Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

Michael Mozina said:

It's not actually an appeal to authority fallacy because there are plenty of folk that have rejected MR theory, starting with Alfven himself who called it "pseudoscience" more than a half dozen times in front of a room full of plasma physicists.

Why do you begin with lies that ignore the fact your 100% number is fabricated, you're utterly ignoring the fact that Alfven (and I believe Peratt) reject(ed) it. You're in pure BS mode in other words because you never did your homework and/or studied circuit theory.

The irony is the way you're running like hell from my direct question to you about which came first, current or "reconnection". You're in hard core denial of scientific fact and you're quite literally making this up as you go. It was actually plasma physicists like Alfven and Peratt that taught me the legitimacy of circuit theory. Who did you study circuit theory from as it applies to the topic of plasma physics? We know it wasn't Alfven. We know it wasn't Peratt. Who was it?

You'll probably run like hell from that direct question too. Dodge much?

Click to expand...

The uncivil and insulting response, the complete avoidance of providing any support for the claim that there are problems with the physics of magnetic reconnection, and the dishonest attempt to pass the buck on the burden of proof are all noted.

But I'm setting all that evasion and arguments by insult and repeated appeals to dead heroes aside in order to help out. Given a total failure on the part of the critics of magnetic reconnection to convince anyone who actually understands legitimate physics, it's time for a new approach. If we can determine what is lacking in the argument and why it has never succeeded, then the current strategy of repeating those failed arguments, lying about dead scientists, and tossing around undefined terms might be discarded, as it should be, and a more effective strategy might be employed. Obviously hollow Earthers, believers in psychic powers, UFO alien believers, and people who think they've seen bigfoot have a much more successful method of presenting their case. So if there really is a problem with magnetic reconnection, a claim that has been made here but never successfully supported, something needs to be done to improve the way the case is being made.

Let's get this straightened out so some progress can be made. Why has the electric Sun contingent failed 100% in every effort ever made to convince even a single legitimate scientist that there are indeed problems with the physics of magnetic reconnection? That is a "why" question. The appropriate reply would explain what is wrong with the presentation, strategy, communication, science, understanding, or whatever the problem is with the crackpots' argument that makes it wholly ineffective.

GeeMack said:

...
Let's get this straightened out so some progress can be made. Why has the electric Sun contingent failed 100% in every effort ever made to convince even a single legitimate scientist that there are indeed problems with the physics of magnetic reconnection? That is a "why" question. The appropriate reply would explain what is wrong with the presentation, strategy, communication, science, understanding, or whatever the problem is with the crackpots' argument that makes it wholly ineffective.

Click to expand...

I will take a wild guess on behalf of Mr. Mozina:

Because they are wrong!

W.D.Clinger said:

In the following excerpts from Michael Mozina's recent posts, all highlighted statements are false.


Lying about your previous posts does not erase them from the archives.

Click to expand...

You're going to join in on the "liar liar, pants on fire" choir now? Oy. The debate tactics and strawman fallacies around here are ridiculous. Let me demonstrate:

You have stated that Alfvén wrote nothing on the topic of magnetic reconnection. In the following excerpt, from just over two weeks ago, you said that twice:

"You could not come up with a SINGLE paper he wrote on this topic, yet you insist he somehow supported it anyway. What a crock.

The worst part is that you're denying the legitimacy of a circuit oriented approach even though Alfven himself wrote *HUNDREDS* of papers on that topic, and zero papers on the topic of MR theory."

Click to expand...

I bolded the important parts of my sentences for you. While he wrote zero positive published scientific papers on the topic of magnetic reconnection, he did in fact criticize the theory in a paper when it's used in conjunction with the concept of "frozen in" magnetic fields. I think RC cited that *NEGATIVELY* slanted paper for us. He also wrote NEGATIVELY slanted dialog in his *BOOK* called "Cosmic Plasma", which you personally have never bothered to read. Tsk, tsk. Ignorance is not bliss. I've quoted Alfven on this topic from his book several times now. He puts *severe* restrictions on when and where it can be used, specifically in dense, non current carrying environments. He called it pseudoscience more than a half dozen times in a speech he gave near the end of his career after seeing MANY brands of MR theory. His book actually very clearly explains why he outright rejected the concept in favor of an electrically/circuit oriented view of plasma physics.

Here's what's wrong with the highlighted statements:

Few (if any) of the experiments begin with "charged particle kinetic energy (aka current) along the" magnetic field lines. From the number of times you have made that false claim, I can only assume that you're still confused about the direction of the currents and/or the magnetic field lines.

Click to expand...

Show me a *PUBLISHED* experiment (not one you did in your college days and never published) where the authors wrote about 'magnetic reconnection' where charged particle kinetic energy was not the "cause" of the "reconnection" process and magnetic field energy was the 'cause" of charged particle kinetic energy *ONLY* at the point of "reconnection".

In the experiment I suggested,

Click to expand...

The experiment you suggested only demonstrates magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion which is why you are never going to produce a *PUBLISHED PAPER* that makes the claim that this kind of an experiment is an example of "magnetic reconnection".

none of the four currents ever change their direction.

Click to expand...

In the PUBLISHED PAPER that Tim provided, the currents *DID* change direction. Did you not notice that? What does that tell us? It tells us that the CURRENT is the CAUSE of "reconnection" and in fact it is the "currents" that do the actual 'reconnecting' at the level of physics, not the magnetic lines.

There are also several published experiments in which no current ever changes direction.

Click to expand...

Show me a PUBLISHED experiment where this is true and the authors claimed it was an example of 'magnetic reconnection' as opposed to ordinary magnetic attraction/repulsion.

In the experiment I suggested, no current ever reconnects. The topological changes occur within the magnetic field.

Click to expand...

As I have stated now on *NUMEROUS* occasions, you first science experiment is *NOT* an example of "magnetic reconnection'. If other scientists agree with you, they *SURELY* you could supply us with a *PUBLISHED PAPER* to support that claim. Where is it?

Reality Check said:

You obviously still do not understand that there are multiple flaws with that images you are touting:
[*]The the first image (fig 247a on page is an anology to Saturn not to the Sun:

Click to expand...

Dude, a "cathode" is a "cathode" is a "cathode", is a "cathode". He did in fact begin experimenting with a *CATHODE SPHERE* for the purpose of studying the rings around Saturn. You are however completely ignoring the fact that he specifically and intentionally compares his cathode terella experiments with solar events. He intentionally claims that the SUN acts as a "cathode" as compared to "space".

This denial thing really runs deep with you two, doesn't it? I mean I've seen denial used in debates with creationists before, but denial seems to be a front line defense around here. It's like 'Oh, I can drag my feet and muddy the waters on this issue, so lets do that for awhile'. You don't really care about scientific accuracy, or the fact he specifically compared his cathode terella experiments with the sun.

It's like denial central around here.

Michael Mozina said:

Dude, a "cathode" is a "cathode" is a "cathode", is a "cathode". He did in fact begin experimenting with a *CATHODE SPHERE* for the purpose of studying the rings around Saturn. You are however completely ignoring the fact that he specifically and intentionally compares his cathode terella experiments with solar events. He intentionally claims that the SUN acts as a "cathode" as compared to "space".

This denial thing really runs deep with you two, doesn't it? I mean I've seen denial used in debates with creationists before, but denial seems to be a front line defense around here. It's like 'Oh, I can drag my feet and muddy the waters on this issue, so lets do that for awhile'. You don't really care about scientific accuracy, or the fact he specifically compared his cathode terella experiments with the sun.

It's like denial central around here.

Click to expand...

You need a new word.

tsig said:

You need a new word.

Click to expand...

No, they need a new self defense mechanism, or I need a thesaurus. What's another word for pure, unadulterated denial?

Does *ANYONE* have a *published* paper on a controlled experiment in MR theory that does *NOT*, I repeat NOT begin with current first? It's quite clear from Tim's first published paper that current not only comes first, it's current that actually does the 'reconnecting'. I've already stated on numerous occasions that I'm fine with the term "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" as a description of the process, but it's clear that the current is the 'cause' of the "reconnection' process, not "magnetic lines'.

What's *EXTREMELY* telling about the experiment that have been cited thus far is that the process *REQUIRES* current, and the *PRIOR* movement of charged particles, AKA current, *BEFORE* reconnection can occur. What's completely missing and absent is an experiment that demonstrates a release of magnetic field energy, into charged particle kinetic energy (current) at the point (and only at the point) of 'reconnection'.

Michael Mozina said:

Does *ANYONE* have a *published* paper on a controlled experiment in MR theory that does *NOT*, I repeat NOT begin with current first? It's quite clear from Tim's first published paper that current not only comes first, it's current that actually does the 'reconnecting'. I've already stated on numerous occasions that I'm fine with the term "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" as a description of the process, but it's clear that the current is the 'cause' of the "reconnection' process, not "magnetic lines'.

What's *EXTREMELY* telling about the experiment that have been cited thus far is that the process *REQUIRES* current, and the *PRIOR* movement of charged particles, AKA current, *BEFORE* reconnection can occur. What's completely missing and absent is an experiment that demonstrates a release of magnetic field energy, into charged particle kinetic energy (current) at the point (and only at the point) of 'reconnection'.

Click to expand...

More words and terms in quote marks and shouting with caps and asterisks. Louder and more emphatic arguments does not make them true. It's all gibberish, nonsense. When attempting communication, if nobody can understand the terminology, and the person writing or speaking refuses to explain the unconventional use of terms, it's not successful communication. And since it's failed communication, it's not an argument.

So here's where we are so far: A couple of people have claimed there's some problem with the physics of magnetic reconnection, a position held by maybe a dozen people on the entire planet. But nobody in this thread, or anywhere for that matter, has been able to explain, in an articulate, objective, and scientific manner, exactly what that alleged problem is.

Nobody has ever assembled a cogent argument supporting the claim that there are problems with magnetic reconnection. Only a dozen people on Earth seem to believe those problems exist, and none of them has demonstrated the qualifications to understand the physics involved. But they persist in rerunning about 6 arguments which have been shown time and again to be wrong at best, and flat out lies at worst. So since tens of thousands of intelligent, educated physicists are wholly unswayed by the lies, cherry picked phrases from dead people's research, insults, taunting, and persistent untrue accusations of denial, there is obviously a flaw, either in the claim or the method of delivering the argument. I'd venture a guess that the problem is in the claim, but...

For a moment consider the claim isn't as completely bogus as it appears to be. Consider the problem is in the argument itself, the alleged supporting material, the mode, the delivery. Why does the argument continue to fail so miserably? What can be done to make the argument understandable? What can be done to make it compelling enough that even one single professional physicist, researcher, educator, or grad student actually accepts it as valid?

GeeMack said:

But nobody in this thread, or anywhere for that matter, has been able to explain, in an articulate, objective, and scientific manner, exactly what that alleged problem is.

Click to expand...

Your statements continue to demonstrate that pure denial is really the heart of the problem in this thread. You are in pure denial of the fact that your own experiments physically and empirically demonstrate that the current is what actually "reconnects". The current is the cause. Reconnection of current is the effect. You have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and you absolutely, positively refuse to deal with that fact, or embrace reality.

Your responses are therefore filled with endless strings of pure denial, personal attacks galore, and they are devoid of scientific accuracy or meaning. It's a never ending denial-go-round.

If you could cite an experiment where particle kinetic energy was created at a point (and only a point) of 'reconnection', you could hope to demonstrate that the magnetic field did it. However, the electric field comes first, the whole thing is predicated upon current and the reconnection is between "currents" just as Tim's paper clearly states. Magnetic lines do not reconnect, currents reconnect.

Perpetual Student said:

I will take a wild guess on behalf of Mr. Mozina:

Because they are wrong!

Click to expand...

Hey, you're right! The electric field comes first in every experiment I've seen published to date, and I suspect that's never going to change.

*IF* (and I mean if) they were actually turning magnetic field energy into charged particle kinetic energy at a highly localized point of reconnection, they should be able to demonstrate this process with a couple of earth magnets and some non current carrying plasmas. All of these experiments however demonstrate that just the opposite is the case. The electric field is required to make the reconnection process take place because it's the current that actually physically reconnects, not the magnetic lines.

I guess that's why Alfven called it pseudoscience. At the level of mathematics, it's "mathematically" correct. At the level of physics however, it's complete bunk. It's the electric fields and currents that actually reconnect, not the magnetic lines. The magnetic lines are simply a function of current and therefore the topology of the magnetic line is directly related to the topology of the flow of the currents.

Michael Mozina said:

Your statements continue to demonstrate that pure denial is really the heart of the problem in this thread.

Click to expand...

The heart of the problem in this thread is a claim was made, that there is somehow a problem with the physics of magnetic reconnection, and those supporting the claim have been absolutely, unequivocally unable to support that claim. The heart of the problem in this thread is that either the claim is unsupportable or those attempting to support it are failing in their approach.

You are in pure denial of the fact that your own experiments physically and empirically demonstrate that the current is what actually "reconnects". The current is the cause. Reconnection of current is the effect. You have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and you absolutely, positively refuse to deal with that fact, or embrace reality.

Click to expand...

The continued incivility and personal attacks aside, there is an obvious problem with the argument of those supporting the claim that there is a problem with the physics of magnetic reconnection. Given every effort put forth, every repetition of old stale failed arguments, every subjectively misunderstood or otherwise distorted argument, every dishonest attempt to bail out on the burden of proof, they have all failed.

Your responses are therefore filled with endless strings of pure denial, personal attacks galore, and they are devoid of scientific accuracy or meaning. It's a never ending denial-go-round.

Click to expand...

In my responses I am denying only one thing. I am denying that any argument has succeeded to support the claim that there are problems with the physics of magnetic reconnection. And that is simply true. Nobody has been convinced. Not one person who has participated in this thread has ever said, "Oh, yeah, I get it now. Those denying the existence of magnetic reconnection have made a valid case and I see where they're correct in their position." Well, okay, maybe a couple of people who have, interestingly enough, jumped ship or got themselves banned. No reasonable person has been convinced here, and it hasn't happened anywhere else either, at all, ever, in the history of discussions on the issue. Never has any proponent of the electric Sun conjecture made a rational, objective, legitimately scientific case against magnetic reconnection. Period. It is a failed proposition.

If you could cite an experiment where particle kinetic energy was created at a point (and only a point) of 'reconnection', you could hope to demonstrate that the magnetic field did it. However, the electric field comes first, the whole thing is predicated upon current and the reconnection is between "currents" just as Tim's paper clearly states. Magnetic lines do not reconnect, currents reconnect.

Click to expand...

It's not my job to support or defend any particular position, the dishonest attempt on the part of the electric Sun cranks to abandon their burden of proof notwithstanding. If there's a problem with the physics of magnetic reconnection, and if it can be argued in a convincing, objective, scientific way, now would be a good time to offer that argument. Lord knows it hasn't been made yet. And the proof that it hasn't? Not one single professional, educator, researcher, or grad student in the field of physics has found any of the electric Sun idiocy to be remotely reasonable.

So the question is, why has the argument failed? And since it has failed at every turn, in every presentation, using every tactic, wouldn't it be a good idea to modify the argument to eliminate those reasons it continues to fail? Or is it not about making a legitimate, scientific, objective case for the claim? Is it just about arguing?

GeeMack said:

So the question is, why has the argument failed?

Click to expand...

If this thread, and the participants in this thread are any example, I can easily now answer that question. Pure ignorance and outright denial of empirical fact (current comes first) is "unconquerable". I learned that while debating creationists. No amount of scientific reasoning can overcome the human self defense mechanism of pure denial. Even scientific facts (like current comes first) are trivially tossed aside without so much as a second thought.

The "tactics" one uses really become irrelevant sooner or later. It doesn't matter how many of your own experiments begin with charge separation and/or current. You refuse to deal with that *REALITY*.

Michael Mozina said:

*IF* (and I mean if) they were actually turning magnetic field energy into charged particle kinetic energy at a highly localized point of reconnection, they should be able to demonstrate this process with a couple of earth magnets and some non current carrying plasmas. All of these experiments however demonstrate that just the opposite is the case. The electric field is required to make the reconnection process take place because it's the current that actually physically reconnects, not the magnetic lines.

I guess that's why Alfven called it pseudoscience. At the level of mathematics, it's "mathematically" correct. At the level of physics however, it's complete bunk. It's the electric fields and currents that actually reconnect, not the magnetic lines. The magnetic lines are simply a function of current and therefore the topology of the magnetic line is directly related to the topology of the flow of the currents.

Click to expand...

That is simply a repetition of a previously failed argument. It failed before because it's an unsupported assertion. It is not rational to believe that repeating it will somehow make it into a successful argument. I'd suggest trying something entirely new, like maybe assess why every effort to support the claim that there's a problem with magnetic reconnection has failed, and modify the argument to eliminate those criteria that are causing it to fail.

GeeMack said:

That is simply a repetition of a previously failed argument. It failed before because it's an unsupported assertion.

Click to expand...

You continue to demonstrate a pattern of pure human denial. I specifically highlighted the appropriate parts of Tim's paper and you're in pure denial of scientific fact, specifically the *FACT* that currents come first.

The only "failure" was your failure to get off the denial-go-round. Round and round we go, where the denial-go-round will stop, nobody knows.

Michael Mozina said:

If this thread, and the participants in this thread are any example, I can easily now answer that question. Pure ignorance and outright denial of empirical fact (current comes first) is "unconquerable". I learned that while debating creationists. No amount of scientific reasoning can overcome the human self defense mechanism of pure denial. Even scientific facts (like current comes first) are trivially tossed aside without so much as a second thought.

The "tactics" one uses really become irrelevant sooner or later. It doesn't matter how many of your own experiments begin with charge separation and/or current. You refuse to deal with that *REALITY*.

Click to expand...

Okay, so allegedly all 16,000 physicists in the US, plus tens of thousands of other physicists in the world are all ignorant and in denial of empirical fact. And the 14 or so proponents of the electric Sun fantasy are the only humans on Earth who actually get it. Well here's a suggestion. Since the 14 electric Sun proponents are clearly more intelligent than the total combined brain power of the thousands of physicists on this planet, maybe they can come up with a strategy to pitch their case in a way that doesn't rely on insulting their critics, expressing contempt for real science and scientists, lies, repeated failed arguments, bastardized redefinition of terms, and ignoring all physics newer than 20 years old. Those strategies have been tried, in thousands of posts, in millions of words, all over the Internet, and they always fail.

Michael Mozina said:

You continue to demonstrate a pattern of pure human denial. I specifically highlighted the appropriate parts of Tim's paper and you're in pure denial of scientific fact, specifically the *FACT* that currents come first.

The only "failure" was your failure to get off the denial-go-round. Round and round we go, where the denial-go-round will stop, nobody knows.

Click to expand...

The incivility and persistent personal attack aside, that argument by insult, contempt for science, and bare unsupported assertion has failed to be compelling or convincing any time it's ever been used. I'm sure we all agree it's not rational to continue trying it.

GeeMack said:

Okay, so allegedly all 16,000 physicists in the US, plus tens of thousands of other physicists in the world are all....

Click to expand...

....not very happy about you sticking words in their mouth, and using appeals to popularity fallacies to hide from the fact that you personally are in denial of scientific fact. You personally are in pure denial of the fact that current comes first even though many of those authors are in no such form of denial as Tim's paper clearly demonstrates.

The only "failure" is yours. You failed to get off the denial go round. You failed to read Tim's paper or meaningfully respond to it in any scientific manner (as usual). As usual, you are in pure denial of scientific fact *IN SPITE* of the fact that the authors clearly state that the reconnection process takes place between two preexisting currents, and both currents are driven by charge separation.

GeeMack said:

The incivility and persistent personal attack aside,

Click to expand...

There is nothing uncivil about noting the fact that you personally are in pure denial of the *scientific fact* that current comes first and currents reconnect. It's simply a statement of fact. You remain in denial of many things, including the fact that discharges occur in plasmas and that currents reconnect.

that argument by insult,

Click to expand...

Thus whined the undisputed king of the use of insult in debate.

contempt for science,

Click to expand...

How ironic that you're in hardcore denial of the fact that currents come first, and you have the absolute audacity to claim that I have a contempt for science. Irony overload.

and bare unsupported assertion

Click to expand...

That is an outright lie. Tim's paper clearly and unmistakably demonstrated my point. You're not only in denial, you're willing to lie about it too.

has failed to be compelling or convincing any time it's ever been used. I'm sure we all agree it's not rational to continue trying it.

Click to expand...

It's not rational for you to sit there on the denial-go-round ...

GeeMack said:

Okay, so allegedly all 16,000 physicists in the US, plus tens of thousands of other physicists in the world are all ignorant and in denial of empirical fact. And the 14 or so proponents of the electric Sun fantasy are the only humans on Earth who actually get it. Well here's a suggestion. Since the 14 electric Sun proponents are clearly more intelligent than the total combined brain power of the thousands of physicists on this planet, maybe they can come up with a strategy to pitch their case in a way that doesn't rely on insulting their critics, expressing contempt for real science and scientists, lies, repeated failed arguments, bastardized redefinition of terms, and ignoring all physics newer than 20 years old. Those strategies have been tried, in thousands of posts, in millions of words, all over the Internet, and they always fail.

Click to expand...

Since all those "strategies" have *failed* would they have to use *MATHEMATICS* and *LOGIC*? I think that might be asking *TOO* much.

Michael Mozina still ignores reality: First the field then the current.

Michael Mozina said:

There is nothing uncivil about noting the fact that you personally are in pure denial of the *scientific fact* that current comes first and currents reconnect.

Click to expand...

Actually as anyone who can read can see, it is Michael Mozina who is personally in denial of the scientific fact that in magnetic reconnection experiments the reconnection comes first and then the currents change.

You have no citations for your assertion.

The science tells us that you are wrong.
Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption?
First asked 16 May 2011

and from Tim Thompson
First the field then the current.