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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
A PUBLISHED reference (without currents/plasma) is idiotc.
Click to expand...

Yep, it sure is. Unfortunately Clinger claimed he could demonstrate Dungey's "reconnection" process *WITHOUT* plasmas.

You have to get the magnetic field from somewhere,. That is why Somov postulates 2 parallel electric currents in if example of MR in vacuum.
Click to expand...

The moment you introduce currents into that vacuum you introduce PLASMA into that vacuum. Do you understand that? Yes or no?
 
Michael Mozina said:
If he's so "proud" of his work, then he should be EAGER to publish it.
Click to expand...
He is *proud* and EAGER to publish it. It is just that he cannot because it is not new research.

You need to stop displaying your ignorance about scientific literature and read what I wrote:
Reality Check said:
W.D. Clinger should be proud of his simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.
I am proud of W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.

*ONLY AN IGNORANT PERSON* would want W.D. Clinger to "finish the job" and get it published.

Scientific journals publish new research. W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection is not new research. It is an undergraduate level derivation the MR does what science says it does - breaks and reconnects magnetic field lines.

Thus W.D. Clinger has "published" this simple stuff where is should reside - on the Internet.
Click to expand...

Actually there may be an educational journal out there that might be interested in publishing a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.
 
Reality Check said:
He is *proud* and EAGER to publish it. It is just that he cannot because it is not new research.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's new "research" (gag) alright. Not one of you can cite a legitimate publication that claims what Clinger claims. Somov ran open currents through his vacuum. Clinger promised to do his 'reconnection' magic entirely *without* plasma.

More importantly none of you can provide references countering the dozen or so references I provided about B lines having no beginning, ending, source or sink. None of you could provide ANYTHING in fact that is REMOTELY like Clingers claims because all other "reconnection" papers you've cited *REQUIRE AND USE* plasma. He's been in UNCHARTED TERRITORY since he first claimed that he could replicate Dungey's version of 'reconnection' *WITHOUT* a plasma.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I want a show of hands of who among you is willing to lend your name to Clinger's claims (and help him clean it up) and put it through an actual peer review process? Anyone? Will Clinger himself even do it?
Click to expand...
You are the only one here that seems to be that *ONLY AN IGNORANT PERSON* in my previous posts so you will not get any hands.

If W.D. Clinger did decide to publish his simple derivation of magnetic reconnection in a journal about physics education then he will not need our help. He has what looks like a mostly complete article.

W.D. Clinger is unlikely to do this for the simple reason that it does not matter. You are already ignoring the published science so why should he write something else for you to ignore or be deluded about?

Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section V
MM: 1000's of references (many of which are REAL PUBLISHED REFERENCES) for MR = field lines breaking and reconnecting
 
Reality Check said:
You are the only one here that seems to be that *ONLY AN IGNORANT PERSON* in my previous posts so you will not get any hands.
Click to expand...

I won't get any hands because none you actually believes this nonsense enough to put it through a peer review process with your actual name attached to it. It's garbage and deep down inside somewhere you know that to be true. I've provided around a dozen published references from EM classes at various colleges and universities and scientific websites (like Wiki) around the country/planet that refute your claims that B lines have "beginnings" without monopoles.

His epic kludge of basic EM theory would NEVER pass a peer review process. As long as none of you have to face that process, you can keep handwaving away like any good creationist.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Yep, it sure is. Unfortunately Clinger claimed he could demonstrate Dungey's "reconnection" process *WITHOUT* plasmas.
Click to expand...
And he did: W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection
MM: W.D. Clinger did demonstrate his claim

P.S. MM: Show the mistakes in a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 3
This is basically either put up or shut up. If you cannot show that you understand his derivation and thus show where he made his errors, then you are just arguing from a stance of ignorance.


Michael Mozina said:
The moment you introduce currents into that vacuum you introduce PLASMA into that vacuum. Do you understand that? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
The moment you introduce currents into that vacuum you introduce WIRES into that vacuum. Do you understand that? Yes or no? :rolleyes:

Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section V
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
P.S. MM: Show the mistakes in a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 3
This is basically either put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that a dozen times now, 15 or more if count WIKI pages. Each of them claims that only a monopole is an exception to any rule, and they all claim that B lines do not begin, end, have a source or a sink. So far your side has produced NOTHING but PLASMA processes which Clinger claimed were NOT REQUIRED in his contraption.
 
Last edited:
Nobody, not even Clinger himself is willing to put his presentation through an actual peer review process? Do you REALLY expect to me accept this nonsense? How exactly is your handwave any different than a creationist handwave? Talk about pathetic arguments.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It is new. Somov ran open CURRENTS through the vacuum, introducing PLASMA to the PROCESS.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section V

Somov ran open CURRENTS through the vacuum, introducing WIRES to the PROCESS :rolleyes:.
Somov ran open CURRENTS through the vacuum, introducing ELECTRON BEAMS to the PROCESS :rolleyes:.
Somov ran open CURRENTS through the vacuum, introducing PROTON BEAMS to the PROCESS :rolleyes:.
Somov ran open CURRENTS through the vacuum, introducingIONIZED SILVER BEAMS to the PROCESS :rolleyes:.

Can you see that my satirical comments is as stupid as your serious assertion about PLASMA?

Somov has no plasma.
Somov has no wires.
Somov has no beams of any kind of charged particle.

He has 2 parallel electrical currents that just exist.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Nobody, not even Clinger himself is willing to put his presentation through an actual peer review process? Do you REALLY expect to me accept this nonsense? How
Click to expand...
He is willing. But he knows that this material is probably covered in plasma physics courses (it is a reasonable first step as in Somov's book). It probably takes the lecturer about 20 minutes to go through it. Or less - this is so basic that he may just say "read pages X to Y in your textbooks", e.g. Somov.

I know that your ignorance of science will not allow you to accept the fact that peer-reviewed journals publish new research.
W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection is an interesting exercise in undergraduate physics. It is not new scientific research. MR in vaccum is a trival exercise, e.g.

Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990
In an vacuum, magnetic reconnection is trivial process...
Click to expand...


Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
"Section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" covers this topic in a page and a half !
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You and PS have both made this claim. Can either of you present a PUBLISHED, preferably "peer reviewed" paper that I can read?
Click to expand...

Just get yourself some refrigerator magnets.

Michael Mozina said:
I HONESTY (I don't care what you think) do not understand what PHYSICAL thing you believe "reconnects".
Click to expand...

The magnetic fields reconnect (that’s why it’s called magnetic reconnection), acting like you don’t already know that is just you being dishonest.

Michael Mozina said:
The term "reconnection" could be replaced in your description with "reconfiguration", or "realignment" and I'd be fine. Care to meet in that middle ground before we go in endless circles?
Click to expand...

The term “reconnection” could be replaced with just about anything other than “reconnection” and you’d “be fine”. Pretending that giving you exactly what you want simply because of your own personal distain is somehow a “middle ground” is again just you being dishonest. Again reconnection is a specific type of "reconfiguration", or "realignment", that you’re not “fine” with that is simply your problem. You simply do not like the word reconnection and would prefer that it were anything else, unfortunately for you that word is accurately descriptive of the type of "reconfiguration", or "realignment" it pertains to.


Michael Mozina said:
Monopoles are not optional as it relates to B *LINE* beginnings, endings, sources and sinks. Without them, magnetic lines cannot have beginning or endings. The EM universe can have a TRILLION different NULLS (where nothing happens), but not one of those NULLS is the "beginning or ending", the "source or sink" of any of the B lines in the universe.
Click to expand...

Again get yourself some refrigerator magnets and let us know when you have found any monopoles.

It is not so much that “nothing happens” at the null point as it is that two different field configuration are exactly (topologically) the same because of that null point.

I’ll try to make this easy for you.

Let’s consider a traffic circle, two roads lead into the circle and two lead away. One road approaches going South East and another leaves going North East. The third road approaches going North West and the fourth leaves South West.

So we’ll label the roads

1 SE IN
2 NE OUT
3 NW IN
4 SW OUT

From this configuration we can have two different combinations of opposing routes. 1 to 2 and 3 to 4 as opposing East and West routes respectively. We also have 1 to 4 and 3 to 2 as opposing South and North routes respectively. It is basically the same with the null point (and generally in this application the null only refers to the magnetic field vector at that point) without any field vector itself, opposing field lines that approach and leave can sometimes do so in a way where the topology represent more than one configuration, generally tending for a configuration with lower energy, which is why energy previously stored in the magnetic fields can be released through reconnection.


Michael Mozina said:
Do any of you have published works to support these claims? Clinger seems to believe that Origin the NULL is a "necessary" "beginnor and endor", and he believes plasma and current is optional for "reconnection". You've taken it one step further (actually Clinger said it too once) and you are now claiming that even the NULL is optional. Care to provide any of the Pig-Latin math you claim is OH SO IMPORTANT to explain YOUR position *WITHOUT A NULL*?

Holy cow. Now I'm *UTTERLY* confused as to WHAT relevant maths ANY of you might provide.
Click to expand...

“you are now claiming that even the NULL is optional”? Don’t know where the heck you think I claimed such a thing, but if you would quote where you think that was I could probably clarify that misinterpretation.
 
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Exactly where is the flaw in Clingers demonstration?
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
It started in part three (the epic disaster installment) where Clinger claimed that Origin the NULL was a "beginning" of B lines. It went downhill from there.
Click to expand...
OK, I have reviewed part 3 of Clinger's demonstration. Just so we are clear on the nature of your objection, are you referring to the center of the colored illustration (the "neutral point") where all magnetic fields cancel?
 
Do a search on books.google.com on "vacuum reconnection" and you will find a paper by Priest, a paper by Priest and Schrijver (here section 5 even has software to do your own vacuum reconnection) and there is a paper by Pritchett, where he specifically lets the density go to zero in his modelling. I think that were the first three links (did this yesterday evening) and there I stopped.

The simple fact that Somov's currents are just two wires carrying an electric current (otherwise you cannot maintain a vacuum) seems to be lost on MM.

And no, vacuum reconnection does not mean that the vacuum itself is reconnecting!
 
tusenfem said:
Do a search on books.google.com on "vacuum reconnection" and you will find a paper by Priest, a paper by Priest and Schrijver (here section 5 even has software to do your own vacuum reconnection) and there is a paper by Pritchett, where he specifically lets the density go to zero in his modelling. I think that were the first three links (did this yesterday evening) and there I stopped.

The simple fact that Somov's currents are just two wires carrying an electric current (otherwise you cannot maintain a vacuum) seems to be lost on MM.

And no, vacuum reconnection does not mean that the vacuum itself is reconnecting!
Click to expand...

Is there a PARTICULAR ONE that tickles your fancy that I can take a look at?
 
Perpetual Student said:
OK, I have reviewed part 3 of Clinger's demonstration. Just so we are clear on the nature of your objection, are you referring to the center of the colored illustration (the "neutral point") where all magnetic fields cancel?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's a NULL. You can call it a "neutral point" if you like (it's technically correct), but without any plasma it's never going to form a fully developed "neutral" in the sense that Dungey is using the term. He's using the term 'neutral' more like an electrical term since he has current running up the Z axis.

Clinger has more of a NULL than a "neutral".
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Just get yourself some refrigerator magnets.
Click to expand...

I realize that you don't believe me, but I don't understand how (or if) you differentiate between *ORDINARY MAGNETIC FLUX CHANGES* due to the movements of the magnets, and what you are calling 'magnetic reconnection'. The field topology changes alright, but it's just a "bending and twisting" of the lines that takes place. Nothing needs to 'reconnect' to explain the behaviors you're attempting to explain with two refrigerator magnets.

Surely if this "reconnection" process is so prevalent, so 'simple' to achieve in a freshman experiment, there MUST BE some published papers/books describing this process, just as there are MANY books describing the fact that magnetic lines do not begin or end, have a source or a sink. Can you find me a legitimate published reference to support your claim? I've provided a dozen or so that claim that magnetic lines form as a full, continuous circle/loop.
 
Last edited:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/resources/the-electric-sky-preview/

Donald Scott earned his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Electrical Engineering at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, CT. Following graduation he worked for General Electric in Schenectady, NY, and Pittsfield, MA. He earned a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, and was a member of the faculty of the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst from 1959 until his retirement in 1998. During that time he was the recipient of several good-teaching awards. He was, at various times, Assistant Department Head, Director of the undergraduate program, Graduate admissions coordinator, and Director of the College of Engineering’s Video Instructional Program.
Click to expand...

Hey Clinger...

Why don't you send your parts 1-5 to Dr. Scott for peer review and see what he has to say? :)
 
Last edited:
FYI, there was a really nice example of a dark filament eruption on the horizon/limb at the 9:00 position today. Fortunately that CME was not directed our way. :) There's a second mass flow moving toward the 3:00 position too. Interesting.

I'll post the LASCO images as the mass flows become visible in Lasco, but the CME is quite visible in the both iron line images (I just selected one) and the 304A images (HE).

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_0211.mpg
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_0304.mpg
 
Last edited:
FYI, the dual eruption is most visible in the 304A images. They both occur at approximately the same time, and move in relatively opposite directions. Fortunately both mass flows look to point away (flow away) from the direction of Earth.
 
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
OK, I have reviewed part 3 of Clinger's demonstration. Just so we are clear on the nature of your objection, are you referring to the center of the colored illustration (the "neutral point") where all magnetic fields cancel?
Click to expand...


Michael Mozina said:
Yes. It's a NULL. You can call it a "neutral point" if you like (it's technically correct), but without any plasma it's never going to form a fully developed "neutral" in the sense that Dungey is using the term. He's using the term 'neutral' more like an electrical term since he has current running up the Z axis.

Clinger has more of a NULL than a "neutral".
Click to expand...

OK, regardless of what we call it (I don't really care), do you agree that all magnetic lines cancel out along that axis? In other words, there is no magnetic energy that exists along that axis? I assume that would mean that if I placed an iron atom anywhere along that axis, it would not be moved by the four magnetic fields nearby since they cancel each other at the point of that atom.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I realize that you don't believe me, but I don't understand how (or if) you differentiate between *ORDINARY MAGNETIC FLUX CHANGES* due to the movements of the magnets, and what you are calling 'magnetic reconnection'. The field topology changes alright, but it's just a "bending and twisting" of the lines that takes place. Nothing needs to 'reconnect' to explain the behaviors you're attempting to explain with two refrigerator magnets.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of topological equivalence. If two objects are topologically equal, all that can happen is "bending and twisting" to transform from one to the other. If two objects are topologically different, then for one to transform into the other, parts must break and/or connect.
Two bar magnets together have a topologically different magnetic field than the resulting fields when the two magnets are separated. That is why it is not possible for such a transformation without magnetic lines breaking and reconnecting. Most people here seem to think that constitutes magnetic reconnection.
 
Perpetual Student said:
OK, regardless of what we call it (I don't really care), do you agree that all magnetic lines cancel out along that axis?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a NULL.

In other words, there is no magnetic energy that exists along that axis? I assume that would mean that if I placed an iron atom anywhere along that axis, it would not be moved by the four magnetic fields nearby since they cancel each other at the point of that atom.
Click to expand...

I'll buy that.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of topological equivalence. If two objects are topologically equal, all that can happen is "bending and twisting" to transform from one to the other. If two objects are topologically different, then for one to transform into the other, parts must break and/or connect.
Two bar magnets together have a topologically different magnetic field than the resulting fields when the two magnets are separated. That is why it is not possible for such a transformation without magnetic lines breaking and reconnecting. Most people here seem to think that constitutes magnetic reconnection.
Click to expand...

The website where your previous magnet image came from was explicit about the fact that the magnets could 'reconnect', but it specifically talks about the lines "bending and twisting". The topology of the field lines can and do change over time *WITHOUT* any sort of 'reconnection' process. They just twist and bend as necessary.
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
OK, now as we follow the path of a magnetic line as it gets closer to that region, how does it become zero at that point if it does not end?
Click to expand...

You could probably look at it TWO ways:

It's PROBABLY true that no field lines actually go directly through the NULL in the first place. They most likely interfere with each other and BEND around the NULL region, leaving no lines in the null.

It's probably "ok" to think of the lines as "fading to a ZERO strength" in the NULL, but NOT ENDING there. They didn't start there, they just faded to ZERO in that region, or all have a ZERO strength in that region.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The website where your previous magnet image came from was explicit about the fact that the magnets could 'reconnect', but it specifically talks about the lines "bending and twisting". The topology of the field lines can and do change over time *WITHOUT* any sort of 'reconnection' process. They just twist and bend as necessary.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you do not understand the significance of topological homeomorphism. One doughnut cannot be bent and twisted to become two doughnuts. Breaking and reconnecting must occur. Basically that's what we have when the magnets are aligned as one and then split apart to become two distinct magnets. The resulting fields must break and reconnect just as with the doughnuts.
 
FYI, I think it's more "correct" to think of of the NULL region as an INTERFERENCE pattern that prevents lines from ENTERING the NULL to begin with. You can draw any number of ZERO strength lines from around the poles to ENTER that NULL with a zero strength, but they were all ZERO STRENGTH lines to begin with.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Clearly, you do not understand the significance of topological homeomorphism. One doughnut cannot be bent and twisted to become two doughnuts. Breaking and reconnecting must occur. Basically that's what we have when the magnets are aligned as one and then split apart to become two distinct magnets. The resulting fields must break and reconnect just as with the doughnuts.
Click to expand...

I think if you thought of it as pushing 4 donuts together near a central point, in the middle a space forms where no donut material goes (the NULL). :) The rings/donuts bend and twist and avoid the NULL entirely, or at least all the ones with a non zero strength.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Clearly, you do not understand the significance of topological homeomorphism. One doughnut cannot be bent and twisted to become two doughnuts. Breaking and reconnecting must occur.
Click to expand...

There's at least two basic problems with that logic. First of all the donuts *CANNOT* be broken without a monopole knife and none of us have one. The non zero strength donuts never actually CROSS in the NULL, they "interfere" with one another and AVOID that point entirely. The only LINES that might actually traverse that NULL would be lines that were ALWAYS ZERO, or simply didn't exist in the first place. :)

It's entirely possible NOTHING ever goes INTO the NULL in the first place!

Basically that's what we have when the magnets are aligned as one and then split apart to become two distinct magnets. The resulting fields must break and reconnect just as with the doughnuts.
Click to expand...

I've already admitted that the H lines will in fact "reconnect' inside the magnet if and when you physically reconnect the magnets. B lines will not.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, I think it's more "correct" to think of of the NULL region as an INTERFERENCE pattern that prevents lines from ENTERING the NULL to begin with. You can draw any number of ZERO strength lines from around the poles to ENTER that NULL with a zero strength, but they were all ZERO STRENGTH lines to begin with.
Click to expand...

In the real world this does not make any sense at all.

There is no interference, there this just the summation of two vector fields, created by the two line currents.

Keep up the good work mikey.
 
Mozina, based on this recent exchange, I really believe you are not following the logic of these discussions. I suggest you go back to Clinger's part three with an open mind, and attempt to follow his argument. Your responses about interference patterns preventing lines from entering make no sense and have no scientific basis. What is the genesis of these interference patterns of yours? What is interfering with what? These are stationary magnetic fields generated by DC currents!
Clearly, magnetic lines end (or begin) at that axis. So, it appears to be conclusive that your objections to Clinger's part three scenario are baseless.

Regarding the discussion about bar magnets, bending and twisting without breaking and reconnection cannot lead to topological changes. For the topology of an object to change, breaking and reconnecting must occur -- for both doughnuts and magnetic fields. I suggest you try to comprehend ideas presented to you instead of reacting with mental knee-jerks.
The topology of the fields of two separate magnets is different from the topology of a single magnet (as when they are brought together); no bending and twisting (without breaking and reconnection) can account for that difference.
 
Oy Vey.

It doesn't matter HOW you look at it PS. Unless one of you has a monopole in your pocket, FOREGETABOUTIT! Magnetic lines do not have a source, a sink, a beginning or an end as those dozen or so references from various universities demonstrate. Clingers NULL is literally the beginning of NOTHING! It could never be the beginning or source of anything, because it's NOTHING! It's just a NULL.

Clinger's little handwave was doomed from the start. The moment he removed PLASMA from the PROCESS of reconnection, his experiment was doomed to failure.

Reconnection is a PROCESS of PLASMA physics.

He was wrong about anything BEGINNING at X. It doesn't. He was wrong to try to claim he could get 'reconnection' as Dungey described *WITHOUT* plasma.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom