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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's interesting that Mozina never discusses the mathematics or even the actual physics involved in these discussions. Instead, his positions are based on what he thinks he understands from old papers written by dead physicists. What a pathetically impoverished way to understand science!
 
Perpetual Student said:
It's interesting that Mozina never discusses the mathematics or even the actual physics involved in these discussions. Instead, his positions are based on what he thinks he understands from old papers written by dead physicists. What a pathetically impoverished way to understand science!
Click to expand...

Considering the fact that your last "scientific argument" was based ENTIRELY upon artwork and a complete misread of the website where you found it, that's quite funny!
 
Perpetual Student said:
It's interesting that Mozina never discusses the mathematics or even the actual physics involved in these discussions. Instead, his positions are based on what he thinks he understands from old papers written by dead physicists. What a pathetically impoverished way to understand science!
Click to expand...

What the heck is there to discuss in terms of math? He hasn't presented any useful maths yet! I'm actually dying to see how he gets that *HUGE* energy release to occur WITHOUT a plasma.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's a good thing we all agree that magnetic B lines do not disconnect or reconnect, magnet FLUX induces an E field that results in an electrical discharge that we call a "solar flare".
Click to expand...


Oh, well that's nothing like what Dungey described.
 
Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

Missed this:
Michael Mozina said:
Wow, you got something right! How high does the current get according to Dungey?
Click to expand...
Wow - you read and misunderstood again something I wrote!
Current density
Current density is a measure of the density of flow of a conserved charge. Usually the charge is the electric charge, in which case the associated current density is the electric current per unit area of cross section, but the term current density can also be applied to other conserved quantities. It is defined as a vector whose magnitude is the current per cross-sectional area.
Click to expand...

Oh dear - you are showing your ignorance of Dungey's work.
The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, Dungey 1958
"The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density. The electrons must at least reach relativistic energies and the order of magnitude is given by j ~ nec; furthermore, constriction may increase n to a value substantially larger than in the surrounding gas.
Click to expand...

We can add this to Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection.
Originally posted on 13th January 2011 by D'rok!
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Let's distinguish the front and back of the box by saying the magnetic field lines enter at the back and leave at the front. That means the total flux through the box S is obtained by subtracting (the absolute value of) the flux that enters the back from the flux that leaves the front.
Click to expand...

And you're ABSOLUTELY positive that you aren't confusing "magnetic flux" (with respect to your box), including directional components, with "magnetic reconnection"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It is EXACTLY what he actually "described" in terms of the math and the physics. An E field is INDUCED and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE is the result.
Click to expand...


What Dungey described was magnetic reconnection. He even called it that. He never said anything about a cathode Sun (which doesn't act like any known cathode) with (physically impossible) giant lightning-like sparks for solar flares. There was nothing about Dungey's magnetic reconnection explanation that could rationally be mistaken for some kind of electric Sun conjecture.
 
Just for the record. The most likely ERROR that you're making Clinger is mistaking MAGNETIC FLUX for "reconnection". That's what EVERYONE seems to be doing, along with ignoring Dungey's claim about ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES and induced E fields. :)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
It is EXACTLY what he actually "described" in terms of the math and the physics. An E field is INDUCED and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE is the result.
Click to expand...
You have still not cited Dungey stating this (MM: cite Dungey's "'electrical discharge' that releases all that stored EM energy").
However you are wrong because the result is not Dungey's ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE
  1. Magnetic reconnection happens causing
  2. An induced E field (changing magnetic fields!) causing
  3. Electrons to be accelerated (this is not Dungey's ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE).
Dungey's ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE is the squeezing of the plasma as the MR starts. This constriction increasess the current density in the current sheets within the plasma.
Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection!
Originally posted on 13th January 2011 by D'rok!
 
Reality Check said:
Magnetic reconnection happens
Click to expand...

Based on that last website that you and PS couldn't read correctly, it's clear that you're both INTENT on confusing MAGNETIC FLUX with "reconnection". It's the MAGNETIC FLUX that induces the E field RC, not "reconnection". Oy Vey.
 
Last edited:
MM: Cite Dungey stating that the induced E field creates large current densities

Michael Mozina said:
Just for the record. The most likely ERROR that your making Clinger is mistaking MAGNETIC FLUX for "reconnection". That's what EVERYONE seems to be doing, along with ignoring Dungey's claim about ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES and induced E fields. :)
Click to expand...
Just for the record: MAGNETIC FLUX is not magnetic reconnecting and so you are the ine making the.
What Clinger clearly shows is that the magnetic field lines can go through a neutral point. The fact that this jeans that they break is obvious:
  1. AT a neutral point the magnetic field is zero (B=0).
  2. When B=0 there are no field lines.
  3. And line entering a neutral point must end there.
  4. Any line leaving a neutral point must start there.
Just for the recored: You are lying again :). We are not ignoring Dungey or your inability to understand his work on magnetic reconnection: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection!

Just in case your assertion that Dungey has induced E fields creating large current densities (what he called electrical discharges) is not part of:
Michael Mozina.
Cite Dungey stating that the induced E field creates large current densities (what he called electrical discharges).
 
Michael Mozina said:
Based on that last website you and PS couldn't read correctly, it's clear that you're INTENT on confusing MAGNETIC FLUX with "reconnection". It's the MAGNETIC FLUX that induces the E field RC, not "reconnection". Oy Vey.
Click to expand...
Based on this post you are determined to obsess with random assertions about MAGNETIC FLUX.
Oy Vey.
That would be dumb because they are different things.
The post is especially ignorant because there are no E fields illustrated on the web site.
The post is even more ignorant because not one can read anything on that web site about magnetic reconnection beacuse it is not mentioned or described.

What people can do is look at the animations that show magnetic field lines breaking and reconnecting, e.g. two loops forming one loop.
There is nothing to confuse there.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Could you explain how any magnetic B line "begins" anywhere? I can see how a MAGNET can be thought of as a "beginning" point, or more accurately the "source of" a magnet field, by how could any magnetic field "begin" in a "vacuum"?
Click to expand...
You're at a considerable disadvantage here because you never even tried to answer Reality Check's question about the magnetic field surrounding a single current-carrying rod. It looks like this:
[qimg]http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Nerdliness/MR/figure0.png[/qimg]

Now consider the contributions made to B4 at the origin by each of the four rods. For the east rod, its contribution is some particular intensity m in the southward direction. For the west rod, its contribution is that same intensity m in the northward direction, so the net contribution of the east and west rods to B4 at the origin is 0. Similarly, the net contribution of the north and south rods is 0. Hence B4 is zero at the origin; that's why Dungey calls it a neutral point.

Now consider the value of B4 at some point of the form <dx,-dx> where dx is very small but positive. For the east rod, its contribution is some intensity mE (which is very close to m but slightly greater) in a direction that's very close to southward but slightly east. For the west rod, its contribution is some intensity mW (which is very close to m but slightly less) in a direction that's very close to northward but slightly west. The east and west rods almost cancel each other's fields at <dx,-dx>, but their net effect is a very small resultant in the general direction of southeast. Similarly, the north and south rods almost cancel each other's fields at <dx,-dx> but their net effect is a very small resultant in the general direction of southeast. Adding those two very small resultants together, you get a very small magnetic field directed southeast.

For larger values of dx, the direction continues to be southeast but the intensity grows larger (up to a point, after which the intensity begins to decrease and continues to decrease all the way out to infinity). For smaller positive values of dx approaching zero, the direction of the magnetic field at <dx,-dx> continues to be southeast but its intensity approaches the zero value we calculated for the origin.

If you don't believe me, you can calculate the partial derivatives of B4 with respect to x and y at points of the form <dx,-dx> with 0<dx.

Michael Mozina said:
It's a good thing we all agree that magnetic B lines do not disconnect or reconnect, magnet FLUX induces an E field that results in an electrical discharge that we call a "solar flare".
Click to expand...
That's absurd. Even if we ignore the fact that a B field's magnetic field lines can disconnect or reconnect at neutral points, a steady magnetic flux does not induce an E field.

Come to think of it, everything you have ever written about magnetic flux is wrong.
 
Reality Check said:
Based on this post you are determined to obsess with random assertions about MAGNETIC FLUX.
Click to expand...

Random my *ss. PS HOUNDED me about the issue until I *FINALLY* got it, along with the fact that neither of you knows how to correctly read the website where the images originate. While the author does correctly talk about the MAGNETS reconnecting, the author also CORRECTLY describes the TWISTING and BENDING of the actual B and H field lines (flux not 'reconnection'). You two (Clinger makes 3) can't tell solid magnet reconnection from an electrical discharge in a plasma!
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
Come to think of it, everything you have ever written about magnetic flux is wrong.
Click to expand...

How ironic considering the fact that everything you've said about "reconnection" is wrong, wrong, HORRIBLY wrong, starting with the fact that solar flares occur in PLASMAS, not "vacuums".
 
Michael Mozina said:
GeeMack said:
What Dungey described was magnetic reconnection. He even called it that.
Click to expand...

He also called it an electrical discharge too. When did you intend to get off the denial-go-round?
Click to expand...


Here's the rest of what I said... Dungey never said anything about a cathode Sun (which doesn't act like any known cathode) with (physically impossible) giant lightning-like sparks for solar flares. There was nothing about Dungey's magnetic reconnection explanation that could rationally be mistaken for some kind of electric Sun conjecture.
 
GeeMack said:
Here's the rest of what I said...
Click to expand...

I don't care what the rest says. You're in PURE DENIAL of the fact that solar flares are ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES. There's no point in worrying about anything else since you've demonstrated conclusively that your beliefs are IRRATIONAL and based on PURE IGNORANCE and irrational hatred.
 
Micheal, I'm wondering if you have read this paper from UCLA. http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers/POP-colliding-plasmas.pdf

From the summary and conclusions;
"two magnetic “bubbles” collide. The collision produces turbulent local magnetic fields... The collision of the lpps (laser produced plasma) results in
an early magnetic reconnection event Fig. 4. This creates a short-lived induced electric field parallel to the background magnetic field and drives a large field aligned current. After about a microsecond, the magnetic bubbles collapse but the cross-field collision continues."

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



This is an empirical experiment creating magnetic re-connection in the lab using helium plasma and lasers.
 
Last edited:
MM: Magnets in Motion animations show magnetic field lines breaking and reconnecting

Michael Mozina said:
While the author does correctly talk about the MAGNETS reconnecting, the author also CORRECTLY describes the TWISTING and BENDING of the actual B and H field lines (flux not 'reconnection'). You two (Clinger makes 3) can't tell solid magnet reconnection from an electrical discharge in a plasma!
Click to expand...
This post states so many delusions!
  • Twisting and bending of B or H lines is not magnetic flux.
  • We can read thus we can tell that the author is talking about reconnecting the magnets, i.e. moving them around.
You are the only one saying that the reconnecting the physical magnets moving around is magnetic reconnection. That is so ignorant that it is not even wrong :( !

One more time (simply for the simple minded):
There is a web page called Magnets in Motion.
It is not about magnetic reconnection.
It is about what happens to magnetic fields when you move magnets around.

There are animations that illustrate the magnetic field using magnetic field lines.
One of them is "A combination of all of the above. motion08.htm". In this animation, you can see magnetic field lines breaking and reconnecting.

Another animation is "Starts as one magnet that breaks apart into five pieces. The North pole stays on the right. You can see how the field lines connect the pieces, even as the distance between them varies. motion09.htm".
Humanzee pointed out that two loops in this becomes one loop, i.e. magnetic fileds connecting on 5 Nov 2011.
​
This was followed up by W.D. Clinger's post pointing out what you have been ignoring for many months:
W.D.Clinger said:
J W Dungey's 1958 paper (to which Michael Mozina refers almost daily) contains even clearer examples of magnetic reconnection in the B field. His Figure 2 shows a magnetic field in the shape of a "figure eight". That's the field produced by two current-carrying rods placed in parallel, in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

This was followed by the third part of W.D. Clinger's explanation of magnetic reconnection:

W.D.Clinger said:
To review the derivation so far:
  1. part 1 and its erratum used one of Maxwell's equations to derive the magnetic field B around a current-carrying rod.
  2. part 2 expressed that magnetic field in both cylindrical and Cartesian coordinates.
In this part of the derivation, we go beyond introductory textbooks by showing that the magnetic field around four current-carrying rods reproduces
We will show that this particular magnetic field is a counterexample to three myths that are often repeated by people who don't understand magnetic fields and their associated mathematics.
Click to expand...
That post includes a explicit example of magnetic field lines ending an beginning.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You're in PURE DENIAL of the fact that solar flares are ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES.
Click to expand...
I see that you are back to this delusion, MM.
Shall we list a few of the facts that you are in PURE DENIAL of?
  • when there are different definitions of the term electrical discharge, you need to state the context that the term 'electrical discharge' is being used or the actual definition that you are using.
  • solar flares are NOT ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES because ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES (AS IN LIGHTNING) are physically impossible in plasma.
  • you are unable to cite any scientific literature that states that solar flares are electrical discharges.
  • Dungey states that the cause of solar flares is MAGNETIC RECONNECTION.
  • that the scientific consensus as expressed in thousands of publications is that solar flares are caused by magnteic reconnection.
    Google Scholar gives ~17,000 results for "solar flare magnetic reconnection" and you are ignoring them :eye-poppi!
For example
A loop-top hard X-ray source in a compact solar flare as evidence for magnetic reconnection by S. Masuda, T. Kosugi, H. Hara, S. Tsuneta & Y. Ogawara, Nature 1994
SOLAR flares are thought to be the result of magnetic reconnection — the merging of antiparallel magnetic fields and the consequent release of magnetic energy. Flares are classified into two types1: compact and two-ribbon. The two-ribbon flares, which appear as slowly-developing, long-lived large loops, are understood theoretically2–6 as arising from an eruption of a solar prominence that pulls magnetic field lines upward into the corona. As the field lines form an inverted Y-shaped structure and relax, the reconnection of the field lines takes place. This view has been supported by recent observations7–10. A different mechanism seemed to be required, however, to produce the short-lived, impulsive compact flares. Here we report observations made with the Yohkoh11 Hard X-ray Telescope12 and Soft X-ray Telescope13, which show a compact flare with a geometry similar to that of a two-ribbon flare. We identify the reconnection region as the site of particle acceleration, suggesting that the basic physics of the reconnection process (which remains uncertain) may be common to both types of flare.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
So RC, do B field lines disconnect and reconnect or just flux? Is an E field *INDUCED* at the X point? Is the result an "electrical discharge in plasma"?
Click to expand...

No, it is not a "discharge" (whatever definition you may use here, unfortunately I need to use that word right here), the electric field is created by the magnetic field in motion as you can read in chapter 6 of Somov. It is a V x B electric field: B to the left(right), V down(up) gives an E out of the plane of the paper. Apparently you read and do not understand, as usual.
 
Humanzee said:
Micheal, I'm wondering if you have read this paper from UCLA. http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers/POP-colliding-plasmas.pdf

From the summary and conclusions;
"two magnetic “bubbles” collide. The collision produces turbulent local magnetic fields... The collision of the lpps (laser produced plasma) results in
an early magnetic reconnection event Fig. 4. This creates a short-lived induced electric field parallel to the background magnetic field and drives a large field aligned current. After about a microsecond, the magnetic bubbles collapse but the cross-field collision continues."

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

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

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

:popcorn1
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ah, it actually is a conceptual/knowledge problem evidently. PS's error, followed by RC's error (followed by your error) provides valuable insight into the actual conceptual problem. Thanks for that. I mean that.

Somov is working in "current carrying" plasma (as least in my book). The "reconnection" he's describing at the X point is an INDUCED E field followed by CURRENT. The term "reconnection" is sloppy when looking at B field lines that have no beginning or ending, but can bend and twist like Gumby. That FLUX will in fact INDUCE current, but no B lines need to be broken or reconnected. The only thing that has to occur in a plasma to induce an E field is FLUX, not RECONNECTION. All of you share a common misconception, apparently even you tusenfem. Flux is not the same as reconnecting B lines. Somov describes INDUCED E field and current and current sheets. Chapter 16 is devoted to explaining the process (mostly verbally) from the E orientation.

No B field lines actually "reconnect", there is just "flux" which you can "reconnect" with a charged particle via INDUCTION.
Click to expand...

Like I said you read and do not understand. The current is always there, because of the oppositely directed magnetic fields. You can find that even in Alfven's books that that will have a current sheet if there is a plasma present. This current flows perpendicular to the magnetic field as according to Maxwell's equations.

Ah, just add flux, and what will that do? Will that actually create from straight field lined the bent field lines that you see in Fig. 6.1? NO it will not, because magnetic fields are additive and thus you will NOT get this new topology, which can only happen when the field lines reconnect. I would you read the first chapters of Somov's book and not only chapter 6. In chapter 6 Somov discusses the processes that can happen in the current sheet in a stationary situation, with reconnection going on. And yes, some instabilities like the tearing mode can facilitate faster reconnection, but still RECONNECTION, the word that Somov keeps on using. Don't you think that Somov would use the word INDUCTION if he thought that was the process that is reorganizing the topology of the magnetic field. Sure he would, but he is more intelligent than that, because he knows that induction cannot change the topology from straight to bent in the manner of figure 6.1.

Also, let's take a look at the mystery region near the centre of the current sheet, where the magnetic field goes to zero. There is nothing there that actually creates loose field lines, with one side just hanging there. It is a region of weak field where the field lines come close together and then somehow nature thinks it is more favourable to change from these pressed together squashed field lines to change the connection and then you get the bent. At no time will there be one side of a field line hanging unconnected it is an instantaneous processs that is taking place.

And NO, adding flux is not the same as what mainstream calls reconnection, the idea is preposterous.
 
Perpetual Student said:
To my layman's sense of this, the above seems to violate Gauss's law. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

The density of magnetic field lines is a measure of the magnetic field intensity. Field lines themselves only show the direction of the vector magnetic field.
 
Michael Mozina said:
He also called it an electrical discharge too. When did you intend to get off the denial-go-round?
Click to expand...

Somov, your new hero, never EVER mentiones "electrical dischage" in his 2006 book on Plasma Astrophysics (Part 2: Reconnection and Flares), I guess he is just a misguided soul.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think we'll have to decide who's a relevant authority. Dungey and Giovanellli seem like THE TWO primary instigators of this theory. Alfven "dissed" the whole concept of reconnecting B lines. He literally called it "pseudoscience". The only relevant references that I know for sure understand the issue from both the E and B orientations are Giovanelli (electrical discharge), Dungey (electrical discharge), Peratt (electrical discharge), and Somov (E induced at X, current reconnection), and the UCLA group that we were discussing earlier that explained the process using circuit theory and ordinary induction.

I can't use Alfven as authority per se, or we have to just toss out the whole concept entirely and replace it with his double layer paper instead, making it OBVIOUS that we're talking about induction and current sheet acceleration. That would be my personal preference mind you (toss out it), but Dungey's description of an E induced process that results in an electrical discharge is essentially Alfven's description of double layer transaction. I can work with it.
Click to expand...

I meant, what about the rest of the world, Mike ? You can't just pick two people who agree with you, say they are the only relevant authorities, and then say 100% of the scientific community agrees with you.
 
Belz... said:
Michael and GeeMack: stop nay-saying one another and quote the man saying what you say he said.
Click to expand...


Yes, sure. Here are all the places James Dungey didn't suggest the Sun is a giant cathode and solar flares are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth...




















Well, okay, the list is actually much longer, but there isn't enough space here to hold an infinitely large volume of newlines and carriage returns. On the other hand, regarding the electric Sun conjecture as it's being presented in this thread, if Dungey did mean to say solar flares are a lightning-like release of electricity and the Sun acts like a cathode, the burden of demonstrating that falls to those who are advocating that position.

As to the term "electrical discharge" to support an electric Sun conjecture, what is happening in this thread is the same dishonest argument used by god-believers where they point out someone famous or smart said something that sounded like god exists, therefore god exists. "Electrical discharge" has been described as "a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy." It's so vague it can literally mean a recipe card falling when someone pulls a magnet off the refrigerator. The attempt has been to get everyone to accept that as a definition, then to build an equivocation fallacy suggesting solar flares are some kind of lightning-like electrical process.

I (along with pretty much everyone here who is not an electric Sun proponent) take the position that no such bolt-of-lightning process is happening in the Sun's atmosphere. That particular sort of "electrical discharge" requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium, an insulator, and given the conditions on the surface of the Sun, i.e. plasma is a conductor, no such phenomenon can occur. That is trivially true as a matter of simple physics. The rebuttal to that, the argument in support of the electric Sun conjecture has gone like this...

  • Some scientist said an electrical discharge is the sudden release of electrical or magnetic energy...

  • Some other scientists used the term "electrical discharge" when writing about solar flares...

  • A bolt of lightning is a sudden release of electrical energy therefore...

  • A solar flare is an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or the sparks dancing in a toy plasma ball.
It is an equivocation fallacy of course, and of course it's nonsense. I've attempted to point out that there is no logical support for such a leap, and to place the burden of proof where it belongs. The responses, as you've noted, have been a content free barrage of strawmen, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and uncivil personal attacks at worst...

Michael Mozina said:
I don't care what the rest says. You're in PURE DENIAL of the fact that solar flares are ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES. There's no point in worrying about anything else since you've demonstrated conclusively that your beliefs are IRRATIONAL and based on PURE IGNORANCE and irrational hatred.
Click to expand...

... and at best, cherry picked bits and pieces from legitimate scientific resources contorted into gross misrepresentations of the real physics involved.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I meant, what about the rest of the world, Mike ? You can't just pick two people who agree with you, say they are the only relevant authorities, and then say 100% of the scientific community agrees with you.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Well, let's start by saying that I am not trying to suggest that there is now, or ever was 100% agreement on any position. Alfven totally REJECTED the idea of B field line reconnection for instance. He called the whole MR theory "pseudoscience" and replaced the idea with a double layer transaction involving current sheet acceleration with NO magnetic line reconnection. He utterly rejected the idea in CURRENT CARRYING, or light plasma and he viewed the entire universe as a current carrying environment.

I'm not sure who even counts today as an "authority" on plasma physics, or how many of them there might be. To my knowledge there has NEVER been full agreement on any position related to MR theory. About the BEST I could do for you is start with the folks that CREATED the magnetic reconnection theory (Giovanelli and Dungey) and go from there. Peratt is one of Alfven's first generation students. I'm sure that he believes it's an electrical discharge. I know that Dungey and Giovanelli used the term "electrical discharge" when describing the whole "process" of energy exchange. I can name "some" MR proponents that agree. I can't say all would necessarily agree, in fact I know for a fact that tusenfem DISAGREES with me and I would agree he's somewhat of an "authority" since he at least HAS read the relevant work and is professionally employed in the area. That pretty much eliminates any possibility of 100% agreement.

FYI, while I can appreciate the value of studying Dungey's early work and Giovanelli's work on this topic, and the work of others as well, I'm not convinced that anything much is gained by citing MORE references. Furthermore, we risk bordering on an appeal to authority fallacy if that is ALL we try to use as a means to judge the validity of some position or another. In theory the science should speak for itself, and authorities aren't relevant.
 
Last edited:
Humanzee said:
Micheal, I'm wondering if you have read this paper from UCLA. http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers/POP-colliding-plasmas.pdf

From the summary and conclusions;
"two magnetic “bubbles” collide. The collision produces turbulent local magnetic fields... The collision of the lpps (laser produced plasma) results in
an early magnetic reconnection event Fig. 4. This creates a short-lived induced electric field parallel to the background magnetic field and drives a large field aligned current. After about a microsecond, the magnetic bubbles collapse but the cross-field collision continues."

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

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

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

I don't think I've read that SPECIFIC paper yet, but I'll check it out today. Just skimming the abstract this morning it looks to be challenging to determine which of those lines relates ONLY to a magnetic field line and which of them might related to the "flow of current" in the plasma from one area to another. I'll check it out and get back to you. Thanks for the reference.
 
Belz... said:
Michael and GeeMack: stop nay-saying one another and quote the man saying what you say he said.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that I already handed you a paper from Dungey where he specifically describes the "electrical discharge" through that neutral point. I have NO idea what GM intends to use as a reference to deny the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma and it solar flares. You might ask him that.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Keep in mind that I already handed you a paper from Dungey where he specifically describes the "electrical discharge" through that neutral point.
Click to expand...


Of course, Dungey explained exactly what he meant by "electrical discharge":

Dungey said:
The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density.
Click to expand...


That "large current density" occurs near the neutral point of the X-shaped magnetic field shown in Dungey's figure 1. In part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, I proved that Dungey's X-shaped magnetic field can occur within a vacuum, with no plasma present and with virtually no electrical field.

Once you understand the physics of that X-shaped magnetic field in vacuo, without the complications of plasma or electrical fields, you can then go on to consider what would happen if a plasma current were flowing in the direction of the z axis. That's exactly what Dungey did in his 1958 paper, and I will explain the simplest part of his argument in part 5 after I prove (in part 4) that a variation of the experiment I've been suggesting to Michael Mozina for the past 10 months demonstrates magnetic reconnection in the B field.

Because Michael Mozina refuses to understand the physics of Dungey's magnetic fields, and does not even understand such basic concepts as magnetic flux, he doesn't know what causes Dungey's "large current density". Instead of reading and failing to understand his five books on plasma physics, and spending years denying the reality of magnetic reconnection, Michael Mozina would have done better to have learned some freshman-level electromagnetism.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Of course, Dungey explained exactly what he meant by "electrical discharge":




That "large current density" occurs near the neutral point of the X-shaped magnetic field shown in Dungey's figure 1.
Click to expand...

Yes Clinger, I'm well aware that Dungey's "reconnection" process requires PLASMA, not a vacuum. I'm also aware of the fact that his 'neutral line' is more of an ELECTRICAL term related to the flow of electrons, and it implies nothing like what you're describing in a 'vacuum'. I'm absolutely mystified how you intend to duplicate or simulate that process in your vacuum contraption. I guess I'll have to wait for the math.

:popcorn1
 
FYI Belz, let me clue you into a few of the basic "fuzzy" regions related to plasma physics so that you have a better handle on how easy it is to confuse yourself when talking about a plasma.

If we were to look at a working circuit board from a distance with a device that could only measure the magnetic field strengths, we would see a "magnetic change in topology and field strengths" taking place over time. We might "call" that process "magnetic reconnection" because we can see the lines "reconnect" over time.

Of course since we can get up close and personal with a circuit board, and the board itself is composed of solids, we can easily see that the flow of current is what creates those magnetic reconnections we observed from a distance.

Since we can't touch the sun, we can't stick probes in it to measure the electric field. Furthermore plasma is a 'tricky' place because the individual electrons and protons can move around, and go from one "circuit" to another, creating a magnetic field in it's wake. It's not so "clean and simple" anymore because the circuit board isn't solid. It's therefore EXTREMELY easy to confuse the movement of a charged particle with a "magnetic reconnection". As PS, RC and Clinger demonstrated, it's also very easy to confuse "solid magnet/charged particle" reconnection with 'B field line reconnection'. It's also INCREDIBLY easy to confuse "magnetic flux" with "magnetic reconnection". Magnetic FLUX is what INDUCES that E field, not "reconnection per distance unit". It's the FLUX that moves the magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy via INDUCTION. There's nothing magical going on in the plasma, but the particles move and reconnect, and the circuits move and reconnect.

You might also look up "Birkeland current" on Wiki. The currents in plasma tend to move in "field aligned currents". It's a lot like a "tornado" or an ordinary filament like you might find inside of an ordinary plasma ball from Walmart. There are MANY tricky issues related to plasma movements and magnetic fields because any movement of a charged particle will create a magnetic field. IMO Clinger is up a creek without a particle paddle because he started in a vacuum rather than a plasma. We'll have to see how that turns out when he provides the math. Pay attention to his use of PERMEABILITY. Even in a vacuum that is a measurement of the INDUCTANCE PER UNIT LENGTH. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 'reconnections per distance unit".
 
tusenfem said:
Somov, your new hero, never EVER mentiones "electrical dischage" in his 2006 book on Plasma Astrophysics (Part 2: Reconnection and Flares), I guess he is just a misguided soul.
Click to expand...

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

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

I'm trying to look for a rational way to bridge our differences here. Let's start "easy". Would you agree that *BEFORE* the reconnection process begins, the plasma is flowing in two field aligned currents?
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Yes, sure. Here are all the places James Dungey didn't suggest the Sun is a giant cathode and solar flares are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth...
Click to expand...

You're still trying to DODGE the electrical discharge aspect by ADDING elements and COMPLICATING the issue. The only reason you're doing that is because you HATE to be wrong and you HATE EU theory (or maybe me personally in your case) so you're stuck in pure denial.

Since Dungey originally coined the term, the term "magnetic reconnection" has been associated with solar flares and ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES. The storage device of EM energy in plasma is the "circuit". The release point is the "double layer" (Alfven), "electrical discharge" (Dungey). Since you won't accept the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma and in flares, it's pointless even worrying about your denial routine any further. If your pride and ignorance of historical fact won't allow you to accept the scientific fact that electrical discharges occur in flares, it's no skin off my nose. Deny the history of the study of electrical discharges in plasma all you like, but only reflects badly on you at this point.

The rest of your post is a complete dodge so you can try to avoid admitting that you're wrong about electrical discharges occurring in plasma. I won't let you off the hook on this issue. You're still in pure denial ON THIS ISSUE.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
In part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, I proved that Dungey's X-shaped magnetic field can occur within a vacuum, with no plasma present and with virtually no electrical field.
Click to expand...

FYI, BALONEY you did. Dungey's arrows in the middle of his diagram relate to MORE THAN JUST B LINES in a vacuum, they include plasma "processes" that are not related to the B lines directly. I can't really comment on your personal arrows in your diagram yet because you haven't provided any math, but at first glance you look to have botched the job because the arrows in the middle "should be" (at least in theory) one directional arrows of the magnetic field from one of your poles. The arrows in and out of the center point of your diagram are TOTALLY FUBAR as far as I can tell so far (with no math). You've proven NOTHING yet except your tendency to handwave in absence of a published work to support your claims. I'm personally DISGUSTED by the fact that you're *STILL* referring to Dungey's work IN PLASMA since your contraption is NOTHING like the process Dungey is describing *IN PLASMA*.

All I can do now is WAIT for you to finish your "freshman" math assignment and provide it. I'm SURE it is going to involve PERMEABILITY and INDUCTION PER DISTANCE UNIT, not "reconnections per distance unit". I also have a hunch that you're going to drive MAGNETIC FLUX through your central "box" and try to pass off that flux as "magnetic reconnection".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom