Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Problems With Magnetic Reconnection
- Thread starter michaelsuede
- Start date
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Um, the basic flaw in your argument stems from your (and evidently Tim's) refusal to accept that 'electrical discharges" happen in plasma and they are "impulsive" events.
From Tim in the other thread:
This is a really where the problem lies. Conceptually you both refuse to see it as a "discharge" event, and therefore neither of you can accept it is an 'impulsive" release of energy.
Round and round we go on the denial-go-round.Thats utterly ignorant because there is no *ENTIRE LOOP* in a circuit oriented approach!
The circuit oriented approach thows away the physical structure of coronal loops.
Er, no. Alfven simply defined the whole thing as a "circuit" The physical structures of the "circuit" is simply expressed a different way.
This paragraph was priceless IMO. You have reality standing on it's head. Actually sitting down and "reading" Alfven's material isn't "hero worship", it's called "studying the subject". The term "pseudoscience" is hard to misinterpret especially when it's combined with a comment about putting nails in it's coffin, and never once writing a "pro" MrX paper in his entire career. You can't even admit that A) discharges happen in plasma or that B) Alfven rejected MrX theory personally. Even direct and simple and very negative statements on the topic, combined with the fact that he wrote *ZERO* supporting papers on the topic will not sway you. You refuse to accept that simple physics like the fact that discharges occur in plasmas and you refuse to accept Alfven's own statements.
It's pretty clear where the denial and ignorance process begins and ends, namely with the fact that you haven't even read Alfven's book, let alone Peratt's book and I've read both of them.
Last edited:
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Um, the basic flaw in your argument stems from your (and evidently Tim's) refusal to accept that 'electrical discharges" happen in plasma and they are "impulsive" events.
From Tim in the other thread:
This is a really where the problem lies. Conceptually you both refuse to see it as a "discharge" event, and therefore neither of you can accept it is an 'impulsive" release of energy.
Er, no. Alfven simply defined the whole thing as a "circuit" The physical structures of the "circuit" is simply expressed a different way.
This paragraph was priceless IMO. You have reality standing on it's head. Actually sitting down and "reading" Alfven's material isn't "hero worship", it's called "studying the subject". The term "pseudoscience" is hard to misinterpret especially when it's combined with a comment about putting nails in it's coffin, and never once writing a "pro" MrX paper in his entire career. You can't even admit that A) discharges happen in plasma or that B) Alfven rejected MrX theory personally. Even direct and simple and very negative statements on the topic, combined with the fact that he wrote *ZERO* supporting papers on the topic will not sway you. You refuse to accept that simple physics like the fact that discharges occur in plasmas and you refuse to accept Alfven's own statements.
It's pretty clear where the denial and ignorance process begins and ends, namely with the fact that you haven't even read Alfven's book, let alone Peratt's book and I've read both of them.
It's pretty clear where the denial and ignorance process begins and ends. Alfvén, Alfvén, Peratt, and Alfvén. Birkeland, Bruce, and Alfvén again. This sounds like an unambiguous admission that there is no valid scientific criticism of the contemporary state of physics and the contemporary understanding of magnetic reconnection. Notice I said "contemporary". Alfvén is dead, dust in the grave, a rotted corpse, just as dead as Birkeland. This is 2011.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
It's pretty clear where the denial and ignorance process begins and ends. Alfvén, Alfvén, Peratt, and Alfvén. Birkeland, Bruce, and Alfvén again. This sounds like an unambiguous admission that there is no valid scientific criticism of the contemporary state of physics and the contemporary understanding of magnetic reconnection. Notice I said "contemporary". Alfvén is dead, dust in the grave, a rotted corpse, just as dead as Birkeland. This is 2011.
How old was the Onel and Mann paper? Is GR theory worthless too now because Einstein is dead and gone? Your arguments are so weak/false they can be refuted from both directions.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Onel and Mann didn't support the ridiculous notion that the Sun is powered by electricity and that coronal loops and CMEs are sparks like huge bolts of lighting. They weren't that stupid. They didn't write anything that would refute the crackpot claim which is the subject of this thread, the silly notion that there are some significant problems with magnetic reconnection. On that issue there has been no valid scientific criticism. Certainly not in this thread.
In this thread pretty much the total limit of criticism has been the dishonest Creationist strategy of trying to discredit legitimate science and hoping that some wacky conjecture might fall in to take its place. In this thread, every effort to point out any alleged problems with magnetic reconnection, especially the regularly offered dishonest ones, have failed at every turn.
Now if there isn't any contemporary scientific criticism of magnetic reconnection, and so far not an ounce of it has been presented here, the critics should just admit defeat on this issue. If there are tangent issues that support the inane electric Sun nonsense, those should be trotted on over to the thread that is already established for that discussion.
I'm sorry GeeMack. This is simply not true. You're in pure denial. You have completely ignored the times Michael has used the equivocation fallacy in an attempt to support his arguments.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
MM: Do you know that 100 seconds is a lot less thanh a million years
It is physically impossible for electrical discharges (as in lightning) to happen in plasma.
MM: Do you know that 100 seconds is a lot less thanh a million years?
Studying the subject is reading modern textbooks and papers from a variety of authors.
The fact that you lie about Alfven never writing a "pro'" MrX paper merely shows that you are lying.
A) Discharges happen in plasma. Electrical discharges do not happen in plasma (see Peratt's definition that rules this out).
B) We know that you are lying about Alfven rejecting MrX theory. He rejected the misapplication of the frozen-in field approximation.
Who cares what Alfven though personally?
This is more evidence of your obsession with Alfven.
What matters is the science that is presented. Alfven never presented any science that showed that MrX theory
You can't even admit that A) discharges Even direct and simple and very negative statements on the topic, combined with the fact that he wrote *ZERO* supporting papers on the topic will not sway you.
[/quote]
That is idiotic.
Alfven wrote *ZERO* supporting papers on General Relativity so General Relativity is wrong!
Alfven wrote *ZERO* supporting papers on quantum mechanics so quantum mechanics is wrong!
Alfven wrote *ZERO* supporting papers on classical mechanics so classical mechanics is wrong!
I will not bother reading 30 year old textbooks what there are good modern textbooks containing modern science available. This is especially true for a field such as plasma physics that has progressed so much in the last 30 years.
Umm, the basic flaw in your argument stems from your refusal to learn basic physics.
It is physically impossible for electrical discharges (as in lightning) to happen in plasma.
This is a really where the problem lies. Concepts do not matter. The physics matters. The physics says:
- We observe that solar flares take about 100 seconds to release their energy (I woudl use the word discharge which is just as correct but then you would go on a rant about it!)
- It would take 1 million years for induction to release that amount of energy given teh size of flares.
Round and round we go on the delusion and ignorance -go-round.
MM: Do you know that 100 seconds is a lot less thanh a million years?
You are lying: Alfven (and MaOnel and Mann) modeled a solar flare as a circuit. The circuit model does not contain any information on the physical structure of the flare.
Wrong: It is called reading one old book and some old papers by one author and obsessing about that that one author's opinions.
Studying the subject is reading modern textbooks and papers from a variety of authors.
You are lying about what Alfven stated. He called the misapplication of the frozen-in field approximation, pseudoscience.
The fact that you lie about Alfven never writing a "pro'" MrX paper merely shows that you are lying.
You are lying:
A) Discharges happen in plasma. Electrical discharges do not happen in plasma (see Peratt's definition that rules this out).
B) We know that you are lying about Alfven rejecting MrX theory. He rejected the misapplication of the frozen-in field approximation.
Who cares what Alfven though personally?
This is more evidence of your obsession with Alfven.
What matters is the science that is presented. Alfven never presented any science that showed that MrX theory
You can't even admit that A) discharges Even direct and simple and very negative statements on the topic, combined with the fact that he wrote *ZERO* supporting papers on the topic will not sway you.
[/quote]
That is idiotic.
Alfven wrote *ZERO* supporting papers on General Relativity so General Relativity is wrong!
Alfven wrote *ZERO* supporting papers on quantum mechanics so quantum mechanics is wrong!
Alfven wrote *ZERO* supporting papers on classical mechanics so classical mechanics is wrong!
You are lying:
- I accept the simple physics like the fact that discharges (usually called high current densities) occur in plasmas.
- I accept the simple physics like the fact that electrical discharges (such as lightning) do not occur in plasmas.
- I accept Alfven's own statements, i.e. that his opinion in the 1980's was that the frozen-in field approximation was often misapplied.
And once more time you deomstrate your obsession with Aflven (and Peratt).
I will not bother reading 30 year old textbooks what there are good modern textbooks containing modern science available. This is especially true for a field such as plasma physics that has progressed so much in the last 30 years.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
magnetic reconnection compromised
Does anyone here remember michaelsuede, who started this thread? He's still around, hanging out at the "Economics, Business, and Finance" subforum, with occasional forays into "USA Politics" and "Conspiracy Theories" (space aliens, the "criminal terrorist organization you call the FDA", using his immense knowledge of PDFs to prove that Obama's newly released long form is fake), and he still maintains his Cosmology Quest web site.
michaelsuede's web site includes a list of 147 peer-reviewed papers in cosmology that, in his view, deal "only with reality". One of them clearly accepts magnetic reconnection as one of the realities with which it deals.
We may therefore assume that michaelsuede has accepted the reality of magnetic reconnection.
Michael Mozina is the only remaining skeptic, and he has asked us to meet him in the middle.
Allow me to propose a compromise on which Michael Mozina and the scientists might agree:
Does anyone here remember michaelsuede, who started this thread? He's still around, hanging out at the "Economics, Business, and Finance" subforum, with occasional forays into "USA Politics" and "Conspiracy Theories" (space aliens, the "criminal terrorist organization you call the FDA", using his immense knowledge of PDFs to prove that Obama's newly released long form is fake), and he still maintains his Cosmology Quest web site.
michaelsuede's web site includes a list of 147 peer-reviewed papers in cosmology that, in his view, deal "only with reality". One of them clearly accepts magnetic reconnection as one of the realities with which it deals.
We may therefore assume that michaelsuede has accepted the reality of magnetic reconnection.
Michael Mozina is the only remaining skeptic, and he has asked us to meet him in the middle.
It's pretty clear where the denial and ignorance process begins and ends. Alfvén, Alfvén, Peratt, and Alfvén. Birkeland, Bruce, and Alfvén again. This sounds like an unambiguous admission that there is no valid scientific criticism of the contemporary state of physics and the contemporary understanding of magnetic reconnection. Notice I said "contemporary". Alfvén is dead, dust in the grave, a rotted corpse, just as dead as Birkeland. This is 2011.
Allow me to propose a compromise on which Michael Mozina and the scientists might agree:
The only known problems with magnetic reconnection are:
- Hannes Alfvén didn't like it.
- Michael Mozina doesn't like its name.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I love how you guys just "assume" how Alfven did not reject MRx theory because he *ONCE* wrote that it had yet to be proven true, and you utterly ignored the more than half dozen times he called it pseudoscience, and talked about putting nails in it's coffin. You guys pretty much believe anything you want to believe based on any rationalization you can dream up.Well, I'm willing to accept the B oriented perspective is mathematically "ok" if you're willing to accept the E/circuit orientation has equal merit.
You left one out. You have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. In Alfven's view of things, the "charge separation" between two points on the surface was the driving force of what he called "Bennett Pinches" in plasma. MRx theory claims the magnetic cart does all the work. You have the physics working backwards *again*. It's like noticing a topology change in magnetic fields in the sky during a thunderstorm and calling it "magnetic reconnection" instead of an "electrical discharge". That is essentially what you're doing with Mrx theory. You're essentially ignoring the current flow that sustains and drives those "magnetic lines". You dumb down the "current stream" and call it a "magnetic line". You see a topology change in the current streams and call it a topology change in "magnetic lines", aka "magnetic reconnection".
Electrical Discharges happen in nature around every large body in the solar system with a magnetic field and an atmosphere and the sun has both.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That statement is a categorical lie RC. You "made up" that claim and you have yet to provide us with a published reference related to plasma physics that supports that claim. You have yet to cite a single published reference that claims that it is impossible for electrical discharges to occur in plasma. There is at *least* a 60 year published and documented history of work by Dungey and others that claim exactly the opposite is true.
Please show me a published definition that supports your claim RC, or admit it was an error, one or the other.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Did you even read the Mann and Onel paper RC? How did they release all that energy in less than 1 million years?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
AFAIK, you're the only one making such a claim.
They are 'electrical discharges' as Dungey explained over 60 years ago, before I was even born in fact.
No, and you're the odd man out when it comes to "electrical discharges" in plasma. Why is that GM? They were not "stupid" enough to believe that electrical discharges are impossible in plasmas.
Had you ever actually spent time reading Dungey's original paper, you'd have noticed that this energy exchange, this 'reconnection' process is also an "electrical discharge" process, but of course you're stuck in pure denial of Dungey's original comments and Perratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma.
How ironic that you have yet to even read Alfven's work, yet you insist he was wrong and you insist on stuffing "pseudoscience' into it's place. An 'honest' skeptic would have *at least* read Alfven's work and found a flaw in it. Pseudoskeptics just handwave from the sidelines and hope nobody notices they haven't even read the relevant materials.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Alfven didn't call GR theory pseudoscience, did he?
He didn't call QM "pseudoscience" did he?
The denial seems to go hand and hand with your anger and your very strong emotional need to call me a liar in every post. Since you cannot accept the fact that discharges in plasmas have been written about for 60 years, you instead call me a "liar", even though Dungey used that exact phase in his work. You ignored Perratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma and the fact that the definition *begins in a plasma*.
You're also in hard core denial of the fact that Alfven did in fact personally reject MrX theory, going so far as to call it pseudoscience more than a half dozen time in a single speech where he also talked about putting nails in the coffin of that particular theory. You're in denial of the limits he set on the validity of where that idea could even reasonably be entertained.
I just love how this whole thing comes down to pure denial and an emotional need to 'kill the messenger' rather than to accept simple historical fact. Alfven *outright rejected* MrX theories of all types. There wasn't *one* that he liked or wrote about or did not lump into the 'pseudoscientific" category.
Not one of the "experiments" you cite even meets the criteria Alfven applied to this topic.
Call me a liar it that somehow floats your boat RC, but plasma can and do experience electrical discharges. Unless and until I see you produce a written definition that claims that discharges are impossible in plasmas, I'm forced to believe that Dungey and Perratt know what they are talking about and you do not.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Actually, Alfven's only been gone about 20 years, and the experiments that have been done since his death do not meet his basic criteria. They all fall into the 'misleading' and 'should be ignored' category because they all begin and end in "current carrying plasmas".
Essentially the argument you're trying to use is that some great advancement has taken place, but the reality is just the opposite. The basic MRx theories are *STILL* based on exactly the same ideas that were around during Alfven's lifetime. There has been "progression" in terms of computer modeling, but there's been absolutely no progression whatsoever in terms of empirical laboratory physics to support your claims. All the so called "experiments" with MRx theory *REQUIRE* current, the one thing Alfven explicitly forbid/rejected.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
And once more a lot of noise, meaningless, not relevant to the subject of this thread, the claim that there are problems with magnetic reconnection. But I suppose avoidance of the actual issue is to be expected since no valid support for that position exists.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Tough. Alfvén is dead. And his criteria, whether real or imagined for the pourpose of supporting some crackpot notions about physics, are largely irrelevant to contemporary physics and the reality of magnetic reconnection.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
And again nothing, no criticism whatsoever of the science of magnetic reconnection. Alfvén this and Alfvén that, but not a speck of support for the claim that magnetic reconnection doesn't exist, or has a crummy name, or whatever wavering position is being advocated today. Tim was correct. Invoking the name of the dead guy is the total extent of the argument. And that makes the argument a quintessential example of scientific laziness.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Although it would be a reasonable compromise, I'm not sure anyone has satisfactorily demonstrated that Alfvén didn't like it. Apparently there was some conditional dislike, not a blanket dislike as has been dishonestly asserted so often in this thread. The other component of your compromise seems sound and pretty thoroughly evidenced.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
A general observation:
I seems to be a frequent occurrence that crackpots read scientific papers that they do not have the knowledge and training to understand. Inexplicably, they seem to believe that such "reading" imparts insights that genuine professionals do not have. These people do indeed provide a fascinating side show in the world of science.
I seems to be a frequent occurrence that crackpots read scientific papers that they do not have the knowledge and training to understand. Inexplicably, they seem to believe that such "reading" imparts insights that genuine professionals do not have. These people do indeed provide a fascinating side show in the world of science.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
The denial process in this thread is really "hard core". Not only did Alfven call it "pseudoscience' more than a half dozen times during a single keynote conference speech, he talked about putting nails in it's coffin. Despite that fact, and the fact he wrote a total of *ZERO* positive papers on the subject, you still emotionally want and need to believe that he personally somehow supported the idea. That's just sad IMO that your entire belief system is predicated on pure denial of historical fact.