Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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

 User Name Remember Me? Password

 Notices IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar. Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer. If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email. NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags Alfven waves , Birkeland currents , hannes alfven , Kristian Birkeland

 17th March 2012, 10:10 AM #7041 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by phunk I lost count of how many times I've said reconnection can happen in a vacuum without charged particles. I'm flabbergasted that you can say that I believe the opposite. I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position. How on EARTH can you ignore Somov's stated 'cause/effect' relationship? He specifically states that the currents must MOVE closer together for FLUX to occur. That FLUX can indeed affect a CHARGED PARTICLE, but without one, it's just FLUX because no energy has been converted from the magnetic field into charged particle kinetic energy. I'm flabbergasted you can't see that yet.
 17th March 2012, 10:14 AM #7042 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position. How on EARTH can you ignore Somov's stated 'cause/effect' relationship? He specifically states that the currents must MOVE closer together for FLUX to occur. That FLUX can indeed affect a CHARGED PARTICLE, but without one, it's just FLUX because no energy has been converted from the magnetic field into charged particle kinetic energy. I'm flabbergasted you can't see that yet. The persistent and dishonest attempt to redefine terms in order to wish a sci-fi crank fantasy into reality is noted.
 17th March 2012, 10:17 AM #7043 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=6967 FYI, I think my confusion started with a beer and a misread of this specific post. I think the bottom line here is what you're calling "reconnection" is simple "flux change". Without any charged particles, Somov's process doesn't work. His process requires that currents (charged particles) actually MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER. That's a basic requirement that he states quite clearly. If there are no charged particles to pass on kinetic energy to, then no 'reconnection' actually occurs as a result of the 'flux change'. What you're calling "reconnection" isn't "reconnection' at all. It's simply a "flux change", and you still fail to accept that any FIELD is a direct result of CURRENT! In Somov's example, the E field DRIVES the current and put the particle kinetic energy, and associated magnetic fields at the point of 'reconnection'. All the actual ENERGY comes from the CURRENT and the E field(s) driving that current.
 17th March 2012, 10:21 AM #7044 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack The persistent and dishonest attempt to redefine terms in order to wish a sci-fi crank fantasy into reality is noted. Your persistent denial of scientific fact is noted. Somov's VACUUM isn't EMPTY at all. It *INCLUDES* (not excludes) charged particle FLOW inside and through that vacuum. The RECONNECTION occurs when magnetic field energy is *CONVERTED* into particle kinetic energy. The FLUX that Somov's describes is CAUSED BY THE MOVEMENT OF CURRENTS TOWARD EACH OTHER. EVERY SINGLE paper on MHD theory PROVES BEYOND ALL DOUBT that "reconnection' and the "rate of reconnection" is directly related to CHARGED PARTICLE MOVEMENTS! Talk about dishonest, denial based behaviors!
 17th March 2012, 10:30 AM #7045 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 You folks only give math and peer reviewed science lip service. Not a single one of you actually cares one iota that the "rate" of reconnection is measured in PARTICLE FLOW changes over time. Without the charged particles, the rate of reconnection drops to ZERO, and no flux is even possible in Somov's example because his example REQUIRES the movement of CURRENT to occur for 'reconnection' to even happen in the first place! You've still provided no way to mathematically express a 'rate of reconnection' in the absence of all charged particles, and you've provided no way to generate, let alone TRANSFER magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. Your argument is fundamentally flawed at every single PHYSICAL and MATHEMATICAL level. You don't care about math or the fact you can't even EXPRESS a rate of reconnection without particles. If physics is all about math, and math is king, your king is dead. I can provide you with THOUSANDS of papers based on MHD theory, each and every one of which demonstrates conclusively and PHYSICALLY that 'reconnection" is a process that REQUIRES charged particle movement. You've got zip in terms of even being able to express a rate of reconnection without charged particle movement. You're king is a mathematical disaster, and dead in the water. The worst part is not one of you has brought a real peer reviewed paper to this discussion that actually supports your case, and you have the nerve to call *ME* a "crackpot' and a 'crank'. Wow! Talk about projection! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th March 2012 at 10:36 AM.
 17th March 2012, 10:44 AM #7046 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check That sentence is very precise. He's also quite precise about the fact that the moving charged particles (current) in his example has to MOVE TOWARD another charged particle/current for any 'reconnection' to occur. I don't blame Somov for anything. It's actually your fault, not his. He's very clear about both the EXISTENCE of the charged particles in the vacuum and the fact they MOVE toward one another. Whatever denial routines come from your side, they have NOTHING to do with Somov or his explanation of events. He even explains the order of the cause/effect process of events as CURRENTS move toward each other.
 17th March 2012, 10:49 AM #7047 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Honestly, this is just sad at this point. You folks claim that math is oh so important, but not one of you can or ever will come up with a single formula (let alone multiple ones like MHD theory) to describe a 'rate' of reconnection without particles. You've tried to take the PHYSICS out of particle physics. That doesn't work! It doesn't work mathematically either. You've literally cut off your physical and mathematical noses and none of you care! None of you can produce a peer reviewed paper on "reconnection" that *IS NOT* based upon MHD theory or particle movement. You've literally got NOTHING. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th March 2012 at 10:51 AM.
 17th March 2012, 10:52 AM #7048 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 I guess we can all now see that the mathematical emperors have no mathematical clothes on.
 17th March 2012, 11:04 AM #7049 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,692 Quote: View Post Today, 10:17 AM Remove user from ignore listMichael Mozina This message is hidden because Michael Mozina is on your ignore list. Quote: View Post Today, 10:21 AM Remove user from ignore listMichael Mozina This message is hidden because Michael Mozina is on your ignore list. Quote: View Post Today, 10:30 AM Remove user from ignore listMichael Mozina This message is hidden because Michael Mozina is on your ignore list. Quote: View Post Today, 10:44 AM Remove user from ignore listMichael Mozina This message is hidden because Michael Mozina is on your ignore list. Quote: View Post Today, 10:49 AM Remove user from ignore listMichael Mozina This message is hidden because Michael Mozina is on your ignore list. Quote: View Post Today, 10:52 AM Remove user from ignore listMichael Mozina This message is hidden because Michael Mozina is on your ignore list. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 17th March 2012, 11:09 AM #7050 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You folks only give math and peer reviewed science lip service. [* Standard barrage of complaints about failure snipped. *] There is no math or peer reviewed science that would bring us to the objective conclusion that the Sun has a solid/rigid surface. There is no math or peer reviewed science that would bring us to the objective conclusion that solar flares are or are caused by lightning-like electrical discharges. To claim otherwise would be a demonstration of gross ignorance or abject dishonesty.
 17th March 2012, 11:17 AM #7051 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,237 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I think the bottom line here is what you're calling "reconnection" is simple "flux change". [* More complaints about failing snipped. *] Magnetic reconnection is not "simple flux change". This appears to come from ignorance of the preceding thousands of posts, or dishonestly trying to redefine terms in order to wish a sci-fi crank fantasy into reality.
 17th March 2012, 11:22 AM #7052 dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell     Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 5,437 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You folks only give math and peer reviewed science lip service. Not a single one of you actually cares one iota that the "rate" of reconnection is measured in PARTICLE FLOW changes over time. Phunk covered that. We understand it just fine. I'd say we even care about it, though I don't care enough to send it a birthday card or drive it to the airport. Quote: Without the charged particles, the rate of reconnection drops to ZERO so far, so good . . . Quote: and no flux is even possible in Somov's example because his example REQUIRES the movement of CURRENT to occur for 'reconnection' to even happen in the first place! Flux requires some motion of charged particles. A steady current moving in a straight, infinitely long line gives the easiest flux to model, and that's why Somov used it. As far as "REQUIRES the movement of CURRENT" - if you mean the currents need to move with respect to each other to get flux, then, no. Current creates flux, period. Quote: You've still provided no way to mathematically express a 'rate of reconnection' in the absence of all charged particles, asked and answered, sheesh! Quote: and you've provided no way to generate, let alone TRANSFER magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. In vacuum reconnection, none of the magnetic field energy is transferred to stray particles drifting around in the vacuum. The field lines simply reconnect. That's why vacuum reconnection is so much less interesting than plasma reconnection. Quote: Your argument is fundamentally flawed at every single PHYSICAL and MATHEMATICAL level. Our argument is very different from your characterization of our argument. Quote: You don't care about math Oh, we care about math. I'd drive math to the airport. I'd even keep an eye on its house while it was away. Quote: or the fact you can't even EXPRESS a rate of reconnection without particles. you're right, we don't care about that one, any more than we care that we can't express the impartiality of indigo. Quote: The worst part is not one of you has brought a real peer reviewed paper to this discussion that actually supports your case, and you have the nerve to call *ME* a "crackpot' and a 'crank'. Wow! Talk about projection! Michael, you have taken Somov's statement that "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process" to mean that reconnection cannot happen in a vacuum. Honestly, how could anything that we might show you have any impact on your views? __________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
 17th March 2012, 11:43 AM #7053 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by dasmiller Phunk covered that. We understand it just fine. I'd say we even care about it, though I don't care enough to send it a birthday card or drive it to the airport. Quote: Flux requires some motion of charged particles. A steady current moving in a straight, infinitely long line gives the easiest flux to model, and that's why Somov used it. But therein lies the first rub. Charged particles do NOT move in a "straight line' in the presence of magnetic fields, even stable magnetic fields. They move in corkscrew pattern through time, even electrons and positrons. They create a tornado like vortex as they move, a Birkeland current when flowing inside plasma. Even Somov however described the relationship between "reconnection" and charged particle movements (currents). The currents come first, they move, they generate "flux" which in turn has an effect on the kinetic energy state of other particles. The particle/field relationship can't be taken apart like you're trying to take it apart. Somov didn't do that, and for good reason. You need PARTICLES to measure RATES of reconnection and PARTICLES are what are affected by that FLUX you're actually describing in a vacuum. Quote: As far as "REQUIRES the movement of CURRENT" - if you mean the currents need to move with respect to each other to get flux, then, no. Current creates flux, period. But that's just it. Somov moved the current to create the flux and uses the current to create the FIELDS he's reconnecting. There's no separation of particles from the "reconnection" process in Somov's example. They are INTIMATELY related. Quote: In vacuum reconnection, none of the magnetic field energy is transferred to stray particles drifting around in the vacuum. Then there is no transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy and rate of reconnection will always be zero. Quote: The field lines simply reconnect. No, they bend and twist and FLUX. The "reconnection" is the transfer of that flux energy into particle kinetic energy. Without the transfer of energy, it's just 'flux'. Quote: That's why vacuum reconnection is so much less interesting than plasma reconnection. Ya, nothing happens. Quote: Our argument is very different from your characterization of our argument. Of course, but then again, I'm not having to fight and argue over ONE SINGLE reference (Somov) which actually doesn't even support my claim. I've got THOUSANDS of papers based on MHD theory that show that 'reconnection' and the "rate of reconnection' is directly related to the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. Quote: Oh, we care about math. I'd drive math to the airport. I'd even keep an eye on its house while it was away. You have to see the irony from my perspective at least, right? I've been LAMBASTED for the fact that I won't bark math on command, yet I've had NO trouble citing mathematical descriptions of "reconnection" in plasma. Without it, you folks can't even come up with a logical way to mathematically express a rate of reconnection without charged particle movement, but you're all still convinced anyway? What can I say. It's an epic sized irony overload from my perspective. It's like 10,000 published papers on math to NONE. How can math matter to you folks but it not matter that you can't come up with a mathematical expression for the rate of reconnection without particle movement? Quote: Michael, you have taken Somov's statement that "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process" to mean that reconnection cannot happen in a vacuum. No, I've taken Somov at his word. I've taken his statement that reconnection in a vacuum that *INCLUDES MOVING CHARGED PARTICLES OF KINETIC ENERGY* will result in charged particle acceleration and a transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration. I have no idea how you can all overlook all his references to current/charge particle movements. Quote: Honestly, how could anything that we might show you have any impact on your views? If you could come up with some math to express a rate of reconnection without charged particle movements, maybe. Without it, I doubt it. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th March 2012 at 11:53 AM.
 17th March 2012, 11:59 AM #7054 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check It would be insane for someone using MHD to state that there is no plama. It's equally insane to believe that "reconnection" happens in the absence of charged particle movement too, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from promoting the concept, with or without a mathematical model. If mathematics is the currency of physics, your side is penniless.
 17th March 2012, 12:25 PM #7055 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 975 Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo XVI Originally Posted by Michael Mozina EVERY SINGLE paper on MHD theory PROVES BEYOND ALL DOUBT that "reconnection' and the "rate of reconnection" is directly related to CHARGED PARTICLE MOVEMENTS! Talk about dishonest, denial based behaviors! Of course this is entirely true. After all, since MHD is a theory of plasma physics (not a theory of vacuum physics), it comes as no surprise that moving charged particles are involved. However, there is something else implied here that very much bothers me, and that is: Are you seriously claiming that, according to "our side", we can have magnetic fields without the motion of charged particles? I cannot imagine how such a notion could ever have entered your mind. On 15 February 2009 I said ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson You need moving charged particles to generate a magnetic field, and that is not necessarily a classical electric current, which is a flow of charged particles all of which have the same charge (i.e., a stream of electrons or protons, typically electrons in our daily lives). The bulk motion of a charge neutral plasma will generate a magnetic field, and that's where the magnetic fields in cosmology & astrophysics come from, not from streams of classical electric currents. This has been proven in both theory & practice and is a simple fact of nature. And again on 12 March 2009 I said ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Nobody ever said that magnetic fields are independent of charged particles. What we do say is that the classical electric currents, as in pure streams of electrons (or protons or other charged particles), are not the only way to generate magnetic fields, and that indeed most of the magnetic fields in the cosmos are not generated by such currents. Of course it is a given fact, and always has been, that all magnetic fields always require some pre-existing motion of charged particles. Now, if you look at my post "Magnetic Reconnection Defined and Described" you will see that in each and every example, despite the slightly differing language, all of the definitions of magnetic reconnection boil down to "a topological rearrangement of magnetic field lines". Now, nobody ever even hinted at the suggestion that there are no moving charged particles anywhere in the universe whereby one might generate the given magnetic field, that is so painfully obvious it is simply assumed that everyone already knows that. But note that those charged particles are not directly involved in the immediate reconnection process ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson All magnetic fields are originally generated by electric currents. However, while the current flows in a confined volume, the consequent magnetic field will fill a vastly larger volume than the current. Hence it is possible to measure an active and time variable magnetic field in a vacuum far removed from the current that generated it. This is a point which seems to be overlooked to me so I want to make sure the point is made explicitly somewhere. Furthermore, magnetic fields and plasmas commonly couple together, so that the plasma will carry the "frozen in" magnetic field with it. So a plasma can be magnetized by a magnetic field that is not generated by that plasma, but by another completely independent plasma far away. As an example, the solar wind carries the solar magnetic field along with it. The magnetic field was originally generated in the sun, but is carried to the outermost reaches of the solar system by the solar wind, which can deform that magnetic field, but has nothing to do with the generation of that magnetic field. Likewise, magnetic fields generated deep inside the sun will pass through the photosphere of the sun and couple with it, despite not being formed in the photosphere by the plasma it is coupled to. So it is important to understand that we can have a magnetic field in a plasma, but not assign the task of generating that magnetic field to that particular plasma. The topological rearrangement of magnetic field lines can and will happen at a point or locus of points that are situated in a vacuum, but certainly does not preclude the existence of plasma or electric current somewhere else that is generating the magnetic field that is doing the vacuum reconnection. This is in fact exactly what happens in the Somov vacuum reconnection process; the actual reconnection of magnetic field lines takes place in a vacuum, but of course there is a current flowing somewhere else which generates the magnetic field, and in the absence of that current the magnetic field would not only not reconnect, it would not even exist. But is this supposed to be your great revelation? How can you imagine that anyone has ever argued that this is not exactly the case? Consider this (again!) ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson One need only look at either of the images provided by phunk (post 6553, 29 Feb 2012) or myself (Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo, 20 May 2011) and see that when the opposite polarity ends of a bar magnet face each other, then the magnetic field lines from either magnet are fully connected to those of the other, while in the case of same polarity ends the magnetic field lines of either magnet are fully disconnected from those of the other. Simply rotating one magnet with respect to the other creates a transition from a fully connected to a fully disconnected state, or vice-versa. That is all you need to see & know, to know that the field lines of the two magnets have to change their connectivity, or in other words, the field lines must reconnect. Now, if we want to talk about the process in some more detail, then all of the technical details you talk about must come into play. However, simply to establish the minimal condition that some form of reconnection takes place does not require anything beyond a visual inspection of the field line images. Put those two bar magnets in a vacuum and you have magnetic fields in a vacuum rearranging their topology, and that is, by definition, magnetic reconnection. However, everyone agrees that the magnetic fields in the vacuum are generated by microscopic electric currents inside the non-vacuum environment of the magnets themselves. In this case the rate of reconnection is the ratio of the velocity of the "incoming" magnetic field to the "outgoing" magnetic field, which is necessarily 1 in all cases, since there is only one relative velocity between the two magnets. Reality Check did provide a formula for the rate of reconnection (see post #6801), in terms of the plasma velocity, and I told you how that translates to the vacuum case ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson The magnetic reconnection rate is set by the velocity of the magnetic field, not by the velocity of the plasma. The reason the velocity of the plasma is used is that outside the separatrix area where reconnection actually happens, the magnetic field is frozen to the plasma, so that the two velocities are the same (see, e.g, "Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications", Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press 2000, page 36). Magnetic reconnection in a vacuum is both trivial and unavoidable, happening very easily. However, as a general rule, magnetic reconnection is much harder to achieve in an astrophysical plasma because the fields are usually frozen to the plasma in astrophysical applications; e.g., magnetic reconnection is impossible in non-resistive, "ideal", MHD, which is the form originally invented by Alfven. Only in the presence of resistive plasma where the magnetic field can diffuse through the plasma can magnetic reconnection in a plasma actually take place. So, in conclusion, let me be clear about what "mainstream physics", and more importantly perhaps, I myself, mean by plasma being "optional" in magnetic reconnection. First, "magnetic reconnection" is by definition a topological rearrangement of magnetic field lines of force. Second, the point or locus of points where this topological rearrangement takes place may or may not be in a vacuum. Third, all magnetic fields are ultimately generated by moving electrically charged particles. Finally, plasma certainly is "optional" in the sense that there need not be any charged particles at, or even near, the locus of points where magnetic reconnection takes place, but moving charged particles (which may or may not constitute a "plasma") are certainly not optional in the sense that there must be charged particles in motion somewhere in the universe, from which the magnetic field is generated. Now, is there anything in what I have said here, that is known to be factually incorrect? __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
 17th March 2012, 12:48 PM #7056 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Of course this is entirely true. After all, since MHD is a theory of plasma physics (not a theory of vacuum physics), it comes as no surprise that moving charged particles are involved. They are also involved in the acceleration process and the transfer of magnetic field energy in kinetic energy Tim. You can't take away the TRANSFER OF KINETIC ENERGY out of the process and still call it "reconnection". Even Somov explains that the CURRENTS MOVE and that is what causes "FLUX". The flux accelerates particles and thereby transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. If you don't transfer any energy, it's just 'flux" Tim, it's just that simple. Quote: This is in fact exactly what happens in the Somov vacuum reconnection process; the actual reconnection of magnetic field lines takes place in a vacuum, No, FLUX takes place in the vacuum itself. The RECONNECTION PROCESS is the transfer of that flux energy into particle acceleration. You missed a step Tim. Quote: Reality Check did provide a formula for the rate of reconnection (see post #6801), in terms of the plasma velocity, and I told you how that translates to the vacuum case ... Ya, I find it ironic that he accepts and understands the fact that the rate of reconnection relates to the acceleration of real particles, but then ignores that fact anyway. Quote: The magnetic reconnection rate is set by the velocity of the magnetic field, not by the velocity of the plasma. Huh? Didn't you read the grilling that Zeuzz got over that confusion? Magnetic fields propagate at the speed of light Tim. Plasma has various "velocities". Quote: So, in conclusion, let me be clear about what "mainstream physics", and more importantly perhaps, I myself, mean by plasma being "optional" in magnetic reconnection. First, "magnetic reconnection" is by definition a topological rearrangement of magnetic field lines of force. No Tim, you're DUMBING DOWN the PHYSICAL ACCELERATION PROCESS! It's not JUST about generating magnetic FLUX it's about the EFFECT that flux has on CHARGED PARTICLES. "Reconnection" is the transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. It's not FLUX CHANGE. FLUX CHANGE is caused by the change in the distance of the currents according to Somov, but that flux change results in particle acceleration in Somov's RECONNECTION example in a vacuum. His vacuum INCLUDES charged particle movements Tim. That's not optional. You're all guilty of the same exact fallacy, specifically an equivocation fallacy. You're trying to claim FLUX change is the same as "reconnection", but the rate of reconnection is measured in CHARGED PARTICLE ACCELERATION. You can't take the particles out of the process or no magnetic field energy is converted into particle kinetic energy. It's just FLUX CHANGE, and NO TRANSFER of energy. They are not equal. No equivocation fallacies allowed Tim. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th March 2012 at 12:52 PM.
 17th March 2012, 01:02 PM #7057 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson The magnetic reconnection rate is set by the velocity of the magnetic field, not by the velocity of the plasma. I don't know how I missed this earlier, but I think this paragraph needs some explaining on your part. What is the velocity of the magnetic field Tim? Quote: The reason the velocity of the plasma is used is that outside the separatrix area where reconnection actually happens, the magnetic field is frozen to the plasma, so that the two velocities are the same (see, e.g, "Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications", Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press 2000, page 36). They MUST be the same in ANY Birkeland current scenario Tim. There's no such thing as a field line being "frozen' into plasma. The movement of the plasma generates the field Tim. Quote: Magnetic reconnection in a vacuum is both trivial It's trivial alright, so trivial it's called "flux change", not "reconnection". Reconnection is a term that relates to PLASMA PHYSICS, not VACUUM physics. Quote: and unavoidable, It's not only avoidable, it's IMPOSSIBLE if you don't get particle acceleration from it. Quote: happening very easily. No. Flux change happens very easily. Particle acceleration doesn't occur, so no "reconnection" has occurred. Quote: However, as a general rule, magnetic reconnection is much harder to achieve in an astrophysical plasma Nah, all it takes is lots and lots of current Tim. Quote: because the fields are usually frozen to the plasma in astrophysical applications; Even Alfven dissed that whole "frozen in' concept, and he came up with it! He regretted ever using the idea even in DENSE plasma because astronomers started applying it recklessly to light, current carrying plasmas. There is no such thing as a magnetic line being "frozen" into plasma Tim. That was a GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION that Aflven himself came to regret ever using. It's been ABUSED since then by being applied to LIGHT plasma, even coronal plasmas! Alfven explicitly rejected that claim. Quote: e.g., magnetic reconnection is impossible in non-resistive, "ideal", MHD, which is the form originally invented by Alfven. Only in the presence of resistive plasma where the magnetic field can diffuse through the plasma can magnetic reconnection in a plasma actually take place. The "resistive" aspect is directly related to the BEHAVIORS OF PLASMA, just like every other attribute of MHD theory. It's still MHD theory and it still REQUIRES the presence of plasma. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th March 2012 at 01:04 PM.
 17th March 2012, 01:32 PM #7058 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina They are also involved in the acceleration process and the transfer of magnetic field energy in kinetic energy Tim. You can't take away the TRANSFER OF KINETIC ENERGY out of the process and still call it "reconnection". Even Somov explains that the CURRENTS MOVE and that is what causes "FLUX". The flux accelerates particles and thereby transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. If you don't transfer any energy, it's just 'flux" Tim, it's just that simple. Pardon. Quote: No, FLUX takes place in the vacuum itself. Huh? How can flux (or FLUX if you refer) take place? It isn't an event.
 17th March 2012, 01:36 PM #7059 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tubbythin Pardon. Huh? How can flux (or FLUX if you refer) take place? It isn't an event. Everywhere I used the term "flux", I should have used the term "magnetic flux change" if that helps.
 17th March 2012, 01:39 PM #7060 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tubbythin Pardon. Huh? How can flux (or FLUX if you refer) take place? It isn't an event. It is an 'event' that is "caused" by the movement of currents toward one another according to Somov. His vacuum is *INCLUSIVE* of charged particles, and results in charged particle acceleration. You folks can't ignore the fact that a rate of reconnection relates to the rate of particle acceleration. If there is no particle acceleration, the rate of reconnection is always and forever ZERO. No particles=zero particle acceleration due to flux changes over time=no reconnection.
 17th March 2012, 01:42 PM #7061 phunk Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,180 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina They are also involved in the acceleration process and the transfer of magnetic field energy in kinetic energy Tim. You can't take away the TRANSFER OF KINETIC ENERGY out of the process and still call it "reconnection". This is wrong. Transfer of energy certainly happens when reconnection occurs in plasma, but it is a side effect of reconnection, it is not the reconnection itself. Reconnection is the rearrangement of the magnetic fields, not the motion induced in the plasma.
 17th March 2012, 01:43 PM #7062 phunk Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,180 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It is an 'event' that is "caused" by the movement of currents toward one another according to Somov. His vacuum is *INCLUSIVE* of charged particles, and results in charged particle acceleration. You folks can't ignore the fact that a rate of reconnection relates to the rate of particle acceleration. If there is no particle acceleration, the rate of reconnection is always and forever ZERO. No particles=zero particle acceleration due to flux changes over time=no reconnection. Do you consider a permanent magnet moving an inch to be "particle acceleration"?
 17th March 2012, 01:44 PM #7063 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It is an 'event' that is "caused" by the movement of currents toward one another according to Somov. What? Magnetic flux is a quantity, often measured in Weber's. There is no meaningful sense in which it can be called an event any more than a force, speed or mass can be considered an event.
 17th March 2012, 01:58 PM #7064 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tubbythin What? Magnetic flux is a quantity, often measured in Weber's. It's a CHANGING quantity due to the field changes, which are CAUSED BY charged particle movement in Somov's example. At no time is Somov's vacuum EXCLUSIVE of particles. At all times it *INCLUDES* moving charged particles. Quote: There is no meaningful sense in which it can be called an event any more than a force, speed or mass can be considered an event. Is a solar flare an "event" in your opinion? Does it have a trigger? An end?
 17th March 2012, 02:03 PM #7065 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by phunk Do you consider a permanent magnet moving an inch to be "particle acceleration"? I'm not clear on what you mean. A magnet that is already moving in free space with any sort of momentum can move an inch without being accelerated.
 17th March 2012, 02:08 PM #7066 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by phunk This is wrong. No, it's not. Quote: Transfer of energy certainly happens when reconnection occurs in plasma, but it is a side effect of reconnection, it is not the reconnection itself. Reconnection is the rearrangement of the magnetic fields, not the motion induced in the plasma. No, you have that backwards. The movement of field lines is simply movement of the field lines. No transfer of energy is taking place. It's only *AS* you accelerate a charged particle with that moving field that you can call it "reconnection". The rate of "reconnection" is the rate at which magnetic field energy is CONVERTED into particle kinetic energy. No acceleration, no "reconnection". Again, you're confusing localized flux CHANGES over time that do not transfer magnetic field energy into anything, with the ACCELERATION PROCESS called "reconnection". It's an equivocation fallacy of EPIC proportions to claim that the acceleration process is optional when the rate of reconnection is clearly defined in terms of particle acceleration! Talk about blatant fallacies.
 17th March 2012, 02:22 PM #7067 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's a CHANGING quantity due to the field changes, which are CAUSED BY charged particle movement in Somov's example. At no time is Somov's vacuum EXCLUSIVE of particles. At all times it *INCLUDES* moving charged particles. None of this explains the sentence: "No, FLUX takes place in the vacuum itself." Quote: Is a solar flare an "event" in your opinion? Does it have a trigger? An end? Pardon.
 17th March 2012, 02:28 PM #7068 dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell     Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 5,437 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina But therein lies the first rub. Charged particles do NOT move in a "straight line' in the presence of magnetic fields, even stable magnetic fields. They do if they're constrained. Take, say, a wire, or a thin tube of saltwater conducting the current. Quote: Even Somov however described the relationship between "reconnection" and charged particle movements (currents). The currents come first, so far, so good Quote: they move, they generate "flux" which in turn has an effect on the kinetic energy state of other particles. That part may be confused. Currents generate magnetic fields, and those fields affect charged particles. The currents don't need to move to create flux, though particles move to create currents. Quote: The particle/field relationship can't be taken apart like you're trying to take it apart. Somov didn't do that, and for good reason. Actually, you can take it apart like that and Somov did so. One can simply force current to flow through a couple of wires in a vacuum, for example, which will create a magnetic field with a certain topology. One could then move those wires closer to each other, causing the field topology to change, and that would be magnetic reconnection in a vacuum. To first order, one can simply ignore how the currents in the wires affect each other. Quote: You need PARTICLES to measure RATES of reconnection and PARTICLES are what are affected by that FLUX you're actually describing in a vacuum. Again, I'll refer you to phunk and now Tim. In the absence of plasma, the topology changes propagate at c. Quote: But that's just it. Somov moved the current to create the flux and uses the current to create the FIELDS he's reconnecting. There's no separation of particles from the "reconnection" process in Somov's example. They are INTIMATELY related. Tim covered this better than I could. We're not saying that there's no matter present in the universe. We're saying that reconnection can happen in regions that don't have any matter in them. The magnetic fields are generated by matter, but that matter may be remote from the reconnections. Take Somov's figure 1.3, for example: there's mass at the two points where the current flows; the rest (where the reconnection takes place) is vacuum. That's why he called it "vacuum reconnection." Quote: Then there is no transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy and rate of reconnection will always be zero. I'd say it's undefined, but I'll defer to Tim or phunk. Quote: No, they bend and twist and FLUX. The "reconnection" is the transfer of that flux energy into particle kinetic energy. Without the transfer of energy, it's just 'flux'. It's my understanding that magnetic reconnection is actually just magnetic field topology changes. Those topology changes will transfer energy to any charged particles nearby (and those would, in turn, have their own impact on the field), but even without the charged particles, the topology changes, and that's reconnection. Quote: Of course, but then again, I'm not having to fight and argue over ONE SINGLE reference (Somov) which actually doesn't even support my claim. I've got THOUSANDS of papers based on MHD theory that show that 'reconnection' and the "rate of reconnection' is directly related to the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. Michael, part of your problem here is that you've poisoned your own well. I've looked at papers that you've cited and my conclusions were very, very different from yours (as were the authors'). This Somov book is only the latest example, but I didn't find anything terribly supportive in either of the Dungey papers, your gamma-ray paper had nothing to do with the CNO fusion that you claimed it showed, that SERTS paper didn't show what you claimed, the Wu, Chen, and Li paper that you cited as proof of electric solar flares didn't actually have any data about solar flares, and when I waded through that list of papers from post 3356, I found that a lot of them were simply irrelevant (solar wind interaction with Mars? terrestrial aurorae?) or directly contradicted you. You've played the "this paper will explain" it card too many times; I'm not reading any more papers for you and I'm sure as **** not taking your word for what any paper says. In the interest of avoiding run-ins with the JREF mods, I'm going to stop there and take a break from this thread. __________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
 17th March 2012, 02:41 PM #7069 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tubbythin None of this explains the sentence: "No, FLUX takes place in the vacuum itself." Magnetic field changes can take place in an EMPTY vacuum, but particle acceleration cannot. The rate of reconnection is measure in terms of particle acceleration, not magnetic field changes. Quote: Pardon. Flux can be consistent or variable over time. All you're doing is varying the flux, you're not accelerating anything. To get "reconnection" you have to accelerate something.
 17th March 2012, 02:45 PM #7070 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 975 Frozen Flux Approximation Redux Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Even Alfven dissed that whole "frozen in' concept, and he came up with it! Alfven did no such thing. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Alfven from Cosmic Plasma: Quote: II.3 Magnetic Field Lines The concept of 'frozen-in magnetic field lines' has played a central role in plasma physics due to the fact that in several situations, but far from all, it is legitimate to use it. As you have pointed out yourself, over a year ago, Alfven did not "diss" the frozen flux concept. Rather, he correctly points out that in many cases its use is proper. Originally Posted by Tim Thompson { ... } One must fully comprehend that Mozina's blind reliance on Alfven, to the exclusion of everything done in science since Alfven was active, is purely religious and has nothing at all to do with science. That kind of blind faith in any authoritative figure in science must always be rejected, no matter what the science, and no matter the qualifications of the authoritative figure. Science succeeds or fails on its own internal strengths & weaknesses, not on the declarations of authority, despite Mozina's obvious belief that authoritative imprimatur is all that science requires. Why bother with observations? Why bother with controlled laboratory experiments? What use could they possibly be, when the authority of Alfven settles everything? { ... } But what else does Alfven say? He says this: "we find that under cosmic conditions, $\sigma$|| is usually so large that we can regard it as infinite." And what does that mean in any practical sense? It simply means that the mobility of the magnetic field lines relative to the plasma depends on the conductivity. The higher the conductivity, the slower the diffusion of the magnetic field through the plasma, and the more "practically frozen" (not of course literally frozen) it will appear to be. Now, if you are interested in physics that happens in the plasma on a time scale short compared to the diffusion time scale (set by the conductivity), then you can treat the magnetic field for that application as being "frozen". On the other hand, if you are interested in physics that happens on time scales that are long compared to the diffusion time scale of the magnetic field in the plasma, then you cannot use the "frozen" approximation at all, and must be mindful of the mobility of the magnetic field in that application. This in fact is exactly how the frozen field approximation is used in astrophysical plasma physics, and it is in fact precisely in keeping with the rules laid down by Alfven. His mistake was in his assessment of the physical characteristics of the plasma, for which he had not enough factual information at hand. But his assessment that magnetic fields are never really frozen into a plasma was correct, and modern plasma physics adheres to that assessment. { .... } Finally, let me finish with an interesting relevant paragraph: "The remarkable freezing of magnetic field lines into a plasma can be traced to the large induction L of a typical large scale astrophysical plasma and a correspondingly small resistance R. In electrical circuits the timescale for decay of currents is L/R and, correspondingly, the time scale during which flux freezing holds is L/R and in astrophysics is generally very large." Plasma Physics for Astrophysics, Russell M. Kulsrud, Princeton University Press 2005, page 2. My use if the frozen flux approximation is exactly consistent with the rules Alfven laid down for its use. You cannot hide behind the false claim that Alfven dismissed the frozen flux approximation. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
 17th March 2012, 02:56 PM #7071 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by dasmiller They do if they're constrained. Take, say, a wire, or a thin tube of saltwater conducting the current. Somov didn't mention any of those things. Quote: That part may be confused. Currents generate magnetic fields, and those fields affect charged particles. The currents don't need to move to create flux, though particles move to create currents. Somewhere a few pages back I highlighted Somov's statement about the currents MOVING closer together as the CAUSE of the 'reconnection'. I still can't believe you're on their side of this argument considering the fact that the rate of "reconnection" is a measurement of conversion of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. It's like you're all ignoring the units of measurement and none of you care! Physics be damned. Quote: Actually, you can take it apart like that and Somov did so. No, he didn't. His "vacuum" *INCLUDED* and did not EXCLUDE charged particle movement and it *INCLUDED* charged particle acceleration. Quote: One can simply force current to flow through a couple of wires You're adding PHYSICAL THINGS again to that vacuum. You're also going to accelerate PHYSICAL CHARGED PARTICLES again too. You're also talking about a NON PUBLISHED STRAWMAN that has nothing to do with Somov's example. Quote: Tim covered this better than I could. We're not saying that there's no matter present in the universe. We're saying that reconnection can happen in regions that don't have any matter in them. But that's just it. It can't. Only magnetic field changes over time can happen in regions that don't have any matter in them. Only regions with matter can accelerate matter. Reconnection is the process of converting magnetic field energy into charged particle acceleration. Quote: The magnetic fields are generated by matter, but that matter may be remote from the reconnections. Take Somov's figure 1.3, for example: there's mass at the two points where the current flows; the rest (where the reconnection takes place) is vacuum. That's why he called it "vacuum reconnection." But you're still ignoring the fact that his so called "vacuum" isn't actually just a vacuum. It INCLUDES charges particles and INCLUDES charged particle acceleration. How can you just ignore that? Quote: It's my understanding that magnetic reconnection is actually just magnetic field topology changes. That is an incorrect understanding because the rate of reconnection isn't measured in field changes, it's measured in particle acceleration. You're still ignoring the units of measurement. Quote: Michael, part of your problem here is that you've poisoned your own well. I can't stop you from feeling that way (at the moment), but this issue and this point has NOTHING to do with solar theory, and nothing to do with anything other than plasma physics. It's not related to other aspects of our conversations or any papers you pulled randomly from that list. I can't help it if you aren't impressed by LABORATORY demonstrations of highly ionized iron due to 'discharges', even though none of you can do that with 'reconnection'. I'm going to ignore the rest of your complaints at the moment because I'm not letting you off the hook on this topic. Check your units of measurement on the rate of reconnection. Are they measurements of field changes, or measurements particle acceleration? It's an EASY question to answer, but you won't like the answer. It will lead you to the life giving water (of truth) even it it tastes like poison. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th March 2012 at 02:59 PM.
 17th March 2012, 03:01 PM #7072 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 You're all making the oldest mathematical mistake on the planet. You all forgot to check your units of measurement. The rate of reconnection is *NOT* measured in magnetic field changes, it's measured in particle acceleration. Wake up and smell the coffee folks. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th March 2012 at 03:04 PM.
 17th March 2012, 03:08 PM #7073 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 975 Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo XVII Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by Tim Thompson The magnetic reconnection rate is set by the velocity of the magnetic field, not by the velocity of the plasma. Huh? Didn't you read the grilling that Zeuzz got over that confusion? Magnetic fields propagate at the speed of light Tim. Plasma has various "velocities". I must have missed it. Magnetic fields in a vacuum do not necessarily propagate at the speed of light (see below). Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by Tim Thompson The magnetic reconnection rate is set by the velocity of the magnetic field, not by the velocity of the plasma. I don't know how I missed this earlier, but I think this paragraph needs some explaining on your part. What is the velocity of the magnetic field Tim? If I move a bar magnet at 1 meter/second, then the magnetic field of that bar magnet must also move through space at 1 meter/second. Is that not fairly obvious? Now, if I move a bar magnet at 1 meter/second, the change in magnetic field, as a result of the motion of the magnet, will propagate away from the magnet at the speed of light. So, if I move the magnet say 1 millimeter to the left, a measurement device located 10 meters away, will see the magnetic field change at its location {10 meters / speed of light} seconds later. So there are two different velocities for the magnetic field, one being the bulk motion of the field and the other being the change in the field. So let's go back to the paragraph you try so hard to ignore ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson One need only look at either of the images provided by phunk (post 6553, 29 Feb 2012) or myself (Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo, 20 May 2011) and see that when the opposite polarity ends of a bar magnet face each other, then the magnetic field lines from either magnet are fully connected to those of the other, while in the case of same polarity ends the magnetic field lines of either magnet are fully disconnected from those of the other. Simply rotating one magnet with respect to the other creates a transition from a fully connected to a fully disconnected state, or vice-versa. That is all you need to see & know, to know that the field lines of the two magnets have to change their connectivity, or in other words, the field lines must reconnect. Now, if we want to talk about the process in some more detail, then all of the technical details you talk about must come into play. However, simply to establish the minimal condition that some form of reconnection takes place does not require anything beyond a visual inspection of the field line images. The velocity of the magnetic field is the velocity of motion of the bar magnets. As I said before, the ratio of incoming & outgoing velocities is necessarily 1 and therefore the reconnection rate do defined must always be exactly 1 in a vacuum. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
 17th March 2012, 03:15 PM #7074 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You're all making the oldest mathematical mistake on the planet. You all forgot to check your units of measurement. The rate of reconnection is *NOT* measured in magnetic field changes, it's measured in particle acceleration. Wake up and smell the coffee folks. Have you actually read anybodies responses to your post. Seriously?
 17th March 2012, 03:25 PM #7075 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 975 Reconnection Rate Units Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You're all making the oldest mathematical mistake on the planet. You all forgot to check your units of measurement. The rate of reconnection is *NOT* measured in magnetic field changes, it's measured in particle acceleration. Wake up and smell the coffee folks. Nonsense. The reconnection rate is defined as a ratio of velocities, which means it is a unitless number (i.e., it has no units of measure, certainly not acceleration of anything). __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
 17th March 2012, 03:57 PM #7076 phunk Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,180 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No, you have that backwards. The movement of field lines is simply movement of the field lines. No. We're not talking about simply the movement of field lines, we're talking about the reconnection of field lines. In the example with the wires, when they are far apart you can draw a single field line as a circle around each wire. When they get closer together, those lines will come together and merge, changing from 2 loops to one larger one. THAT IS RECONNECTION. The plasma acceleration is just a consequence of reconnection when it happens in plasma.
 17th March 2012, 04:01 PM #7077 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson I must have missed it. Magnetic fields in a vacuum do not necessarily propagate at the speed of light (see below). If I move a bar magnet at 1 meter/second, then the magnetic field of that bar magnet must also move through space at 1 meter/second. Is that not fairly obvious? Now, if I move a bar magnet at 1 meter/second, the change in magnetic field, as a result of the motion of the magnet, will propagate away from the magnet at the speed of light. So, if I move the magnet say 1 millimeter to the left, a measurement device located 10 meters away, will see the magnetic field change at its location {10 meters / speed of light} seconds later. So there are two different velocities for the magnetic field, one being the bulk motion of the field and the other being the change in the field. You lost me. The two velocities (if I'm following you correctly) relate to the speed of light and the speed of the movement of the physical object in question, in this case the magnetic (or plasma particles in plasma). Quote: So let's go back to the paragraph you try so hard to ignore ... Simply rotating one magnet with respect to the other creates a transition from a fully connected to a fully disconnected state, or vice-versa. No. No B lines never "disconnect", or "reconnect". They don't have a beginning or an end. Monopoles do not exist. Magnetic fields have no source and no sink. They are CREATED by the movement of charged particles. Even the concept of a LINE is a GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION of two FIELDS interacting. Quote: The velocity of the magnetic field is the velocity of motion of the bar magnets. No. The velocity of the magnetic field is the speed of light and the velocity of the magnet is the velocity of the magnet. They aren't the same. More equivocation fallacies in play I see. Quote: As I said before, the ratio of incoming & outgoing velocities is necessarily 1 and therefore the reconnection rate do defined must always be exactly 1 in a vacuum. Nonsense. It's exactly ZERO in a vacuum because ZERO velocity changes have been achieved as a result of moving anything. You don't lose any energy from the movement of your magnet just by moving it. If you move it around in a conductor like a plasma you might transfer some energy to particle kinetic energy, but unless you transfer energy, no 'Reconnection" could ever occur in a 'vacuum" devoid of all charged particles. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th March 2012 at 04:04 PM.
 17th March 2012, 04:06 PM #7078 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by phunk No. We're not talking about simply the movement of field lines, we're talking about the reconnection of field lines. There is no such thing as a "disconnection" or a "reconnection" of B lines. They have no beginning and no ending. They have no source. They have no sink. Monopoles do not exist.
 17th March 2012, 04:08 PM #7079 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 You're talking about a twisting and bending of B lines, a FLUX CHANGE of B lines through some geographic region. You aren't talking about charged particle velocity changes, so you aren't talking about the 'rates of reconnection'!
 17th March 2012, 04:10 PM #7080 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tubbythin Have you actually read anybodies responses to your post. Seriously? I've tried to read and respond to almost all of them. I pretty much ignore RC's responses these days (since it's mostly personal attack nonsense), but I occasionally read them too. The really amusing part is that many of the EU haters have me on ignore because they can't handle (nor do they want to hear) *BOTH* sides of the debate, and most of them don't even own a plasma physics textbook. It's like self imposed ignorance on a stick! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th March 2012 at 04:14 PM.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit