Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

GeeMack said:
And you still aren't able to quote Birkeland, show the math, reference a specific document, page, and line where he described the physics behind the high speed solar wind. And you still can't cite a specific Birkeland experiment that demonstrated million degree coronal loops. Let us know when you're willing to actually respond to the issues being raised, eh? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


This is like a twilight zone episode because you are not interested in finding "truth", you are interested in slandering an individual and winning some kind of petty ego battle. It's like casting pearls before swine. Your reaction demonstrates the irrational nature of your intentions. Not only did I provide you with an actual "prediction" from the lips of Birkeland, I provided you with *THREE* (four including the pretty picture) validations of Birkeland's "prediction". You completely and utterly ignored all the material provided.

If you want solar wind speed predictions, why didn't you search the document like I suggested? Why do I personally have to educate you? I'm not your science mommy.

Fine, we'll try one more time and we'll focus on the predicted "speed" of those "flying electrons and ions". Page 663:

I do not think, however, that Schuster's objections have any serious bearing on my theory, if we consiider the properties which the new sunbeams must be assumed to possess.
I have shown that cathode-rays from the sun, which are to strike down towards the earth in the Aurora polaris zones, must have a transversal mass about m = 1.83 X 10^3 X m . In other words, the longitudinal mass of our particles is 6 milliard times greater than the mass of the particles upon which Schuster calculates in his energy-comments. Thus these cathode-rays will pass the earth, not with a velocity of 9 kilometres, but with a velocity very little short of that of light.
Click to expand...

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

Prior to Birkeland and his team who on Earth ever 'predicted' that auroral events were caused/triggered by solar storms and high speed particles that traveled anywhere near the speed of light? Yes or no do some CME events kick out high speed charged particles that reach a significant percentage of the speed of light? Yes or no did he compare solar wind speeds to light speed during auroral activity?
 
Last edited:
More Coronal Electric Fields

Hey, how about this one? Can we trust those Brits? Emphasis mine once again ...
A fresh look at the heating mechanisms of the solar corona; David Tsiklauri, New Journal of Physics, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 79 (May 2006).
Abstract: Recently, using particle-in-cell simulations, i.e. in the kinetic plasma description, Tsiklauri et al and Génot et al reported on a discovery of a new mechanism of parallel electric field generation which results in electron acceleration. In this work we show that the parallel (to the uniform unperturbed magnetic field) electric field generation can be obtained in a much simpler framework using an ideal magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) description, i.e. without resorting to complicated wave particle interaction effects such as ion polarization drift and resulting space charge separation which seems to be an ultimate cause of the electron acceleration. In the ideal MHD the parallel (to the uniform unperturbed magnetic field) electric field appears due to fast magnetosonic waves which are generated by the interaction of weakly nonlinear Alfvén waves with transverse density inhomogeneity. Further, in the context of the coronal heating problem a new two-stage mechanism of the plasma heating is presented by putting emphasis firstly on the generation of parallel electric fields within ideal MHD description directly, rather than focusing on the enhanced dissipation mechanisms of the Alfvén waves and, secondly, dissipation of these parallel electric fields via kinetic effects. It is shown that for a single Alfvén wave harmonic with frequency ν = 7 Hz (which has longitudinal wavelength λA = 0.63 Mm for a putative Alfvén speed of 4328 km s-1), the generated parallel electric field could account for the 10% of the necessary coronal heating requirement. We conjecture that wide spectrum (10-4 103 Hz) Alfvén waves, based on an observationally constrained spectrum, could provide necessary coronal heating requirement. It is also shown that the amplitude of generated parallel electric field exceeds the Dreicer electric field by about four orders of magnitude, which implies realization of the runaway regime with the associated electron acceleration.
 
ben m said:
Yes, Alfven understood MHD better than I do, and better than you do.
Click to expand...

So if we're going to apply MHD theory to objects in space, don't you think we should start by examining *HIS* beliefs on that topic?

Alfven did NOT understand MHD better than the entire faculty and staff of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, the MIT Astrophysics Division space plasma lab, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the Berkeley Space Science Laboratory, etc.
Click to expand...

As it relates to the topic of "magnetic reconnection", please demonstrate this claim by having one of them come over here and describe the unique physical energy release mechanism called magnetic reconnection that is definitely not caused by induction or some other known electromagnetic particle interaction process in plasma. Even I've picked out some shady "assumptions" in PPPL papers, specifically the claim the the E field is constant during a "pinch" process where the diameter of the "tube" of electrons shrunk significantly. I'm not convinced they understood MHD theory better than Alfven.

My conclusion is that Alfven was mistaken and his successors (with, I might add, access to much better numerical equation solvers) are right.
Click to expand...

Why? What physical evidence can you cite to back up that claim? How much do you wanna bet that *EVERY* "magnetic reconnection" event begins with or requires "electricity" to generate those powerful magnetic fields?

Just because the topology of a "circuit" changes over time does not mean "magnetic reconnection" had anything to do with it. We're talking about moving particles of "current flow".

There is nothing "unique" about magnetic reconnection that isn't better "explained" by calling it "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" to keep it consistent with other branches of science like electrical engineering and/or particle physics. None of you can tell us what is "unique" about the energy release of "magnetic reconnection" and how you ruled out more typical interactions like "induction" and "particle collision" and "resistance in plasma."

When your experts can do that, I'll be satisfied that they understand the topic of magnetic reconnection better than Alfven. Until then I can only note that he described the whole term as "pseudoscience" and as far as I can tell that is exactly what it is. It's a piss-poor way to say "circuits changed topology in the plasma", or more appropriately : "A short circuit between two filamentary circuits followed by a change in circuit topology".
 
Last edited:
Tim Thompson said:
Alfven was wrong and you are wrong to believe him. It's not my fault you don't know enough physics, and have no desire to learn enough physics, to figure it out for yourself.
Click to expand...

I do have a desire to learn about this topic Tim, but when I ask anyone (I'll bet you too) to explain the unique physical energy release process that is unique to 'magnetic reconnection" that cannot otherwise be categorized as "induction" and/or categorized as an ordinary "particle interaction" in plasma, I get deafening silence. Care to give it a whirl?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I do have a desire to learn about this topic Tim, but when I ask anyone (I'll bet you too) to explain the unique physical energy release process that is unique to 'magnetic reconnection" that cannot otherwise be categorized as "induction" and/or categorized as an ordinary "particle interaction" in plasma, I get deafening silence. Care to give it a whirl?
Click to expand...

We've done it. Repeatedly. Someone (Sol?) gave you an explicit magnetic field equation (obeying Ampere's Law, etc.) which "reconnected". IIRC, you didn't understand it---you adopted some (wrong) tangential argument about how field lines didn't mean anything.

The criterion for good science is not "can be explained to, and understood by, a professional contrarian with an ax to grind and minimal math background". I'm not surprised, MM, that you don't understand it. You don't want to, after all. I suspect that you have not, for example, read a plasma physics textbook (Kulsrud, for example) and done a semester's worth of practice problems therein.
 
Tim Thompson said:
Hey, how about this one? Can we trust those Brits?
Click to expand...

Seems to me like the Germans the Russians and Brits are all less "electric field phobic" than US publications. To read US publications one might get the impression that Maxwell's equations don't even have an E component to them. :)

That one was a gold mine. Thanks. It will take me awhile to digest that one. Got anything published in say the APJ in the past 5-7 years?
 
ben m said:
We've done it. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Link?

Someone (Sol?) gave you an explicit magnetic field equation (obeying Ampere's Law, etc.) which "reconnected".
Click to expand...

Magnetic field equations do not physically "reconnect" in plasma Ben. A photon might have a kinetic effect on a charged particle. We call that "induction". An electron might have a kinetic effect which we would call a "collision". An ion or any large particle might have a kinetic effect on something physical too. A math formula doesn't have a physical kinetic effect on anything.

IIRC, you didn't understand it---you adopted some (wrong) tangential argument about how field lines didn't mean anything.
Click to expand...

The magnetic field does in fact form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. There is no possibility of an individual magnetic line disconnecting from or reconnecting to any other magnetic field line. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry, that is just standard electrical engineering and Alfven was an electrical engineer by trade. I guess that is why he also called the idea "pseudoscience". It's like "sort of" understanding the physical process, but not quite getting it right.


The criterion for good science is not "can be explained to, and understood by, a professional contrarian
Click to expand...


I'm not a professional contrarian, I'm simply a "skeptic" of your personal dogma.

with an ax to grind
Click to expand...

If you mean I'm not big fan of religious-like, faith based "dogma" dressed up (mathematically) as "science", ya, I guess I'm not particularly thrilled with creation mythologies and metaphysics in general.

and minimal math background
Click to expand...
".
Click to expand...

Even if that were the case, so what? I'm not questioning your understanding of math in the first place, I'm questioning your comprehension of the *PHYSICS* of plasma physics, and specifically your lack of empirical physical support for inflation, dark energy and exotic forms of matter. The one thing I've learned over the last few years is that the problems in astronomy papers are almost never related to math. You folks have got the math down pat, so pat, it's become your metaphysical Achilles heal. What your industry seems to sorely lack is any *PHYSICAL* understanding of what actually occurs inside of plasma (or space for that matter).

I'm not surprised, MM, that you don't understand it.
Click to expand...

Neither am I. When I ask you folks for a physical explanation of what is happening in the plasma at the point of "reconnection", you folks run for the hills.

You don't want to, after all.
Click to expand...

Sure I do. If you could explain how magnetic reconnection physically works I'd be all ears. I'm sure you can explain how induction works or how particle collisions manifest in plasma. You don't seem to be real forthcoming as a group about what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that isn't actually induction or a kinetically driven particle collision.

I suspect that you have not, for example, read a plasma physics textbook (Kulsrud, for example) and done a semester's worth of practice problems therein.
Click to expand...

I've got four or five plasma physics textbooks in my collection, two from Alfven, one from Peratt, one from Irving Langmuir and another one who's name excapes me that had the *WORST* explanation for "magnetic reconnection" I've ever seen in print. I won't even bother to mention (or remember) the author but it wasn't Kulsrud. Care to explain how he physically explains "magnetic reconnection" for us at the level of *ACTUAL PHYSICS*?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya right. You point Rhessi and Fermi at Earth and they both see gamma rays coming from "discharges" in the Earths atmosphere. You point the same equipment at the solar atmosphere, see the same gamma rays and claim "magnetic reconnection did it". Now it is somehow all my fault that not a single one of you can explain the unique physical energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" or show that it is any different than ordinary EM interactions in plasma. It's all my fault I suppose that you can't empirically duplicate Birkeland's work with spheres with "magnetic reconnection" too?
Click to expand...
Wrong: Magnetic reconnection and the many other posts in this thread and other threads that you ignore.

It is not our fault that you cannot understand this physics.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Page 664 BIRKELAND. THE NORWEGIAN AURORA POLARIS EXPEDITION, 1902-1903.
If the metallic globe surrounding the electro-magnet is not smooth, but has sharp points on its surface, for instance near the poles, the disruptive discharges would issue at these points, and it will be.necessary to use a stronger magnetisation to make the patches arrange themselves in zones round the equator. From the results obtained by SWABE, WOLF, CARRINGTON and SPOERER, we know that the sun-spots arrange themselves just in two zones between 5 and 40 N and S latitude, in such a manner that in the minimum-period of the spots, they begin to show themselves in high latitudes, and then descend until at their maximum-period they have reached a latitude of about 16 north and south. If we remember especially that the spots are the centres of emission of very stiff cathode-rays (Ho =3 X 10^6 C. G. S.), which give rise to auroras and magnetic perturbations on our earth, it would appear as if the sun-spots were the foot-points of disruptive electric discharges from the sun.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
  1. The Sun is not a metallic globe.
  2. It does not have sharp points on its surface.
  3. Sunspots are now known to be not the footprint of disruptive electric discharges from the Sun. They are the footprints if intense magnetic (and electrical) activity in the Sun.
    The Wilson effect tells us that sunspots are actually depressions on the sun's surface. Observations using the Zeeman effect show that prototypical sunspots come in pairs with opposite magnetic polarity. From cycle to cycle, the polarities of leading and trailing (with respect to the solar rotation) sunspots change from north/south to south/north and back. Sunspots usually appear in groups.
    Click to expand...
So Birkeland was wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15 April 2001 WL.gif

Oh look, Birkeland was right! And of course this has all been confirmed by other authors that you probably won't read or respond to.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701
Click to expand...
Oh look pretty picture from a crank web site!
And of course you cite
  • "Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits"
    A paper on the flow of electrons along magnetic lines in coronal flares.
  • "Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare"
    A paper on magnetic ropes in certain types of flares.
  • "Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops"
    A paper on electrical activity in flares.
The papers are applications of what looks like standard plasma physics to flares.
So what, Michael Mozina?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Fine, we'll try one more time and we'll focus on the predicted "speed" of those "flying electrons and ions". Page 663:
I do not think, however, that Schuster's objections have any serious bearing on my theory, if we consiider the properties which the new sunbeams must be assumed to possess.
I have shown that cathode-rays from the sun, which are to strike down towards the earth in the Aurora polaris zones, must have a transversal mass about m = 1.83 X 10^3 X m . In other words, the longitudinal mass of our particles is 6 milliard times greater than the mass of the particles upon which Schuster calculates in his energy-comments. Thus these cathode-rays will pass the earth, not with a velocity of 9 kilometres, but with a velocity very little short of that of light.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare
Click to expand...
Birkeland was wrong again! Thanks for pointing this out Michael Mozina.

The speed of light is 670,616,629 miles per hour (299 792.458 km/s).
The speed of the fast solar wind is 1,677,702 miles per hour (750 km/s).
You do the math MM.
 
Reality Check said:
  1. The Sun is not a metallic globe.
Click to expand...


  1. Well, it certainly has a metallic crust.

    [*]It does not have sharp points on its surface.
    Click to expand...

    Sure it does. It has volcanic "points" all over the surface. They even erupt in a virtually horizontal directions that defy gas model theory altogether. It happened again this week in fact.

    http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2009/12/22/ahead_20091222_euvi_195_512.mpg

    What does that shock wave coming out of the flare only go in one direction from the point of origin if everything in the vicinity of the eruption is composed of extremely light plasma? Where's the equal and opposite reaction going the other way?

    [*]Sunspots are now known to be not the footprint of disruptive electric discharges from the Sun.
    Click to expand...

    Well, sunspots form around the active areas of the surface which we can see in the iron ion wavelengths. No active regions, no sunspot. The footprints begin *UNDER* the photosphere as NASA claims, not above the photosphere as LMSAL insists as that pretty picture you provided demonstrates. The sunspots are in fact related to high energy discharge regions. When the discharges are powerful enough they create sunspots in the surface of the photosphere.

    They are the footprints if intense magnetic (and electrical) activity in the Sun.
    Click to expand...

    It's called an "electrical discharge". They can produce a strong magnetic field. They occur right here in our own atmosphere everyday too, not just in the solar atmosphere.

    So Birkeland was wrong.
    Click to expand...

    Nope. Birkeland was ten times the empirical scientist of anyone in this conversation, myself included. His idea have stood the test of time and they will continue to stand the test of time because they were developed in the old fashion way scientific manner, via sweat equity and real empirical physics in real lab "experiments" with real "control mechanisms". You're dead inflation deity and "magnetic reconnection" claims will be laughed at as childish drivel by future generations while Birkeland will still be highly respected for all of his work, not just the tiny part you've grudgingly accepted so far.
 
Reality Check said:
Birkeland was wrong again! Thanks for pointing this out Michael Mozina.
Click to expand...

Evidently you aren't doing the right math. He was talking about auroral activity (and it's cause) during solar storms:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html

On Jan. 20, 2005, though, there were no humans walking around on the moon. And it's a good thing.

On that day, a giant sunspot named "NOAA 720" exploded. The blast sparked an X-class solar flare, the most powerful kind, and hurled a billion-ton cloud of electrified gas (a coronal mass ejection, or CME) into space. Solar protons accelerated to nearly light speed by the explosion reached the Earth-moon system minutes after the flare; it was the beginning of a days-long "proton storm."
Click to expand...

Lucky guess on Birkeland's part eh?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, it certainly has a metallic crust.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The Sun has a protosphere ("crust") of plasma containing mostly hydrogen with about 0.14% Fe. That is not metallic. That is a trace element.

Michael Mozina said:
Sure it does. It has volcanic "points" all over the surface.
Click to expand...
Sure it does not. It has active regions all over the surface.

They even erupt in a virtually horizontal directions that defy gas model theory altogether. It happened again this week in fact.
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2009/12/22/ahead_20091222_euvi_195_512.mpg

What does that shock wave coming out of the flare only go in one direction from the point of origin if everything in the vicinity of the eruption is composed of extremely light plasma? Where's the equal and opposite reaction going the other way?
[/quote]
Magnetic fields and of course electric fields.

Michael Mozina said:
Well, sunspots form around the active areas of the surface which we can see in the iron ion wavelengths.
Click to expand...
They form around magnetically active areas of the protopshere. We can see that in many wavelengths. Of course magnetically active also means electrically active (Maxwell's laws).

Michael Mozina said:
No active regions, no sunspot. The footprints begin *UNDER* the photosphere as NASA claims, not above the photosphere as LMSAL insists as that pretty picture you provided demonstrates. The sunspots are in fact related to high energy discharge regions. When the discharges are powerful enough they create sunspots in the surface of the photosphere.
Click to expand...
Wrong. There are no such things as "high energy discharge regions".
Again with your ignorance of basic science: The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (LMSAL is the data center) is designed to explore guess what? The transition region and corona!
The images in the "iron ion wavelengths" are all of activity in teh corona.


Michael Mozina said:
It's called an "electrical discharge". They can produce a strong magnetic field. They occur right here in our own atmosphere everyday too, not just in the solar atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Are you deluded emough to think that the Earth's astmosphere is the Sun's?

Michael Mozina said:
Nope. Birkeland was ten times the empirical scientist of anyone in this conversation, myself included.
Click to expand...
Nope. You are obseessed with Birkeland because you have a delusion that the Sun has a solid iron surface/crust/(thingy that you have no evidence for).

Michael Mozina said:
His idea have stood the test of time and they will continue to stand the test of time because they were developed in the old fashion way scientific manner, via sweat equity and real empirical physics in real lab "experiments" with real "control mechanisms".
Click to expand...
Some of Birkeland's ideas have stood the test of time.
None of them have remained as he first conceived them. For example, sweat equity and real empirical physics in real lab "experiments" with real "control mechanisms" have added magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
You're dead inflation deity and "magnetic reconnection" claims will be laughed at as childish drivel by future generations while Birkeland will still be highly respected for all of his work, not just the tiny part you've grudgingly accepted so far.
Click to expand...
Your dead iron sun deity and ignorance of physics will be laughed at as childish drivel by current and future generations.
Birkeland will still be highly respected for some of his work.
 
Reality Check said:
Wrong. The Sun has a protosphere ("crust") of plasma containing mostly hydrogen with about 0.14% Fe. That is not metallic. That is a trace element.
Click to expand...

Your elemental abundance numbers are meaningless because they are all based upon the assumption of little or no mass separation. You seem to think Iron and Nickel are going to stay mixed together with wispy light Hydrogen and Helium. Hell, the moon can't even hang on the hydrogen that blows by it every day and it has *tons* of iron in it.

Take away your assumption that the elements stay mixed and your abundance numbers fall apart instantly.

Sure it does not. It has active regions all over the surface.
Click to expand...

The volcanic surface eruptions are *ACTIVE* electrically, just like eruptions here on Earth. The primary difference on the sun is the that atmosphere is mostly ionized so solid coming up from under the surface get ionized in a blaze of light and electrical discharges galore.

Magnetic fields and of course electric fields.
Click to expand...

Pfft. That's not going to cut it, not even if you toss in the electric field (as you should). There isn't enough rigid plasma in the universe to explain those energy distribution patterns! There is no way you're going to tell me that whispy thin light plasma will blow material out with that force and we'll observe *NO* blowback of any sort. Baloney. Only a solid could do that trick. A solid could easily shield that kind of destructive force from the other direction. A Mt. St. Helen's type of sideways eruption could easily explain what we observed yesterday, but your whispy light "thinner than air" plasma could not possibly block the force of the blowback from a blowout of that magnitude. If however the blowout occurs *UNDER* the photosphere, angles off in a specific direction based on the direction of the eruption, that image is relatively easy to explain.

They form around magnetically active areas of the protopshere.
Click to expand...

That's like claiming that thunder and photons form around magnetically active areas of the Earth's atmosphere. That a weird way to put it. It's not the magnetic field that is doing the work, it's the charge separation and current flow that is doing the work. The thunder and lightning are not "magnetic reconnection" events they are "discharge events".

We can see that in many wavelengths. Of course magnetically active also means electrically active (Maxwell's laws).
Click to expand...

Which of Maxwell's four basic laws allow you to "disconnect" or "reconnection" one "magnetic line" to another?

Wrong. There are no such things as "high energy discharge regions".
Click to expand...

Sure there are. They happen here on Earth every single day. They congregate on Earth around clouds and thunderstorm clouds in particular. They also occur during volcanic events.

Again with your ignorance of basic science: The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (LMSAL is the data center) is designed to explore guess what? The transition region and corona!
Click to expand...

That's the problem with "assumptions" that were made before launch. Where's your evidence those powerful coronal loops only become visible *above* the photosphere?

The images in the "iron ion wavelengths" are all of activity in teh corona.
Click to expand...

Some of the energy is indeed released in the corona, but how do you know *ALL* of what we see occurs only in the corona, and not in the chromosphere or photosphere?

Are you deluded emough to think that the Earth's astmosphere is the Sun's?
Click to expand...

Er, no, that seems to be your own strawman. I simply said it has a crust and and it has an atmosphere. I didn't suggest they were the same. Some natural things like discharges occur however in *ALL* large atmosphere in the solar system, including, but not limited to the atmosphere of the sun.

Nope. You are obseessed with Birkeland because you have a delusion that the Sun has a solid iron surface/crust/(thingy that you have no evidence for).
Click to expand...

That's totally bogus since I found his work only after finding satellite and nuclear chemistry data to support the theory. I was blown away with his work, and to be honest a wee disappointed that someone had "beat me to the idea by 100 years. He had even done the lab work, take the in-situ measurements to support his ideas and everything. I was literally stunned. The SOHO RD and that Doppler Image from Kosovichev on my website were what convinced me the sun had a crust. Birkeland's work was simply a bonus from my perspective.

Some of Birkeland's ideas have stood the test of time.
None of them have remained as he first conceived them.
Click to expand...

I agree but it's hardly surprising.

For example, sweat equity and real empirical physics in real lab "experiments" with real "control mechanisms" have added magnetic reconnection.
Click to expand...

Magnetic reconnection theory is pure "pseudoscience" according to Alfven and none of you can explain the *PHYSICS* so he must be right. There aren't that many physical things to work with in plasma, electrons, ions and photons. Induction isn't magnetic reconnection and particle collisions are not magnetic reconnection, so what exactly (physically) is "magnetic reconnection" and how does it get kinetic energy from the magnetic field to the particle if not via *induction* which of course is not "magnetic reconnection"?

Your dead iron sun deity
Click to expand...

You really don't get the "dead deity" thing do you? Iron isn't "dead", it shows up in a real lab today and it will show up tomorrow too. Electrons aren't dead either. They exist today too and they show up in a lab today. Iron can't be a "deity" because it isn't all that "unique" or "special" or "supernatural". It's just like every other element and build from the same things as all the other elements. It's not different from other elements other than the specific number of protons in it. It's not "supernatural" in any way because it behaves like other metals on the periodic table. It's just "iron".

Inflation is "dead". It doesn't exist anymore, even by your own admission. It's "non existent" and big fat no show in the lab today, and forever and ever. It's a "deity" because it is "supernatural". It's not like other vector or scalar fields in nature. It does supernatural density defying magic tricks for breakfast. Unlike the EM field, inflation density doesn't drop off significantly with exponential increases in volume. Oh no, it's very "special" in that respect. It's "supernatural" in that respect.

Now do you understand the difference between a dead deity and at worst case a "failed empirical theory"?

and ignorance of physics
Click to expand...

Pfft. Compared to your personal ignorance? Please. (edited the comment about sol. I think that may have been zig) None of you can explain physically what you even mean by "magnetic reconnection", but there isn't anything magical about plasma and there isn't much to work with besides photons, electrons and ions.

Birkeland will still be highly respected for some of his work.
Click to expand...

Face it, mainstream theory already needs Birkeland and Alfven to even have a shot a ever mathematically quantifying the universe. It's only a matter of time before others start to notice that you're going about explaining the universe completely backwards according to Alfven, the father of MHD theory. He did not like your "prophetic" approach to cosmology. Your heroes and mine are one and the same and always will be. The difference between us is that I share their basic ideas about the electric universe we live in, whereas you reject their ideas outright in favor of what Alfven personally labeled "pseudoscience" and that none of you can physically explain.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
That's totally bogus since I found his work only after finding satellite and nuclear chemistry data to support the theory. I was blown away with his work, and to be honest a wee disappointed that someone had "beat me to the idea by 100 years. He had even done the lab work, take the in-situ measurements to support his ideas and everything. I was literally stunned. The SOHO RD and that Doppler Image from Kosovichev on my website were what convinced me the sun had a crust. Birkeland's work was simply a bonus from my perspective.
Click to expand...


You keep saying the Sun has a solid iron crust, but apparently you don't have any more than your unsupported assertion. If you really believe it, and think you can support that crackpot notion with real evidence, not just your looks-like-a-bunny grade school science and arguments from incredulity and ignorance, you should start a thread about it. But since you can't support it, why bother trying, eh? :D
 
GeeMack said:
You keep saying the Sun has a solid iron crust, but apparently you don't have any more than your unsupported assertion.
Click to expand...

No, apparently I don't have an unlimited amount of time to kill casting my scientific pearls before someone who won't even bother reading the material presented to them.
 
Magnetic Reconnection Redux IV

Michael Mozina said:
I do have a desire to learn about this topic Tim, ...
Click to expand...
I do not believe you. After all, despite being given copious examples from the relevant scientific literature, you seem to have ignored them all. You even dismiss without consideration the very controlled laboratory experiments you yourself demanded, for no reason other than their disagreement with your misguided & preconceived notions. How is any of that consistent with the attitude of a genuine desire to learn?

Michael Mozina said:
... but when I ask anyone (I'll bet you too) to explain the unique physical energy release process that is unique to "magnetic reconnection" that cannot otherwise be categorized as "induction" and/or categorized as an ordinary "particle interaction" in plasma, I get deafening silence. Care to give it a whirl?
Click to expand...
None of that is at all true either. The process has been explained to you by myself and numerous others, but you always dismiss everything that does not suit your fancy. For myself, see for instance ...
Magnetic reconnection is a change in the topology of the magnetic field, which you have already been told. The change results in a lower energy state of the field and a transfer of energy from the internal energy of the magnetic field to the kinetic energy of the particles, which you have already been told. And finally, this cannot be the result of "circuit reconnection" because it violates the conservation of energy principle, which you have already been told; after all, how can the energy of the "reconnected" circuits exceed the energy of the "reconnecting" circuits by orders of magnitude?
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, apparently I don't have an unlimited amount of time to kill casting my scientific pearls before someone who won't even bother reading the material presented to them.
Click to expand...


Good. Finally you've decided to give up on that crazy solid surface Sun thing. We knew you couldn't keep at it with as many people who have showed you how wrong you were for all these years. :)
 
Reality Check said:
It is not our fault that you cannot understand this physics.
Click to expand...

What "physics" are you talking about? What is physically "reconnecting" inside the plasma if not photons that are reconnecting to charged particles (properly called induction) and particles with other particles (called plasma collisions)?
 
GeeMack said:
Good. Finally you've decided to give up on that crazy solid surface Sun thing. We knew you couldn't keep at it with as many people who have showed you how wrong you were for all these years. :)
Click to expand...

You clearly have a serious problem comprehending the English language. How in the hell did you translate "I'm too busy to indulge your personal desires today" into "I believe I was wrong"? Are you on drugs or what?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I've got four or five plasma physics textbooks in my collection, two from Alfven, one from Peratt,
Click to expand...

How open-minded. We're trying to test the hypothesis "Alfven was wrong about reconnection and thousands of mainstream plasma physicists are right". Reading Alfven's old stuff over and over isn't going to help.

one from Irving Langmuir
Click to expand...

What? Irving Langmuir, 1881-1957, who died before the launch of Sputnik, never wrote a plasma physics textbook.

and another one who's name excapes me that had the *WORST* explanation for "magnetic reconnection" I've ever seen in print. I won't even bother to mention (or remember) the author but it wasn't Kulsrud. Care to explain how he physically explains "magnetic reconnection" for us at the level of *ACTUAL PHYSICS*?
Click to expand...

Funny how none of the 1000-odd Ph.D. graduates of the MIT, Princeton, and Berkeley plasma physics labs had such difficulty with their textbooks.

On the other hand, I have students who (like you) will complain that some explanation or another in their physics textbook is the "worst ever". You know why that is? It's because these are my C and D students, who aren't doing the work and who don't understand the material.

The problem is with you, Michael, not with the textbook.
 
Tim Thompson said:
I do not believe you.
Click to expand...

Yet you won't personally explain what's unique about magnetic reconnection, so what can I say Tim? You refuse to do the one thing I asked for and the one thing nobody has done to date.

After all, despite being given copious examples from the relevant scientific literature, you seem to have ignored them all. You even dismiss without consideration the very controlled laboratory experiments you yourself demanded, for no reason other than their disagreement with your misguided & preconceived notions.
Click to expand...

I didn't "dismiss" any of it, I said they mislabeled the process at worst case.

How is any of that consistent with the attitude of a genuine desire to learn?
Click to expand...

Your strawman is not consistent with a desire to learn, but then that strawman has never been my position. Whereas I have read many, many papers you folks have suggested, have you even bothered to read Cosmic Plasma or even any of the three links I posted today?

None of that is at all true either. The process has been explained to you by myself and numerous others,
Click to expand...

Humor me. What is physically unique about it that can't also be called "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" or simple "induction"?

Magnetic reconnection is a change in the topology of the magnetic field,
Click to expand...

That's not a unique form of kinetic energy transfer Tim. That's called "induction" or particle collision depending on what you're claiming is being transferred between the "circuits/magnetic lines". That's not a scientific explanation of what is physically unique about magnetic reconnection because a short circuit in plasma produces exactly same results.

which you have already been told. The change results in a lower energy state of the field and a transfer of energy from the internal energy of the magnetic field to the kinetic energy of the particles, which you have already been told.
Click to expand...

That is called *INDUCTION*, not magnetic reconnection Tim. Induction has a proper scientific name already. We don't need to make up a new name for a known process that has already been identified as a legitimate way to transfer kinetic energy from a field to a particle. Induction is not magnetic reconnection. If that is you "explanation" it's a major fail. You have photons transferring kinetic energy from one circuit to another and change in the *CIRCUIT TOPOLOGY* over time. There's nothing new there that warrants a new label.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You clearly have a serious problem comprehending the English language. How in the hell did you translate "I'm too busy to indulge your personal desires today" into "I believe I was wrong"? Are you on drugs or what?
Click to expand...


I just noted that it's a good thing that you've finally decided you're not willing to continue bleating that crackpot solid surface Sun crap anymore. You don't have to throw a tantrum about it.
 
GeeMack said:
I just noted that it's a good thing that you've finally decided you're not willing to continue bleating that crackpot solid surface Sun crap anymore. You don't have to throw a tantrum about it.
Click to expand...

You really do have a comprehension problem don't you?

FYI, I have far fewer doubts in the scientific validity of Birkeland's solar model today than I had say 5 years ago. I really don't have the time today to indulge you personally, but when I do have some free time I'll start a thread if you like on that topic. In the mean time, while I'm getting ready for the holidays, you're welcome to peruse my website, which I updated yesterday (and again this morning with Tim's latest link).
 
Michael Mozina said:
You really do have a comprehension problem don't you?

FYI, I have far fewer doubts in the scientific validity of Birkeland's solar model today than I had say 5 years ago. I really don't have the time today to indulge you personally, but when I do have some free time I'll start a thread if you like on that topic. In the mean time, while I'm getting ready for the holidays, you're welcome to peruse my website, which I updated yesterday (and again this morning with Tim's latest link).
Click to expand...


Of course Birkeland never suggested that the Sun had a solid metal surface. So on that point your notion and his differ greatly.
 
GeeMack said:
Of course Birkeland never suggested that the Sun had a solid metal surface. So on that point your notion and his differ greatly.
Click to expand...

Er, no. The "solid metal surface" seems to be your own personal strawman. I said "crust" which implies many things including metals.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. The "solid metal surface" seems to be your own personal strawman. I said "crust" which implies many things including metals.
Click to expand...


You're a liar. Your web site says plainly "[...] it has a hard and rigid ferrite surface." And of course Birkeland never suggested the surface of the Sun was some kind of crust either. So you're wrong twice. :D
 
ben m said:
How open-minded. We're trying to test the hypothesis "Alfven was wrong about reconnection and thousands of mainstream plasma physicists are right". Reading Alfven's old stuff over and over isn't going to help.
Click to expand...

In order to understand the basics of GR, I read Einstein. It's not necessary to do that of course, but it helps to understand the idea from someone that one trusts is an "expert" on the topic. Likewise when I decided to try to understand MHD theory and how it "could be" applied to cosmology, it only seemed natural to start with the guy that wrote the theory. Peratt's book seemed like a natural next step too and frankly it's better written material IMO and easier for a laymen like myself to follow.

How open minded are you folks? Have any of you actually read Cosmic Plasma for yourselves?

What? Irving Langmuir, 1881-1957, who died before the launch of Sputnik, never wrote a plasma physics textbook.
Click to expand...

Ya, it's called The collective works of Irving Langmuir Volume 5 "Plasma And Oscillations". It seemed appropriate to "go to the horses mouth" as it relates to understanding the behaviors of plasma. It's not necessarily up to date mind you, but it's interesting reading none the less and quite informative.

Funny how none of the 1000-odd Ph.D. graduates of the MIT, Princeton, and Berkeley plasma physics labs had such difficulty with their textbooks.
Click to expand...

Is that an appeal to authority fallacy or an appeal to popularity fallacy or both? :)

On the other hand, I have students who (like you) will complain that some explanation or another in their physics textbook is the "worst ever".
Click to expand...

As in "non existent" at the level of actual physics in fact.

You know why that is? It's because these are my C and D students, who aren't doing the work and who don't understand the material.

The problem is with you, Michael, not with the textbook.
Click to expand...

That could be all be true of course, but then Alfven must have also been a C and D student too because he also rejected the concept till the day of his death. If I simply lack understanding then someone here should be able to explain the unique physics behind "magnetic reconnection" and explain what is unique and different from ordinary induction and other kinetic particle interaction in plasma. So far not a peep from anyone who wasn't ultimately trying to pass off induction as "magnetic reconnection". Unless I see something useful and physically informative, I'm going to have to trust the recognized "expert" on MHD theory, the one with the Nobel prize for inventing MHD theory, and some of his first generation students, not the 1000 or so later students at various stages of underdevelopment in understanding that are still peddling something that Alfven himself referred to in a highly derogatory manner. :)

Come now Ben. If you have a physical explanation of what is unique about "magnetic reconnect", don't leave us in suspense. If your answer is the same as Tim's, then my answer will be the same as well. That is ordinary induction that Tim described, not "magnetic reconnection".
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
You're a liar. Your web site says plainly "[...] it has a hard and rigid ferrite surface." And of course Birkeland never suggested the surface of the Sun was some kind of crust either. So you're wrong twice. :D
Click to expand...

You take one sentence out of context and create whatever you please now don't you? Did you read anything beyond the first sentence? Did you ever bother to read those three papers I cited earlier today or is that not congruent with you ego gratification gig?
 
Reconnection is not induction

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.
 
Tim Thompson said:
That's not true, and you know it. It's no wonder that people keep calling you a liar.
Click to expand...

The only think I know Tim is that what you have described could be described as "induction" and "circuit reconnection". Period. That's all I know.

I also know that there are only a few basic particles to work with in a plasma, electrons, protons, ions, and the carrier particle of the EM field, the photon. From the standpoint of physics, that's all we have to work with Tim, and that's it. What you have described isn't a new thing, it's "induction".

Are you trying to add me to the list?
Click to expand...

Well, it would seem I already did (well, in a round about way). :)

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.
Click to expand...

How can it be anything different?

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.
Click to expand...

I take it you've never played with a coil in car before?

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.
Click to expand...

I've done that many, many, many, many, many times now. I've lost count of how many "magnetic reconnection" papers I've been through now, and how many "textbook" descriptions I've read now. Have any of you actually read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven yet? Why wouldn't you naturally consult the guy the wrote MHD theory to see how it is "properly" applied to objects in space?

I see no indication that you do that.
Click to expand...

Oh boloney. I've picked out flaws in PPL papers, flaws in other "magnetic reconnection" papers that tried to attribute the process to "monopoles", and a few papers that I can only describe as "circuit reconnection" in it's proper form since Birn described the "magnet line" as a steam of moving charge particles.

As it stands, you appear to implicitly assert that you know more about physics than everyone else,
Click to expand...

Nope. I will explicitly assert that *ALFVEN* knew more about MHD theory and it's proper application to plasma an objects in space, and he vehemently rejected "magnetic reconnection" theory till the day he died. I will assert that you cannot physically explain what is unique about it because I have heard a number of attempts now and none of them come even close to being described as a unique form of energy exchange or release.

and simply ignore everything else. It should come as no great surprise that few people have confidence in your alleged expertise in this field.
Click to expand...

It's hard for me to have much confidence in most of the so called 'experts' that peddle a concept that Alfven called pseudoscience, because in the last three or four years now I think I've met maybe one so called expert that had even read much if any of Alfven's material. I've never heard a logical explanation of 'magnetic reconnection" that could not equally or better be described as "circuit reconnection". What you are calling a change in the topology of the "magnetic field" is actually a change in the topology of two "Birkeland currents", or two ordinary current carrying filaments in light plasma. It's a short circuit in plasma, nothing more.

The other think I know is that magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting". That is standard electrical theory. That is why Alfven framed all of these events as "circuits" and describe the process in terms of "circuit energy". The only thing that is even capable of creating such powerful magnetic fields in the plasma is the fact that the plasma filament is carrying powerful currents.

Until and unless you can tell me what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection", I can only look at the facts. Alfven rejected the idea as pseudoscience for his entire life and saw several renditions of the concept. He rejected them all as pseudoscience. That is very logical from what I've seen and read too because what is described in these papers and books can almost always (I've never seen one so far) easily explained as either induction or circuit "reconnection/reconfiguration". There's no unique process here Tim, just circuits and short circuits and changes in the topology of *ELECTRO*magnetic fields, not sterile "magnetic fields".
 
Last edited:
The Real Redux.....

Here is a tutorial from “Magnetic Reconnection” Studies Conducted
at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
http://wsx.lanl.gov/Publications/RSX_rcxn_fluxropes.pdf

The first thing is Figure 1 which shows the standard explanation of a reconnection. The is drawn from a theoretical standpoint and is measured with instruments. However the instruments only measure a limited number of dimension so you have to fill in with theory.

Next we have a diagram of the experimental apparatus. A plasma chamber made of stainless steel with view ports. It also has 4 electrodes, 2 at each end.
Notice how they show the plasma emanating from the plasma guns.
Also notice how the stream coming from each electrode meets to form the classic twisted flux tube configuration which extends down the chamber to the other set of electrodes.

So this is the configuration before the reconnection event happens.
You have an electric current flowing through the plasma to form the flux tubes. So the flux tubes require an electric current to form.

What happens??

"Late time-streak and framing camera diagnostics show the Biot-Savart attraction, rotation and coalescence of the dense filaments themselves."

"Whenever the attractive force between simulation columns such that the repulsive force starts to become comparable to the attractive force, a burst in radiation occurs. For the parameters used in these simulations, this distance is of the order of several pinch radii." (Biot-Savart Law)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

Here is an animation of reconnection.
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~eric/TALKS/BReconnection/6/index2.html

2 flux tubes touch and there is a burst of radiation.

So what happens afterward??

In the case of the magnetotail plasma filaments they reform into twisted flux tubes and the process repeats.
In the lab you only have on bank of capacitors so you are limited as to how many shots you can do in a certain time or how much energy you have available.
So bang, you fire and reconnection happens and then the flux tubes go away.

The sun doesnt seem to have this constraint so I dont think the flux tube actually ever goes away. They may just shorten for a few seconds and then re-attach.

So where does this leave us. The reconnection is powered by electric current and requires a certain configuration to happen..
The magnetic field is a result of the current flow through the flux tubes.
The magnetic field changes because there is a change in the current path(flux tubes).
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Your elemental abundance numbers are meaningless because they are all based upon the assumption of little or no mass separation. You seem to think Iron and Nickel are going to stay mixed together with wispy light Hydrogen and Helium. Hell, the moon can't even hang on the hydrogen that blows by it every day and it has *tons* of iron in it.

Take away your assumption that the elements stay mixed and your abundance numbers fall apart instantly.
Click to expand...
If you put Iron and Nickel with wispy light Hydrogen and Helium into a mass separator then they aill separate. That is something a child can see. A child can also see that the Sun is not a mass separator.
A scientists thinks about the evidence of mixing in the Sun and knows that it cannot act as a mass separator.

Michael Mozina said:
The volcanic surface eruptions are *ACTIVE* electrically, just like eruptions here on Earth. The primary difference on the sun is the that atmosphere is mostly ionized so solid coming up from under the surface get ionized in a blaze of light and electrical discharges galore.
Click to expand...
There are no "volcanic surface eruptions". Solar flares are *ACTIVE* electrically - not like "eruptions here on Earth" (there are no flares here on Earth).

Michael Mozina said:
Pfft. That's not going to cut it, not even if you toss in the electric field (as you should). There isn't enough rigid plasma in the universe to explain those energy distribution patterns...
Click to expand...
Pfft. That's not going to cut it. There is no such thing as "rigid plasma" or no "energy distribution patterns". There are magnetic and electric fields in the universe. The activity of the coronal loop you are obsessing with looks like (to me) plasma escaping a coronal loop - a flare.

Michael Mozina said:
That's like claiming that thunder and photons form around magnetically active areas of the Earth's atmosphere. That a weird way to put it. It's not the magnetic field that is doing the work, it's the charge separation and current flow that is doing the work. The thunder and lightning are not "magnetic reconnection" events they are "discharge events".
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
That is totally stupid.
Only an idiot would claim that. Only an idiot would use that Earth's atmosphere as an analogy for the Sun.
The Earths atmosphere is not a mostly hydrogen plasma at a temperature of ~6000 K.
Lightning is not a magnetic reconnection event - it is a discharge event between the different charges in clouds and the ground.
Thunder of course is not a magnetic reconnection event.

Michael Mozina said:
Which of Maxwell's four basic laws allow you to "disconnect" or "reconnection" one "magnetic line" to another?
Click to expand...
magnetic reconnection.


Michael Mozina said:
Sure there are. They happen here on Earth every single day. They congregate on Earth around clouds and thunderstorm clouds in particular. They also occur during volcanic events.
Click to expand...
Wrong. There are no such things as "high energy discharge regions" *ON THE SUN*. We are talking about the Sun. See above for the idiocy of using processes on Earth as analogies for processes on the Sun.

Michael Mozina said:
That's the problem with "assumptions" that were made before launch. Where's your evidence those powerful coronal loops only become visible *above* the photosphere?
Click to expand...
You mean the assumption that the laws of physics measured here on Earth also apply to the Sun?
But this is derailing the thread. Let's take this conversation to the existing conversation in: Electric universe theories here.

Michael Mozina said:
The images in the "iron ion wavelengths" are all of activity in the corona.
Click to expand...
Some of the energy is indeed released in the corona, but how do you know *ALL* of what we see occurs only in the corona, and not in the chromosphere or photosphere?
Click to expand...
Again should be in the other thread where you can start by answering:
What is the amount of 171 A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected? First asked 6th July 2009

To repeat what you have been told many times (so I do not expect you to understand it this time either :jaw-dropp):
The 173A passband only detects radiation from matter at a temperature of between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. For example this passband can detect the radiation from Fe IX ions.
The temperature of the chromosphere is "about 4500 K to as high as 20,000 K".
The temperature of the photosphere is about 6000 K.

Can you understand that 6000 K and 20,000 K are less than 160,000 K?

TRACE Passbands
pastext.gif



Michael Mozina said:
Er, no, that seems to be your own strawman. I simply said it has a crust and and it has an atmosphere. I didn't suggest they were the same. Some natural things like discharges occur however in *ALL* large atmosphere in the solar system, including, but not limited to the atmosphere of the sun.
Click to expand...
Er, no, that seems to be your own delusion.
The Sun's atmnosphere is not like any "large atmosphere in the solar system". It is not a gas. It is a plasma.


Michael Mozina said:
That's totally bogus since I found his work only after finding satellite and nuclear chemistry data to support the theory. I was blown away with his work, and to be honest a wee disappointed that someone had "beat me to the idea by 100 years. He had even done the lab work, take the in-situ measurements to support his ideas and everything. I was literally stunned. The SOHO RD and that Doppler Image from Kosovichev on my website were what convinced me the sun had a crust. Birkeland's work was simply a bonus from my perspective.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I said
Nope. You are obsessed with Birkeland because you have a delusion that the Sun has a solid iron surface/crust/(thingy that you have no evidence for).
Click to expand...
You have an idea that the sun has a crust.


You look for things to support your idea.
Your delusion is that they do support your idea.

Michael Mozina said:
You really don't get the "dead deity" thing do you?
Click to expand...
I said "Your dead iron sun deity" (emphasis added).
You have a easily disproved Iron Sun idea, e.g.
Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible? First asked 8 July 2009
See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
Click to expand...
It is dead. It is your personal deity. Thus it is a dead Iron Sun deity.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What "physics" are you talking about? What is physically "reconnecting" inside the plasma if not photons that are reconnecting to charged particles (properly called induction) and particles with other particles (called plasma collisions)?
Click to expand...
The physics that you cannot understand are the physics of Magnetic reconnection among other fields of physics, e.g. thermodynamics:
As Tim Thompson posted:
Tim Thompson said:
I do not believe you. After all, despite being given copious examples from the relevant scientific literature, you seem to have ignored them all. You even dismiss without consideration the very controlled laboratory experiments you yourself demanded, for no reason other than their disagreement with your misguided & preconceived notions. How is any of that consistent with the attitude of a genuine desire to learn?



None of that is at all true either. The process has been explained to you by myself and numerous others, but you always dismiss everything that does not suit your fancy. For myself, see for instance ...
Magnetic reconnection is a change in the topology of the magnetic field, which you have already been told. The change results in a lower energy state of the field and a transfer of energy from the internal energy of the magnetic field to the kinetic energy of the particles, which you have already been told. And finally, this cannot be the result of "circuit reconnection" because it violates the conservation of energy principle, which you have already been told; after all, how can the energy of the "reconnected" circuits exceed the energy of the "reconnecting" circuits by orders of magnitude?
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Evidently you aren't doing the right math. He was talking about auroral activity (and it's cause) during solar storms
Click to expand...
I looked up the context of the quote in his book and you are right.
Birkeland is actually talking about "long pencils of cathode-rays" from electrical discharges from his metal globes when a magnetic field is not applied.
These discharges look a bit like sunspots when a magnetic field is applied.

Birkeland states on page 662
If the pressure of the gas is very small during these discharges, there issues (fig. 249, globe not magnetised) from each of the patches
narrow pencil of cathode-rays so intense that the gas is illuminated all along the pencil up to the wall of the tube. This splendid phenomenon
recalls our hypothesis according to which sun-spots sometimes send out into space long pencils of cathode-rays.
Click to expand...
So he is not really talking about what we call solar flares - they are not "long pencils" of particles as Birkeland must have known.

Someone like you who knows such a lot about experimental physics (:rolleyes:) will instantly see the defect in Birkeland's analysis of his experiments. Figs 248 and 249 should give you a clue. You will need to know some basic electromagnetism.

I do not think, however, that Schuster's objections have any serious bearing on my theory, if we consiider the properties which the new sunbeams must be assumed to possess.
I have shown that cathode-rays from the sun, which are to strike down towards the earth in the Aurora polaris zones, must have a transversal mass about m = 1.83 X 10^3 X m . In other words, the longitudinal mass of our particles is 6 milliard times greater than the mass of the particles upon which Schuster calculates in his energy-comments. Thus these cathode-rays will pass the earth, not with a velocity of 9 kilometres, but with a velocity very little short of that of light.
Click to expand...
Birkeland is stating that the cathode-rays (electrons) will pass the Earth with a velocity very little short of the speed of light. He is wrong as we now know that
  1. There are no electrical discharges on the Sun. Sunspots are primarily magnetic phenomena.
  2. The Sun emits protons and electrons.
  3. Their velocity is much less than the speed of light.
As for your link - the speed of particles in solar storms is typically much less than the speed of light.
Solar flare: "Most proton storms take two or more hours from the time of visual detection to reach Earth's orbit. A solar flare on January 20, 2005 released the highest concentration of protons ever directly measured,[3] taking only 15 minutes after observation to reach Earth, indicating a velocity of approximately one-half light speed.".

This was a A New Kind of Solar Storm and not typical of solar storms. It was the only storm of this type to be confirmed in 2005 (a proton storm in February 1956 is suspected to be similiar).
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I also know that there are only a few basic particles to work with in a plasma, electrons, protons, ions, and the carrier particle of the EM field, the photon. From the standpoint of physics, that's all we have to work with Tim, and that's it. What you have described isn't a new thing, it's "induction".
Click to expand...

This is dumb. Sure, the anything going on in any plasma (reconnection, or Alfven waves, or shock acceleration, or or the two-stream instability---or, heck, Faraday rotation, cyclotron radiation, dispersion, whatever) is the interaction of charges and field via Maxwell's Equations. In that sense, reconnection is "just" particles responding to Maxwell's Equations, including induction.

It's a particular aspect of these equations, describing a certain behavior under certain initial conditions. This behavior has a name, "reconnection", just as "cyclotron radiation" and "relativistic shock acceleration" and "Alfven waves" have names. Physicists are not so childish as to insist that all of these names be ignored because they're "just Maxwell's Equations". Please stop insisting that reconnection is "just" induction. It sort of is (it's induction+Coulomb's Law+Ampere's Law) but only in this childish sense.

If you insist on this childishness, I suppose we can do the same with all of your preferred plasma terminology. Goodbye to "Birkeland currents", and indeed to "currents", "circuits", "double layers"---they're all just charges and fields.

Anyway, I'm glad you have backed off from the nonsensical view that reconnection somehow violates Maxwell's Equations, which IIRC was your view for a long time because you thought reconnection involved broken field lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom