't produced a legitimate "expert' on MHD theory since Alfven's death. You guys can't even explain solar wind acceleration and Birkeland "predicted" *and simulated* that behavior over 100 years ago! Talk about lame.

Looked at through an unedumacated pair of pink glasses. Field lines are only lines that are drawn along the magnetic field direction.

Magnetic lines lack physical substance, they form as a full and complete continuum, and they are physically *incapable* of "reconnecting". Did any of you folks take a class in basic electronics?

At a reconnection site, however, (just humour me and try to follow this even though you don't believe it) in the middle there is not magnetic field (oooops surpirise!!)

Bzzt! It's a giant solar *discharge*! The magnetic field is due to the current in the loop!

so the whole meaning of field line there is not important anyway.

Except you intend to try to create energy at null (zero) point?

At a certain point, probably below the electron scale, the idea of a field line stops to make sens.

You mean at a certain point in the "story* the mainstream explanation stops to make sense.

Yes, however, we do draw these lines, because it helps visualizing what is happening there.

They don't exist! It's a whole *FIELD*, not just individual lines that form. You draw them only so you can draw them "reconnecting" even though that is physically *IMPOSSIBLE*.

Interestingly enough, for an idea that is obviously wrong, the measurements by e.g. the Cluster spacecraft around those erroneously labeled reconnection sites are exactly what the model (including Hall field etc.) predicts.

Bull. The last Themis results show that you were all "surprised" at the chain of events, even though Birkeland showed you how to create these in a lab. Go figure.

That is probably because you don't know any plasma physicists.

I know more about it that you do if you believe it's anything other than particles and circuits that "reconnect" in plasma.

Plasma physics is not something you just buy a magazine for and then become an expert.

Which of Alfven's books do you personally own and have read?

I had to fragging go 5 years to college, spend 4 more years doing my PhD, and am a plasma(astro)physicist now for 15 years. We are a rare breed, but there are enough of us.

And still you eroneously believe that magnetic lines "reconnect" inside of an electrical discharge? Give me a break. What makes you a better expert on this topic than Alfven again? Alfven described these events in terms of "circuits" and "current sheet acceleration". Why don't you do the same? What in the world makes you think magnetic lines "reconnect" when they lack physical substance and form as a whole and complete continuum, without beginning and without end?

Nothing in MHD is in error, no, as long as you only apply it to systems that are suitable for MHD.

Yes and the mainstream does not apply it suitably. You're ignoring the "current carrying" nature of the interplanetary plasma. That solar wind is being accelerated due to a charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere, just like in Birkelands experiments from 100 years ago. You folks keep calling it "neutral" when in fact it is "current carrying" plasma and therefore your ideas are baloney and based on a poor understanding of physics.

Why don't you go to college and get a physics and plasma physics education?

I've been to college thanks and I can see from you responses that your formal education did more to confuse you than teach you something useful. You clearly don't know much about electrical engineering or you would never claim you can get energy from "magnetic reconnection". Your appeal to authority fallacy is lame.

I know it is hard, but it is doable. Unfortunately, you will not have the luck that I had to meet Alfvén in Stockholm at the Royal Institute of Technology. He was a very kind man.

That must be why you've dedicated your entire career to ignoring his work, not taking his advice in astronomy, not agreeing with any of his papers, and slamming his students and his theories eh?

Michael Mozina · Feb 12, 2009

tusenfem said:
I was waiting for Alfvén's double layers to come by.

Is that because deep down, you know he was more of an expert on this topic than you and he didn't believe in magnetic reconnection?

However, what you forget here is that at the supposed reconnection site the plasma (both ions and electrons) are accelerated away from the presumed X-line. This, is utterly impossible with a double layer, which will accelerate ions in one direction and electrons in another.

Did you ever read his exploding double layer paper? What's wrong with it?

You would have to come up with a model of a double-double layer which in some strange way creates the reconnection magnetic field topology

Any change in the current flow is automatically going to change the field topology! Sheesh.

and creates the outflowing plasma with electrons and ions (which stick to the "non-substantive field lines) to equal velocities?

You're now just making up requirements that don't even exist. CME's are *ugly* business and they throw particles everywhere. That is because they are exploding discharge events that are powered by huge *circuits* and lots of circuit energy. You haven't even figured out that much about CME's. Even Birkeland was able to create them in his lab using "electricity" the one forbidden word in astronomy.

Now, Michael, tell me, how do double layers work, how do they do it. I must have missed that when I wrote my PhD thesis on Double Layers.

Evidently so.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c11568

You seem to be hung up on field lines (rather bad pun could this be). Do you actually understand why we use field lines?

Ya, because you refuse to discuss "electricity" the thing that "CREATES* the field line you keep talking about! They also happen to be a lot easier to measure than the current flow inside the plasma.

They are very easy to show some things that happen in the magnetic field, things like curvature, field strength etcetera. If we draw a curved field line, we mean, actually, that there is magnetic tension in the field, if we draw a slowly decreasing number of field lines we are thinking about a gradient in magnetic pressure.

Holy cow, you don't even understand that the magnetic "tension" your talking about is due to strength of the current flow inside the magnetic line.

Ah ah, Michael, so much you have to learn, yet.

Not from you I don't. I've seen how you work and I've seen you try to explain "magnetic reconnection" events. You're completely clueless to the real physics involved. The only thing "reconnecting" in those current sheets are particles and circuits. The magnetic field lines cannot and do not disconnect or "reconnect". Only particles and circuits can do that.

You better go back to Baut where you can control the conversation and ban anyone who disagrees with you. In an open and honest discussion on this topic, you'll get your behind kicked, PhD or no PhD because you don't have a clue what your talking about.

tusenfem · Feb 12, 2009

Okay, I own and have (party read)
Alfvén: Cosmical Electrodynamics
Alfvén & Arrhenius: Evolution of the Solar System
Alfvén: Worlds/Antiworlds
Then I have to pdf of Alfvén & Fälthammar: Cosmic Plasma

SATISFIED??????

Then again, if EU would write real papers (and I doubt that some of the authors that are linked to in IEEE journals would like to be linked to EU silliness) then they would be published. An example from real life, there is a discussion about reconnection in the far tail of the Earth and current disruption closer to the Earth. The latter is by many magnetospheric physicists not regarded as mainstream. However, there are several authors that publish papers on this theme (I was co-author on at least one). The point is you have to present your case with well founded math, models and data. Such papers are lacking for many EU ideas, such as the electric sun.

Then you seem to object to even drawing field lines:

MichaelMozina said:
They don't exist! It's a whole *FIELD*, not just individual lines that form. You draw them only so you can draw them "reconnecting" even though that is physically *IMPOSSIBLE*.

Now, that is just plain silly. I know field lines do not exist as a physical entity. However, it is a bit of like a kid playing with connect-the-dots, and suddenly there is something there. Even though the field lines are not real (we are well aware of that) they do serve a purpose and that is to show in which direction the field is pointing. It is just like longitude and lattitude on the Earth's surface. I know the meridians on my globe are not real, however they come in very handy if I want to know where i am exactly on that sphere.

MichaleMozina said:
tusenfem said:

At a reconnection site, however, (just humour me and try to follow this even though you don't believe it) in the middle there is not magnetic field (oooops surpirise!!)

Click to expand...

Bzzt! It's a giant solar *discharge*! The field is due to the current in the loop!

Actually, I was talking about the Earth's magnetotail here (guess I am a bit narrow sighted, job-deformation being a magnetospheric physicist now).

But I would love to see you draw one of those loops and the current in it, please humour me.

MichaelMozina said:
Bull. The last Themis results show that you were all "surprised" at the chain of events, even though Birkeland showed you how to create these in a lab. Go figure.

Ah bull yourself, if you believe everything wordly that is written in press releases. I HATE press releases.
Don't know which press release you talk about here, but I guess it is "flux ropes from the sun connected to the Earth". That whole press release should be put out of its misery, and I constantly tell my colleagues that they should read these releases more skeptically, because of all the nonsense that is sometimes put in there.

MichaelMozina said:
Your ignoring the "current carrying" nature of the interplanetary space.

Excuse me? Are you up to date with modern space physics?
A few titles of last year papers that I was co-author on:
- Behaviour of current sheets at directional discontinuities in the solar wind at 0.72 AU
- Magnetotail dipolarizations and associated current systems observed by Cluster and Double star
- Local field aligned currents in the magnetotail and ionosphere as observed by Cluster, Double Star, and Miracle conjunction
And soon to be submitted:
- South-north asymmetry of field aligned current in the magnetotail observed by the Cluster

So please, stop spreading that stupid ideas that space physicist don't work with currents or electric fields (have not given examples of my papers on electric fields, but could do that)

MichaelMozina said:
That must be why you've dedicated your entire career to ignoring his work, not taking his advice in astronomy, not agreeing with any of his papers, and slamming his students and his theories eh?

Eh, I say that I was lucky enough to meet Hannes Alfvén, and you deduce from that that I think he is an idiot? Now you are the idiot. He was a kind man, although rather old, still kept up working on ideas. I use MHD and plasma physics all the time in my daily work. The fact that I may not agree with some of Alfvén's comments does not mean I do anything of the kind that you accuse me off. I guess this is one of those cases that if you cannot get your scientific argument over you just start attacking the person. Very disappointing.

Michael Mozina · Feb 12, 2009

tusenfem said:
Okay, I own and have (party read)
Alfvén: Cosmical Electrodynamics
Alfvén & Arrhenius: Evolution of the Solar System
Alfvén: Worlds/Antiworlds
Then I have to pdf of Alfvén & Fälthammar: Cosmic Plasma

SATISFIED??????

Then why in the world to you believe in "magnetic reconnection"? I've quoted him from Cosmic Plasma. Where did he claim magnetic lines "reconnect" inside of a current sheet?

Then again, if EU would write real papers

Alfven wrote hundreds of them himself and none of them were related to getting energy from "magnetic reconnection". Why is that?

(and I doubt that some of the authors that are linked to in IEEE journals would like to be linked to EU silliness) then they would be published.

They *have* been published plenty of times, starting all the way back to Charles Bruce and his discharge theories. In the end, it's going to be your industry that had egg on it's face. You can't hide the electrical aspects of the universe forever.

An example from real life, there is a discussion about reconnection in the far tail of the Earth and current disruption closer to the Earth. The latter is by many magnetospheric physicists not regarded as mainstream. However, there are several authors that publish papers on this theme (I was co-author on at least one). The point is you have to present your case with well founded math, models and data. Such papers are lacking for many EU ideas, such as the electric sun.

The problem is that you understand the math, but you're clueless about the *PHYSICS* going on inside the plasma. You can't get magnetic lines to release energy by "disconnecting"' or "reconnecting" to another field line. That is physically impossible because magnetic field don't form as a line, they form as an entire *field* as a full continuum, without beginning and without end. They *cannot* reconnect. That is physically impossible.

Then you seem to object to even drawing field lines:

I object to you claiming they "disconnect" or "reconnect". That is not what is happening. The current flow in the *plasma filaments* simply change direction, and change the field topology along the way. The magnetic lines are not "reconnecting", its the particles and the larger "circuits" that do the reconnecting, and the rate of reconnection is determined by the *total circuit energy*!

Now, that is just plain silly. I know field lines do not exist as a physical entity.

So why are you running around claiming they "reconnect" when that is physically impossible?

However, it is a bit of like a kid playing with connect-the-dots, and suddenly there is something there.

The only thing that is there are *particles*. The "dots" you're talking about are ION and ELECTRONS, not magnetic lines.

Even though the field lines are not real (we are well aware of that) they do serve a purpose and that is to show in which direction the field is pointing.

There you go again oversimplifying the process again. They also tell us *which direction the current is flowing*.

Actually, I was talking about the Earth's magnetotail here (guess I am a bit narrow sighted, job-deformation being a magnetospheric physicist now).

When did Alfven claim that the aurora were powered by "magnetic reconnection"?

But I would love to see you draw one of those loops and the current in it, please humour me.

Go buy yourself a plasma ball from Walmart and turn it on. You'll notice that "magnetic fields" form around the filaments.

Ah bull yourself, if you believe everything wordly that is written in press releases. I HATE press releases.

I hate the ones full of misinformation like "magnetic reconnection".

Don't know which press release you talk about here, but I guess it is "flux ropes from the sun connected to the Earth".

The "flux" is also known as "current flow". The magnetic rope described and shown by Themis carries powerful electrical currents between the sun and the Earth.

That whole press release should be put out of its misery, and I constantly tell my colleagues that they should read these releases more skeptically, because of all the nonsense that is sometimes put in there.

The nonsense part was claiming the energy release was related to "magnetic reconnection". It's related to "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection" but it is absolutely not related to "magnetic reconnection" because that is physically impossible.

Excuse me? Are you up to date with modern space physics?

Yep, certainly more so than you. I know an electrical discharge when I see one.

A few titles of last year papers that I was co-author on:

Is that an appeal to authority thing again? Which of the hundreds of papers Alfven wrote on these topics jives with one of yours?

So please, stop spreading that stupid ideas that space physicist don't work with currents or electric fields (have not given examples of my papers on electric fields, but could do that)

I'd like to see some of your papers on electric fields because I've never seen anything from you that even remotely resembles any of Alfven's papers on any topic related to space. There may be one, but I've never read it. He certainly didn't chalk up aurora or CME events to "magnetic reconnection" like you do. Why is that?

Eh, I say that I was lucky enough to meet Hannes Alfvén, and you deduce from that that I think he is an idiot?

Why do you refuse to allow his theories to be openly discussed on BAUT? Why the witch trial mentality?

Now you are the idiot.

Except I'm the one that actually agrees with his work, whereas you're the one who won't allow it to be discussed on the boards where you moderate.

He was a kind man, although rather old, still kept up working on ideas. I use MHD and plasma physics all the time in my daily work. The fact that I may not agree with some of Alfvén's comments does not mean I do anything of the kind that you accuse me off.

I see nothing in your work that is the least bit congruent with his writings. Why? What makes you a greater expert on these topics than Alfven anyway?

I guess this is one of those cases that if you cannot get your scientific argument over you just start attacking the person. Very disappointing.

I'm attacking your pitiful methods for banning individuals you disagree with and your ridiculace ideas about "magnetic reconnection", something Alfven' also criticized often and vocally. Why are your beliefs and statements not in agreement with the person who wrote the theory that you claim to be an expert on?

The Man · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Yep, that's pretty much the theory behind electrical engineering and Alfven was an electrical engineer. I suppose that is why he too rejected the notion of reconnecting magnetic lines.

Something that lacks physical substance cannot "reconnect" in any physical way.

As the reconnection represents physical changes you are going to have to show how that physical reconnection does not result in a reconnection of the magnetic field lines we can use to represent the changing vector field.

Michael Mozina said:
As the current flow changes direction and particles "reconnect' inside the current sheet, the topology of the magnetic fields changes with the current flow. The *particles* in the plasma "reconnect", as do the "circuits". The "circuit energy" will determine the rate of reconnection. The magnetic lines are simply flowing with the current, much like would would see magnetic fields around the threads in an ordinary plasma ball.

The notion of "lines" is handy as visualization technique but the field forms as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end.

So why do you continue to try and place a physical limitation on that visualizing technique, when you clearly do not dispute a physical reconnection occurs, but just seem not to like the semantics or the terminology of that representation?

Michael Mozina said:
They change as a result of the *CURRENT FLOW* and the direction of the CURRENT FLOW. The magnetic lines are not substantive, whereas the electrons and ions in the plasma are physical and can "reconnect".

In highly conductive media, such as plasma, magnetic fields induce current flow and that current flow sustains those magnetic fields, they are inseparable, which is why we refer to it as electromagnetism.

Michael Mozina said:
The "reconnection" has nothing whatsoever to do with the magnetic lines and everything to do with the flow of particles inside the current sheet. The whole *circuit energy* will determine the rate of reconnection and not one single magnetic line disconnects or reconnects inside the current sheet.

Now you’re being contradictory again, you claim that that the magnetic field lines change as a result of a “substantive” physical reconnection yet still maintain that the field lines representing that reconnection can not reconnect?

So, please show us how your interpretation of “reconnection” by electrical aspects only would not result in a reconnection of magnetic field lines. Please use as much math as you feel that demonstration would require.

Michael Mozina said:
From Alfven in Cosmic Plasma, page 16.

What makes you more knowledgeable about MHD theory than the guy who wrote the theory?

I never claimed that I was, but we certainly have made a lot of advances in the study and uses of plasma since Alfven developed MHD. What makes you think you are more knowledgeable about the dynamics of plasma then those that currently study, experiment with and use plasmas, other then just some plasma ball from Wal-Mart?

The Man · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
The only thing that is there are *particles*. The "dots" you're talking about are ION and ELECTRONS, not magnetic lines.

Actually the “dots” connected by magnetic field lines are in fact magnetic field vectors. Is this the problem? That you do not understand what magnetic field lines represent?

Michael Mozina · Feb 12, 2009

The Man said:
As the reconnection represents physical changes

It represents "physical" changes at the particle flow level.

you are going to have to show how that physical reconnection does not result in a reconnection of the magnetic field lines we can use to represent the changing vector field.

The topology of the magnetic field lines will change as the flow of the particles changes direction. The individual "lines" however have nothing to do with the "reconnection" process. That is occurring at the level of particle physics, between ions and electrons. At the larger scale, it's a reconnection process between two *circuits*. The magnetic field "lines" as you call them are spinning plasma filaments, much like you find in an ordinary plasma ball. The magnetic field winds around the filament.

So why do you continue to try and place a physical limitation on that visualizing technique, when you clearly do not dispute a physical reconnection occurs, but just seem not to like the semantics or the terminology of that representation?

The actual "reconnection" process is not between lines of the magnetic field, but between particles and between "circuits". Magnetic lines lack physical substance. They are physically incapable of disconnecting or reconnecting to or from any other "line" in the field or any other field. There is a misrepresentation going on by calling this a "magnetic" reconnection event. No such thing occurs or ever could occur.

In highly conductive media, such as plasma, magnetic fields induce current flow and that current flow sustains those magnetic fields, they are inseparable, which is why we refer to it as electromagnetism.

That's fine. It's when the industry ignores the obvious that it gets ugly. If you recognize that it is an "electro"magnetic event, then why not use the same terminology that Alfven used and call this "current sheet acceleration" or something that is actually accurate about the physical reconnection process inside the plasma? Why use a self conflicted term to describe a "circuit reconnection" event?

Now you’re being contradictory again, you claim that that the magnetic field lines change as a result of a “substantive” physical reconnection yet still maintain that the field lines representing that reconnection can not reconnect?

Looking at it from a distance, the topology of the lines changes as the flow of particles changes direction. The flow of current in the Birkeland current filaments inside the plasma create the magnetic field lines. They are not separate from the current flow anymore than the magnetic lines in a plasma ball are separate from the the current flow through the filaments. The topology of the lines may change, but not single magnetic line disconnects or reconnects inside the plasma. Only the particles and larger circuits are physically capable of "reconnecting'.

So, please show us how your interpretation of “reconnection” by electrical aspects only would not result in a reconnection of magnetic field lines. Please use as much math as you feel that demonstration would require.

The *topology* of the magnetic fields does change over time, but only because the current flows change direction over time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any "magnetic lines" disconnecting or reconnecting. It's about a change in the direction of current flow. The analogy here that comes to mind is a riverbed and a river. The river may change course and the riverbed contours may change over time, but the water does the work, not the riverbed. In that same sense, the particle flows change direction, much like they do in an ordinary plasma ball, and the topology of the field lines change accordingly. The magnetic lines are not "reconnecting" however, they are simply changing direction due to the change in the direction of the current flow.

I never claimed that I was, but we certainly have made a lot of advances in the study and uses of plasma since Alfven developed MHD. What makes you think you are more knowledgeable about the dynamics of plasma then those that currently study, experiment with and use plasmas, other then just some plasma ball from Wal-Mart?

I'm sure there are better "experts" out there than lil' ol me, Peratt for instance. I do however know for a fact that magnetic lines cannot and do not "disconnect" or "reconnect" to any other magnetic line. The mainstream *should* know that too but clearly they do not grasp the physics that occurs inside the current sheet or they would not call this "magnetic reconnection". Alfven criticized such ideas, going so far as to call such theories "pseudoscience". I've yet to hear any so called "expert" demonstrate that he was wrong about this issue. Even a plasma ball from Walmart will demonstrate that the topology of magnetic lines changes over time, and that magnetic lines in light plasma go hand in hand with the currents that generate these "magnetic lines".

Michael Mozina · Feb 12, 2009

The Man said:
Actually the “dots” connected by magnetic field lines are in fact magnetic field vectors. Is this the problem? That you do not understand what magnetic field lines represent?

No, the problem is that you don't understand that it is the *CURRENT FLOW* inside those so called "lines" that sustains the magnetic field and determines the *strength* of that magnetic field, just as the current flow inside a plasma filament determines and sustains the magnetic field around that filament. The problem is that you don't seem to comprehend the actual *physics* going on at the point of "reconnection". It is the IONS and the ELECTRONS that are physically capable of reconnecting, not the magnetic lines that lack physical substance.

The Man · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It represents "physical" changes at the particle flow level.

Technically it is changes in the magnetic vector field, which can induce changes in current flow maintaining that magnetic vector field configuration. Do not forget that unlike say and electromagnet, where changes in the magnetic field are entirely dependent on changes in the externally controlled current flow, in plasma the current flows and magnetic fields control each other.

Michael Mozina said:
The topology of the magnetic field lines will change as the flow of the particles changes direction. The individual "lines" however have nothing to do with the "reconnection" process. That is occurring at the level of particle physics, between ions and electrons. At the larger scale, it's a reconnection process between two *circuits*. The magnetic field "lines" as you call them are spinning plasma filaments, much like you find in an ordinary plasma ball. The magnetic field winds around the filament.

As the topology of the magnetic field lines change so do the currents that are induced by and support that topology.

Constantly referring to some “plasma ball” is hardly indicative of any serious scientific investigation on your part.

Michael Mozina said:
The actual "reconnection" process is not between lines of the magnetic field, but between particles and between "circuits". Magnetic lines lack physical substance. They are physically incapable of disconnecting or reconnecting to or from any other "line" in the field or any other field. There is a misrepresentation going on by calling this a "magnetic" reconnection event. No such thing occurs or ever could occur.

So you simple do not understand of accept that the magnetic fields drive the currents and the currents sustain the magnetic field (in simple terms).

Michael Mozina said:
That's fine. It's when the industry ignores the obvious that it gets ugly. If you recognize that it is an "electro"magnetic event, then why not use the same terminology that Alfven used and call this "current sheet acceleration" or something that is actually accurate about the physical reconnection process inside the plasma? Why use a self conflicted term to describe a "circuit reconnection" event?

The term is not self conflicting, the only conflict is in your interpretation of it where you assert it is not physical yet require some physical restriction upon it.

Indeed your ascription of “that it is an "electro"magnetic event” emphasizing the “electro” aspect indicates your confliction in actually considering electromagnetic events.

Michael Mozina said:
Looking at it from a distance, the topology of the lines changes as the flow of particles changes direction. The flow of current in the Birkeland current filaments inside the plasma create the magnetic field lines. They are not separate from the current flow anymore than the magnetic lines in a plasma ball are separate from the the current flow through the filaments. The topology of the lines may change, but not single magnetic line disconnects or reconnects inside the plasma. Only the particles and larger circuits are physically capable of "reconnecting'.

So now you claim the magnetic field lines “are not separate from the current flow”, a current flow you claim reconnects and thus so do those lines. Do you go out of your way to make your assertions contradictory?

Michael Mozina said:
The *topology* of the magnetic fields does change over time, but only because the current flows change direction over time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any "magnetic lines" disconnecting or reconnecting. It's about a change in the direction of current flow. The analogy here that comes to mind is a riverbed and a river. The river may change course and the riverbed contours may change over time, but the water does the work, not the riverbed. In that same sense, the particle flows change direction, much like they do in an ordinary plasma ball, and the topology of the field lines change accordingly. The magnetic lines are not "reconnecting" however, they are simply changing direction due to the change in the direction of the current flow.

Current flow that is dependent on that magnetic field topology as the currents result from that topology and that topology is sustained by those currents.

Constantly referring to some “plasma ball” is hardly indicative of any serious scientific investigation on your part

Michael Mozina said:
I'm sure there are better "experts" out there than lil' ol me, Peratt for instance. I do however know for a fact that magnetic lines cannot and do not "disconnect" or "reconnect" to any other magnetic line. The mainstream *should* know that too but clearly they do not grasp the physics that occurs inside the current sheet or they would not call this "magnetic reconnection". Alfven criticized such ideas, going so far as to call such theories "pseudoscience". I've yet to hear any so called "expert" demonstrate that he was wrong about this issue. Even a plasma ball from Walmart will demonstrate that the topology of magnetic lines changes over time, and that magnetic lines in light plasma go hand in hand with the currents that generate these "magnetic lines".

Just as the currents in plasma are generated by those magnetic fields, let’s not forget that your plasma ball from Wall-mart has an external power supply generating an electrical field. Turn off that power supply and no more plasma. If you are proposing some external power supply for the self sustaining magnetic fields and currents in some plasma you will have to show, well, why it is not self sustaining as well as the source of that external power.

The Man · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
No, the problem is that you don't understand that it is the *CURRENT FLOW* inside those so called "lines" that sustains the magnetic field and determines the *strength* of that magnetic field, just as the current flow inside a plasma filament determines and sustains the magnetic field around that filament. The problem is that you don't seem to comprehend the actual *physics* going on at the point of "reconnection". It is the IONS and the ELECTRONS that are physically capable of reconnecting, not the magnetic lines that lack physical substance.

So you do not understand what the magnetic field lines represent and that those field vectors move charges creating currents that can sustain that magnetic field.

Perpetual Student · Feb 12, 2009

"In your opinion, why does the solar wind accelerate as it leaves the photosphere and why does it reach a million miles per hour or more by the time it reaches Earth?"
________ Michael Mozina

I couldn't find an answer to this question on this thread. Is it true that the solar wind accelerates as it leaves the photosphere? Does it continue to accelerate with distance from the sun? If so, why?

Tim Thompson · Feb 12, 2009

Alfven Waves

Perpetual Student said:
Is it true that the solar wind accelerates as it leaves the photosphere? Does it continue to accelerate with distance from the sun? If so, why?

Yes, the solar wind accelerates away from the Sun. Most of the acceleration occurs in the transition zone, a layer in the solar atmosphere above the chromosphere, and below the corona. The mechanisms of acceleration are unknown. However, the problem is not a lack of available explanations, but rather an abundance thereof. The ultimate source of the energy involved is probably the rapid reconfiguration of the magnetic field in the photosphere.

I can't post links yet, since I don't sit around posting all day. But if you look in the arXiv preprint server, or the NASA Astrophysics Data System (I prefer the latter since it tracks citations & references), you can look up "On Competing Models of Coronal Heating and Solar Wind Acceleration: The Debate in '08", a preprint by Steven Cranmer for a review of the current thinking on that topic. Another recent entry worth a look is "Self-consistent Coronal Heating and Solar Wind Acceleration from Anisotropic Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence", Cranmer, van Ballegooijen & Edgar; Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 171(2): 520-551, August 2007.

Of course, as we know from Maxwell's Equations, any time variable magnetic field induces an electric field (Faraday's law), which in turn accelerates charged particles. Likewise, magnetic field waves (Alfven waves) will also work. Even acoustic waves may be involved, although I don't think they are considered important anymore. Tusenfem probably knows more about this than I do. But it's likely some mixture of these effects.

tusenfem · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Then why in the world to you believe in "magnetic reconnection"? I've quoted him from Cosmic Plasma. Where did he claim magnetic lines "reconnect" inside of a current sheet?

Because of the change of magnetic topology

Michael Mozina said:
Alfven wrote hundreds of them himself and none of them were related to getting energy from "magnetic reconnection". Why is that?

He did not like the idea, and he did not understand the mechanism.

Michael Mozina said:
They *have* been published plenty of times, starting all the way back to Charles Bruce and his discharge theories. In the end, it's going to be your industry that had egg on it's face. You can't hide the electrical aspects of the universe forever.

Whatever, with me having written 6 paper on double layers, I know I am really hiding the electrical aspects of the universe.

Michael Mozina said:
The problem is that you understand the math, but you're clueless about the *PHYSICS* going on inside the plasma. You can't get magnetic lines to release energy by "disconnecting"' or "reconnecting" to another field line. That is physically impossible because magnetic field don't form as a line, they form as an entire *field* as a full continuum, without beginning and without end. They *cannot* reconnect. That is physically impossible.

I have to understand the physics or else I cannot write down the math that I need to make calculations.
And nobody says that the magnetic field forms as a line, or at least I have never said such a thing, the thought is preposterous. The magnetic field is a vector field, at every point in space the field has a strengh and a direction. Interestingly enough if you take small steps in the direction of the field, you get an intersting pattern.

Michael Mozina said:
I object to you claiming they "disconnect" or "reconnect". That is not what is happening. The current flow in the *plasma filaments* simply change direction, and change the field topology along the way. The magnetic lines are not "reconnecting", its the particles and the larger "circuits" that do the reconnecting, and the rate of reconnection is determined by the *total circuit energy*!

The currents simply change direction. I would love for you to draw a picture of what "reconnectionists" call an X-line. Then please draw the currents, draw in the double layer, draw in both outflow regions, show us how a double, or a double double layer can produce thes effects. I am not talking about something complicated like what creates as CME on the sun, I am talking about the Earth's magnetotail, which means, Earthward field in the northen part of the tail, anti-Earthward field in the souther part of the tail, a current sheet in the middle (naturally, but ... in which direction is the current flowing?) and then what these "reconnectionists" do, I am sure you have seen the drawings (they were in the thread about reconnection) let "reconnection" happen somewhere. Now, what exactly is the magnetic field strenght in the center of that current sheet? Please humour me, and draw it.

Michael Mozina said:
So why are you running around claiming they "reconnect" when that is physically impossible?

I follow the magnetic field in small steps and I see that the topology of the field is suddenly changed.

Michael Mozina said:
The only thing that is there are *particles*. The "dots" you're talking about are ION and ELECTRONS, not magnetic lines.

Oh, I am sorry, maybe nobody told you, but magnetic fields also exist in vacuum. I guess you also do not like stream lines on maps that show in which direction the ocean waters a flowing, because there are no lines in the ocean that you can see, so it must be some stupid invention of some oceanographists. If you cannot see that the concept of field lines is only to get to know the topology of the magnetic field that I think you have not even understood Alfven's work. The DOTS are all BUT the electrons and the ions, they are just coordinates (X,Y,Z) at which I can calculate the vector field (Bx, By, By) which has a magnitude B and a direction. SHEESH!

Michael Mozina said:
There you go again oversimplifying the process again. They also tell us *which direction the current is flowing*.

Yes, of course it is simplifying, do you realy think I draw a curved line and say "okay this magnetic field has a tension of such-and-such? Gimme a break! But please, explain me in good detail in which direction the current is flowing along this non-existing curved field line.

Michael Mozina said:
When did Alfven claim that the aurora were powered by "magnetic reconnection"?

I do not think he claimed that. Being at home I cannot check, but I am sure that he agreed with Birkeland that the aurora is created by fast particles coming down the magnetic field hitting the molecules in the atmosphere. Now, measurements have shown that there are energetic particle, which get their energy of electric fields (parly in the form of double layers partly in the form of kinetic Alfven waves and maybe partly in even a different form). These electric fields are created by changes in the magnetotail, there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between the processes that are called "substorm" and aurora. Something is creating the change in the magnetic field of the tail, letting the field change from tail-like, which means stretched, to dipolar like, which means like the field of a bar magnet. Some process must make that that field can re-arrange itself. Many say reconnection is that process. Now, you may argue that reconnection does not exist, but you will have to come up with another process that lets the magnetic field topology change from tail to dipole like, for which we have dozens of years of observations. I a looking forward to your detailed explanation of these processes.

Michael Mozina said:
Go buy yourself a plasma ball from Walmart and turn it on. You'll notice that "magnetic fields" form around the filaments.

What magnetic fields? A plasma ball are lightning phenomena, I hope you do understand that, there is a strong voltage difference between the cathode in the center and the anode which is the surface of the ball. Sorry, this example does not make any sense.

Michael Mozina said:
I hate the ones full of misinformation like "magnetic reconnection".

Well, then you are less critical than I am.

Michael Mozina said:
The "flux" is also known as "current flow". The magnetic rope described and shown by Themis carries powerful electrical currents between the sun and the Earth.

Flux is NOT current flow. Flux is the integral of B over a surface: \int B.dS, which has the units Tesla m², and with a Tesla being Volt second per square meter, flux has the unit Volt second. "Current flow" has the unit of Amperes, which are coulombs per second, which is Farad Volt per second and then I get stuck trying to get to flux, sorry.

The magnetic rope most definitely carries a lot of current, however, it is no longer connected to the sun, that is just rediculous and no such thing is claimed in the paper. A magnetic rope NEEDS current to exist.

Michael Mozina said:
The nonsense part was claiming the energy release was related to "magnetic reconnection". It's related to "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection" but it is absolutely not related to "magnetic reconnection" because that is physically impossible.

What on Earth is "particle reconnection" do you mean fusion or recombination? And "circuit reconnection", whatever, I don't like the press release so I am not going to defend it. If you want to discuss anything you will need to discuss the real paper.

Michael Mozina said:
Yep, certainly more so than you. I know an electrical discharge when I see one.

Well good for you, when you walk through a thunderstorm nex time.

Michael Mozina said:
Is that an appeal to authority thing again? Which of the hundreds of papers Alfven wrote on these topics jives with one of yours?

I need no appeal to authority. I just wanted to show you that electric currents are not shunned by mainstream physics. And basically Alfven would have had little trouble with the papers the I mentioned.

Michael Mozina said:
I'd like to see some of your papers on electric fields because I've never seen anything from you that even remotely resembles any of Alfven's papers on any topic related to space. There may be one, but I've never read it. He certainly didn't chalk up aurora or CME events to "magnetic reconnection" like you do. Why is that?

Maybe you should go to ADS and get them.
There is a very nice one, first author Chust, where we discuss whether very strong electric fields observed by Freja are real or artificial. And guess what ... our conclusion is that the are REAL!!

And oh, I don't claim to be an Alfven, that would be to great an honour. But if you are interested in my full publication list, you can find it here, be my guest[/quote]

Michael Mozina said:
Why do you refuse to allow his theories to be openly discussed on BAUT? Why the witch trial mentality?

Well, I just turned moderator, before that I just discussed. And every thread that discusses the EU/PU/ES/EC/PC ends up in lots of vague claims by the proponents, usually combined with "you can find it all at thunderbolts" and not ever has anything substantial been presented by any of the proponents. It is a bit like this 30 page thread, nothing comes out. If you were sure enough of your case then you would make the models that I have requested in this mail, and then we would haver really something to discuss.

Michael Mozina said:
Except I'm the one that actually agrees with his work, whereas you're the one who won't allow it to be discussed on the boards where you moderate.

Like I said I have been moderator only for a very short time now. I have yet to ban a person because of his/her conviction that EU is correct, and I am not planning on doing so anywhere in the near future.

There are several threads on BAUT that discuss plasma physics and MHD. A very interesting one at the moment is a discussion of the displacement current, which is neglected in MHD, now why did Alfven throw this term away?

Michael Mozina said:
I see nothing in your work that is the least bit congruent with his writings. Why? What makes you a greater expert on these topics than Alfven anyway?

That is because you have not read my work, Michael. I am sure Alfven would have been delighted with my thesis on double layers. And like I said, I do not claim to be better, nor even as good as Alfven. I just use the theory that he developed (MHD) and the larger theory of which that is an approximation (plasma physics). I use the concept of field lines, invented by Alfven. I show now and then when MHD is valid and when not, I show now and then when frozen in field is valid and when not, etc. Just to be critical of what a great mind has claimed does not make me better or an adversary. I hold Alfven in high regard.

Michael Mozina said:
I'm attacking your pitiful methods for banning individuals you disagree with and your ridiculace ideas about "magnetic reconnection", something Alfven' also criticized often and vocally. Why are your beliefs and statements not in agreement with the person who wrote the theory that you claim to be an expert on?

Well sorry if you got banned from BAUT, cry me a river. It was not me who did that.

Also a Nobel prize winner can have some facts of life wrong.
You are like a acolyte of the catholic church, anything the pope claims is correct, in this case the pope is Hannes Alfven.

Dancing David · Feb 12, 2009

Mr. Mozina,

i see that you have ebcome so lost in your histrionics and conspiracy theories that you have forgotten to explain anything:

There fore you seem to meet the criteria for most Plasma Cosmology, you wave you hands , you scream conspiracy, but you have got a leg to stand on.

So how does your electric star shine?
What keeps the charges seprate?
What keep the charges in place that create the current, which you claim light the photosphere?
What is the source of the currents that light the photosphere?

Please by all means bust a blood vessel with your apoleptic fits, and continue the same sad stroty:
1. You do not have a model.
2. You can not explain data.
3. You have not observations to support your model.

I think you are the poser and liar that DenreiDopa thought Zeuzz was.

Are you the iron star nut?

Perpetual Student · Feb 12, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Yes, the solar wind accelerates away from the Sun. Most of the acceleration occurs in the transition zone, a layer in the solar atmosphere above the chromosphere, and below the corona. The mechanisms of acceleration are unknown. However, the problem is not a lack of available explanations, but rather an abundance thereof. The ultimate source of the energy involved is probably the rapid reconfiguration of the magnetic field in the photosphere.

I can't post links yet, since I don't sit around posting all day. But if you look in the arXiv preprint server, or the NASA Astrophysics Data System (I prefer the latter since it tracks citations & references), you can look up "On Competing Models of Coronal Heating and Solar Wind Acceleration: The Debate in '08", a preprint by Steven Cranmer for a review of the current thinking on that topic. Another recent entry worth a look is "Self-consistent Coronal Heating and Solar Wind Acceleration from Anisotropic Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence", Cranmer, van Ballegooijen & Edgar; Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 171(2): 520-551, August 2007.

Of course, as we know from Maxwell's Equations, any time variable magnetic field induces an electric field (Faraday's law), which in turn accelerates charged particles. Likewise, magnetic field waves (Alfven waves) will also work. Even acoustic waves may be involved, although I don't think they are considered important anymore. Tusenfem probably knows more about this than I do. But it's likely some mixture of these effects.

So does it continue to accelerate beyond the solar system or does it attain a steady velocity within our vicinity? Have our deep space probes provided an answer to this question?

Michael Mozina · Feb 12, 2009

The Man said:
So you do not understand what the magnetic field lines represent and that those field vectors move charges creating currents that can sustain that magnetic field.

No, it's you that fail to comprehend the *physics* at the point of "reconnection'. The ions and electrons do the "reconnecting", not magnetic lines. The magnetic line "topology" is directly related to the "river of current" running through the filament. The "charge attraction" between points on the surface drives the process, just as it did in Birkeland's empirical experiments. The magnetic lines are a function of the current flow, but it's an *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS*.

Michael Mozina · Feb 12, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Yes, the solar wind accelerates away from the Sun. Most of the acceleration occurs in the transition zone, a layer in the solar atmosphere above the chromosphere, and below the corona. The mechanisms of acceleration are unknown.

Oh for crying out loud, they've been "known" and in fact "predicted" by Birkeland for over 100 years now Tim. Get real.

However, the problem is not a lack of available explanations, but rather an abundance thereof.

Ya, but only one that has actually been "lab tested" and works as "predicted", right down to the coronal loops and CME's.

The ultimate source of the energy involved is probably the rapid reconfiguration of the magnetic field in the photosphere.

AKA "Electrical Discharge" like you find in Earth's atmosphere and Saturn's atmosphere, etc.

I can't post links yet, since I don't sit around posting all day. But if you look in the arXiv preprint server, or the NASA Astrophysics Data System (I prefer the latter since it tracks citations & references), you can look up "On Competing Models of Coronal Heating and Solar Wind Acceleration:

I remind you that only Birkeland's model has been shown to work in a lab Tim.

Of course, as we know from Maxwell's Equations, any time variable magnetic field induces an electric field (Faraday's law),

Click to expand...

But then in an electrical discharge scenario, it's electrical charge attraction that drives the magnetic field changes. You have the cart before the horse.

There is nothing mysterious about these observations. They were all "predicted' and in fact 'simulated in a lab' over one hundred years ago by Kristian Birkeland. He certainly could "explain" these phenomenon.

sol invictus · Feb 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
No, it's you that fail to comprehend the *physics* at the point of "reconnection'.

Oh, so now you've flipflopped back from it being semantics to it being physics. It must be dizzying, squirming and flopping so fast from one position to another.

The ions and electrons do the "reconnecting", not magnetic lines.

Oh really? So if we show you solutions where the mag field lines reconnect, you'll admit you have no clue what you're talking about?

The magnetic line "topology" is directly related to the "river of current" running through the filament.

Oops - zigzag! Now in this sentence the lines reconnect again?

The "charge attraction" between points on the surface drives the process, just as it did in Birkeland's empirical experiments. The magnetic lines are a function of the current flow, but it's an *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS*.

I see, now it's all clear - they do reconnect, but you can't call it what it is - you have to call it a "*ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS*". Got it.

It's really weird the way physics woos are obsessed with this particular thing... kind of creepy, actually.

Michael Mozina · Feb 12, 2009

sol invictus said:
Oh, so now you've flipflopped back from it being semantics to it being physics. It must be dizzying, squirming and flopping so fast from one position to another.

Huh? There's no "flip flop" here in any way. The magnetic lines are physically incapable of "disconnecting"" or ""reconnecting". It is therefore *illogical* to call this process "magnetic reconnection". The term "particle reconnection" would be "physically correct". The term "circuit reconnection" would be even better because it conveys the importance of the *entire circuit energy* to determine what happens inside the current sheet. The term magnetic reconnection is stupid because magnetic fields lack material substance and form as a full and completely *continuum* (not just line) without beginning, and without ending. There is no way that a magnetic line can "reconnect". At the point of "reconnection" the ions and electrons exchange kinetic energy.

I see, now it's all clear - they do reconnect, but you can't call it what it is - you have to call it a "*ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS*". Got it.

Each individual "line" is in fact a "discharge process" which is why individual coronal loops reach millions of degrees. When they "short circuit" all hell breaks looks and CME's occur.

It's really weird the way physics woos are obsessed with this particular thing... kind of creepy, actually.

What I find "creepy" is the fact that Birkeland not only "explained" all this 100 years ago, but he simulated it too, and yet the mainstream still seems to think these answers are "unknown". Talk about creepy.

Michael Mozina · Feb 12, 2009

tusenfem said:
Because of the change of magnetic topology

That isn't "magnetic reconnection", that's a change of magnetic topology. There is no unique form of energy release called "magnetic reconnection". At most you have induction forces and circuit/particle kinetic energy exchanges at the point of reconnection. Not a single magnetic line disconnects or reconnects, just the plasma flows.

He did not like the idea, and he did not understand the mechanism.

He understood the physical mechanisms better than you do. It's the "particles" that "reconnect" in the current sheet, not the magnetic lines. The total circuit energy determines the rate of "reconnection".

Whatever, with me having written 6 paper on double layers, I know I am really hiding the electrical aspects of the universe.

Why in the world would you moderate on a website that forbids the discussion of Alfven's cosmology theories beyond 30 days? For crying out loud. Talk about a cult.

I have to understand the physics or else I cannot write down the math that I need to make calculations.

So what exactly do you believe is "reconnecting" inside the plasma in that double layer. I'll get to the rest of your post after I've heard your answer.

Michael Mozina · Feb 12, 2009

Dancing David said:
Mr. Mozina,

i see that you have ebcome so lost in your histrionics and conspiracy theories that you have forgotten to explain anything:

Actually I did that years ago:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

There fore you seem to meet the criteria for most Plasma Cosmology, you wave you hands , you scream conspiracy, but you have got a leg to stand on.

I've got all those observations of solar wind acceleration, high speed jets, coronal loop discharges to stand on. Mainstream theory doesn't have a clue how to explain something Birkeland predicted over 100 years ago.

So how does your electric star shine?

The surface has a negative charge and discharges through the photosphere, and to the heliosphere. The discharge process lights up the photosphere.

What keeps the charges seprate?

A constant release of energy from the sun.

What keep the charges in place that create the current, which you claim light the photosphere?

The charged particles are created by the sun itself as it "burns through" it's energy source. The surface ends up with the most negative charges.

What is the source of the currents that light the photosphere?

The sun. I'll stop being coy however and admit I believe that the energy source is primarily fission, not fusion, but both occur IMO, and there is no single energy source.

Please by all means bust a blood vessel with your apoleptic fits, and continue the same sad stroty:
1. You do not have a model.

Birkeland did have a model. It's not mine.

2. You can not explain data.

Sure I can. Birkeland even simulated a lot of these same feature all by himself over 100 years ago.

3. You have not observations to support your model.

My website is full of observations to support my model, mostly in the form of satellite observations and heliosiesmology data. Care to explain Kosovichev's Doppler image, or that LMSAL running difference image for me in terms of the standard solar model? Will you address these images or be true to your name and turn into a dancing david that never gets serious about anything?

I think you are the poser and liar that DenreiDopa thought Zeuzz was.

Gee, already calling me a "liar" and we just met. Is that how you greet everyone?

Are you the iron star nut?

No, I am a Birkeland solar model enthusiast.

Tubbythin · Feb 13, 2009

The sun. I'll stop being coy however and admit I believe that the energy source is primarily fission, not fusion, but both occur IMO, and there is no single energy source.

Fission of what in to what and what?

Tubbythin · Feb 13, 2009

Btw MM, I'm still waiting to here about all this "metaphysics" that is stuffed into the CMBR.

Michael Mozina · Feb 13, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Fission of what in to what and what?

Let's start with the fusion part first.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

As for fission, I'm sure it contains all the fissionable elements we find here on Earth.

Michael Mozina · Feb 13, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Btw MM, I'm still waiting to here about all this "metaphysics" that is stuffed into the CMBR.

You mean besides inflation and dark energy? Nothing is technically stuffed into the CMBR, just the mainstream "explanation" of the CMBR.

Tubbythin · Feb 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You mean besides inflation and dark energy? Nothing is technically stuffed into the CMBR, just the mainstream "explanation" of the CMBR.

As I said before, the shape of a blackbody spectrum is utterly independent of whether or not inflation occurred or dark energy is "real". In fact, I derived it in a statistical mechanics course a few years. No reference to cosmology whatsoever.

Tubbythin · Feb 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
As for fission, I'm sure it contains all the fissionable elements we find here on Earth.

Got any maths to back it up though?

Tubbythin · Feb 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Let's start with the fusion part first.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

Maybe you'd like to talk us through this neutron-neutron repulsion business?

Ziggurat · Feb 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Actually I did that years ago:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

So you wrote that nonsense? Wow, you're far more confused than I thought. The sun is mostly iron? Wow. An iron sun would necessarily be far heavier than our current estimates of its mass, so it should (according to Newton's law) provide far more gravitational attraction than it does. So Newton must be wrong too.

I'll stop being coy however and admit I believe that the energy source is primarily fission, not fusion

Fission of what? Surely not of iron. What's the rate of fission you need in order to match the observed power output? How old do you think the sun is, and how much fission material does your model require has been burned during that time?

My website is full of observations to support my model, mostly in the form of satellite observations and heliosiesmology data.

Yeah, I was thinking about that. You say that these subsurface structures are solid, and that they only change because of erosion. What do you think the vertical length scales are? What's the rate of erosion, and can your model realistically produce such erosion rates? Because given the absolutely enormous horizontal length scales involved (larger than the earth), I think we've GOT to be talking at least kilometers in height, and I just don't see how you can conclude that kilometers of solid iron (or silicon, or whatever) are going to get blasted off within hours. Got any evidence that such phenomenal rates of erosion can be produced by plasmas? Birkeland certainly never showed such a thing.

Basically, I don't think you've got a model at all. You haven't put up a single calculation on your page. If your model is correct, the mass of the sun should be much greater than the commonly accepted mass. That should be something that can be probed experimentally (by, you guessed it, observing the sun's gravitational field). But you haven't put a number on such a fundamental and easily testable parameter. Hell, not even a lower limit.

Dancing David · Feb 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Actually I did that years ago:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

Not really, you haven't explained a toy model of why the sun shines, and you are still being coy.

I've got all those observations of solar wind acceleration, high speed jets, coronal loop discharges to stand on. Mainstream theory doesn't have a clue how to explain something Birkeland predicted over 100 years ago.

Nope you are justa sserting that, take us through Birkelands model then and explain how is models works, what values it predicts, what numbers and forces it gives, and then compare it to the data.

I have to say in the past we were shown pictures of a big iron ball and told that it was a model of the sun.

Now why don't you explain it to a dummy like me.

What is Birkeland's model, what math and predictions does it use and make and how does the model and predictions match the theory.

The surface has a negative charge and discharges through the photosphere, and to the heliosphere. The discharge process lights up the photosphere.

in other words you are being obtuse and deliberately opaque or you don't know. What gives the surface a continuing negative charge to produce the current, or what is the source of the electrons for the current?
What gives the heliosphere an opposite polarity thus causing the current to flow.

You really just kinds of glossed over the details and didn't explain it.

This is where the Electric Sun model falls down.

So put it in terms a smart layman might be able to follow.

Your explanation is lacking in details.

A constant release of energy from the sun.

Sure, what is the source and mechanism that produces such a steady stream of electrons (unless it is positive to negative surface to heliosphere)?

The charged particles are created by the sun itself as it "burns through" it's energy source. The surface ends up with the most negative charges.

Sure , okay, what mechanism produces the surplus of electrons?

The sun. I'll stop being coy however and admit I believe that the energy source is primarily fission, not fusion, but both occur IMO, and there is no single energy source.

So you still haven't siad what mechanism creates the current, Scott does and he can't show that it exists.

I will with hold judgment on yours since you have not presented it.

What mechanism makes the current?

Birkeland did have a model. It's not mine.

So explain it, so far you are hiding and avoiding the issue.

So either you are supporting the model or you aren't.

You have said that a current creates the photons that are the sun shining.

What makes the current? Specific train of mechanisms.

Sure I can. Birkeland even simulated a lot of these same feature all by himself over 100 years ago.

Nope you can't, you haven't even presented a model of the mechanism. Start there, saying that the discharge from a large steel ball looks like the sun, well that is a bunny picture. Scale the forces and provide the mechanism.

My website is full of observations to support my model, mostly in the form of satellite observations and heliosiesmology data.

Oh, so you you have a model.

What is the toy version of it?

Care to explain Kosovichev's Doppler image, or that LMSAL running difference image for me in terms of the standard solar model? Will you address these images or be true to your name and turn into a dancing david that never gets serious about anything?

Oh, so you admit you haven't answered my questions, that would be why you change the topic.

try to explain your model, then what predictions it makes.

You haven't done that so far.

Gee, already calling me a "liar" and we just met. Is that how you greet everyone?

Well there were reasons that DRD called this person that, which may not be you. But the name is similar.

So far you still have yet to answer the questions:
1. What is the models? (Which includes mechanisms not angels)
2. What predictions?
3. What observations?

So show me wrong, that you are not your typical spin meister out to just look good without any model, predictions or data.

No, I am a Birkeland solar model enthusiast.

Okay, so put it to the test, stop hiding and pretending.

How does it work?

other than you blaming people for suppressing the models, mechanism, predictions and data you haven't presented yet.

This is where Zeuzzz, BAC have failed, will you actually succede?

Tim Thompson · Feb 13, 2009

History Lesson

Perpetual Student said:
So does it continue to accelerate beyond the solar system or does it attain a steady velocity within our vicinity? Have our deep space probes provided an answer to this question?

As far as I know, most of the acceleration takes place in the Transition region, and the base of the corona. By the time the solar wind reaches Mercury, it has long since stopped accelerating.

Tim Thompson said:
Yes, the solar wind accelerates away from the Sun. Most of the acceleration occurs in the transition zone, a layer in the solar atmosphere above the chromosphere, and below the corona. The mechanisms of acceleration are unknown.

Michael Mozina said:
Oh for crying out loud, they've been "known" and in fact "predicted" by Birkeland for over 100 years now Tim. Get real.

Factually false statement. Birkeland never modeled the solar wind, either in a laboratory or in a publication, so far as I know. Feel free to cite specific references if you think otherwise.

Birkeland (about 1903) postulated that the sun emitted a wind of charged particles and that this wind was responsible for auroral phenomena. He used a plasma gun to generate the plasma that encountered his terella, but never said anything about how the solar wind was accelerated, nor did he describe the solar wind beyond the general observation that it was a plasma of both positive & negative charge carriers (Birkeland came to reject the idea of current streams by 1916, realizing that such a stream would be unstable against electrostatic repulsion and dispersion).

It was in fact R.C. Carrington & R. Hodgson who first suggested the idea that a solar emission of some kind was responsible for magnetic storms at the Earth ("Description of a Singular Appearance seen in the Sun on September 1, 1859", R.C. Carrington, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (20):13-15 (1859); On a curious Appearance seen in the Sun", R. Hodgson, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (20):15-16 (1859)). They had both independently observed a bright white light solar flare, and noted that it was followed by an exceptional magnetic storm. Neither Carrington nor Hodgson was willing to connect the flare and the storm, but they made careful note of the possibility.

Sir Oliver Lodge asserted that "a torrent or flying cloud of charged atoms or ions" connected the Sun to Earth ("Sunspots, Magnetic Storms, Comet Tails, Atmospheric Electricity and Aurorae", Oliver Lodge, The Electrician (46):249, 1900). But Lodge was aware of G.F. FitzGerald, who had already come to the same conclusion, and in fact estimated the speed of such clouds at about 300 km/sec, which we now know to be quite a reasonable estimate (The Electrician (30):481, 1892).

But none of these people talked about how the solar wind was actually accelerated away from the sun. It was Eugene Parker who seems too have been the first to suggest that the Sun's variable magnetic field was the ultimate source of energy to drive the solar wind ("The Hydrodynamic Theory of Solar Corpuscular Radiation and Stellar Winds", E.N. Parker, Astrophysical Journal, 132: 821, November 1960). Even the legendary Alfven knew quite well that the electric field that accelerates the solar wind must come from the variable magnetic field of the sun, and that is exactly what he shows in figure III.20 in his book Cosmic Plasma (D. Reidel publishing, 1981, page 76), as well as equation 39 on the prior page.

Birkeland deserves credit for what he actually did, not for what you imagine that he did.

tusenfem · Feb 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
That isn't "magnetic reconnection", that's a change of magnetic topology. There is no unique form of energy release called "magnetic reconnection". At most you have induction forces and circuit/particle kinetic energy exchanges at the point of reconnection. Not a single magnetic line disconnects or reconnects, just the plasma flows.

The magnetic field topology changes and thus if draw field lines (accepted by Alfvén) you will see that they have changed completely. If you take small time steps you will see that that means some have to "break" and "reconnect" in order to get that new topology. However, the places where the "breaking" takes place coincide with very low magnetic field strengths (going to zero) where the definition of a field line breaks down.

Michael Mozina said:
He understood the physical mechanisms better than you do. It's the "particles" that "reconnect" in the current sheet, not the magnetic lines. The total circuit energy determines the rate of "reconnection".

Please show us a model of this "particle reconnection".
Naturally, science has stood still ever since Alfvén invented MHD.

Michael Mozina said:
Why in the world would you moderate on a website that forbids the discussion of Alfven's cosmology theories beyond 30 days? For crying out loud. Talk about a cult.

This has noting to do with my comment about double layers.
Have you read through this whole thread? I don't think so, otherwise you would not have started from scratch asking questions again about things that have been discussed and chewed from months. THAT is why a time limit is good, it makes that the proponent of the ATM idea does some homework first and does not make up things on the go (which unfortunately is often the case). But this is JREF, no limits, yoohooo, and so let's stop discuss BAUT.

Michael Mozina said:
So what exactly do you believe is "reconnecting" inside the plasma in that double layer. I'll get to the rest of your post after I've heard your answer.

I am sorry but I do not have a model for reconnection in a double layer, whatever gave you that idea. YOU are the one who is supposed to come up with a model for that (I have only asked you three times already).

But to give you a bit of help, your model has to have the following aspects of what "reconnectionists" observe:

1. A change of topology:
--- from a straight magnetic field separated by a current sheet of thickness L (in what direction is the current flowing by the way?)
--- to a field in which there is bend field, separated by an X-shaped separatrix, on the top and at the bottom the field is slightly "dented" or "pinched", and in the two middle regions the field on the left moves in tuns around and moves out and on the right the same but in opposite direction.
--- To make it simpler for you, look at the first picture on this wiki page (you may forget about the text on that page)

2. At both sides where the field turns around there is magnetic tension, which will pull plasma with it as the field "does not like tension". This means that plasma is accelerated away from the center of the figure, and both electrons and ions are moving away at basically the same speed. Now how do you do that with a double layer, accelerating ions and electrons in the same direction and get them to have the same velocity?

So, please, take that figure from the wiki page (unfortunately it already spoils my question about in which direction the current in the current is flowing, but there are still some currents that are now shown, which you can add.

Looking forward to see your model.

Zeuzzz · Feb 13, 2009

Yay! This is gonna be fun. Glad this had been revived.

This thread I started a while a go about Mag reconnection and (the seemingly non existant) physical processes that accompany it may be a good reference, if we're going down this road again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120782&referrerid=6535

I'll be back.

And try and keep it civilized people, Ad Homs and accusations are not needed.

* "When presented with two possibilities, scientists tend to choose the wrong one."
* The stronger the evidence, the more attitudes harden.
* "The game here is to lump all the previous observations into one 'hypothesis' and then claim there is no second, confirming observation."
* "No matter how many times something has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."
* "If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.
* "When looking at this picture no amount of advanced academic education can substitute for good judgment; in fact it would undoubtedly be an impediment."
* Local organizing committees give in to imperialistic pressures to keep rival research off programs
* "It is the primary responsibility of a scientist to face, and resolve, discrepant observations."
* Science is failing to self-correct. We must understand why in order to fix it.

Halton Arp

Tim Thompson said:
Birkeland deserves credit for what he actually did, not for what you imagine that he did.

He did a lot more than he himself realised, I think the issue here is. In terms of plasma scaling and laboratory simulations of space.

I'll get back to this when I've the time.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Illuminator

Muse

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Illuminator

Banned