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

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Humanzee said:
Micheal, I'm wondering if you have read this paper from UCLA. http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers/POP-colliding-plasmas.pdf

From the summary and conclusions;
"two magnetic “bubbles” collide. The collision produces turbulent local magnetic ﬁelds...

FYI, it's going to take me awhile to get through this paper, mostly because it's an EXCELLENT paper and I want to enjoy it. From what I've read so far they described CURRENT and INDUCTION based processes. I haven't been through the whole paper yet, but I'm definitely enjoying it. It's a bit busy at work so bear with me a bit. I will get back to you, but I do want to finish the whole paper. As far as I can tell so far, they are using the term "reconnection" consistently with the way that Somov uses the term. Specifically it's an induced field generation process caused by 'magnetic flux' and particle movements. Cool paper. Thanks again for the reference.

W.D.Clinger · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
W.D.Clinger said:

In part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, I proved that Dungey's X-shaped magnetic field can occur within a vacuum, with no plasma present and with virtually no electrical field.

Click to expand...

FYI, BALONEY you did. Dungey's arrows in the middle of his diagram relate to MORE THAN JUST B LINES in a vacuum, they include plasma "processes" that are not related to the B lines directly. I can't really comment on your personal arrows in your diagram yet because you haven't provided any math,

Michael Mozina said:
but at first glance you look to have botched the job because the arrows in the middle "should be" (at least in theory) one directional arrows of the magnetic field from one of your poles. The arrows in and out of the center point of your diagram are TOTALLY FUBAR as far as I can tell so far (with no math).

With no math, you can't tell.

With math, plus a smidgeon of freshman (or even high school) physics, you'd know that what you wrote above was laughable.

But you don't bark math, so you have no clue.

Michael Mozina said:
You've proven NOTHING yet except your tendency to handwave in absence of a published work to support your claims.

My simple derivation of magnetic reconnection is chock full of math. To you, it looks like hand-waving because you can't tell the difference between math and BS.

I showed how a little freshman-level math allows us to reproduce the figures published by Dungey, by Yamada, and by many others who have written papers on magnetic reconnection. You don't understand such advanced math, so you don't understand what my posts have to do with magnetic reconnection or with plasma physics.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
With no math, you can't tell.

Which of your MATHS show a magnetic B line "reconnection" Clinger? Which one results in an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE in a vacuum? All you've done so far is wave around a little circuit theory, wave around a couple of diagrams related to PLASMA physics and you've shown no actual B field line reconnection that might explain million degree solar flares, nor have you shown that any field BEGINS in your X point nor ENDS in your X point. So far the math you have provided is CHILDISH.

Almo · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
The denial-go-round continues. Round and round and round you go, where you'll stop, nobody knows.

You're the one denying basic well-known physics here.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Humanzee said:
In the paper is an image of magnetic field line reconnection, the magenta highlighting the reconnection.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_285254eb8c96cc2330.gif[/qimg]

This is an empirical experiment creating magnetic re-connection in the lab using helium plasma and lasers.

This is a LONG paper, but I pulled a line from the abstract that applies here:

A reconnection event is triggered by the collision and the electric field induced in this event generates a field-aligned current, which is the first step in the development of a fully three-dimensional current system.

I'm totally fine with the concept of "current reconnection', or even "field aligned current reconnection" as long as there is SOME MENTION of the current that does the 'reconnecting". This paper thus far is 100 percent consistent with Somov's presentation of field aligned current reconnection in chapter 16. This is essentially "standard stuff", but it's also directly related to a "current system", not just simple magnetic B lines. I'm fine with their use of INDUCED E fields. It seems to be another EXCELLENT presentation from UCLA. It's a great paper, but it's more based upon induced currents. I"m not quite done yet, but I don't think this actually helps your case.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Almo said:
You're the one denying basic well-known physics here.

Not me. I'm fine with Dungey's electrical discharge and solar flare paper. GM is in pure denial that electrical discharges occur in flares and plasmas. Ask him.

tusenfem · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
No, not at all. In chapter 16 of "Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics" Somov relates the whole process back to the E orientation, and uses the term "field aligned currents". In fact the chapter itself is entitled "Reconnection of electric currents". As I've said all along, I'm fine with that view of the process. I'm fine with "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection".

I don't have that book, I only have plasma astrophysics, in which electical discharge is never useds.
And yes there are currents in the reconnection region, and no they cannot create the change of topology of the magnetic field as in reconnection.
I notice that everything is again in quotation marks, so it could be your own definitions.
At one point you really have to give a complete description of what you think is happening.

Michael Mozina said:
I'm not fine with the term "magnetic reconnection" because it implies something that is misleading, specifically it implies B line reconnection, when in fact that is not the case.

And in fact it is the case, and the whole of Somov's book is showing reconnecting B lines, if you like it or not. But keep in your denial, it is more than a river in Egypt.

Michael Mozina said:
I'm trying to look for a rational way to bridge our differences here. Let's start "easy". Would you agree that *BEFORE* the reconnection process begins, the plasma is flowing in two field aligned currents?

That all depends, if you have a two currents like in Geemacks figure then there is a current along a rod or a field in the lab. and then you have to look at the superposition of this field and the generated circular field giving a spiral. Between the two spirals (separating them for the moment) there is also plasma and that is flowing perpendicular to the field as it should because of Maxwell.

However, that is not easy at all. The easiest way is the Earth's magnetotail where oppositly directed field is on top of eachoter separated by a current sheet perpendicular to the magnetic field. Then you have the simple petchek reconnection and unless you understand what happens in such a simple model, you cannot even start to understand what is happening in the more complicated lab set-up.

Almo · Nov 8, 2011

Perpetual Student said:
Thanks.

Notice what happens when someone (Clinger) uses real math and physics. They convince people of things!

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Almo said:
Notice what happens when someone (Clinger) uses real math and physics. They convince people of things!

Dungey used math. That didn't convince GM that electrical discharges occur in flares. Alfven used math to do away with the whole need for 'magnetic reconnection" theory in current carrying plasma and that didn't convince anyone. Unfortunately all the math in the world is at their fingertips, but none of them understand it or bother reading it. Ask Clinger if electrical discharges occur in solar flares? He's been riding Dungey's coattails with this so called "experiment". Does he also agree with Dungey that electrical discharges occur in plasmas and solar flares? Does RC agree? What use is math when none of them are even interested in reading a book on plasma physics? They have all the math in the world at their feet. The refuse to read or comprehend any of it.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

tusenfem said:
I don't have that book, I only have plasma astrophysics, in which electical discharge is never useds.
And yes there are currents in the reconnection region, and no they cannot create the change of topology of the magnetic field as in reconnection.

Could you start by explaining to me why it's impossible for one electron or charged particle from one field aligned current to physically jump current streams and "reconnect" with the other one? IMO from your last response, this is our basic area of disagreement. I'd rather we focus on one issue at a time.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Almo said:
Notice what happens when someone (Clinger) uses real math and physics. They convince people of things!

FYI, Clinger also convinced him that solid magnet reconnection was the same thing as an electrical discharge in a plasma too. People in herd mentalities tend to convince each other of just about anything and everything. Math is optional in my experience, particularly when dealing with "haters" (hate being wrong, hate EU theory/evolutionary theory/whatever).

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

FYI, forget my earlier comments about that most recent paper by W. Gekelman, A. Collette, and S. Vincena being "basic stuff". Wow. This is REALLY an INCREDIBLE paper. The images they create are absolutely fabulous, and the depth of this paper is REALLY impressive. Two thumbs up! (Still doesn't help your case though).

Reality Check · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
How ironic considering the fact that everything you've said about "reconnection" is wrong, wrong, HORRIBLY wrong, starting with the fact that solar flares occur in PLASMAS, not "vacuums".

How ironic considering the fact that everything W.D. Clinger has said about magnetic reconnection is right, right, HORRIBLY right.

Where you go wrong, wrong, HORRIBLY wrong is in your inability to read:

W.D.Clinger said:
...nothing about solar flares or magnetic reconnection in plasma...
Come to think of it, everything you have ever written about magnetic flux is wrong.

Reality Check · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
This is a LONG paper, but I pulled a line from the abstract that applies here:
...

This is a MEDIUM SIZED paper, but I pulled a line from the abstract that applies here

A reconnection event is triggered by the collision and the electric field induced in this event generates a field-aligned current, which is the first step in the development of a fully three-dimensional current system.

I also can read English so we have

A reconnection event
the electric field induced in this event generates a field-aligned current
and then the development of a fully three-dimensional current system.

A pity that you did not understand this basic English.
There is SOME MENTION of the 3D current system that does not do the 'reconnecting". The reconnection event comes first, then an induced electric field (during the event) and then the development of a fully three-dimensional current system.

Reality Check · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Not me. I'm fine with Dungey's electrical discharge and solar flare paper. GM is in pure denial that electrical discharges occur in flares and plasmas. Ask him.

I'm also fine with Dungey's electrical discharge and solar flare paper.
He states that

Magnetic reconnection is the cause of solar flares.
The term 'electrical discharge' in the context of his paper means a large current density.
Large current densities ('electrical discharge') happen during the MR that cause solar flares.

Thus in the 1950's , MR caused 'electrical discharges' to happen in solar flares.

But this is a 60 year old use of the term. It is no longer used.
Thus in 2011, MR causes high current densities to happen in solar flares and there are no 'electrical discharges'.

According to your rather unique point of view, somewhere between the 1950's and today, 'electrical discharges' ceased to to happen in solar flares !

What really happened is that scientists realized that using the term 'electrical discharge' to mean a large current density was confusing because it already had a standard definition (see Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge). So they now use current density instead as far as I have seen.

Dungey's 'electric discharge' = large current density in magnetic reconnection!
Originally posted on 13th January 2011 by D'rok!

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Reality Check said:
How ironic considering the fact that everything W.D. Clinger has said about magnetic reconnection is right, right, HORRIBLY right.

Since he's riding Dungey's coattails, handwaving away like crazy, talk to me again when he produces an electrical discharge from his vacuum contraption and he provides us the additional math we're waiting on.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Reality Check said:
I'm also fine with Dungey's electrical discharge and solar flare paper.

So you now agree that solar flares are in fact "electrical discharges" in the solar atmosphere.

Magnetic reconnection is the cause of solar flares.

The term "reconnection" relates to an inducement of an E field due to FLUX and an ensuing electrical discharge. It has NOTHING to do with reconnecting B lines!

But this is a 60 year old use of the term. It is no longer used.

Who cares? Talk about pathetic rationalizations. Somehow the PROCESS is different today I presume?

Thus in 2011, MR causes high current densities to happen in solar flares and there are no 'electrical discharges'.

Wow, a new logical low for even an EU hater.

Congrats on that.

According to your rather unique point of view, somewhere between the 1950's and today, 'electrical discharges' ceased to to happen in solar flares !

WTF? That's YOUR CLAIM RC, not mine! Holy cow. YOU can't even keep your own BS straight.

Reality Check · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Wow. This is REALLY an INCREDIBLE paper. The images they create are absolutely fabulous, and the depth of this paper is REALLY impressive. Two thumbs up! (Still doesn't help your case though).

A pity that you cannot read - this INCREDIBLE paper is about an MR experiment

!
It mentions reconnection 30 times.
Abstract:

A reconnection event is triggered by the collision and the electric field induced in this event generates a field-aligned current, which is the first step in the development of a fully three-dimensional current system.
...
As local currents move, small reconnection “flares” occur at many locations throughout the volume, but they do not seem to affect the overall system dynamics.

Introduction:

In the present experiment, colliding plasmas produce effects not seen in a single lpp expansion. An intense current channel generated by magnetic field reconnection occurs when the plasmas collide.

Since you are impressed by the images, you will really be impressed by Fig 8: "The field lines are colored according to the local magnetic field in G. Two reconnection regions are visible above and below the central current channel."
(emphasis added).

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Reality Check said:
A pity that you cannot read - this INCREDIBLE paper is about an MR experiment !
It mentions reconnection 30 times.
Abstract:

Introduction:[/LEFT]

Since you are impressed by the images, you will really be impressed by Fig 8: "The field lines are colored according to the local magnetic field in G. Two reconnection regions are visible above and below the central current channel."
(emphasis added).

What exactly don't you understand about the word "current"? They are clear that what "reconnects" are "field aligned currents". I have no idea what you think they said, but there is no way in hell you've been through that paper yet and actually UNDERSTAND it.

Reality Check · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
So you now agree that solar flares are in fact "electrical discharges" in the solar atmosphere.

Wrong: I agree that 60 years ago Dungey used the term 'electrical discharges' in papers to mean
Dungey's 'electric discharge' = large current density in magnetic reconnection!
Originally posted on 13th January 2011 by D'rok

Michael Mozina said:
The term "reconnection" ... It has NOTHING to do with reconnecting B lines!

You are lying: Dungey's paper is about magnteic reconnetion. It has everything to do with reconnectiong B lines!

Michael Mozina said:
Who cares? Talk about pathetic rationalizations. Somehow the PROCESS is different today I presume?

Depending on a term used 60 years ago that is no longer used is a pathetic rationalization.
Your presumption is wrong.
The PROCESS (MAGNETIC RECONECTION) is the same today.

Michael Mozina said:
Wow, a new logical low for even an EU hater. Congrats on that.

Wow, a new logical low for even an ignorant internet physic crank.

Congrats on that.
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length").

Michael Mozina said:
WTF? That's YOUR CLAIM RC, not mine! Holy cow. YOU can't even keep your own BS straight.

WTF? That is not MY claim, MM. Holy cow. You cannot even think about the implications of your own BS.

You claim that 'electrical discharges' happen in solar flares because you can cite a 60 year old paper where the term 'electrical discharges' was used for the large current density caused by the MR that causes solar flares.
But this term is no longer used in the modern papers about MR as a cause of solar flares. So 'electrical discharges' no longer happen in solar flares. The term has been replaced by large current densities.

One more time:
In the 1950's some authors desccibed large current densities caused by MR in solar flares = 'electrical discharges' caused by MR in solar flares.
Today there is no sign of any author using the term 'electrical discharges' in the context of MR causing solar flares.

Thus my coment:

Reality Check said:
According to your rather unique point of view, somewhere between the 1950's and today, 'electrical discharges' ceased to to happen in solar flares !

What really happened is that scientists realized that using the term 'electrical discharge' to mean a large current density was confusing because it already had a standard definition (see Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge). So they now use current density instead as far as I have seen.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Reality Check said:
WTF? That is not MY claim, MM. Holy cow. You cannot even think about the implications of your own BS.

You claim that 'electrical discharges' happen in solar flares because you can cite a 60 year old paper where the term 'electrical discharges' was used for the large current density caused by the MR that causes solar flares.
But this term is no longer used in the modern papers about MR as a cause of solar flares. So 'electrical discharges' no longer happen in solar flares. The term has been replaced by large current densities.

Belz, would you like to take the time to explain the irony of that last post to RC? Are you sure I can't just blow an irony meter and be done with it?

Reality Check · Nov 8, 2011

Mm: Quote Gekelman, et al stating that what reconnects are "field aligned currents"

Michael Mozina said:
What exactly don't you understand about the word "current"? They are clear that what "reconnects" are "field aligned currents".

What exactly about the sequence of events in the sentence you picked out can you not understand?

Reality Check said:
A reconnection event is triggered by the collision and the electric field induced in this event generates a field-aligned current, which is the first step in the development of a fully three-dimensional current system.

Click to expand...

I also can read English so we have

A reconnection event

the electric field induced in this event generates a field-aligned current

and then the development of a fully three-dimensional current system.

There is no way in hell that you cannot understand that there is no reconnection of field-aligned currents in that sentence.
There is a reconnection event that induces an electric field. The electric field generates a field-aligned current.

The "Summary and Conclusions:" makes this even more explicit:

Two carbon laser-produced plasmas with initial density that is orders of magnitude greater than an ambient helium plasma were produced such that they collided in the center of the plasma column. The collision process occurs in two stages. In the first, two magnetic “bubbles” collide. The collision produces turbulent local magnetic fields. The morphology and wavenumber spectrum of this turbulence will be the subject of a future paper. The collision of the lpps results in an early magnetic reconnection event (Fig. 4). This creates a short-lived induced electric field parallel to the background magnetic field and drives a large field aligned current. After about a microsecond, the magnetic bubbles collapse but the cross-field collision continues. In the final state, the two plasmas coalesce and stream along the magnetic field away from the impact point.

(emphasis added to match my emphasis in the abstract)

Reality Check · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Since he's riding Dungey's coattails, handwaving away like crazy, talk to me again when he produces an electrical discharge from his vacuum contraption and he provides us the additional math we're waiting on.

Since he is supporting Dungey's paper with valid physics, we will talk to you again when you understand the experiment instead of making up fantasies about it.

It is idiocy to think that a large current density (Dungey's 'electrical discharge' term that is no longer used) in plasma in an experiment that has no plasma (is in vacuum) :jaw-dropp

!

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
In part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, I proved that Dungey's X-shaped magnetic field can occur within a vacuum, with no plasma present and with virtually no electrical field.

And it looks like the next part will not have any plasma in it either

W.D.Clinger said:
In part 4, I will describe a simple variation of the experiment I've been suggesting to Michael Mozina and prove that the topology of the magnetic field changes during that experiment. As Yamada et al explain in their appendix, that change in the topology of the magnetic field is what we mean by magnetic reconnection. ...
[SIZE=+1]References[/SIZE]

[Dungey 1958] J W Dungey. The neutral point discharge theory of solar flares. A reply to Cowling's criticism. Proceedings of Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics, edited by Bo Lehnert. International Astronomical Union number 6, Cambridge University Press, page 135.

[Yamada et al 2010] Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud, and Hantao Ji. Magnetic reconnection. Reviews of Modern Physics volume 82, January-March 2010, pages 603-664.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Reality Check said:
What exactly about the sequence of events in the sentence you picked out can you not understand?

There is no way in hell that you cannot understand that there is no reconnection of field-aligned currents in that sentence.
There is a reconnection event that induces an electric field. The electric field generates a field-aligned current.

The "Summary and Conclusions:" makes this even more explicit:

(emphasis added to match my emphasis in the abstract)

Anyone can parrot the term "reconnection" RC. The term is technically "magnetic reconnection", not "magnetic B LINE reconnection". Nobody disputes the fact that magnetic field FLUX can INDUCE (not reconnect) E fields which result in electrical discharges in plasma RC (except you). Nobody has shown any math to demonstrate that B field lines "reconnect".

Reality Check · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Anyone can parrot the term "reconnection" RC.

Stop calling Gekelman, et al parrots

('reconenction event'is their term).

MM: Quote Gekelman, et al stating that what reconnects are "field aligned currents"

Michael Mozina said:
Nobody has shown any math to demonstrate that B field lines "reconnect".

You are lying - W.D. Clinger has. He has used math to describe the physics of the EM fields generated by current carrying rods.

W.D. Clinger has demonstrated that you can have a magnetic field topology that matches Dungey's and Yamada et al 2010.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Reality Check said:
Stop calling Gekelman, et al parrots ('reconenction event'is their term).

I didn't call them parrots. They UNDERSTAND and explained the process clearly and BEAUTIFULLY. It's you that keeps parroting the term "reconnection" without any understanding of what you're talking about. They are talking about induced E field and field aligned current reconnection. You're still clueless because you believe that B field lines 'disconnect' even though they have no beginning and no ending. Evidently you also buy Clinger's BS about them "beginning" and "ending" in a "vacuum" no less. Talk about ditzy beliefs.

W.D.Clinger · Nov 8, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Which of your MATHS show a magnetic B line "reconnection" Clinger?

I have not yet proved that the magnetic field lines of a B field can reconnect. That will come in part 4 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
Which one results in an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE in a vacuum?

Although I have explained how the B fields shown in Dungey's two figures can be replicated by the simple experiment I suggested to you last December, I have not yet explained their relevance to increasing current density at the neutral point (which is what Dungey meant by electrical discharge). I will explain that in part 5 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
All you've done so far is wave around a little circuit theory, wave around a couple of diagrams related to PLASMA physics and you've shown no actual B field line reconnection that might explain million degree solar flares,

Although I might be capable of discussing a little circuit theory, I don't recall having done so in this thread.

Thank you for acknowledging that all of the B fields I have diagrammed are relevant to plasma physics.

In part 4 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, I will prove that the magnetic field lines of a B field can reconnect. As I am not a physicist of any kind, I will not try to show that magnetic reconnection can explain hot solar flares. I'm just trying to counter some of the denialist noise by posting a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection as discussed by Dungey, Yamada, and the current Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
nor have you shown that any field BEGINS in your X point nor ENDS in your X point.

Although I have shown computer-generated graphs of the B field and some of its magnetic field lines, including the four magnetic field lines that begin or end at the neutral point of the X-shaped field in Dungey's figure 1, it is true that I have not shown every single step of the calculations that prove those lines begin or end at the X point.

On the other hand, I have stated all of the relevant equations, and I have explained how you can complete the proof yourself by calculating B's partial derivatives along the diagonals. That seems like a trivial calculation to me, but I can understand how it might be impossible for you.

Michael Mozina said:
So far the math you have provided is CHILDISH.

I'm saddened but unsurprised to hear you are having so much trouble with the high school algebra and first-year calculus I've been using.

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, Clinger also convinced him that solid magnet reconnection was the same thing as an electrical discharge in a plasma too.

Deliberate misrepresentation of others' conversations is a form of lying.

Michael Mozina said:
The term "reconnection" relates to an inducement of an E field due to FLUX and an ensuing electrical discharge. It has NOTHING to do with reconnecting B lines!

Michael Mozina said:
Nobody disputes the fact that magnetic field FLUX can INDUCE (not reconnect) E fields which result in electrical discharges in plasma RC (except you). Nobody has shown any math to demonstrate that B field lines "reconnect".

If you knew anything at all about the subject in which you're pretending to be such an expert, you'd know that an unchanging magnetic flux does not induce an E field.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

Reality Check said:
You are lying - W.D. Clinger has. He has used math to describe the physics of the EM fields generated by current carrying rods.

So what? He's never demonstrated that B field lines "reconnect" nor that they have a 'beginning' or an 'ending' inside of a VACUUM no less. He's buried himself in BS handwave claims that he can NEVER demonstrate mathematically.

W.D. Clinger has demonstrated that you can have a magnetic field topology that matches Dungey's and Yamada et al 2010.

Nope:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7742349&postcount=4723

Until you and/or Clinger has answered EVERY SINGLE ONE of the questions from that last list of questions, you two have done absolutely NOTHING in terms of showing "B field line reconnection", not to mention any of those BS claims about magnetic lines beginning and ending in a vacuum.

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
I have not yet proved that the magnetic field lines of a B field can reconnect. That will come in part 4 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.

Lovely. I can't wait. I guess it will explain that confusion with the arrows at the X and it will explain how magnetic lines "begin" in a vacuum too I presume?

Although I have explained how the B fields shown in Dungey's two figures can be replicated by the simple experiment I suggested to you last December, I have not yet explained their relevance to increasing current density at the neutral point (which is what Dungey meant by electrical discharge).

Your arrows at the X are FUBAR to this point in time since you have no plasma as Dungey did and no mathematical explanation for them. I have idea how you intend to justify your two directional arrows. I'll have to wait and see I suppose.

I will explain that in part 5 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.

Oh, so part 5 is one gigantic goalpost shift where you try to HIDE the fact that you finally realize that you NEED a plasma and your experiment doesn't actually WORK in a VACUUM as you first claimed? Is that it? Ah, the back-peddling and rationalizations have already begun I see. How sadly predictable.

Reality Check · Nov 8, 2011

MM: Quote Gekelman, et al stating that what reconnects are "field aligned currents"

Michael Mozina said:
They are talking about induced E field and field aligned current reconnection.

Duh - I read and quoted the authors talking about induced E field and field aligned current!

You are still ignoring the reconnection event that comes before the field aligned current is created.

You are lying - there is no "field aligned current reconnection" unless you can answer:
MM: Quote Gekelman, et al stating that what reconnects are "field aligned currents"

Michael Mozina · Nov 8, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
If you knew anything at all about the subject in which you're pretending to be such an expert, you'd know that an unchanging magnetic flux does not induce an E field.

Strawman. I didn't say a damn thing about "unchanging", you did. In fact you painted yourself into a corner by changing dB/dt slowly, remember?

Reality Check · Nov 9, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
So what? He's never demonstrated that B field lines "reconnect" nor that they have a 'beginning' or an 'ending' inside of a VACUUM no less.

So what - you are lying.
W.D. Clinger has demonstrated that B field lines have a 'beginning or and ending inside of a VACUUM.
Demonstrating reconneciton is coming

Michael Mozina said:
Nope:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7742349&postcount=4723

All of the MATHS ends up almost showing a magnetic B line ending and beginning. He left the last step to you in the mistaken assumption that you have the knowledge to do this trivial calculation. I will leave it as a learning experience for you (remember learning MM

?).

W.D.Clinger said:
I have already sketched a geometric proof that Gauss's law holds for the magnetic field generated by a single current-carrying rod. That result is confirmed by starting from its equation and calculating the divergence. By linearity, Gauss's law must therefore hold for the magnetic field around four such rods. That result can also be confirmed by starting from the equation for B₄ and calculating its divergence.

As for your fantasy that there is plasma in his experiment to create Dungey's outdated term for large current density:

Reality Check said:
It is idiocy to think that a large current density (Dungey's 'electrical discharge' term that is no longer used) in plasma in an experiment that has no plasma (is in vacuum) !

Reality Check · Nov 9, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Lovely. I can't wait. I guess it will explain that confusion with the arrows at the X and it will explain how magnetic lines "begin" in a vacuum too I presume?

The confusion with the arrows is all yours. It has been explained previously.
That magnetic field lines begin and end in in the magnetic field configuration (that happens to be in a vacuum) is easy so see - no field lines at the neutral point = they have to begin or end there.

Reality Check · Nov 9, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Strawman. I didn't say a damn thing about "unchanging", you did. In fact you painted yourself into a corner by changing dB/dt slowly, remember?

Not a strawman.
It was you who have constantly neglected to mention a changing magnetic flux. Instead you have been going on about 'magnetic flux' and not stating that it was changing.
It is obvious that in magnetic reconnection, magnetic fields are changing and so magnetic flux through a given surface can be changing.
But Faraday's law of induction is

$55fc248faaa06562e59736f59a584870.png$

and inducted E fields are generated from changing B fields.

Your last sentence displays some ignorance.
Magnetic flux is not dB/dt. It can change when B changes but does not enter into the induction of E fields.
Magnetic flux "(most often denoted as Φm), is a measure of the amount of magnetic B field (also called "magnetic flux density") passing through a given surface (such as a conducting coil)."

Michael Mozina · Nov 9, 2011

Reality Check said:
So what - you are lying.
W.D. Clinger has demonstrated that B field lines have a 'beginning or and ending inside of a VACUUM.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7743145&postcount=4747

Although I have shown computer-generated graphs of the B field and some of its magnetic field lines, including the four magnetic field lines that begin or end at the neutral point of the X-shaped field in Dungey's figure 1, it is true that I have not shown every single step of the calculations that prove those lines begin or end at the X point.

Who's lying RC?

Reality Check · Nov 9, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7743145&postcount=4747
Who's lying RC?

You are: W.D. Clinger has demonstrated that B field lines have a beginning and ending inside of a VACUUM.
I did not say that he showed every step. The last step is trivial.

ETA
MM: Quote Gekelman, et al stating that what reconnects are "field aligned currents"

ETA2
If by 'demonstrated' you mean 'detailed every step so that a child can understand it' then W.D. Clinger (and no one else) will ever be able demonstrate it.
If by 'demonstrated' you mean 'detailed every step so that Michael Mozina can understand it' then W.D. Clinger (and no one else) will ever be able demonstrate it because you have an displayed an abysmal ignorance of the physics and mathematics required to understand it.
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length").
If by 'demonstrated' you mean 'detailed every step so that Michael Mozina can accept it even if he cannot understand it' then W.D. Clinger (and no one else) will ever be able demonstrate it because you have an displayed an obsession with not accepting MR, e.g. ignoring or misinterpreting the scientific literature on it.

Michael Mozina · Nov 9, 2011

Reality Check said:
You are: W.D. Clinger has demonstrated that B field lines have a beginning and ending inside of a VACUUM.
I did not say that he showed every step. The last step is trivial.

If it's so "trivial", do your good friend a very trivial favor and do it for us yourself. Tick.tick.tick....

W.D.Clinger · Nov 9, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Reality Check said:

You are: W.D. Clinger has demonstrated that B field lines have a beginning and ending inside of a VACUUM.
I did not say that he showed every step. The last step is trivial.

Click to expand...

If it's so "trivial", do your good friend a very trivial favor and do it for us yourself. Tick.tick.tick....

Oh my goodness. Is Michael Mozina really suggesting that Reality Check or I might have the slightest difficulty with a calculation he is utterly unable to perform?

To complete a rigorous proof that two magnetic lines of B₄ end at the neutral point, and another two magnetic lines begin at the neutral point, we need only calculate the partial derivatives of B₄ along the diagonals and draw the obvious conclusions.

Here's the definition of B₄:

W.D.Clinger said:
[latex]
\[
\begin{align*}
\hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} &= \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} (x, y, z, t) = \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} (t) (x, y, z) \\
&= \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I^{(p)}(t)}{(x-x_0)^2+(y-y_0)^2}
\left( - (y-y_0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-x_0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right)
\end{align*}
\]
[/latex]
where e_x and e_y are the unit vectors in the x and y directions.

[size=+1]Magnetic fields around multiple rods[/size]

Applying that equation to our four rods, we define

[latex]
\[

\begin{align*}
p_E &= \langle 1, 0 \rangle \\
p_W &= \langle -1, 0 \rangle \\
p_N &= \langle 0, 1 \rangle \\
p_S &= \langle 0, -1 \rangle \\
I_E(t) &= I^{p_E}(t) = \hbox{{1000 amperes}} \\
I_W(t) &= I^{p_W}(t) = I_E(t) \\
I_N(t) &= I_S(t) = - I_E(t) = - I_W(t) \\
\hbox{{B}}_E &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_E)} \\
\hbox{{B}}_W &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_W)} \\
\hbox{{B}}_N &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_N)} \\
\hbox{{B}}_S &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_S)} \\
\hbox{{B}}_2 &= \hbox{{B}}_E + \hbox{{B}}_W \\
\hbox{{B}}_4 &= \hbox{{B}}_E + \hbox{{B}}_W + \hbox{{B}}_N + \hbox{{B}}_S
\end{align*}
\]
[/latex]

To calculate ∂B₄/∂x and ∂B₄/∂y, Reality Check and I would have to know how to

calculate the partial derivatives of a sum
calculate the partial derivatives of a quotient
calculate the partial derivatives of a composition (using the chain rule)
calculate the partial derivatives of a low-order polynomial

To us, that looks like a trivial exercise in first-semester calculus. No wonder it looks so hard to Michael Mozina.

Michael Mozina · Nov 9, 2011

Still waiting. That electrical discharge from your calculations will be included, right?

Perpetual Student · Nov 9, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Still waiting. That electrical discharge from your calculations will be included, right?

Now that's funny!

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

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Masterblazer

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Masterblazer

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Illuminator