Electric universe theories here.

Ziggurat · Jul 22, 2009

Dancing David said:
cathode refrigeration.

I like that term. Rather makes plain the absurdity of his proposal.

Michael Mozina · Jul 22, 2009

Ziggurat said:
This is rather obviously wrong, Michael. Look at the sun sometime. I suggest you use a filter to avoid hurting yourself. Very little of the sun's light comes from the corona.

Which filter are you using, a h-alpha filter, visible light filter, or one sensitive to helium emissions like the SOHO 304A filter?

Everyone knows this (well, except you), and it's rather easy to confirm by direct observation. You don't even need any fancy scientific equipment. Should be exactly the sort of experimental evidence you're so fond of, yet you are apparently ignorant of it. Strange.

It's strange to me that you only seem concerned with visible light.

Hell, look at my avatar. Ponder upon it. It's a clue. Can you figure it out?

All that demonstrates is that the corona also emits while light as well as other wavelengths.

And how much mass separation should we expect?

Every plasma is mass separated by the element. The solar atmosphere is very dynamic however so it's not 100% separation to be sure, but it's mostly separated by the element and actually the layers tend to try to separate and arrange themselves by the ion. Of course that is typical of current carrying plasma. It tends to mass separate in the presence of large gravity wells and electrical currents, both of which apply to the solar atmosphere.

It's actually a rather simple thermodynamics problem, Michael.

It's "simple" to you because you intentionally and artificially *oversimplify* everything.

You can quantify it rather easily if you assume no convection.

Since there is convection and lots of movement of particles, it's not as simple as you imagine.

Since convection would serve to decrease mass separation, such an estimate would only be an upper bound, but it would be a good starting place. So what amount of mass separation do you expect? Let's see if you can quantify it.

How might we do that?

If you ask nicely, perhaps I'll even do the mass separation calculations for you.

Please do so. Start with Birkeland's concept of voltages and current flow and standard gravity theory. I'd love to see someone attempt to describe the mass separation of elements in such a dynamic environment. I've never figured out a really excellent way to do that, and you might in fact teach me something on that issue. You can't oversimplify the idea however in your search for quantification. Honestly, I would be interested in how you might try to come up with a percentage figure in such a dynamic and changing environment where mass flows are constant, coronal rain is observed and nothing is particularly stationary for any length of time. Off the top of my head, just looking at the images, I'd say it's pretty thoroughly separated, close to 95 percent separated in terms of actual elements. That would not necessarily be true of hydrogen however since protons are flowing up from the surface through all the layers. It would however apply to the helium, neon, silicon, and calcium plasma layers.

Ziggurat · Jul 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Which filter are you using, a h-alpha filter, visible light filter, or one sensitive to helium emissions like the SOHO 304A filter?

A filter that cuts down intensity of all light, so you don't blind yourself by looking at the sun. Really, Michael, do you need everything explained to you?

It's strange to me that you only seem concerned with visible light.

I'm concerned with total light output. Which is dominated by visible and IR.

All that demonstrates is that the corona also emits while light as well as other wavelengths.

And why don't you see it if you look at the sun through a filter, Michael? Or through light clouds, or at sunrise/sunset?

Because the corona doesn't emit much light compared to the rest of the sun. You need to block out the rest of the sun in order to see it.

Every plasma is mass separated by the element.

That's not unique to plasmas, it happens in gasses too. And yet, carbon dioxide, which is significantly heavier than both nitrogen and oxygen, doesn't just pool at sea level, but can be found at high altitudes too. Why? Thermodynamics, my friend. It's not that there's no mass separation, it's that it's not abrupt, and takes place over some length scale. You can even calculate the length scales for such mass separation based on thermodynamics. So why don't you do that for the sun, and calculate how much mass separation you should get? Should be an easy task. Who knows, the result might even support your ideas (especially since the calculation I'm suggesting, without convection, would overestimate the separation). But you won't know until you do the calculations. So why don't you?

The solar atmosphere is very dynamic however so it's not 100% separation to be sure

You won't get 100% separation even if it is static.

It's "simple" to you because you intentionally and artificially *oversimplify* everything.

And you can't even figure out that the simplifications I'm suggesting would lead to an overestimation of the mass separation. So the numbers should come out in your favor, if you're even remotely close to being correct. Yet you still won't do such simple calculations.

Since there is convection and lots of movement of particles, it's not as simple as you imagine.

I know that. The particle movement is, in fact, the basis for the thermodynamic calculations. And by ignoring convection, we can establish an upper bound to the mass separation without much difficulty. Do you really not understand why such a calculation might be useful? No, of course you don't.

Please do so. Start with Birkeland's concept of voltages and current flow and standard gravity theory.

We don't need currents. All we need is temperature and gravity, and a little understanding of thermodynamics. In fact, we don't even need to derive any equations, since this is a standard textbook problem. We can just look up the answer. In particular, you can look up "Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics", equation 6.3.20:
P(z) = P(0) e^-mgz/kTThis is basically the density of particles of mass m as a function of height in a gravitational field at a temperature T. In other words, we get roughly exponential decrease with height. What we're interested in, for purposes of mass separation, is the length scale of this decrease, which will be different for different masses, and which leads to mass separation. To fall off by a factor of e, we need
z = kT/mg
So that right there is our characteristic length scale for mass separation of a given species. Now your turn. Pick an element, and figure out the corresponding length scale. Don't forget to use the atomic mass, not the molar mass. Oh, and use g for the surface of the sun, not the surface of the earth.

You can't oversimplify the idea however in your search for quantification.

Sure you can, if you understand the consequences of your simplification. And in this case, I know what the simplification will do: it will lead to an overestimation of the mass separation. I'm not sure exactly how much of an overestimation, but that's OK, as long as I understand that what I've found is thus a bounding value. Which I do.

So let's see if you can quantify one of your ideas now that I've given you the equation with which to do it.

DeiRenDopa · Jul 22, 2009

There's a phrase concerning horses, leading, water, and drinking that springs to mind ...

tusenfem · Jul 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
He created that MHD world you're using today didn't he? What makes you a greater 'expert' on MHD theory than the man that wrote the theory? Alfven was an electrical engineer by trade. He would therefore *NEVER* have claimed that magnetic lines disconnect and reconnect to other magnetic lines.

And again you cannot read. Yes, Alfven created MHD, and in MHD reconnection cannot happen! I am not a "greater expert" on MHD, I am claiming that in the approximation theory MDH (which is an approximation of plasma physics, do you know which approximations are made?) reconnection cannot happen.

Michael Mozina said:
Sounds like another wonderful distraction if you ask me. I wouldn't try to explain it via *JUST* induction. It's an example of *CIRCUIT RECONNECTION* between the solar surface and the heliosphere and the Earth got in the way.

Oh, boohoohoo, I give you some observations, which are totally in agreement with what one expects for reconnection. However, as you do not believe in reconnection, I would like to know how you explain all these observations. But do we get anything, of course not, because MM does not have a clue how to do all this using his "circuit reconnection" and his "induction" and stuff. Colour us amazed at some point, MM, and show us a real model, which qualitatively and quantitatively shows, that your ideas are indeed working. You might even get invited to a reconnection workshop I am planning to organize to look at the basics of RX, which might well include some of your heros like Falthammar, Heikila etc.

Michael Mozina said:
To 20 million degree? Yep. Name one other method you know of that heats plasma to tens of millions of degrees and can sustain them at those temperatures for hours on end.

Maybe not that much, but one can put a lot of energy in the electrons by the dissipation of the turbulence.

Michael Mozina said:
He did write all the first chapters of plasma physics and you haven't demonstrated that he was wrong about any of it. You haven't written the last chapter either, so get over it.

Why would I want to prove him wrong? What's your obsession with getting Alfven proved wrong? Some of his ideas do not work, his unwinding flux tube does not describe the same phenomenon as those that the Kaastra model of flares is based on. And indeed, I have not written the last chapter on plasma physics, I am most definitely not clever enough for that.

Michael Mozina said:
That would be akin to his "noisy" plasma caused by particle flow. So what?

Turbulence is made of plasma waves at large scales, until they reach the particle scales on which they can dissipate. It has nothing to do with plasma flow. I will have to look up how Alfven defines his "noisy" plasma (unless you want to give me a definition).

Michael Mozina said:
Circuits disconnect and reconnect all the time. What's the big mystery?

The big mystery is that you have never posted a real model describing how, instead of reconnection, your circuits can explain the easiest part of what we dumb-asses call reconnetion, and that would be the reconfiguration of the Earth's magnetotail, with the observations from the Cluster satellites (you know, from the team that acutally uses "electro") presented in that paper.

Michael Mozina said:
I don't. I explain it with a change of 'current flow'.
Currents cause plasma flows and magnetic fields.
You mean a short circuit in two plasma streams?

Then show us how the current flow changes.
Currents do not cause plasma flows, if you had not noticed, in the "outflow regions" of the dumb-ass reconnection model, the electrons and ions are both accelerated in the same direction. Try to do that with a current!
And the quadrupolar magnetic field is not a short circuit, because that field is in the direction perpendicular to the plane in which one usually draws the X-line.

Michael Mozina said:
Don't you find it funny that the guy the wrote MDH theory disagrees with you and he himself drew a lot from Birkeland's work?

There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection". You can't even specifically identify what is unique about the energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" that can be shown to be unique and separate from the following *KNOWN* energy exchange methods in plasma.

A) circuit reconnection (large scale circuit interruption)
B) particle reconnection (small scale particle interactions)
C) induction

Go ahead and explain to us how you know that any energy exchanges we observe in space eliminated any of the above processes in plasma, and how *EXACTLY* how your magnetic reconnection process is unique?

Alfven was in the MDH universe, in which reconnection cannot happen, reconnection does not exist in MDH, if you write a code you cannot use an MHD code to model reconnection, because there are things missing in MDH because it is an approximate theory.

Why should I do your tedious work for you? Apparently, you have the EU model of A B and C reconfiguring e.g. the Earth's tail. Please show us, MM, I give you the RX model, you give us the EU or Alfven model.

Ziggurat · Jul 22, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
There's a phrase concerning horses, leading, water, and drinking that springs to mind ...

Dorothy Parker's variant does too.

Reality Check · Jul 22, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
The short answer is "mass separation".

The helium chromosphere and hydrogen corona are both considerably hotter (and emit more photons) than the other layers of the atmosphere. More importantly, they are also sitting on top of all the other plasma layers and therefore they tend to absorb and emit the most light. Spectral analysis of the upper atmosphere is therefore going to show that the upper layers of the sun are composed of primarily hydrogen and helium.

All of the spectral percentage numbers *assume* that there is little or no mass separation of elements in the solar atmosphere and therefore they interpret these spectral numbers to be indicative of the surface of the photosphere.

From your model of mass separation please show your derivation of the % of elements in each layer.

Unsuppoorted assertiions are a property of a crackpot and you are not a crackpot are you MM?

Zeuzzz · Jul 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
and you are not a crackpot are you MM?

What reply to this do you expect to this derogative pejorative?

I could equally ask; Are you (due to your sycophantic belifef in the statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter) a crackpot RealityCheck?

The ad-homs employed by some in this thread (not so much you to be fair, RC) are disgraceful, and only add credence to the opposing argument.

DeiRenDopa · Jul 23, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
What reply to this do you expect to this derogative pejorative?

I could equally ask; Are you (due to your sycophantic belifef in the statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter) a crackpot RealityCheck?

The ad-homs employed by some in this thread (not so much you to be fair, RC) are disgraceful, and only add credence to the opposing argument.

What does the persistent, and consistent, lack of any replies to polite questions about quantification (of the 'Sun has a solid surface' idea) add credence to, Z?

How about the persistent, and consistent, refusal to acknowledge that the sources MM cites do not support the claims he makes?

And so on ...

Reality Check · Jul 23, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
What reply to this do you expect to this derogative pejorative?

I could equally ask; Are you (due to your sycophantic belifef in the statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter) a crackpot RealityCheck?

The ad-homs employed by some in this thread (not so much you to be fair, RC) are disgraceful, and only add credence to the opposing argument.

I am merely asking whether MM fits the definition of a crackpot.
Of course it is a bit redundent since everyone who has read this thread (and any other than MM has been involved in) knows that he does fit the definition of a crackpot, e.g.

his dependence on pictures "looking like" what he expects.
his continuing misinterpretation (delusion) that the TRACE RD animation shows "mountain ranges".
his inability to understand that simple physics that all plasmas have optical depth and so he needs to show that the optical depth of the photosphere is ~4800 km in the UV.
his dependence on an Iron Sun idea that produces no actual predictions.
his inability to ansswer questions about his idea (see the previous point).

Do you have the list of the "statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter"?
I would be interested in them since I have never heard of any statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter.

Zeuzzz · Jul 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
Do you have the list of the "statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter"?
I would be interested in them since I have never heard of any statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter.

Rather paradoxically, you need not look any further than your very own signature to find the "statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter" I am referring to!

Reality Check · Jul 23, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Rather paradoxically, you need not look any further than your very own signature to find the "statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter" I am referring to!

Rather paradoxically, you do not understand that the links are to actual observations that are not statistically insignificant.

ETA
Perhaps you are smarter than MM and can answer this

A is a big blob of gas.
B is a bib blob of gas.
Blob A hits blob A.
- If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas .
- If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas .
We see 3 blobs.
Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

Alternatively you can tell us how the Chandra observatory cannot see matter emitting X-rays or how gravitational lensing does not work.

Zeuzzz · Jul 23, 2009

Perhaps. Or not. Lets not try to drive needless dividing lines between people on intellectual capacity, eh?

I think all of the above has been aswered before RC.

Zeuzzz said:
Dark matter, or rather Non-baryonic matter, is by definition different from the ordinary matter observed anywhere on earth, and the paper does nothing to prove the existence of such matter.

It actually proves something quite different: that in the case of this particular pair of colliding galaxies, the greater part of the mass is associated with the galaxies and not with the hot intracluster gas. This evidence is that gravitational-lensing measures of total mass outline the concentrations of galaxies, which are physically separate from the main hot gas concentrations.

So, how do Clowe et al get from what was actually indicated to what they claimed? Only though a big assumption, which is in no way supported by their data.

The major assumption is that all of the baryonic, ordinary matter is in the form of hot plasma or bright stars in galaxies. The paper shows that the total amount of gravitating matter, as measured by gravitational lensing, does not correlate with the amount of hot plasma, as measured by x-rays. Therefore, the authors argue, the gravitating matter is instead associated with the galaxies. Since the gravitating mass is much greater than the mass in easily-visible stars, and by assumption, there is no other baryonic matter, the mass must be non-baryonic or dark matter.

The flaw in this argument is this assumption that all the ordinary matter in galaxies is in easily-visible, bright, stars. Instead, most of the mass of galaxies may well be in the form of dwarf stars, which produce very little light per unit mass, in other words have a very high mass-to-light ratio. Several studies of galaxies using very long exposures have shown that they have 'red halos', halos of stars that are mostly red dwarfs. Other studies have indicated that the halos may be filled with white dwarfs, the dead remains of burnt-out stars. In addition, there is evidence that a huge amount of mass may be tied up in relatively cool clouds of plasma that do not radiate much x-ray radiation, and would be in closer proximity to the galaxies than the hot plasma.

The Clowe papers in no way contradict these possibilities, so in no way prove the existence of dark, or non-baryonic matter. Instead, they assume that any mass associated with the galaxies that is not in bright stars is non-baryonic, dark matter.

They assume what they seek to prove.

.....

sol invictus said:
If you take one of those [dark matter] anomalies and ask, what's the probability this happened by chance, it will be very very small (that is what's called a posteriori statistics, and it's wrong and misleading). But if you only ask, what's the probability there will be some anomalies, it's basically 1.

Reality Check · Jul 23, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Perhaps. Or not. Lets not try to drive needless dividing lines between people on intellectual capacity, eh?

I think all of the above has been aswered before RC.

All of the above was not answered in your post. You assumed that the astronomers assumed that most of the matter in a galactic cluster is in the IGM (not in the galaxies or stars) was wrong. That is not right.

Astronomers have measured that the amount of gas in a galactic cluster is about twice that of the galaxies in the cluster. The Chandra observatory for example detects the X-rays from the intracluster meduim and this emission is proportional to the density of the ICM squared.

The Clowe paper does not "assume that any mass associated with the galaxies that is not in bright stars is non-baryonic, dark matter".

And the question I asked is even relevant if you assume that there is a lot of matter in MACHOs (of which there are not enough to account for dark matter). This is in MM's assertion (together with astronomers not being able to measure the mass of stars acurrately).

The fact that the colliding galactic clusters have formed 3 blobs of gas means that the gas has two components. One of these components has passed through the other and only interacted weakly to form the outer blobs. That gas is not emitting X-rays and is invisible in other wavelengths. That gas was not heated by the inteactions that heated the baryonic, ordinary matter.
My conclusion (and that of the most of the scientific community) is that the gas that formed the outer blobs is nonbaryonic matter.

Can you show that the formation of 3 blobs means something else?

ETA:
You quote a reply is not actually about this dark matter.
What about the many other replies that are about dark matter?
For example:

ben m said:
Zeuzzzzz, that would have been a reasonable mainstream hypothesis 30 years ago. In the intervening decades, astronomers searched for exactly these sorts of "dark baryons" with extremely sensitive probes. Any guess at the results of these searches?

1) Decades of microlensing surveys have explicitly counted the number and mass distribution of brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, black holes, free-floating planets, etc. There are not anything like enough of such objects to give the explanation you propose.

2) We have surveyed the Universe in all wavelengths, not just x-ray. "Cool clouds of plasma" will (a) emit light in some band or another and (b) absorb light from background objects. There have been fairly-comprehensive surveys looking for such cool plasmas and gases. Guess what, Zeuzzz? There is *not*, as you want there to be, five times as much of it as expected.

3) This mysterious "cool plasma" you're inventing would not remain cool during a galaxy or cluster collision. Sorry, there is no evidence that colliding galaxies suddenly appear to have 5x as much visible gas.

Seriously, Zeuzzz---this is what we mean when we say "we're not dogmatically attached to non-baryonic dark matter". Once upon a time, we didn't know what the mass components of the Universe were; all options were on the table; astronomers measured each of the components very carefully and because of those measurements we know that the remainder is non-baryonic.

This is also what we mean by saying "learn a bit about the field before you criticise it". Microlensing surveys are not some obscure piece of trivia, they're standard knowledge among astrophysicists.

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

tusenfem said:
And again you cannot read. Yes, Alfven created MHD, and in MHD reconnection cannot happen!

Circuit reconnection can happen in MHD theory. Particle reconnection can happen too. Magnetic reconnection cannot happen because magnetic fields lack physical substance and they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning, and without end. This is straight out of standard electrical engineering and Alfven was first and foremost an electrical engineer. He certainly understood that magnetic lines in a continuum could not "disconnect" or "reconnect" in any physical way.

I am not a "greater expert" on MHD, I am claiming that in the approximation theory MDH (which is an approximation of plasma physics, do you know which approximations are made?) reconnection cannot happen.

Then why in the world would you call this energy exchange process between two flowing "circuits", "magnetic reconnection"? It's irrational IMO.

Oh, boohoohoo, I give you some observations, which are totally in agreement with what one expects for reconnection.

Sure, *CIRCUIT* reconnection, but not "magnetic" reconnection because magnetic field have no beginning and have no ending and they are physically incapable of "reconnecting" any way, shape or form.

However, as you do not believe in reconnection,

But I do believe in "reconnection". I believe in "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection", just not "magnetic reconnection". I reject that notion just like Alfven, for undoubtedly the exact same reason. Many electrical engineers reject "magnetic reconnection", but not all type of 'reconnection'.

I would like to know how you explain all these observations.

Circuit reconnection between the heliosphere and the solar surface and the Earth got in the way and became a "conductor".

But do we get anything, of course not, because MM does not have a clue how to do all this using his "circuit reconnection" and his "induction" and stuff.

So what if that is all true? Alfven also rejected your magnetic reconnection theory and he did know how to make it work with circuits and particles and he explained it in great detail in many of his papers, some of which I have cited and posted for you, both here and BAUT as ManInTheMirror.

Colour us amazed at some point, MM, and show us a real model, which qualitatively and quantitatively shows, that your ideas are indeed working.

Why? What purpose would that serve you personally? Do you think Alfven could not have done it only because I may or may not be able to do so to your personal level of satisfaction? What does any of this have to do with me or my abilities or lack thereof?

You might even get invited to a reconnection workshop I am planning to organize to look at the basics of RX, which might well include some of your heros like Falthammar, Heikila etc.

Oh well, in that case....

Maybe not that much, but one can put a lot of energy in the electrons by the dissipation of the turbulence.

One can put a lot of energy in an electrical discharge too, and one can sustain that energy over long periods of time, times consistent with hour long coronal loop activities. Turbulence comes and goes. Circuits disconnect and reconnect on much longer timelines.

Why would I want to prove him wrong? What's your obsession with getting Alfven proved wrong?

Because one of you must be wrong, you cannot both be right. Either magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience as he claimed, or it's a real process as you seem to think. Both of you cannot be correct. One of you is wrong. One of you is right. My money is on Alfven, the guy with the Nobel prize in plasma physics, not some self proclaimed non-expert that fancies himself as smarter than Alfven on a critically important aspect of MHD theory and electrical engineering theory.

Some of his ideas do not work, his unwinding flux tube does not describe the same phenomenon as those that the Kaastra model of flares is based on. And indeed, I have not written the last chapter on plasma physics, I am most definitely not clever enough for that.

Then maybe you should reconsider Alfven's position on electrical currents in space? What does that sig line of yours say again about keeping an open mind?

Turbulence is made of plasma waves at large scales, until they reach the particle scales on which they can dissipate. It has nothing to do with plasma flow. I will have to look up how Alfven defines his "noisy" plasma (unless you want to give me a definition).

Turbulence is not going to explain a million degree coronal loops being sustained for hours on end. An electrical circuit could explain a self luminous thread in plasma that is sustained over hours. You can observe this same process in any ordinary plasma ball. It's a *VERY* basic current carrying process in plasma.

The big mystery is that you have never posted a real model describing how, instead of reconnection, your circuits can explain the easiest part of what we dumb-asses call reconnetion,

Go buy yourself a plasma ball and watch the process unfold before your very eyes. Turn off the switch and watch how much action you get out of the "turbulence". What exactly do you think a "magnetic rope" is if not a "current carrying filament"? The Earth is simply a "conductor" of current. It's in the way of the surface of the sun and the heliosphere and the magnetosphere ends up carrying the currents from one side to the other. It's not a great mystery.

The rest of the post looks like a rehash.

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
Astronomers have measured that the amount of gas in a galactic cluster is about twice that of the galaxies in the cluster.

http://www.scitech.ac.uk/PMC/PRel/STFC/Universe.aspx

Maybe it's four times as much?

How do you know any of it is actually contained in exotic, non baryonic forms of matter?

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
There's a phrase concerning horses, leading, water, and drinking that springs to mind ...

I often think the same thing about you and those solar images that you keep avoiding like the plague.

tusenfem · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Circuit reconnection can happen in MHD theory. Particle reconnection can happen too. Magnetic reconnection cannot happen because magnetic fields lack physical substance and they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning, and without end. This is straight out of standard electrical engineering and Alfven was first and foremost an electrical engineer. He certainly understood that magnetic lines in a continuum could not "disconnect" or "reconnect" in any physical way.

Then why in the world would you call this energy exchange process between two flowing "circuits", "magnetic reconnection"? It's irrational IMO.

Ahhhh we're at the beginning again. The reason why we call it magnetic reconnection is because of the topology change of the magnetic field. Here is a picture, you seem to like pictures. See how first you have vertical field lines on the left and then you get these U or V shaped lined in the right panel. Now, you are probably right that magnetic field lines have no "substance" but these U or V shaped lines do have energy stored in them, the so called magnetic tension. Alfvén only discusses the magnetic pressure (Cosmical Electrodynamics, page 144) but the tension comes from the same equation, and indeed the tension of the magnetic field lines were at the base of his ground braking paper on what we now call Alfvén waves.

Michael Mozina said:
But I do believe in "reconnection". I believe in "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection", just not "magnetic reconnection". I reject that notion just like Alfven, for undoubtedly the exact same reason. Many electrical engineers reject "magnetic reconnection", but not all type of 'reconnection'.

Circuit reconnection between the heliosphere and the solar surface and the Earth got in the way and became a "conductor".

Then show us how it works, MM! I have no paper describing your so-called circuit reconnection applied to any (astro/space)physical object.

Michael Mozina said:
So what if that is all true? Alfven also rejected your magnetic reconnection theory and he did know how to make it work with circuits and particles and he explained it in great detail in many of his papers, some of which I have cited and posted for you, both here and BAUT as ManInTheMirror.

Alfvén (unfortunately) also lost all his money in a pyramid scam. Are you going to do the same, because he did that?

The unwinding of a flux tube in the Alfvén & Carlqvist paper is the only I can remember that you cited. And that has nothing to do with reconnection. Explain the figure that I linked to above, or give this miraculous EU paper that gives the explanation.

Michael Mozina said:
Why? What purpose would that serve you personally? Do you think Alfven could not have done it only because I may or may not be able to do so to your personal level of satisfaction? What does any of this have to do with me or my abilities or lack thereof?

That is YOUR claim about Alfvén's abilities, not mine. I claim that YOU, Michael Mozina are incapable of producing such a model.

Michael Mozina said:
One can put a lot of energy in an electrical discharge too, and one can sustain that energy over long periods of time, times consistent with hour long coronal loop activities. Turbulence comes and goes. Circuits disconnect and reconnect on much longer timelines.

Turbulence is always driven, it does not just come and go, there is an enormous pile of literature on that (start with the Voros et al. paper that I linked to, and look at the references). The problem with you is that you only have ONE method to do EVERYTHING. Everything has to be an electrical current, and if it is not, than you just redefine what an electrical current is (e.g. equal amounts of positive and negative charge moving at the same speed in the same direction).

Michael Mozina said:
Because one of you must be wrong, you cannot both be right. Either magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience as he claimed, or it's a real process as you seem to think. Both of you cannot be correct. One of you is wrong. One of you is right. My money is on Alfven, the guy with the Nobel prize in plasma physics, not some self proclaimed non-expert that fancies himself as smarter than Alfven on a critically important aspect of MHD theory and electrical engineering theory.

Well, too bad you put your money on the wrong guy, guess your money is going to disappear too.

Michael Mozina said:
Then maybe you should reconsider Alfven's position on electrical currents in space? What does that sig line of yours say again about keeping an open mind?

Once more, sit on it, MM. I know electric currents in space, read my papers.

Michael Mozina said:
Turbulence is not going to explain a million degree coronal loops being sustained for hours on end. An electrical circuit could explain a self luminous thread in plasma that is sustained over hours. You can observe this same process in any ordinary plasma ball. It's a *VERY* basic current carrying process in plasma.

How do you know that? Are you an expert on turbulence too, nowadays?
Oh brother, the bloody plasma ball again.

Ziggurat · Jul 23, 2009

tusenfem said:
Alfvén (unfortunately) also lost all his money in a pyramid scam. Are you going to do the same, because he did that?

Hmmm... I wonder if scam artists have ever considered specifically targeting physicists who start losing it. Could be a lucrative "target" audience for them.

Reality Check · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.scitech.ac.uk/PMC/PRel/STFC/Universe.aspx

Maybe it's four times as much?

How do you know any of it is actually contained in exotic, non baryonic forms of matter?

Maybe it is. Maybe it is not. You still need to find another factor of 50 or so.
ETA: Here is a preprint of the actual paper The energy output of the Universe from 0.1 micron to 1000 micron

Scientists know beacuse of the observations that you know about and are ignoring, e.g.

A is a big blob of gas.
B is a bib blob of gas.
Blob A hits blob A.
- If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas .
- If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas .
We see 3 blobs.
Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

First asked 18 July 2009

Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

Thus the weakly interacting gas is not baryonic matter. We call this nonbaryonic matter.
In addition it turns out that the weakly interacting gas is dark (only seen by gravitational lensing). The gas is made of matter. A good name for it is dark matter.

Dancing David · Jul 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
Do you have the list of the "statistically insignifficant 'proofs' of dark matter"?
I would be interested in them since I have never heard of any statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter.

Zeuzzz, correct me please if I remember incorrectly!

I believe this is Zeuzzz's response to the trashing Halton Arp's bad methodology received. Since the statitical methodology that Arp used was bad and did not rise above the level of noise, even though sample and control mechanism could have been used, this deflated part of the alternative consmology for Zeuzzz.

And since then he has been throwing around the statistics argument, now I doubt you will get an answer to why the data for the 'dark matter' hypothesis is not statistically valid.

It is just sort of a smear that he thinks approximates the critique of Arp.

So Zeuzzz, where is the statitical model for the use of data that supports the 'dark matter' hypothesis and how is it incorrect in methodology?

Remember it is a methodological error, lack of random sampling and controls in a statistical arguement that was Arp's mistake. He did not use other methods to show his hypothesis was in alignment with the data. And in fact he could have easily set up a control sample with the more recent data available. Which would have shown immedeatly if he had sample noise, sample bias or accurate effects.

So where is the statistical argument for 'dark matter' and how is the methodology flawed?

Dancing David · Jul 23, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Rather paradoxically, you need not look any further than your very own signature to find the "statistically insignifficant evidence for dark matter" I am referring to!

How do they use statistics and how is the methodology flawed, what mistakes were there in the statistical protocol?

Dancing David · Jul 23, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Perhaps. Or not. Lets not try to drive needless dividing lines between people on intellectual capacity, eh?

I think all of the above has been aswered before RC.

.....

That is not a statistical error, that is a category or hypothesis error, so how do you demonstrate that the hypotesis is wrong? Or an error in measurement methodology.

1. How do they under sample baryonic matter for example?

GeeMack · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I often think the same thing about you and those solar images that you keep avoiding like the plague.

You must be talking about those images that have been explained right down to the pixel by everyone else except you, those explanations that you've ignored and that DeiRenDopa seems to pretty much agree with (therefore not avoiding them, and demonstrating once again that you are, by definition, an ignorant liar). Yes, those images that you are clearly unable to explain yourself, Michael. Why is each pixel the color that it is in your revered running difference graph? In all your years of staring at the graph, it seems you'd be able to explain at least one single pixel, but you can't. Why the silence?

And don't you think it's time you provide us with that lab tested method that you use to see something almost 5 million meters below an opaque plasma layer by looking at difference graphs created using data obtained from millions of meters above that opaque plasma? Of course you'll make sure that experiment can be done right here on Earth, with no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, mathematically reasonable, repeatable, physically sound, and objective so that other people can reach the same conclusion that you've reached.

Yes, or no, Michael. Do you have such an experiment?

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

GeeMack said:
You must be talking about those images that have been explained right down to the pixel by everyone else except you,

You must be the only person on the whole planet that is deluded enough to believe that *anyone*, myself included, has the ability to explain *every* pixel of every frame in that in that image. I guess that's because as long as you've explained the math, "everything" has been "explained", solar "physics" be damned.

I'm sorry, but your credibility ended the moment you said "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" and you started believing you'd "explained" every pixel of every frame without ever mentioning a single solar event, a single cause/effect relationship at the level of solar physics, a single frame or a single event in that frame. You are without a doubt the most deluded and unethical individual I've ever met in cyberspace on any forum anywhere. You're quite an interesting specimen on irrational and unethical human behaviors.

GeeMack · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[*Snipped out everything that was just a whining tantrum and left everything of substance.*]

Hey, Michael! Yeah, you, the one who is in a constant state of ignorance. Don't you think it's time you provide us with that lab tested method that you use to see something almost 5 million meters below an opaque plasma layer by looking at difference graphs created using data obtained from millions of meters above that opaque plasma? Of course you'll make sure that experiment can be done right here on Earth, with no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, mathematically reasonable, repeatable, physically sound, and objective so that other people can reach the same conclusion that you've reached.

Yes, or no, Michael. Do you have such an experiment?

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

tusenfem said:
Ahhhh we're at the beginning again. The reason why we call it magnetic reconnection is because of the topology change of the magnetic field.

That is absolutely no excuse. The topology change is a direct result of the change in *current flow* inside of two *circuits*. It has nothing to do with "magnetic fields' "reconnecting". It has everything to do with wiring changes in the plasmas, not simply changes in the magnetic field topology. Magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. They lack physical substance and are physically *INCAPABLE* of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other 'magnetic line". That terminology is terrible. It also misses the circuit energy entire and that a major problem.

Now, you are probably right that magnetic field lines have no "substance"

The only "substance" in the loops are the "particles" inside the loops and the kinetic energy they posses. That kinetic energy can get passed to other particles at the point of "reconnection'. Induction might play a role. Since magnetic field form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end, there is no possibility that any energy comes as a result of "magnetic reconnection".

but these U or V shaped lines do have energy stored in them, the so called magnetic tension.

Ok, so we know that "induction" is also possible during this reconnection event. "Induction" already has a proper scientific name.

Alfvén only discusses the magnetic pressure (Cosmical Electrodynamics, page 144) but the tension comes from the same equation, and indeed the tension of the magnetic field lines were at the base of his ground braking paper on what we now call Alfvén waves.

That "pressure" is carried by real moving charged "particles", not just "magnetic lines"!

Then show us how it works, MM! I have no paper describing your so-called circuit reconnection applied to any (astro/space)physical object.

You have Alfven's paper. What's wrong with that? Where did you see him try to explain flares and CME events in terms of "magnetic reconnection" in that paper? Did you see the term "circuits" and "short-circuit"?

Alfvén (unfortunately) also lost all his money in a pyramid scam. Are you going to do the same, because he did that?

Is personal attack and character assassination the only tricks you folks know? Assuming that is even true, what the hell does that have to do with MHD theory? Slumming are we?

The unwinding of a flux tube in the Alfvén & Carlqvist paper is the only I can remember that you cited.

So what's wrong with it in terms of the electrical circuitry aspects of their presentation? How about that short circuit analogy?

And that has nothing to do with reconnection.

Even the short circuit analogy?

That is YOUR claim about Alfvén's abilities, not mine. I claim that YOU, Michael Mozina are incapable of producing such a model.

So what if that is true? The validity of *ALFVEN's* work is not predicated, nor has it *EVER* been predicated upon the math skills of "Michael Mozina". You won't find my name in *ANY* of his papers, not a single one. So what?

Turbulence is always driven, it does not just come and go, there is an enormous pile of literature on that (start with the Voros et al. paper that I linked to, and look at the references). The problem with you is that you only have ONE method to do EVERYTHING. Everything has to be an electrical current,

No. Everything has to be logical and scientifically accurate. Circuits and particle "reconnect". Magnetic lines have no beginning and no end and no substance and are physically incapable of disconnecting from or reconnecting to any other magnetic line.

and if it is not, than you just redefine what an electrical current is (e.g. equal amounts of positive and negative charge moving at the same speed in the same direction).

Any movement of any charged particle in any direction is technically a "current flow" that will create a "magnetic field".

Well, too bad you put your money on the wrong guy, guess your money is going to disappear too.

I've never been attached to money. It's comes and goes in life. I'm more interested in "truth', "timeless truth". Alfven's work has stood the tests of time and it will continue to stand the test of time. You personally use and rely upon it's validity. You simply used a poor term that is in fact "pseudoscience" just as Alfven said. That will always be true too. Magnetic lines will always lack physical substance. They will always form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. Your term is irrational and inaccurate and it will *FOREVER* be irrational and inaccurate even if the math is right.

Once more, sit on it, MM. I know electric currents in space, read my papers.

No you don't. You think you do, but if you did in fact "understand" them you wouldn't treat Alfven's work as "heresy" that cannot be discussed on your website for more than 30 days. You clearly speak from both sides of your mouth and your actions speak louder than you words here.

If you "understood" currents in space, you would "understand' that magnetic lines aren't "reconnecting". Circuits and particles and current flow streams are "reconnecting".

[QUOET]How do you know that? Are you an expert on turbulence too, nowadays?
Oh brother, the bloody plasma ball again.[/QUOTE]

That "plasma ball" you keep ignoring shows you that "turbulence" is a direct result of "current flows" in the plasma. When you turn off the current, the "turbulence" simply dissipates in almost an instant. If you want to sustain the "flux tubes" in the plasma, you need "sustained current flow". Those coronal loops are sustained for hours on end so there is no way in hell they are powered by "turbulence". You can't understand currents in space, because you don't understand currents on Earth in that plasma ball you keep ignoring.

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

Ziggurat said:
Hmmm... I wonder if scam artists have ever considered specifically targeting physicists who start losing it. Could be a lucrative "target" audience for them.

I wonder if character assassination techniques are required in your little cult's curriculum? Shall we bash Einstein next for rejecting QM?

tusenfem · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
That is absolutely no excuse. The topology change is a direct result of the change in *current flow* inside of two *circuits*. It has nothing to do with "magnetic fields' "reconnecting". It has everything to do with wiring changes in the plasmas, not simply changes in the magnetic field topology. Magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. They lack physical substance and are physically *INCAPABLE* of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other 'magnetic line". That terminology is terrible. It also misses the circuit energy entire and that a major problem.

Sorry MM, you are wrong here, and you NEVER EVER have shown us a working model of the process of changing circuits and induction. You keep on ignoring all the questions that I put to you, probably because you cannot answer them. And if you would really read any of the papers on reconnection you would know that there are currents flowing, they even have a specific name: Hall currents, but hey why keep up to date.

Michael Mozina said:
The only "substance" in the loops are the "particles" inside the loops and the kinetic energy they posses. That kinetic energy can get passed to other particles at the point of "reconnection'. Induction might play a role. Since magnetic field form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end, there is no possibility that any energy comes as a result of "magnetic reconnection".

The field lines have no substance, but they are an obstacle enough to e.g. pick up newly ionized ions, and have the strength to stop the solar wind at the nose of the Earth's magnetosphere.

Oh and now it is "induction may play a role," is it? Starting to get doubts? The first crack in the 60s bastion?

And the full and complete continuum comment is just trying to sound profound. Do you really think that in that pic I linked to that the plasma physicists think there are only, what is it 8?, field lines? Those lines are a visualization tool, dear Michael, have you not understood that yet?

Michael Mozina said:
Ok, so we know that "induction" is also possible during this reconnection event. "Induction" already has a proper scientific name.

A it may play a role, and now it is "also possible", what is it MM. Induction is a specific process, and it is not reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
That "pressure" is carried by real moving charged "particles", not just "magnetic lines"!

What kind of stupid claim is that MM? Magnetic pressure is H²/8π in Alfvén's units and this is pressure of the FIELD and has NOTHING to do with particles. Are you now saying that Alfvén is wrong??????

Michael Mozina said:
You have Alfven's paper. What's wrong with that? Where did you see him try to explain flares and CME events in terms of "magnetic reconnection" in that paper? Did you see the term "circuits" and "short-circuit"?

Michael Mozina I will now try to explain to you for the last time. Alfvén & Carlqvist discuss a loop in which there is, what they call, a "discharge" which later is replaced by a double layer (see Raadu monograph, which I am sure you have, if not I will send you the pdf). There is energy release through the unwinding of the loop, but NOTHING is ejected in that model. Please point out to me where in that paper A&C claim that they create a CME, or the ejection of a magnetic cloud. Now, Raadu put the two models next to eachoter in one figure. Left the unwinding loop of A&C and on the right the ejection process by Kaastra. Can you see the difference between the two?

Michael Mozina said:
Is personal attack and character assassination the only tricks you folks know? Assuming that is even true, what the hell does that have to do with MHD theory? Slumming are we?

I am just telling something everyone knows (at least in Sweden, and no I am not Swedish). It's just that you seem to be so addicted to Alfvén, that if it is good enough for him it is good enough for you, well a little critical thinking does not hurt, MM.

Michael Mozina said:
So what's wrong with it in terms of the electrical circuitry aspects of their presentation? How about that short circuit analogy?
Even the short circuit analogy?

How about reading my last three posts on this topic, where I painstakingly explain the model of A&C to you, and you probably skip because you think you know it all already.

The "short circuit" is the creation of a double layer, like I said read my posts, I do go through that model in detail.

Michael Mozina said:
So what if that is true? The validity of *ALFVEN's* work is not predicated, nor has it *EVER* been predicated upon the math skills of "Michael Mozina". You won't find my name in *ANY* of his papers, not a single one. So what?

But Alfvén never discussed the model of circuit reconnection or particle reconnection that you claim, unless you can show me a paper that does it and the A&C paper does not discuss the process that mainstream calls reconnection, as I showed here in my posts and as Raadu shows in his monograph on double layers (and Raadu was a good colleague of Alfven at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and probably one of the most knowledgeble persons about double layers).

The "so what" is about the fact that you hide behind your heros and you just don't want to get your hands dirty. If I really believed in something, I would take pen and paper and write down the model and show these heretic unbelievers they are full of it and I am right. That's the route to take MM.

Michael Mozina said:
tusenfem said:

Turbulence is always driven, it does not just come and go, there is an enormous pile of literature on that (start with the Voros et al. paper that I linked to, and look at the references). The problem with you is that you only have ONE method to do EVERYTHING. Everything has to be an electrical current,

Click to expand...

No. Everything has to be logical and scientifically accurate. Circuits and particle "reconnect". Magnetic lines have no beginning and no end and no substance and are physically incapable of disconnecting from or reconnecting to any other magnetic line.

What does this have to do with my description of turbulence and with the fact that for you everything has to be an electric current. There are processes that do not depend on electric currents, and turbulence is one of them. It is, e.g. powered by strong flows (bulk plasma flows, which are not currents) as is described e.g. in this paper or in this paper.

Michael Mozina said:
Any movement of any charged particle in any direction is technically a "current flow" that will create a "magnetic field".

But if a proton and an electron flow at the same velocity in the same direction, then it is NOT a current. The definition of electic current is:

[latex]
{\bf J} = \Sum_{\alpha} n_{\alpha} q_{\alpha} {\bf v}_{\alpha}
[\latex]

so don't come with these kind of childish ways of trying to get your way.

And what kind of magnetic field does a single moving charged particle create?

Michael Mozina said:
I've never been attached to money. ... Your term is irrational and inaccurate and it will *FOREVER* be irrational and inaccurate even if the math is right.

whatever

Michael Mozina said:
No you don't. You think you do, but if you did in fact "understand" them you wouldn't treat Alfven's work as "heresy" that cannot be discussed on your website for more than 30 days. You clearly speak from both sides of your mouth and your actions speak louder than you words here.

If you "understood" currents in space, you would "understand' that magnetic lines aren't "reconnecting". Circuits and particles and current flow streams are "reconnecting".

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha whatever! I don't discuss on my website, I don't even have a website anymore (geocities is disappearing). I discuss currents in space plasmas in various locations, and sometimes I not only speak out of both sides of my mouth, I also talk out of my neck.

Michael Mozina said:
That "plasma ball" you keep ignoring shows you that "turbulence" is a direct result of "current flows" in the plasma. When you turn off the current, the "turbulence" simply dissipates in almost an instant. If you want to sustain the "flux tubes" in the plasma, you need "sustained current flow". Those coronal loops are sustained for hours on end so there is no way in hell they are powered by "turbulence". You can't understand currents in space, because you don't understand currents on Earth in that plasma ball you keep ignoring.

You don't even understand that a plasma ball is not even filled with plasma!
Forget it MM, now suddenly we have to discuss turbulence in a plasma ball. Interesting that this comes up now, I guess you are even getting tired yourself of all your stale claims.

Coronal loops are absolutely nothing like a plasma ball. Sorry, but get your (astro)physics knowledge up to date first before you discuss again.

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

tusenfem said:
Sorry MM, you are wrong here,

No, it's you that are wrong here. Alfven called your theory pseudoscience for a very specific reason, specifically because magnetic fields are physically incapable of 'disconnecting' or 'reconnecting' to any other magnetic line. It is a physical impossibility.

and you NEVER EVER have shown us a working model of the process of changing circuits and induction.

Oh for crying out loud, Birkeland and his team built you a working lab model 100 years ago which you utterly ignore.

You keep on ignoring all the questions that I put to you, probably because you cannot answer them.

Let's just assume that is all true. So what? Birkeland could answer them and did answer them and you really don't care. Alfven did that too. You don't care about that either. In fact you personal persecute his work in cyberspace and treat it as "heresy".

And if you would really read any of the papers on reconnection you would know that there are currents flowing, they even have a specific name: Hall currents, but hey why keep up to date.

Why not keep it up to date in terminology then and call it "Hall current reconnection"?

I want to hear this answer before I go one single line further into your last response. This should be a real doosie of a rationalization.

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

tusenfem said:
What kind of stupid claim is that MM? Magnetic pressure is H2/8π in Alfvén's units and this is pressure of the FIELD and has NOTHING to do with particles. Are you now saying that Alfvén is wrong??????

Um, which part of the equations are you claiming is not a direct result of the carrier particle of the EM field or some other physical particle?

derekmcd · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Shall we bash Einstein next for rejecting QM?

It's a popularized misconception that Einstein rejected quantum mechanics. What he rejected and tried to reconcile where some of the philosophical implications concerning determinism versus randomness. I'd also note that Einstein understood quantum mechanics as well as any physicist of his generation.

A closer parallel for your argument would be Einstein versus black holes. This is something he, flat out, rejected. He accepted the math, but denied their reality. Were he alive today, I believe he would accept them given the observational evidence that supports their existence.

As for the Birkeland versus Chapman argument, I think if you dig through the history of aurorae, you will find they both made significant contributions despite both, ultimately, modeling it wrong.

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Energy Source Of The Solar Wind.pdf

How about this paper?

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

derekmcd said:
A closer parallel for your argument would be Einstein versus black holes. This is something he, flat out, rejected.

Thanks for the feedback.

As for Chapman and Birkeland, yes, I have already learned a great deal by studying the differences between them. I give you great credit for asking the right question of me.

GeeMack · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[*All nonsense, irrelevance, whining, and blathering removed. Everything substantial that actually provides support for any of Michael's crackpot claims is left intact.*]

Oh, you-hoo, Michael! Demonstrating your profound ignorance again, I see. But really, all your ideas are testable. You've said it yourself. And your ability to see things in visualizations created from data taken thousands upon thousands of kilometers from where you think you're seeing those things, through a few million meters of opaque plasma no less, is one of your ideas. So you might want to address this... Provide us with that lab tested method that you use to see something almost 5 million meters below an opaque plasma layer by looking at difference graphs created using data obtained from millions of meters above that opaque plasma? Of course you'll make sure that experiment can be done right here on Earth, with no fudge factors, nothing metaphysical, mathematically reasonable, repeatable, physically sound, and objective so that other people can reach the same conclusion that you've reached.

How about it, Michael. Do you have such an experiment?

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/601/2/L195/17925.text.html

FYI Tim, I'd like you to read this presentation. I believe that my inability to capture individual images from the DVD is related copy protection in the DVD player, not the screen capturing software. I also suspect it's completely unnecessary. I'll look for some other online white light images to make my case and I'll try a different player program too as I get time. I'm sure I can make my case that the discharge process traverses the photosphere.

tusenfem · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
No, it's you that are wrong here. Alfven called your theory pseudoscience for a very specific reason, specifically because magnetic fields are physically incapable of 'disconnecting' or 'reconnecting' to any other magnetic line. It is a physical impossibility.

And like you said, Einstein rejected QM, so shall we throw that out with the bath water too?

I don't frakking care what Alfvén claimed about Rx, I look at the data from experiments and from measurements in space, and they are all in favour of magnetic reconnection.

You don't know what happens in the electron diffusion region near the Xline, because there B goes to 0 something has to happen when magnetic flux is continued to be transported to that region.

Michael Mozina said:
Oh for crying out loud, Birkeland and his team built you a working lab model 100 years ago which you utterly ignore.

Ah right, I remember, Birkeland studied solar flares! And substorms in the Earth's magnetotail. Sorry I forgot all about those experiments.

So, now back to Earth. THERE IS NO MODEL DESCRIBING WHAT MAINSTREAM CALLS MAGNETIC RECONNECTION IN E.G. THE EARH'S MAGNETOTAIL WITH CIRCUIT, PARTICLE AND INDUCTION RECONNECTION. you are just hiding behind your heros, Michael. Now, come around, away from behind their backs, and show us your model, it is your claim that your kind of "reconnection" can work. Alfven did not describe it and Birkeland most definitely did not describe it.

Michael Mozina said:
Let's just assume that is all true. So what? Birkeland could answer them and did answer them and you really don't care. Alfven did that too. You don't care about that either. In fact you personal persecute his work in cyberspace and treat it as "heresy".

Then I guess I will go John Edward and have him channel Birkeland.
These claims are rediculous, MM, and it is unworthy, but it IS a confirmation that you are incapable.

Michael Mozina said:
Why not keep it up to date in terminology then and call it "Hall current reconnection"?

I want to hear this answer before I go one single line further into your last response. This should be a real doosie of a rationalization.

Because these fields do not always appear. If there is a strong guide field, then this Hall field disappears. You are just trying to find some way to show that your delusion in some way can be justified by mainstream, and then claim, "see I was right all along."

tusenfem · Jul 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Um, which part of the equations are you claiming is not a direct result of the carrier particle of the EM field or some other physical particle?

Why don't you show me where Alfvén claims that magnetic pressure comes from particles!

And for your information, the carrier particle of the EM field is the photon!

I am claiming that when Alfvén writes that he uses the magnetic pressure in his book (Cosmical Electrodynamics, page 144) which is equal to H²/8π. Even a magnetic field in a vacuum has this pressure. It has NOTHING to do with particles or are you saying that Alfven is wrong in his book?

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

tusenfem said:
The "short circuit" is the creation of a double layer, like I said read my posts, I do go through that model in detail.

That's probably the place to begin a serious discussion because we both agree on that point. That double layer form between two dissimilar charges. It's "circuit reconnection" and there is 'particle reconnection' taking place inside the double layer. Turbulence is the result of the "non superconductive properties" of plasma. It forms filaments in the double layer, just like in the plasma ball and those tornado like filaments create a z-pinch effect inside the double layer and it get's "noisy". All of these events are a direct result of a "short circuit' across the double layer. It's "circuit reconnection", not "magnetic reconnection" and the total circuit energy will dictate the particle emissions from the z-pinch and particle collision processes inside the noisy double layer.

Michael Mozina · Jul 23, 2009

tusenfem said:
Why don't you show me where Alfvén claims that magnetic pressure comes from particles!

And for your information, the carrier particle of the EM field is the photon!

So which part of that equation is unrelated to either a photon or a particle of plasma?

Electric universe theories here.

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Student

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Banned