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

tusenfem · Mar 2, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
What is the difference between "magnetic flux" in a vacuum and what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" in that same vacuum?

Really, that is a question?

Assuming it is a real questions. If you really don't know what the difference is between magnetic flux and magnetic reconnection you really are a lost cause, and apparently never ever read a book on plasma physics.

Ah well, who is surprised?

Michael Mozina · Mar 2, 2012

tusenfem said:
Really, that is a question?

Assuming it is a real questions. If you really don't know what the difference is between magnetic flux and magnetic reconnection you really are a lost cause, and apparently never ever read a book on plasma physics.

Ah well, who is surprised?

Oh, I know the difference which is why I know that "reconnection" isn't plasma optional. I just don't think YOUR SIDE knows the difference.

phunk · Mar 2, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
Let me rephrase that. Two magnets and magnetic *FIELDS* experience magnetic flux when brought together or pulled apart in a vacuum or non-conductive medium.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of the post when it's so wrong right from the start.

Magnetic flux is not something that fields "experience" when they interact. It has nothing to do with changes in the field. Magnetic flux is a measurement of the field density intersecting with an area. It exists for any field, whether it's dynamic or static.

phunk · Mar 2, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
Oh, I know the difference which is why I know that "reconnection" isn't plasma optional. I just don't think YOUR SIDE knows the difference.

That's like not knowing the difference between mass and combustion. One is a measured value, the other is a process. I think it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about if you think flux and reconnection could somehow be confused with each other.

GeeMack · Mar 2, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
Let me rephrase that. Two magnets and magnetic *FIELDS* experience magnetic flux when brought together or pulled apart in a vacuum or non-conductive medium.

The mathematical representation of those magnetic fields is what we call magnetic field lines. Maybe it's difficult for some people to understand because it's a math thing.

Both magnets have a full field around them. They can even physically "reconnect" when the physical magnets "reconnect".

The mathematical representation of those magnetic fields is what we call magnetic field lines. The magnets don't have to touch for the field lines to change. When the magnets are moved apart those field lines do not simply get longer and longer and eventually extend onward to infinity. And in particular when one magnet is moved away from another then brought into the proximity of a third magnet, the field lines disconnect and reconnect. It can be done with a couple of refrigerator magnets. The results can be seen in a grade school experiment with some magnets, a piece of paper, and some iron filings. Maybe it's difficult for some people to understand because it's a math thing.

tusenfem · Mar 2, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
Let me rephrase that. Two magnets and magnetic *FIELDS* experience magnetic flux when brought together or pulled apart in a vacuum or non-conductive medium. No current is induced as Sweet states, and no "electrical discharge" could occur as Dungey describes.

Sheesh! magnets and fields are experiencing magnetic flux??????????

Magnetic flux is, to use words, the number of field lines that cross through a unit surface, it is a value, it cannot do anything, whatsoever.

In math, if you can understand it, magnetic flux is:

[latex]
\Phi = \int \int {\bf B} \cdot d{\bf S}
[/latex]

Flux can increase, or decrease, but it is just a number, nothing more nothing less.

If you want to have a real scientific discussion, then get your terms correct.

tusenfem · Mar 2, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
Oh, I know the difference which is why I know that "reconnection" isn't plasma optional. I just don't think YOUR SIDE knows the difference.

The only reply can be [bart simpson mode]I know you are but what am I?[/bart simpson mode]

Perpetual Student · Mar 2, 2012

So, I have not recieved a response from Mozina to my questions about Priest's paper. Specifically, I would like to learn how equations 16 and 17 from Priest's paper prove that plasma is required for reconnection. The first step is for me to understand the equations, so looking at equation 16 for starters, I have asked for Mozina to help define the terms in that equation. So far I've had no response. Since these equations are so straightforward in proving the requirement for plasma and Mozina is an expert in this area, it should be quite easy for him to help define the terms. So, again, Mr. Mozina, tell me about [latex] \alpha[/latex] and [latex] \phi_r [/latex] in the following equation 16:

[latex]\mu_0I(z) = 4\pi\alpha^{-1} cos(\alpha|z| +\phi_r)
[/latex]

Either define these two terms or show me where they are defined so we can have a meaningful discussion and you can share your knowledge about this equation.

Michael Mozina · Mar 2, 2012

phunk said:
I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of the post when it's so wrong right from the start.

Magnetic flux is not something that fields "experience" when they interact. It has nothing to do with changes in the field. Magnetic flux is a measurement of the field density intersecting with an area. It exists for any field, whether it's dynamic or static.

Oh for crying out loud. It does have to do with the *changes* in the LOCATIONS of the fields (physically) in relationship to the magnets! OMG.

You folks are SO caught up in legaleeze, you can't see the forest for the trees. You can't go on because your show falls apart if you do. Who do you think you fooling?

Plasma (a conductor) is not OPTIONAL in the "reconnection" process. The magnetic fields change over time. In a CONDUCTOR that change over time int the field location INDUCES current in the conductor.

In a vacuum, *NOTHING* but flux. No induced current in the vacuum, no discharge in the vacuum. You folks cannot handle the truth. You therefore look for ANYTHING I say to TWIST LIKE A PRETZEL to suit yourselves. I'm definitely wasting my breath here.

phunk · Mar 2, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
Oh for crying out loud. It does have to do with the *changes* in the LOCATIONS of the fields (physically) in relationship to the magnets! OMG.

Please, define magnetic flux.

Michael Mozina · Mar 2, 2012

tusenfem said:
The only reply can be [bart simpson mode]I know you are but what am I?[/bart simpson mode]

When did you intend to come up with a PUBLISHED work that supports your claim that plasma is optional in the reconnection process Bart? Sweet said *NOTHING OF THE SORT*. He actually sank your ship because he noted the exact issue that differentiates Clinger's vacuum from a real plasma, namely the ability for currents to be induced in the plasma. Plasma is not optional. All your *PUBLISHED MATHS* demonstrate this claim because they *ALL* (each and every single one of them) use MHD theory in them. Not a single *PUBLISHED* works supports you. It's definitely like arguing with creationists. Published science and published math really mean nothing to you at all. You do it lip service, nothing more.

Michael Mozina · Mar 2, 2012

phunk said:
Please, define magnetic flux.

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

phunk · Mar 2, 2012

I wasn't asking because I didn't know, I was asking because I want you to explain it in your own words. It's not a complicated concept, it can be done in a sentence.

Tim Thompson · Mar 2, 2012

Magnetic Reconnection Defined and Described II

Michael Mozina said:
How are you distinguishing between ordinary magnetic flux and magnetic reconnection?

Any change in the topology of the magnetic flux is magnetic reconnection by definition. See my earlier post Magnetic Reconnection Defined and Described (24 January 2012). The terms "magnetic flux" and "magnetic field" are related to each other as shown by the passages below ...

Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" said:
Even still, "reconnection" requires PHYSICAL THINGS ...

Magnetic fields exist and are physical things with topology. There is no law of physics which prevents the physical thing we call a magnetic field from altering its topology in a vacuum; there are laws of physics which require the topology of he magnetic field to change in a vacuum (Specifically Maxwell's equations in a vacuum). In what sense do you assert that a magnetic field is not a "physical thing"?

Finally, it would surely clear things up a lot if Mozina chose to respond to this ...

Tim Thompson said:
Michael Mozina said:

I do not reject the math's associated with "reconnection" theory either Tim. I reject the STUPID NAME you folks assigned to the PLASMA PROCESS.

Click to expand...

OK. Reference my post Magnetic Reconnection Defined and Described

In the paper Magnetic Reconnection by Yamada, Kulsrud & Ji, we find this statement: "Understanding magnetic reconnection, a topological rearrangement of magnetic field lines, provides a key to these questions. In magnetized astrophysical and laboratory plasmas, magnetic reconnection rearranges the magnetic field-line configurations restructuring macroscopic quantities of plasmas such as flow and thermal energy."

Do you agree with this? Specifically, do you agree that the magnetic field lines reconfigure to change the topology of the magnetic field?

In the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Priest & Forbes we find this statement: "As we shall discuss in more detail later on, magnetic reconnection is essentially a topological restructuring of a magnetic field caused by a change in the connectivity of its field lines. This change allows the release of stored magnetic energy, which in many situations is the dominant source of free energy in a plasma."

Do you agree with this? Specifically, do you agree that the change in the topology of the magnetic field is caused by changes in the connectivity of the magnetic field lines?

In the paper Review of controlled laboratory experiments on physics of magnetic reconnection by Masaaki Yamada we find this statement: "Magnetic reconnection is the topological breaking and rearrangement of magnetic field lines in a plasma and is the most fundamental process in the interplay between plasma and magnetic field (Parker, 1979; Priest, 1984; Vasyliunas, 1975)."

Do you agree with this? Specifically, do you agree that the magnetic field lines break and then rearrange into a different topology?

The plasma processes associated with magnetic reconnection happen because first the topology of the magnetic field changes to that of a lower energy state and then the energy is transferred to the plasma which reacts accordingly. So why is "magnetic reconnection" a "stupid name", when it is in fact the root cause of the plasma process to begin with? And if in fact you accept the math, as you claim you do, and the math shows field lines reconnecting, then again, why is it a "stupid name"?

Michael Mozina · Mar 2, 2012

phunk said:
I wasn't asking because I didn't know, I was asking because I want you to explain it in your own words. It's not a complicated concept, it can be done in a sentence.

You don't want to address the REAL PHYSICS issue. You will not accept the *FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE* between a "vacuum" and a plasma as the magnetic fields are being changed. If you start rotating those magnets inside of a vacuum, no currents are going to be induced in the vacuum, therefore no DISCHARGES/RECONNECTION processes can occur.

You can't and won't embrace the mathematical evidence, all of which OVERWHELMINGLY (thousands to none) demonstrate that reconnection *REQUIRES* (fundamentally requires) PLASMA. MHD theory is all about PLASMA PHYSICS! Those maths that are related to "reconnection" are all based upon the behaviors of PLASMA and movements of PLASMA! Come on! How much more stuck in denial can you folks be?

You folks just can't handle the math and you can't handle the truth.

phunk · Mar 2, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
You don't want to address the REAL PHYSICS issue.

No, I don't think you understand the basic theories that build up the complicated subject you're trying to debate.

ETA:

Michael Mozina said:
You folks just can't handle the math and you can't handle the truth.

I've never seen you post any math, just link to other's math that you haven't shown any understanding of.

Michael Mozina · Mar 2, 2012

Tim Thompson said:
Any change in the topology of the magnetic flux is magnetic reconnection by definition.

So your ENTIRE argument is one giant equivocation fallacy?

The plasma processes associated with magnetic reconnection happen because first the topology of the magnetic field changes to that of a lower energy state and then the energy is transferred to the plasma which reacts accordingly.

It's called "induction".

So why is "magnetic reconnection" a "stupid name", when it is in fact the root cause of the plasma process to begin with?

Because it's NOT the "root cause" Tim. You're fundamentally relabeling an INDUCTION process 'reconnection". A simple coil in a car does the same thing Tim. It changes the field topology over time in the presence of a "conductor". Is that "magnetic reconnection" as well?

Michael Mozina · Mar 2, 2012

phunk said:
No, I don't think you understand the basic theories that build up the complicated subject you're trying to debate.

Ditto. With the exception of Tim and T, I don't know if any of you even OWN a book on the topic of plasma physics.

I've never seen you post any math, just link to other's math that you haven't shown any understanding of.

Oh, I understand full well that all your precious reconnection maths *REQUIRE* plasma, and plasma physics because they all use MHD theory. Your maths are now your own worst enemy.

Michael Mozina · Mar 2, 2012

FYI, that's also why none of you can produce any published maths to support your claim that plasma is 'optional' in the 'reconnection' process. None of the "published pros" even agrees with you with PUBLISHED WORKS!

GeeMack · Mar 3, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
Oh for crying out loud. It does have to do with the *changes* in the LOCATIONS of the fields (physically) in relationship to the magnets! OMG.

You folks are SO caught up in legaleeze, you can't see the forest for the trees. You can't go on because your show falls apart if you do. Who do you think you fooling?

And yet it's not the people pointing out the failure of the against-the-mainstream proponents who are fixated on some archaic and dishonestly cherry-picked meaning for the term "discharge".

Plasma (a conductor) is not OPTIONAL in the "reconnection" process. The magnetic fields change over time. In a CONDUCTOR that change over time int the field location INDUCES current in the conductor.

Plasma is optional in the magnetic reconnection process, as anyone with the brains and gumption to perform the grade school kid experiment described before wshould understand.

In a vacuum, *NOTHING* but flux. No induced current in the vacuum, no discharge in the vacuum.

In a vacuum? If an astronaut took those grade school kids' magnets out on a space walk, that very same magnetic reconnection experiment would produce virtually the same results. Magnetic reconnection would occur, demonstrably, objectively.

You folks cannot handle the truth. You therefore look for ANYTHING I say to TWIST LIKE A PRETZEL to suit yourselves.

It doesn't take twisting. It's so wrong, not to mention incredibly uninformed and dishonestly assembled, that it starts out twisted.

I'm definitely wasting my breath here.

That seems like a reasonable assessment since the failure has been absolute. The entire argument to support an electric/iron Sun conjecture is based on misunderstanding a couple pictures and cherry-picking a half dozen documents, some over a century old. And each additional breath only results in more failure.

Michael Mozina · Mar 3, 2012

GeeMack said:
And yet it's not the people pointing out the failure of the against-the-mainstream proponents who are fixated on some archaic and dishonestly cherry-picked meaning for the term "discharge".

You folks don't even actually speak for the "mainstream". The "mainstream" papers all use PLASMA PHYSICS (MHD theory) in their maths to achieve "reconnection". You only speak for yourselves on this topic.

Plasma is optional in the magnetic reconnection process, as anyone with the brains and gumption to perform the grade school kid experiment described before wshould understand.

Your collective failure to produce any *PUBLISHED* support for that HUGELY FALSE ASSERTION is blatant as all hell. I've honestly seen creationists do a better job presenting PUBLISHED support for their claims. A grade school kid knows how to site a relevant paper. Got one? Yes or no?

In a vacuum? If an astronaut took those grade school kids' magnets out on a space walk, that very same magnetic reconnection experiment would produce virtually the same results. Magnetic reconnection would occur, demonstrably, objectively.

It's ironic (were it not so utterly sad) that you don't even realize that interplanetary space *IS* a "plasma", not a vacuum.

That seems like a reasonable assessment since the failure has been absolute.

Yes, and sometimes I absolutely fail to convince the most hardcore creationists of evolutionary theory too. It's not my failure to produce any maths and physics to support my case. All of them use MHD theory.

The entire argument to support an electric/iron Sun conjecture is based on misunderstanding a couple pictures

You wouldn't know since you don't know the light source and you can't even correctly explain the limb color of STANDARD iron ion composite image.

and cherry-picking a half dozen documents, some over a century old.

Er, no. I have THOUSANDS of documents that all demonstrate that A) plasma is NOT optional, B) reconnection involves the release of stored EM energy in that plasma, and C) you don't know what you're talking about.

And each additional breath only results in more failure.

In your case, that's a certainty. You'll never embrace reality while you cling to your belief that electrical discharges cannot occur in a conductor. They can *ONLY* occur in a conductor. You have reality standing on it's head, so don't blame me for your failures.

Michael Mozina · Mar 3, 2012

Wow. Not ONE SINGLE *PUBLISHED* paper on "reconnection" theory that actually claims that plasma is optional. I wonder why that might be?

Michael Mozina · Mar 3, 2012

Creationists argue based on unpublished website material. Scientists argue over actual published materials. I've yet to see any of you present a PUBLISHED WORK that claims that plasma is OPTIONAL in the reconnection process, yet you keep asserting that claim over and over again. Which is it going to be? Are any of you going to actually produce any *PUBLISHED* material to support your claims? Yes or no?

Perpetual Student · Mar 3, 2012

Below we have equation 16, which along with equation 17, proves that plasma is needed for reconnection. But how do these two equations provide such a proof? I am waiting to dissect the equations with Mozina so we can mutually see how these equations accomplish that feat.

[latex]\mu_0I(z) = 4\pi\alpha^{-1} cos(\alpha|z| +\phi_r)
[/latex]

So, Mozina please define the [latex]\alpha[/latex] and the [latex] \phi_r[/latex] so we can begin the discussion. Furthermore, not being a physicist, I don't understand why the current, as a function of the position along the z axis, is multiplied by [latex]\mu_0[/latex] (the magnetic constant). Do you? I am a bit confused since I am a layman in this area -- so your explanation would be appreciated.

DeiRenDopa · Mar 3, 2012

Perpetual Student said:
Below we have equation 16, which along with equation 17, proves that plasma is needed for reconnection. But how do these two equations provide such a proof? I am waiting to dissect the equations with Mozina so we can mutually see how these equations accomplish that feat.

[latex]\mu_0I(z) = 4\pi\alpha^{-1} cos(\alpha|z| +\phi_r)
[/latex]

So, Mozina please define the [latex]\alpha[/latex] and the [latex] \phi_r[/latex] so we can begin the discussion. Furthermore, not being a physicist, I don't understand why the current, as a function of the position along the z axis, is multiplied by [latex]\mu_0[/latex] (the magnetic constant). Do you? I am a bit confused since I am a layman in this area -- so your explanation would be appreciated.

Cue for non-answer response from MM in 3, 2, 1, ...

Perpetual Student · Mar 3, 2012

I have given Mozina a golden opportunity to demonstrate that his theory about reconnection has some merit. He has been adamant that the two equations (numbered 16 and 17) from Demoulin's and Priest's 1992 paper prove that reconnection cannot happen without plasma. My requests to review and discuss the equations so we can fathom their meaning and glean how they provide this proof have gone unanswered. Why would he pass on this opportunity to put this question to rest and vanquish all the doubters here? Could it be that the two equations at issue do not provide the alleged proof? Could it be that Mozina's ignorance of mathematics and physics renders him incapable of discussing these equations? Could the answer to both these statements be a resounding "yes," exposing Mozina and his theories as so much blather and wind?

dasmiller · Mar 3, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
dasmiller said:

Since I have no reason to believe that Dungey had received any divine enlightenment, I don't much care what Dungey was thinking.

Click to expand...

Lovely. The guy coins the term "reconnection" and that terminology is somehow oh so important, but in the very same papers uses "electrical discharges", and that is now *IMPOSSIBLE* since "electrical discharges" cannot occur in conductors? Wow! Talk about selective and subjective reading skills.

I'm not hung up on terminology; you're the one who keeps going back to that. I'm more interested in models, predictions, and observations.

I do care about how well his model matches with observations, but AFAIK he made only one testable prediction and it failed. So I don't see the point in arguing about what Dungey meant in 1958.

Click to expand...

Huh? Which "failed" prediction

He'd stated that flares' luminous regions had to be about 1 meter thick. It's my understanding that they're now known to be a few (though not many) orders of magnitude thicker than that. Hopefully one of the others can jump in if I have that wrong, which is possible.

just got you to write off all his life's work?

I don't have a good concept of Dungey's life's work; I've read only two of his papers and know nothing else about the man. But if flares are substantially thicker than 1 meter, then I'm willing to write off his conclusions in that 1958 paper.

Actually, they've elaborated on that at length.

Click to expand...

Actually they made absurd claims related to how only ONE orientation is valid (B) while the other is to be ignored (E). They pretty much ignored Onel and Mann's work outright.

First, Venus has Earth-like lightning but lacks a significant magnetic field, so it would appear that the magnetic field is not a requirement for lightning. Second, as I'm sure you'll agree, the presence of a conductive plasma is of profound significance to electrical phenomena. Thus, I would think that even you should agree that the presence of lightning in non-conductive atmospheres on Jupiter and Earth is not immediately relevant to solar phenomena. So . . . why do *you* attach importance to it?

Click to expand...

It's important because Birkeland empirically demonstrated that the two electrical processes (aurora/discharges on Earth) and solar flares, are DIRECTLY RELATED and directly related to a "cathode sun".

1) how did aurora get into this discussion?
2) I was unaware that Birkeland had associated terrestrial lightning with the "cathode sun," but if he did, I believe that he's completely wrong.
3) Are you going to address either of my actual points? They were
a) the planet's magnetic field is not relevant to lightning, so why mention it?
b) the solar environment, being plasma, is fundamentally different from a non-conductive planetary atmosphere and therefore one cannot readily draw analogies between the two for electrical behavior. A better analog would be Earth's oceans, which are conductive, but do not experience internal lightning.

Are any of those "SEVEN EMPIRICAL REASONS" not simply indicators of high temperature?

Click to expand...

Sure. The EASIEST way to explain such temperatures is using large amounts of current.

I'm going to take that as a "no." If you have any connection between your 7 and electrical discharges (beyond the "really hot" thing), then say so. If not, then admit that.

Do any of them imply one energy source rather than another?

Click to expand...

What other energy source scores 7 of 7 in the lab and occurs NATURALLY in the atmosphere of Earth and all those other planets?

My position is that "7 of 7" boils down to "really hot."

Neither solar plasma nor the sun's magnetic field occurs in terrestrial labs nor in the atmospheres of any other planet. For that matter, terrestrial lightning is nowhere near as hot as the corona, so it's not a compelling analogy for yet another reason.

As far as I can tell, your argument is that "flares are really hot. Electrical discharges can make things really hot. Therefore flares are electrical discharges." How do the "SEVEN EMPIRICAL REASONS" play into this? Is it simply because we don't normally use magnetic reconnection to create high temperatures in laboratories?

Click to expand...

You can't "use magnetic reconnection" in the absence of CURRENT. The connection is OBVIOUS. The foot dragging is equally obvious.

Actually, I thought that we didn't use magnetic reconnection to generate high temperatures in laboratories because it was inconvenient and tended to operate on much, much larger scales that a typical laboratory. But perhaps someone with more hands-on laboratory experience may correct me on that.

Then you have completely failed to understand my lines of reasoning.

Click to expand...

Understanding it and agreeing with it are two entirely different things. I hear you basically trying to sweep under the carpet the fact that electrical discharge theory outperforms MR theory in the lab in terms of generating high energy events associated with flares. I just don't buy it.

"Outperforms?" I agree that electrical discharges provide a more convenient way to create high temperatures in a lab. I'm disputing your extrapolation from "more convenient for humans in a lab" to "what's actually happening 140,000,000 km away on the fringes of a 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg ball of plasma"

But to my original point - your statement that I "cling to ONE physical piece of evidence" is bizarre. I don't even know which piece of physical evidence you're referring to. So, based on that - yes, I think you have fundamentally failed to understand my lines of reasoning.

It's possible that the failure is partly mine and that I'm not communicating adequately. I shall try to be more clear.

MR theory doesn't work without plasma. It requires plasma. Your side hasn't even figured that out yet.

First, I thought the refrigerator magnet example was pretty compelling. I've even ordered some iron filings and magnets to do my own little demos. But, as others have pointed out: Even if MR requires plasma, we're talking about the solar atmosphere, which is plasma.

How did they intend to HEAT anything from two NULL points of a VACUUM?

<sigh> I'll leave that to others, but that's a fundamental mischaracterization. Have you tried looking at it from a conservation-of-energy perspective?

You can't get magnetic energy in plasma without current and electrical energy. Why all the foot dragging when Birkeland already "successfully predicted" that "electrical discharges' occur in solar flares with his cathode sun model?

His prediction was successful only if you assume that it was correct.

Actually, I thought that the math provided repeatedly in this thread covered it pretty well.

Click to expand...

No, it's "website gossip". That's why it is UNPUBLISHED and unpublishable with no published support of any sort. Be sure to let me know when they help Clinger publish that nonsense.

(oh, my self-control!)
Is there a more substantive refutation than simply dismissing it as "website gossip" and assuming that, if Alfven read it, he'd disagree?

tusenfem · Mar 3, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
When did you intend to come up with a PUBLISHED work that supports your claim that plasma is optional in the reconnection process Bart? Sweet said *NOTHING OF THE SORT*. He actually sank your ship because he noted the exact issue that differentiates Clinger's vacuum from a real plasma, namely the ability for currents to be induced in the plasma. Plasma is not optional. All your *PUBLISHED MATHS* demonstrate this claim because they *ALL* (each and every single one of them) use MHD theory in them. Not a single *PUBLISHED* works supports you. It's definitely like arguing with creationists. Published science and published math really mean nothing to you at all. You do it lip service, nothing more.

Birn & Priest, Reconnection of magnetic fields, Section 4.1.1

And still if you don't understand in the simple case for the null to move to different values of A in Sweet's paper reconnection is a must then don't bother going to B&P.

tusenfem · Mar 3, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, that's also why none of you can produce any published maths to support your claim that plasma is 'optional' in the 'reconnection' process. None of the "published pros" even agrees with you with PUBLISHED WORKS!

NO, it is just because you don't understand electrodynamics, let alone plasma physics, that you discard any source about how magnetic fields work in a vacuum. Like Sweet, like Yamada et al., like Birn, etc. etc.

Let's mention Dorelli et al. 2007 here.

Ofcourse, because of the triviality of vacuum reconnection, nobody really looks at that, it first becomes interesting when plasma is present, however vacuum superpostition models are usually always the starting point for modeling.

Almo · Mar 3, 2012

phunk said:
I've never seen "flux" used as a verb in this context, could use explain what that means? Also, who said anything about electrical discharge? I asked about magnetic fields. Surely you don't expect an electrical discharge if for example a permanent magnet is split in half and pulled apart, right? And since lines can't reconnect, when you pull them apart the original field must grow indefinitely and always surround both halves?

Flux capacitor... uh... fluxing!

Almo · Mar 3, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
Creationists argue based on unpublished website material. Scientists argue over actual published materials. I've yet to see any of you present a PUBLISHED WORK that claims that plasma is OPTIONAL in the reconnection process, yet you keep asserting that claim over and over again. Which is it going to be? Are any of you going to actually produce any *PUBLISHED* material to support your claims? Yes or no?

That's like asking where our published work is that says you can do Newtonian physics in your backyard. It's obvious, and Clinger proved it.

Tim Thompson · Mar 4, 2012

Magnetic Reconnection and the Mozina Fallacy

Michael Mozina said:
Tim Thompson said:

Any change in the topology of the magnetic flux is magnetic reconnection by definition.

Click to expand...

So your ENTIRE argument is one giant equivocation fallacy?

Certainly not. The equivocation fallacy is "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)". In this case, the word "flux" is not at all ambiguous to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about ...

Tim Thompson said:
Lorrain & Corson said:

The next three chapters will deal with various aspects of magnetic fields. We shall start by studying in some detail the properties of two vector quantities, namely, the magnetic induction B and the vector potential A, which are used to describe magnetic fields. { ... } As in electrostatics, where we used lines of force to describe an electric field, we can describe a magnetic field by drawing lines of B that are everywhere tangent to the direction of B. Similarly, it is convenient to use the concept of flux, the flux of the magnetic induction B through a surface S being defined as the normal component of B integrated over S:[latex]\phi = \int_s \bold B \cdot \bold {da}[/latex]

Click to expand...

tusenfem said:
Michael Mozina said:

Let me rephrase that. Two magnets and magnetic *FIELDS* experience magnetic flux when brought together or pulled apart in a vacuum or non-conductive medium. No current is induced as Sweet states, and no "electrical discharge" could occur as Dungey describes.

Click to expand...

Sheesh! magnets and fields are experiencing magnetic flux??????????

Magnetic flux is, to use words, the number of field lines that cross through a unit surface, it is a value, it cannot do anything, whatsoever.

In math, if you can understand it, magnetic flux is:

[latex]
\Phi = \int \int {\bf B} \cdot d{\bf S}
[/latex]

Flux can increase, or decrease, but it is just a number, nothing more nothing less.

If you want to have a real scientific discussion, then get your terms correct.

tusenfem said:
If you really don't know what the difference is between magnetic flux and magnetic reconnection you really are a lost cause, and apparently never ever read a book on plasma physics.

The fallacy of equivocation rests entirely with you & you alone. You are the one who is guilty of the misleading use of the term "flux". As for my definition of magnetic reconnection, there is neither equivocation nor ambiguity, and I once again refer the reader to my post from 24 January, Magnetic Reconnection Defined and Described as an objective substantiation of my assertion.

Michael Mozina said:
Tim Thompson said:

The plasma processes associated with magnetic reconnection happen because first the topology of the magnetic field changes to that of a lower energy state and then the energy is transferred to the plasma which reacts accordingly.

Click to expand...

It's called "induction".

It most certainly is not. And to the surprise of no one, we have already been down this road. The key to understanding why it cannot be induction is that induction can change only the geometry of a magnetic field, but can never change its topology.

From 24 December 2009, over two years ago ...

Tim Thompson said:
Michael Mozina said:

Yet you won't personally explain what's unique about magnetic reconnection, so what can I say Tim?

Click to expand...

That's not true, and you know it. It's no wonder that people keep calling you a liar. Are you trying to add me to the list? I have already done that many times. I said it was a change in the topology of the magnetic field, and that certainly is not induction by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, induction is strictly limited by the diffusion timescale of the plasma, whereas reconnection is impulsive. The two processes are distinctly different both in theory and in practice. Impulsive energy release, such as a solar flare, is quite impossible for any induction process.
Had you bothered to read any of the source material you have been directed to (for instance the book Magnetic Reconnection by Priest & Forbes) you would already know this, since it is spelled out in detail (I would be more specific but I am 1000 miles from home and the book at the moment). That's why I say I don't believe you when you say you are really interested in learning. Anyone truly interested in learning would naturally consult the books & papers they are referred to. I see no indication that you do that. As it stands, you appear to implicitly assert that you know more about physics than everyone else, and simply ignore everything else. It should come as no great surprise that few people have confidence in your alleged expertise in this field.

From 30 December 2009 ...

Tim Thompson said:
Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction. Here is the induction equation in a plasma as given in Priest & Forbes, page 5:

[latex] (1) $ \partial \boldsymbol B / \partial t = \nabla \times (\boldsymbol v \times \boldsymbol B) - \nabla \times (\eta \nabla \times \boldsymbol B) $ [/latex]

Here [latex]\eta[/latex] is the magnetic diffusivity. If [latex]\eta[/latex] is uniform then the induction equation reduces to ...

[latex] (2) $ \partial \boldsymbol B / \partial t = \nabla \times (\boldsymbol v \times \boldsymbol B) + \eta \nabla^2 \boldsymbol B $ [/latex]

{ ... }

The conversion of magnetic energy into a current always operates on a time-scale characteristic of the system, and that time scale is controlled by the ability of the magnetic field to move through the conductor, in order to create a dB/dt term from which the current is generated. That time-scale in a plasma is rather different than it is for a fixed conductor. Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes:

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6

Induction is a motion of the magnetic field relative to the plasma as illustrated by the induction equation given above, which depends on the magnetic diffusivity of the plasma and is therefore limited to the diffusion timescale, and which cannot change the topology of the field. Magnetic reconnection is a change in the topology of the field and therefore cannot be induction in any way. And all of this was hashed out over two years ago, and here we are, right back to where we were then. I am right and you are dead wrong, just as wrong now as you were two years ago.

Michael Mozina said:
Because it's NOT the "root cause" Tim. You're fundamentally relabeling an INDUCTION process 'reconnection". A simple coil in a car does the same thing Tim. It changes the field topology over time in the presence of a "conductor". Is that "magnetic reconnection" as well?

To begin with, no the simple coil in a car does not change the topology of the magnetic field, it changes only the geometry, and it is therefore magnetic induction and certainly not magnetic reconnection. You could not tell the difference between a coil of wire and a plasma two years ago, and you still can't tell the difference ...

Tim Thompson said:
Evidently, Mozina has never realized that a magnetized plasma and a coil of wire are not the same thing. So I will respond to Mozina's incredible ignorance of physics by quoting once again from Priest & Forbes, only this time with real physics, rather than the strange imitation of physics being promoted elsewhere. Given the equation I have labeled (2) above, we find ...

"This is the basic equation of magnetic behavior in MHD, and it determines B once v is known. In the electromagnetic theory of fixed conductors, the electric field and electric current are primary variables with the current driven by electric fields. in such a fixed system the magnetic field is a secondary variable derived from the currents. However, in MHD the basic physics is quite different, since the plasma velocity (v) and magnetic field (B) are the primary variables, determined by the induction equation and the equation of motion, while the resulting current density (j) and electric field (E) are secondary and may be deduced from equations (1.8) and (1.10a) if required (Parker, 1996)."
Priest & Forbes, page 14.

So we come full circle? Two years ago you were ignorant about plasma physics. Today you are still ignorant of plasma physics. You can't use the basic words correctly, you have no clue to the basic physics, and cannot even tell the difference between a plasma and a coil of wire. So in conclusion, again from two years ago, ...

Tim Thompson said:
This entire thread is just one constant repetition of the same tired old arguments: real physics vs. the pure prejudice of Mozina. It will never change because Mozina will never learn. So get used to zillions of pages to come with no change & no progress & no real physics ever from Mozina. That you can count on.

And so my prophecy has come to pass. Zillions of pages and two years later we are right back where we started; no change, no progress, no real physics from Mozina, and Mozina, as predicted, never learned a thing.

The Man · Mar 4, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
Yes, actually it WAS a part of Peratt's definition. It was a definition of electrical discharges *IN* cosmic plasmas.

You will note the "*IN*", indicating that "electrical discharges" also happen '*OUTSIDE*' of plasma. Unless you are claiming all "electrical discharges" involve or happen "*IN* cosmic plasmas" then the requirement for plasma is not part of the definition of an "electrical discharge". Are you making that claim?

The Man · Mar 4, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
You (Clinger) can't claim that B lines "begin" and "end" and then run away like a frightened child from the SOURCE AND SINK aspects of PHYSICS! OMG. I'm taking a break from this place.

Again you’re the only one here requiring those “SOURCE AND SINK aspects”. Yet all you can seem to do with them is just beat yourself up. Hey here’s an idea for when you get back, use those “SOURCE AND SINK aspects of PHYSICS” to “OMG.” mathematically show exactly where you think W.D.Clinger went wrong.

Michael Mozina said:
I can show you THOUSANDS of *PUBLISHED* works that demonstrate that plasma is *REQUIRED* in the mathematical models related to "reconnection". T could only find ONE or TWO papers that he CLAIMS are "plasma optional' and yet BOTH OF THEM are describing EVENTS IN PLASMAS! OMG.

Again you can demonstrate magnetic reconnection in your own home with the simple experiments already recommended.

Michael Mozina said:
Whereas I can ACCEPT that Sweet's crude mathematical model might actually WORK in plasma (even before MHD theory), there no evidence at all that Sweet himself claimed it would work *WITHOUT ANY PLASMA PARTICLES WHATSOEVER*. The whole thing a blatant red herring since Sweet MADE NO SUCH CLAIM!

IMO Yamada just misrepresented Sweet!

Well it your “red herring” you can keep feasting upon it while you beat up your monopole strawman or you can just demonstrate magnetic reconnection in your own home with the simple experiments already recommended. You’ve made your preference quite clear.

Michael Mozina · Mar 4, 2012

tusenfem said:
Birn & Priest, Reconnection of magnetic fields, Section 4.1.1

http://books.google.com/books?id=-O...AK16di1Bg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

You just destroyed your own argument again t!

The VERY FIRST EQUATION that they cite, (4.1), is based upon ohm's law and IDEAL MHD LIMITS! Furthermore the whole discussion is related to the PLASMA of the magnetosphere! You just shot your own argument in the foot.

I think I need to really make this EXTREME SIMPLE for you to understand because you personally keep citing INAPPROPRIATE reference materials, in fact DAMNING references to your own case. In fact each of the last four references you have cited are *ALL* based upon *MHD THEORY*! The fact that the maths are based upon MHD theory LITERALLY DESTROYS YOUR ARGUMENT!

Let's start by discussing the maths related to Magnetohydrodynamics.

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magneto fluid dynamics or hydromagnetics) is an academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids.

MHD is related to PARTICLES tusenfem, not VACUUMS that are DEVOID OF PARTICLES.

Equivocation fallacy 1.

You CANNOT USE MHD theories and maths to support your case T. The very fact that THOUSANDS of published works on RECONNECTION theory are all based on MHD theory SHOULD BE YOUR FIRST CLUE! Plasma, and the conductive and particle qualities of plasma, is NOT optional in the energy release process known as "reconnection/discharges".

Clinger's empty vacuum experiences no INDUCED current. It experiences no ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE/CURRENT RECONNECTION. You folks are IGNORING the PHYSICS AND MATHS completely! Wake up and smell the coffee.

And still if you don't understand in the simple case for the null to move to different values of A in Sweet's paper reconnection is a must then don't bother going to B&P.

I guess the equivocation fallacy in play is the equivocation of magnetic flux change/time = "magnetic reconnection". This pretty much DESTROYS Clinger's claim (or need) for a NULL as some "special" place. It's not the "begging" or the "ending" of anything. It's just an evidently *UNNECESSARY* location in the first place.

Sweet pretty much wrecked your argument from the start. He pointed out the REAL PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE between a non-conductive medium and a conductive one, namely the ability to INDUCE CURRENTS due to those flux changes.

Michael Mozina · Mar 4, 2012

You shot your OTHER FOOT TOO!

tusenfem said:
NO, it is just because you don't understand electrodynamics, let alone plasma physics, that you discard any source about how magnetic fields work in a vacuum. Like Sweet, like Yamada et al., like Birn, etc. etc.

Let's mention Dorelli et al. 2007 here.

Ofcourse, because of the triviality of vacuum reconnection, nobody really looks at that, it first becomes interesting when plasma is present, however vacuum superpostition models are usually always the starting point for modeling.

We investigate the global properties of magnetic reconnection at the dayside terrestrial magnetopause under generic northward interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) conditions. In particular, we consider a zero dipole tilt case where the y and z components of the IMF (in GSM coordinates) are equal in magnitude, using three-dimensional resistive magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) simulations to address the following questions: (1) What is the geometry of the dayside X line? (2) How is current density distributed over the magnetopause surface?

The only way you can actually support your claim that reconnection occurs in the ABSENCE of all particles/plasma, is by coming up with *PUBLISHED* (not some guys website) maths related to the release of energy in "magnetic reconnection" *WITHOUT* MHD theory. Do you get that?

You just yourself in the other foot too.

It should be noted that you all do lip service to your love of math and physics. When confronted with the physics and the maths that destroy your case, you ignore them entirely. The fact that "reconnection" theory is based upon MHD theory DEMONSTRATES CONCLUSIVELY that plasma isn't optional, and "reconnection" can't occur in a "vacuum" devoid of all *PHYSICAL* particles. FORGETABOUTIT!

GeeMack · Mar 4, 2012

Michael Mozina said:
You [...]

Michael Mozina said:
The [...]

No argument in all that. Just more complaints about and excuses for failing.

Michael Mozina · Mar 4, 2012

Almo said:
That's like asking where our published work is that says you can do Newtonian physics in your backyard. It's obvious, and Clinger proved it.

No, thousands of papers on "reconnection" that are based upon MHD theory PROVE that "reconnection/discharges" are not "plasma optional" processes.

Some guys *UNPUBLISHED WEBSITE* proves about as much as some UNPUBLISHED creationist website. NOTHING!

Wow. When confronted with the fact that your own mathematical models on "reconnection" are *ALL* (and and every single published one) is based upon MHD theory, you ignore it. Suddenly some guys *UNPUBLISHED* website is all that matters. Wow. EU haters are like any other kind of hater in the final analysis. They give lip service to their love of math. When confronted with their own maths, all of which are based upon FLUID DYNAMICS, they still claim the fluid is optional. Wow!

Michael Mozina · Mar 4, 2012

GeeMack said:
No argument in all that. Just more complaints about and excuses for failing.

Hater failures are not MY failures. I'm not responsible for creationist's beliefs nor am I responsible for your personal beliefs. You can't and won't own your own mistake and failure, such as your claim that electrical discharges cannot occur in conductors. That's your EPIC PHYSICS failure, not mine. Likewise, if you can't understand the horizon line color of a simple iron ion composite solar image after I've explained it to you several times, it's not my failure, it's your failure. Don't blame me for your epic failures in physics. Deny Dungey's claim that electrical discharges occur in flares and reconnection events all you like, but your Godfather of "reconnection" theory used both terms.

Michael Mozina · Mar 4, 2012

The Man said:
You will note the "*IN*", indicating that "electrical discharges" also happen '*OUTSIDE*' of plasma. Unless you are claiming all "electrical discharges" involve or happen "*IN* cosmic plasmas" then the requirement for plasma is not part of the definition of an "electrical discharge". Are you making that claim?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6628742&postcount=370

This whole debate began when I offered what should have been a relatively simple definition of an "electrical discharge in cosmic plasma" that is congruent and "large scale" enough to apply to PLASMA COSMOLOGY THEORY AS A WHOLE.

You're right of course that electrical discharges can occur with or without plasma.

If however we are going to relate this all back to Dungey's original paper on "reconnection" theory related to solar activity, we'll have to introduce plasma (as he did).

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

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Muse

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Master Poster

Illuminator

Just the right amount of cowbell

Illuminator

Illuminator

Masterblazer

Masterblazer

Muse

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned