Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

Reality Check · May 16, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Ya, D for DENIAL in a huge way. You won't deal with it, GM won't deal with it, RC won't deal with it, and Tim is doing a hat dance around it. You boys have a *BIG*, and I mean *HUGE* problem.

You are lying again: I am not in denial.
I am dealing with it by pointing out what every one else is pointing out to you:

Electrical discharges (lightning) do not happen in plasma.
Electrical discharges (high current density) do happen in palsma.
Electrical discharges as "a sudden release of magnetic or electric energy" is a physically useless definition.

Michael Mozina said:
You *NEED* an electrical discharge to explain those GAMMA rays and those XRAYS and those high iron ionization states.

You *NEED* an education in basic physics

GAMMA rays have various causes (not just electrical discharges).
XRAYS rays have various causes (not just electrical discharges).
high iron ionization states have various causes (not just electrical discharges).

Michael Mozina said:
Even your own "experiments" begin and end in a "discharge chamber" and they REQUIRED CATHODES! For crying out loud!

More ignorance and idiotic quotes:

Magnetic reconnection experiments happen in chambers where plasma is discharged. That is what they are called plasma discharge chambers.
None of these Magnetic reconnection experiments REQUIRED CATHODES!

Reality Check · May 16, 2011

Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption

Michael Mozina said:
RC, what has become painfully apparent to me is that you simply do not understand physics, you refuse to understand physics and you insist on putting the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse.

What's most amusing is the fact that many of the "experiments" you've all cited to support this idea *BEGIN WITH A CATHODE*. The *ELECTRIC HORSE* does the work. Your "magnetic line" is a "dumbed down" math formula that specifically ignores the E components entirely, even though your 'experiments" begin and end with E and electricity.

MM, your inability to even define 'circuit erecoonection', makes it painfully apparent to everyone is that you simply do not understand physics, you refuse to understand physics and you insist on putting the EU cart in front of the magnetic horse.

The simple fact is the magenteic reconnection experiments show that current distrultion happens after the reconnection?
(last mentioned in michaelsuede: Why are no DLs detected in MR experiments until after reconnection? 8th April 2011).

Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
which clearly shows (read the abstract, see Fig 9) that current disruption (and thus DLs) happens afer the magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina,
Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption?

Or to put it another way: Where are your citations to the formation of DLs in magnetic reconnection experiments before or at the reconnection event?

Michael Mozina said:
What's most amusing is the fact that many of the "experiments" you've all cited to support this idea *BEGIN WITH A CATHODE*. The *ELECTRIC HORSE* does the work. Your "magnetic line" is a "dumbed down" math formula that specifically ignores the E components entirely, even though your 'experiments" begin and end with E and electricity.

Yet more idiotic quotes!
Many of the magnetic reconenction experiments have cathodes in them.
Some of the magnetic reconnection experiements hvae no calthodes in thme at all.

Reality Check · May 16, 2011

MM: Can lightning happen in plasma

Michael Mozina said:
I'm headed to the High School to watch my daughter perform in a play tonight. The disco discharge denial dance can wait till tomorrow.

Let us hope that your lies about what I say abut electrical discharges does not continue. One more time:
I do deny that electrical discharges such lightning happen in plasma. That is something that even you would deny but just in case: Can lightning happen in plasma, MM?

I acknowledge that high current densities in plasma have sometimes been called electrical discharges, e.g. by Dungey 30 or so years ago. There may even some modern authors who use the term this way.

Your cherry picking of the first sentence of Peratt's definition of electrical discharges is obviously wrong since he is talking about electrical discharges such lightning in that section of his book. Otherwise you could answer these questions:

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011
MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title?

The sensible and honest thing to do would be to acknowledge that Peratt never discusses or gives examples of electrical discharges in plasma. Instead you have been in constant denial for months. All you are doing is obsessing on the title of the section which just happens to include the name of his book "Cosmic Plasma".

Your personal definition electrical discharges as "a sudden release of magnetic or electric energy" is physically useless since it includes things such as the emission of light from atoms.

GeeMack · May 16, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Ya, I guess in pure denial one simply 'crosses out' everything they don't wish to hear or deal with. Thanks for demonstrating the process of denial in action.

The comment wasn't even in English. It's a nonsensical string of words and phrases, not written in any actual language that scientists might use to communicate about magnetic reconnection. There likely isn't a legitimate scientist on Earth who would interpret it as something that actually resembles a rational comment. It fails way before it can even be thought of as an argument. It fails as an attempt to communicate.

tusenfem · May 16, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Ya, D for DENIAL in a huge way. You won't deal with it, GM won't deal with it, RC won't deal with it, and Tim is doing a hat dance around it. You boys have a *BIG*, and I mean *HUGE* problem. You *NEED* an electrical discharge to explain those GAMMA rays and those XRAYS and those high iron ionization states. There's no *OTHER* way to produce them in a lab in plasma like that. Even your own "experiments" begin and end in a "discharge chamber" and they REQUIRED CATHODES! For crying out loud!

I have dealt with discharges, Michael Mozina. That you cannot remember that, is not my problem. But just to humour you, here is my post #1441 in the electric sun thread where I explicity go through various definitions of discharges.

Things work differently in the lab, when compared to space. In space we have a nice hot plasma ball, called the Sun, which can easily rip off electrons from atoms creating ions through various mechanisms: e.g. collisions and UV radiation. This, unfortunately, cannot be done in the laboratory, so I guess the whole Sun is pseudoscience too, because we cannot controlledly build a Sun in the laboratory (maybe the Sun works on cold fusion!?!?!).

And no, one does not need *DISCHARGES*, a heck let's make it even better *DISCHARGES* to get the effects that Michael Mozina is talking about. But then, Michael Mozina is stuck in the early second half of the last century, and we cannot expect him to understand modern day physics.

Michael Mozina said:
Of course if I blatantly hijacked the thread like that I'd personally have my post removed and be given a warning or maybe even a week off.

harhar
or
hearhear
or
whaddevah!

Edited by Locknar:

Edited; please do not change member names.

Michael Mozina · May 16, 2011

tusenfem said:
I have dealt with discharges, Mikey.

No, you tried to sweep the whole thing under the carpet by noting that there are various ways to define it. So what? You're still trying to ignore the implications of the presence of those "currents" in the "loops" again "tootsie".

Things work differently in the lab, when compared to space. In space we have a nice hot plasma ball, called the Sun, which can easily rip off electrons from atoms creating ions through various mechanisms: e.g. collisions and UV radiation. This, unfortunately, cannot be done in the laboratory, so I guess the whole Sun is pseudoscience too, because we cannot controlledly build a Sun in the laboratory (maybe the Sun works on cold fusion!?!?!).

The irony is that you're trying to claim that 'anything goes' because we can't test everything in the lab. Birkeland demonstrated *MANY* of these same basic processes, including "loops' in the atmosphere using simple "cathodes' and "electricity".

And no, one does not need *DISCHARGES*, a heck let's make it even better *DISCHARGES* to get the effects that Mikey is talking about. But then, Mikey is stuck in the early second half of the last century, and we cannot expect him to understand modern day physics.

tusenfem is stuck in denial of the fact that his precious MR experiments typically start and end with "cathodes" and "electricity". You're stuck in denial of the fact that you can't link SQUAT in terms of the high energy emissions and activities to "magnetic reconnection", not even one of the 4 or 5 key observations! You're stuck in denial of the fact that you personally *NEED* electrical discharges to occur because virtually all your key "experiments" begin inside of a "discharge chamber".

You know, you and Tim *should* have simply set RC and GM straight and helped facilitate a forward moving discussion. Instead the two of you have actively participated in "muddying the waters", and you both have been hiding behind an oversimplification fallacy rather than dealing with reality.

Discharges *DO* occur in plasmas. Like *LIGHTNING*, these 'discharges' typically ionize non ionized elements like neon to very high ionization states (+7) that cannot be explained by 5800K plasmas.

As long as we dance around the discharge issue, and you all ignore the fact that many of your cited experiments take place inside of a 'discharge chamber" and require "cathodes", it's hard to take any of you seriously. It's just one giant denial-go-round because you don't want to face up to the fact that the change in "topology" is directly related to the "change in the direction of the current'.

Edited, breach of rule 0; do not change member names.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Locknar

Michael Mozina · May 16, 2011

Reality Check said:
You are lying again:

The only one lying in this thread is you, and you're only lying to yourself RC:

I am not in denial.

Yes you are. Let me demonstrate:

I am dealing with it by pointing out what every one else is pointing out to you:

Electrical discharges (lightning) do not happen in plasma.

False. What is the ionization state of neon at 5800K? What is the highest energy state of neon recorded during flare activity? (hint: try the Serts data)

Not every element in the photosphere is fully ionized. The "discharge" will in fact further ionize the elements just as discharges in a gas ionize the gas and continue to ionize the gas until the the discharge stops. So too, the "discharges" in the solar atmosphere ionize elements like Neon to very high energy states. They ionize Iron and Nickel to very high energy states. These ionization states are not explained by a 5800K photosphere.

Electrical discharges (high current density) do happen in palsma.

You're in pure denial of the *time limitation* imposed by a "sudden release of stored energy" that is associated with a 'discharge', not a "current". A "stable current" is not a "discharge" RC no matter how much your denial dance refuses to acknowledge this KEY DIFFERENCE between a stable "current" and a "discharge"!

Electrical discharges as "a sudden release of magnetic or electric energy" is a physically useless definition.

More denial. It's a perfectly valid definition of a discharge in a plasma. You just can't and won't accept it because the moment you do, your show is busted and you'll have to embrace reality. The denial-go-round continues.

You *NEED* an education in basic physics

That's kind of ironic considering the fact that you're arguing from ignorance since you haven't bothered to read Cosmic Plasma, let alone Peratt's book. That's really ironic considering the fact that you're in hard core denial of the fact that discharges can and do occur in a plasma.

GAMMA rays have various causes (not just electrical discharges).

Never has a gamma ray been "caused" by "magnetic reconnection" here on Earth. They are however caused by "electrical discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere.

XRAYS rays have various causes (not just electrical discharges).

Ditto. Discharges release x-rays every single day "naturally' right here on Earth.

high iron ionization states have various causes (not just electrical discharges).

But discharges are in fact a known "cause" of these events as well.

Every single one of these events, *INCLUDING* your beloved "magnetic reconnection" claims *REQUIRE* an "electrical discharge" to sustain them! Even your own cited experiments take place inside of a *DISCHARGE CHAMBER* for Pete sake.

Magnetic reconnection experiments happen in chambers where plasma is discharged. That is what they are called plasma discharge chambers.

So ultimately everything is ultimately "caused" by an "electrical discharge", including the 'reconnection' process.

Let's make a new list now of the "key observations" that we can experimentally associate with "electrical discharges" and that *REQUIRE* an electrical discharge:

Million degree plasmas
high ionization states of elements like Iron and Nickel and Neon.
x-rays
gamma-rays
Neutron capture signatures
*RECONNECTION* events.

Each and every one of these 'events' is empirically observed in *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES* in solar flares! Get over your denial process RC. It's really getting old now.

GeeMack · May 16, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
No, you tried to sweep the whole thing under the carpet by noting that there are various ways to define it. So what? You're still trying to ignore the implications of the presence of those "currents" in the "loops" again "tootsie".

The insulting personal attack on tusenfem aside, nobody is ignoring the implications of electrical currents in the solar atmosphere. But coronal loops are not some kind of big curvy bolts of lightning cruising through the corona. The implication that anyone should engage in a serious discussion of solar physics beginning with that as an accepted premise is just plain foolish.

The irony is that you're trying to claim that 'anything goes' because we can't test everything in the lab.

That's called a straw man. No such claim has been made, and the intentional distortion of what has actually been said is a dishonest tactic, guaranteed to result in failure.

Birkeland demonstrated *MANY* of these same basic processes, including "loops' in the atmosphere using simple "cathodes' and "electricity".

That is a lie. Birkeland demonstrated no such thing.

Tootsie is stuck in denial of the fact that his precious MR experiments typically start and end with "cathodes" and "electricity". You're stuck in denial of the fact that you can't link SQUAT in terms of the high energy emissions and activities to "magnetic reconnection", not even one of the 4 or 5 key observations! You're stuck in denial of the fact that you personally *NEED* electrical discharges to occur because virtually all your key "experiments" begin inside of a "discharge chamber".

Another string of insults, but not a single comment with any scientific relevance to the claim that there are problems with magnetic reconnection.

You know, you and Tim *should* have simply set RC and GM straight and helped facilitate a forward moving discussion. Instead the two of you have actively participated in "muddying the waters", and you both have been hiding behind an oversimplification fallacy rather than dealing with reality.

Really the only thing preventing this discussion from moving forward is the complete lack of scientific support for the claim that there are problems with magnetic reconnection.

Discharges *DO* occur in plasmas. Like *LIGHTNING*, these 'discharges' typically ionize non ionized elements like neon to very high ionization states (+7) that cannot be explained by 5000K plasmas.

There isn't a physics teacher, grad student, or professional scientist or researcher on the face of this planet who would agree with the implication that solar flares operate something like bolts of lightning. Electrical discharges like lightning do not occur in plasma. They can't. Plasma is a conductor. For sparks like lightning to occur there needs to be a non-conductive medium between regions of differing potential. Again, plasma is a conductor.

As long as we dance around the discharge issue, and you all ignore the fact that many of your cited experiments take place inside of a 'discharge chamber" and require "cathodes", it's hard to take any of you seriously. It's just one giant denial-go-round because you don't want to face up to the fact that the change in "topology" is directly related to the "change in the direction of the current'.

That argument is just a bunch of non-standard, undefined uses of standard terms, in other words more gibberish, sprinkled with some insults, but not a single word relating to the topic. Over 600 posts and not an inch of progress towards describing and supporting any alleged problems with magnetic reconnection. It looks like a pretty complete failure.

tusenfem · May 16, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
No, you tried to sweep the whole thing under the carpet by noting that there are various ways to define it. So what? You're still trying to ignore the implications of the presence of those "currents" in the "loops" again "tootsie".

This was to show that the whole discussion about the D word was useless and one can better discard the word and actually describe what is actually happening in the plasma.
OMG there we go again .... NOT.

Michael Mozina said:
The irony is that you're trying to claim that 'anything goes' because we can't test everything in the lab. Birkeland demonstrated *MANY* of these same basic processes, including "loops' in the atmosphere using simple "cathodes' and "electricity".

Ah yes, you are the expert on Birkeland, that is why you did not participate in the scientific Birkeland thread that I started.

And no, not anything goes, but not everything can be studied in a laboratory, that is just a simple fact of life.

Michael Mozina said:
tusenfem is stuck in denial of the fact that his precious MR experiments typically start and end with "cathodes" and "electricity". You're stuck in denial of the fact that you can't link SQUAT in terms of the high energy emissions and activities to "magnetic reconnection", not even one of the 4 or 5 key observations! You're stuck in denial of the fact that you personally *NEED* electrical discharges to occur because virtually all your key "experiments" begin inside of a "discharge chamber".

As you obviously don't understand the how and what of the laboratory experiments on MRx, it is useless to discuss this with you.

And that would be what 4 or 5 key observations?

Michael Mozina said:
You know, you and Tim *should* have simply set RC and GM straight and helped facilitate a forward moving discussion. Instead the two of you have actively participated in "muddying the waters", and you both have been hiding behind an oversimplification fallacy rather than dealing with reality.

HA! talking about oversimplification. You, who wants to do everything with a circuit approximation!

Michael Mozina said:
Discharges *DO* occur in plasmas. Like *LIGHTNING*, these 'discharges' typically ionize non ionized elements like neon to very high ionization states (+7) that cannot be explained by 5800K plasmas.

And I have never claimed that the high ionization state is because of the 5800 K. I have even explained to you that currents in magnetic loops, e.g. can heat up the plasma and create high ionization states.

Michael Mozina said:
As long as we dance around the discharge issue, and you all ignore the fact that many of your cited experiments take place inside of a 'discharge chamber" and require "cathodes", it's hard to take any of you seriously. It's just one giant denial-go-round because you don't want to face up to the fact that the change in "topology" is directly related to the "change in the direction of the current'.

You don't understand squat about the how and what of MRx experiments.
But if you are so sure of yourself, then show us a complete model here of your famous circuit reconnection (and again NO Onel and Mann has nothing to do with that).

Greetings of your "tootsie"
(gay and proud of it)

Michael Mozina · May 16, 2011

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7187480&postcount=625

Could we get some consistency related to this breach of rule zero thing? My name isn't "Mikey".

Michael Mozina · May 16, 2011

tusenfem said:
This was to show that the whole discussion about the D word was useless and one can better discard the word and actually describe what is actually happening in the plasma.
OMG there we go again .... NOT.

First things first. Many of your experiments begin and end inside of a 'discharge' chamber. From the very start, such processes are "caused by" discharges. If you have any specific instances where a controlled experiment of "magnetic reconnection" generated:

1) Million degree plasmas
2) Highly ionized Iron and Neon
3) X-rays
4) Gamma rays
5) Neutron capture signatures

I'm all ears.

FYI, you *NEED* (I mean scientifically need) "discharges" as much as I do. Get over it.

I'll deal with the rest later since I'm running short handed today.

Reality Check · May 17, 2011

MM: Where are Peratt's examples of electrcial discharges in plasma

Michael Mozina said:
Yes you are. Let me demonstrate:

False. What is the ionization state of neon at 5800K? What is the highest energy state of neon recorded during flare activity? (hint: try the Serts data)

That is idoitic. An high energy ionization state does not mean that there is lightning in plasma. All ir means is that there are high temperatures.

Hint: Cite actual occurrences of lightning in plasma.

Michael Mozina said:
...snipped nore dumb ionization stuff....
You're in pure denial of the *time limitation* ...

Gibberish unconnected with the actual post:

Electrical discharges (high current density) do happen in palsma.

That is the context in which Dungey used the term electrical dicharge.

Michael Mozina said:
More denial.

More ignorance.
Firstly it is a perfectly stupid definition of electrical discharge because it is too broad to be of any physical use.
Secondly it is your perconal defintion that you made up.

See tusenfem's post about the various defintions thof electricl dicharge that have bene used (here is my post #1441 in the electric sun thread)

Michael Mozina said:
That's kind of ironic considering the fact that you're arguing from ignorance since you haven't bothered to read Cosmic Plasma, let alone Peratt's book.

That is kind of dumb considering considering the fact that you're arguing from incompetence since you have bothered to read Cosmic Plasma and still cannot answer simple questions about it:

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011
MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title?

Michael Mozina said:
Never has a gamma ray been "caused" by "magnetic reconnection" here on Earth. They are however caused by "electrical discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere.

Magnetic reconnection experiments not trying to create gamma rays. No one expects gamma radiation from magnetic reconnection experiments.

Michael Mozina said:
Ditto. Discharges release x-rays every single day "naturally' right here on Earth.

Ditto.

Michael Mozina said:
But discharges are in fact a known "cause" of these events as well.

But I do not dispute that.

Michael Mozina said:
Even your own cited experiments take place inside of a *DISCHARGE CHAMBER* for Pete sake.

For Pets's sake: a *DISCHARGE CHAMBER* discharges plasma!

Michael Mozina said:
So ultimately everything is ultimately "caused" by an "electrical discharge", including the 'reconnection' process.

So ultimately everything is ultimately you spouting gibberish in response to my post which was about the fact that discharge chambers discharge plasma.

Michael Mozina said:
Let's make a new list now of the "key observations" that we can experimentally associate with "electrical discharges" and that *REQUIRE* an electrical discharge:

Let's make a new list now of the "key observations" that *DO NOT REQUIRE* an electrical discharge:

Million degree plasmas
high ionization states of elements like Iron and Nickel and Neon.
x-rays
gamma-rays
Neutron capture signatures
*RECONNECTION* events.

Reality Check · May 17, 2011

Forgot this paper showing the X-rays from magnetic reconnection that Michael Mozina thinks cannot happen.
Note that this is another laser experiment - no electricity involved MM

!

Modelling loop-top X-ray source and reconnection outflows in solar flares with intense lasers in Nature Physics 6,984–987(2010)

Magnetic reconnection is a process by which oppositely directed magnetic field lines passing through a plasma undergo dramatic rearrangement, converting magnetic potential into kinetic energy and heat1, 2. It is believed to play an important role in many plasma phenomena including solar flares3, 4, star formation5 and other astrophysical events6, laser-driven plasma jets7, 8, 9, and fusion plasma instabilities10. Because of the large differences of scale between laboratory and astrophysical plasmas, it is often difficult to extrapolate the reconnection phenomena studied in one environment to those observed in the other. In some cases, however, scaling laws11 do permit reliable connections to made, such as the experimental simulation of interactions between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere12. Here we report well-scaled laboratory experiments that reproduce loop-top-like X-ray source emission by reconnection outflows interacting with a solid target. Our experiments exploit the mega-gauss-scale magnetic field generated by interaction of a high-intensity laser with a plasma to reconstruct a magnetic reconnection topology similar to that which occurs in solar flares. We also identify the separatrix and diffusion regions associated with reconnection in which ions become decoupled from electrons on a scale of the ion inertial length.

tusenfem · May 17, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
First things first. Many of your experiments begin and end inside of a 'discharge' chamber. From the very start, such processes are "caused by" discharges. If you have any specific instances where a controlled experiment of "magnetic reconnection" generated:

yes, such a chamber is good to create a plasma, which is necessary.

Michael Mozina said:
1) Million degree plasmas
2) Highly ionized Iron and Neon
3) X-rays
4) Gamma rays
5) Neutron capture signatures

Million degree plasma does not come from MRx in the loops but from 1) currents
2) as iron is never ever used in laboratory experiments, you'll be hard put to fing this, neon is easier, however the ionization is not because of the MRx but because of the currents in the loops
3) X-rays are produced mainly by bremsstrahlung, which does not happen in the lab
4) Gamma rays are produced by bremsstrahlun, which does not happen in the lab
5) Neutron capture has nothing whatsoever to do with MRx

So, apparently you have not got the foggiest idea what MRx actually is. Why not read up on it, instead of making the same silly claims time and time again?

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, you *NEED* (I mean scientifically need) "discharges" as much as I do. Get over it.

I'll deal with the rest later since I'm running short handed today.

I don't *NEED* anything, least of all a very ill defined term like "discharges."

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2011

tusenfem said:
yes, such a chamber is good to create a plasma, which is necessary.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that a discharge process came first, and the 'reconnection' event came *after* the flow flow of current. A change in current topology is not 'magnetic reconnection', it's just a change in current topology.

Million degree plasma does not come from MRx in the loops but from 1) currents

It's not just any old current however, it's a very, very *POWERFUL* circuit of flowing energy akin to the current inside of an electrical discharge that produces those million degree loops.

2) as iron is never ever used in laboratory experiments, you'll be hard put to fing this, neon is easier, however the ionization is not because of the MRx but because of the currents in the loops

Iron has been ionized to a very high energy state using ordinary 'discharges'. I posted a paper from the 70's where this was done in a lab. You act like all these feats are "impossible" in a lab, but that isn't the case in most cases.

Those powerful 'currents' are what are "changing direction", the magnetic field simply comes along for the ride! That "current" is changing direction, and 'reconnecting' to another circuit.

3) X-rays are produced mainly by bremsstrahlung, which does not happen in the lab

Electrical discharges produce x-rays in the lab.

4) Gamma rays are produced by bremsstrahlun, which does not happen in the lab

It does however occur in "discharge" events.

5) Neutron capture has nothing whatsoever to do with MRx

But these events are empirically observed in solar flare activity!

So, apparently you have not got the foggiest idea what MRx actually is.

No, apparently you have no idea what a solar flare is and what it does.

Why not read up on it, instead of making the same silly claims time and time again?

Ditto.

I don't *NEED* anything, least of all a very ill defined term like "discharges."

I'll take a peek at RC's paper as I get time today, but you absolutely will need a discharge process to explain those neutron capture signatures and those gamma rays.

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2011

GeeMack said:
That is a lie. Birkeland demonstrated no such thing.

That's just another perfect example of pure denial on your part:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

No amount of denial on your part is going to change history GM. You're essentially in pure denial of the science *AND* the history behind "cathode sun" theories that are over 100 years old.

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2011

Reality Check said:
Forgot this paper showing the X-rays from magnetic reconnection that Michael Mozina thinks cannot happen.

Oh, circuit reconnection happens, I'm sure. Let me be sure I get this straight:

You're going to use a 'laser' experiment where they're knocking electrons off of atoms into cohesive "electron streams" that are moving in opposite directions, and that's your next 'example' of a magnetic reconnection experiment? Oy Vey.

I'll need to so some reading before I can fully comment on this paper, and it may have to wait until after work, but this line seems to the the key point IMO:

We also identify the separatrix and diffusion regions associated with reconnection in which ions become decoupled from electrons on a scale of the ion inertial length.

Note that the term "separatrix" is MRx jargon for "double layer".

Essentially as I understand their argument, they're using a laser to "knock electrons" from atoms into coherent 'streams" of "current" that flow in opposite directions, and they are then calling it "magnetic reconnection". That's baloney. The "heat" generating the x-ray activity undoubtedly comes from the LASER and from the ELECTRONS they're knocking off of the atoms. Again, at first glance it would appear that in this experiment as well, the "current" came first, and the "reconnection" is directly related to the flow pattern of the electrons that are freed by the lasers. You're just nailing this coffin shut IMO, but I'll read through the whole thing before I pass final judgement.

Even were I to *UTTERLY IGNORE* the fact that it's likely to be the LASERS and high energy ELECTRONS that create the x-rays, that's only *ONE* of the key observations RC. How about neutron capture signatures? Gamma rays? Highly ionized iron (not from a laser since none exist in the solar atmosphere)?

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2011

tusenfem said:
I don't *NEED* anything, least of all a very ill defined term like "discharges."

You're in pure denial IMO. Even *IF* I ignored the fact that the solar atmosphere produces no lasers, and I foolishly just gave you and RC the xray observation, you're *STILL* losing the debate to 'discharge' theory by a factor of 5 to 1. Now of course the PHOTONS in RC's "experiment' are simply knocking electrons loose from atoms and creating two "streams" of electrons moving in opposite directions. You're directly violating Alfven's very strict conditions and even in this experiment it's very clear that the *CURRENT CAME FIRST AGAIN!*

Your own experiments all seem to demonstrate two key points. The 'electrical current' is an *ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT*, and it always comes BEFORE reconnection, meaning that "reconnection' is directly and inseparably linked to the direction of the flow of electrons. The topology change is also directly related to the 'flow of current' in these experiments, just like all of them.

Michael Mozina · May 17, 2011

IMO this whole debate comes down to the fact that you all have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. Even the laser experiments knock loose electrons into "streams" of current. The current is the CAUSE of reconnection, "magnetic reconnection" is not the "cause" of the flow of electrons. The LASER did the work in RC's last paper. The kinetic energy of the lasers knocks electrons into "current streams" that interact through a "double layer/aka separatrix".

All these experiments demonstrate that the "current" is the cause of "reconnection" events, MRx is not the cause of the creation of currents. You have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and all of your own cited experiments DEMONSTRATE this unmistakable fact.

Ziggurat · May 17, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

The sun is a death star!

No, the sun is a UFO!

Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Share this page

ISF - Join now!