Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

W.D.Clinger · May 20, 2011

the dishonesty of ignoring published experiments on magnetic reconnection

mike3 said:
W.D.Clinger said:

Your demand for "kinetic energy *ONLY* at the point of" reconnection is disingenuous/dishonest.

Click to expand...

So this goes beyond just ignorance and incompetency?

Yes.

By the way, I used "disingenuous/dishonest" as an abbreviation for "disingenuous and/or dishonest".

Although Michael Mozina's mathematical difficulties prevent him from understanding the scientific texts he is so proud of reading, he is not a complete cretin. He knows his views on magnetic reconnection lie well outside the scientific mainstream. For him to pretend we cannot counter his views by citing published papers is dishonest.

More specific examples will be given below.

Michael Mozina said:
Let's now talk about 'intellectual honesty" for a moment. You falsely accused me of misrepresenting Alfven on the topic of MR theory. You ignored the more than half dozen times he called it 'pseudoscience' and the fact he talked about putting nails in it's coffin. You ignored the one published NEGATIVELY slanted paper that condemned it when combined with the concept of "frozen" magnetic fields. Not once have you produced a POSITIVELY slanted published paper or comment from Alfven, and not once have you produced any evidence that I have misrepresented his position on this topic. Not once have you admitted to YOUR mistake.

I have indeed suggested that Michael Mozina does not understand the context of Alfvén's keynote remarks. I have also quoted Alfvén's explicit acknowledgement of the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection.

Because Michael Mozina regards his interpretations of Alfvén's writings as infallible, he regards all other interpretations as dishonest.

Michael Mozina said:
I have repeatedly asked you to provide a *PUBLISHED PAPER* on the experiment you recommend that claims that this process demonstrates *MAGNETIC RECONNECTION* as opposed to magnetic attraction, and you have consistently and repeatedly refused to do so in a completely intellectually dishonest manner. You expect me personally do replicate an experiment on your word, and your word alone that this experiment demonstrates "magnetic reconnection'. Talk about dishonest behaviors. Where is your published paper on this topic?

The experiment I have been recommending demonstrates magnetic reconnection in a lab exercise that would be appropriate for a freshman-level course in electromagnetism. The experiment demonstrates little more than the well-known fact that magnetic reconnection is an immediate consequence of Maxwell's equations, and can be observed in a plasma-free environment where the circuit topology is obviously fixed, no current ever changes direction, and the electric field remains constant. Plotting measurements from variations of that experiment will reproduce the GIFs shown in the current Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection. That result is far too obvious to be published as research.

It was dishonest of Michael Mozina to pretend that my recommendation of a relevant experiment was "intellectually dishonest". I have not been asking him to take me at my "word alone". Had he conducted the experiment, he'd have seen the results with his own eyes.

It was dishonest of Michael Mozina to pretend that the basic facts of magnetic reconnection go away just because I have not published a paper on that freshman-level experiment.

Michael Mozina has consistently denied that magnetic reconnection involves changes to the topology of the magnetic field. For him to pretend I cannot cite published papers in support of those topological changes was dishonest.

Since page 4 of this thread, he's been ignoring the specific paper I cited. He's been ignoring other cited papers since February 2009 or earlier:

Tim Thompson said:
Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection).

The argument that magnetic field lines are without physical substance, and therefore cannot reconnect, is purely a semantic argument with no basis in physics. The lines represent the topology of the magnetic field, and the change in the topology of the magnetic field is the physical manifestation of magnetic reconnection....

Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon verified by controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments. See, for instance, the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory. MRX has been measuring magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma since 1995, but there are experimental observations of reconnection that predate that.

One must also observe that the theory of magnetic reconnection is well developed, and is commonly described in plasma physics text books (i.e., Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications, Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000, concentrates in detail on magnetic reconnection; other books typically include chapters on magnetic reconnection, i.e., Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, Paul M. Bellan, Cambridge University Press, 2006 (Bellan heads the Bellan Plasma Group at Caltech, which does an outstanding job of simulating solar prominences in in the laboratory); Plasma Physics for Astrophysics, Russell M. Kulsrud, Princeton University Press, 2005; The Physics of Plasmas, Boyd & Sanderson, Cambridge University Press, 2003; Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics, Dieter Biskamp, Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics, 1993).

Magnetic reconnection, as a physical phenomenon, regardless of the argument over words, is an integral & fundamental aspect of plasma physics. Denying the validity of magnetic reconnection is quite the same as simply denying the validity of laboratory plasma physics altogether.

tusenfem said:
Just an addition to the list of Tim Thompson:

Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud, Russell an Hantao Ji, Magnetic reconnection, Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 82, Issue 1, pp. 603-664, 2010. A most excellent review paper.

tusenfem said:
The Yamada et al 2010 paper. Start reading Mikey, I doubt that you will understand it, or actually bring something forward.

W.D.Clinger said:
tusenfem nominated this one:

Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud, and Hantao Ji. Magnetic reconnection. Reviews of Modern Physics volume 82, number 1, January-March 2010, pages 603-664.

Michael Mozina said:
When you collectively agree it's *THE* paper, I'll be happy to do that.

tusenfem said:
You have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about plasma physics and double layers. You have not even shown that your basic knowledge of electrodynamics is correct (magnetic field of a charged sphere comes in mind). So, why don't you go study the Yamada et al. (2010) paper.

Tim Thompson said:
So, Mr. Mozina, have you ever read any of the papers I cited here? No, you have not.
Have you ever read any papers describing laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not.
Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not.
Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not.
So, how the hell do you know what is really going on?

Tim Thompson said:
Surely one of the great ironies of all time is Mozina applying the word "denial" to anyone other than himself.

....snip....

Next, we have the significant hypocrisy of Mozina demanding that only controlled laboratory experiments will do, but then denying the existence of phenomena we can actually see happen in real plasma, once the desired experiments are brought forth. I first posted a small list of papers referring to laboratory experiments demonstrating magnetic reconnection, and links to laboratory experiments with webpages, in 2009 ...

At no time has Mozina ever commented on a single experiment beyond the level of saying that the experimental results must be impossible because Alfven said so. Not one single reference to actual experimental data anywhere, ever....

....The only denial going on here is Mozina's tragic denial of reality itself.

DeiRenDopa · May 20, 2011

If you want some "relief" from monoline MM, you can while away an hour or so perusing the thunderblots forum (keep your irony meter away - it may explode, when it meets some double layers - and do not have anything in your mouth as you read ... replacing monitors can be costly).

There's even been some recent chatter on magnetic reconnection! (or is that "Magnetic Reconnection", I am easily confused)

Michael Mozina · May 20, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/articles/Alfven_FieldLines_1976.pdf

The first four sections of that short paper describe a gedanken experiment in which the magnetic field is stationary. With a stationary magnetic field, there is obviously no magnetic reconnection.

In section 5, however, Alfvén explicitly acknowledges the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection in non-stationary fields:

That passage confirms my interpretation of Alfvén's remarks in his keynote address, while refuting Michael Mozina's interpretation of those same remarks. Alfvén acknowledged the physics of magnetic reconnection, and acknowledged the "possibility" that magnetic reconnection "may be applicable" to the scientific problems that concerned him, but he was skeptical about its applicability.

As tusenfem and Tim Thompson have pointed out, magnetic reconnection has been observed in space. The relevance of those observations to the problems that interested Alfvén may not be entirely clear even today, but pseudo-scientists who reject magnetic reconnection out of hand or deny its potential relevance cannot support those prejudices by appeal to Alfvén's authority.

That rejection is explicit in section 6 of the paper:

Note that you are ignoring the fact that the statement: "I can't rule it out, but it remains to be proven" is not the same as "I support and believe in the idea". Alfven was no more of a supporter of MR theory than an atheist supports the concept of God! He quite literally "lacked belief" in the idea and never wrote a single positive thing about it. He did say under SOME circumstances he could not rule it out, but he did say under which circumstances he *COULD* rule it out. He specifically and explicitly ruled it out in the conditions you are using to support the idea.

You're also brazenly ignoring the fact that your ONE SENTENCE from one paper is from a *DECADE EARLIER* than the speech he gave where he repeatedly called MR theory pseudoscience and talked about putting nails in it's coffin.

You haven't even bothered to read Cosmic Plasma where he essentially ruled out the concept in *ANY CURRENT CARRYING PLASMA*.

You are also ignoring the fact that he didn't write a single supportive paper of the concept. Other than that you're in fine shape trying to pass off an atheist as a theist.

Perpetual Student · May 20, 2011

GeeMack said:
My question remains. Why is it that the contemporary scientific community doesn't accept the electric Sun nonsense and the wholly unsupported claim that there is some kind of problem with the physics of magnetic reconnection? Is it that there is no such problem? Or has the position not been argued effectively? And if it hasn't been argued effectively, then isn't it irrational to continue assembling the argument using the same failed strategy? What would be a better argument to use to actually support the claim?

Because EU groupies are guilty of willful ignorance.

Michael Mozina · May 20, 2011

Perpetual Student said:
Because EU groupies are guilty of willful ignorance.

Considering the fact that you've yet to read Cosmic Plasma, or find any flaw in Alfven's circuit orientation to plasma physics, you just blew up the irony meter on that one.

W.D.Clinger · May 20, 2011

DeiRenDopa said:
If you want some "relief" from monoline MM, you can while away an hour or so perusing the thunderblots forum (keep your irony meter away - it may explode, when it meets some double layers - and do not have anything in your mouth as you read ... replacing monitors can be costly).

There's even been some recent chatter on magnetic reconnection! (or is that "Magnetic Reconnection", I am easily confused)

In the Thunderbolts' alternative universe, cluelessness reigns. Sample:

webolife said:
Nereid,
i is use "routinely" by electrical engineers to describe what real universe [not theoretical] phenomenon?

He has a point, you know. Electrical engineers call it j.

Tim Thompson · May 20, 2011

Electric currents and magnetic reconnection

Michael Mozina said:
Tim Thompson said:

Of course that's all true, but you misunderstand me. Your claim is that all of the magnetic fields in the plasma are a direct result of the same currents flowing in the plasma that do the reconnecting. My claim is that the magnetic fields in the reconnection region are not all caused by the local currents.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that is an "extraordinary" claim, one that is not even supported by your own experiments, or those two authors in question.

Ah, but what seems "extraordinary" to you is more a manifestation of your own serious lack of knowledge than anything to do with the actual physics involved. And I strongly reject your notion that it is not supported either by the experiments or by the authors. Quite contrary, the experiments and the authors are quite explicit in what they say. Just look at the abstract for Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008: "J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact. Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents." This is where you are constantly bashing your head against the brick wall of "obvious": magnetic reconnection is observed. Observed. Contrary to what you may think, these people are not all blithering morons who don't even know what they are looking at. The data are explicit. The magnetic fields are directly measured by webs of magnetometers immersed in the plasma. They are not observing something else and then claiming that whatever it looks like, it's really magnetic reconnection. No, the one salient fact that you just can't come to grips with is that magnetic reconnection is actually directly observed in situ, in real time, in real laboratory plasma experiments. It's not an "extraordinary" claim at all. In fact, one might even dispute that it is any kind of claim. It is an observation.

Michael Mozina said:
The authors of that first paper make it quite clear that currents do in fact "reconnect" throughout the process Tim.

Indeed they do, but pay attention to the quote I already included above: "Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents." Remember, the currents are surrounded by helical magnetic fields, which are indeed generated by the currents. The currents cannot simply merge because they cannot penetrate the armor of the helical magnetic field around the current streams. Only after the magnetic fields reconnect, and effectively get out of the way, can the currents physically merge. You are seeing the merging of currents and you think it's just "current reconnection", but you ignore three very important facts:

The currents cannot merge until after the helical magnetic fields reconnect.
The time order of observations: first the magnetic field topology changes, then particle acceleration is observed.
If the only process at work is a kinetic reconnection of particle currents, then there is no mechanism to enhance the particle kinetic energy by orders of magnitude. In short, the principle of conservation of energy is violated.

The changes in magnetic field topology and in particle kinetic energy that we actually observe cannot come from the particle currents, but rather must come from changes internal to the magnetic field. It is the magnetic field that provides the energy that becomes kinetic energy of charged particles after the magnetic reconnection events.

Michael Mozina said:
What evidence suggests to you that charged particle kinetic energy is not responsible for the "magnetic lines" at the point of 'reconnection' when all the other "lines" in the chamber are known to be directly related to the flow of charged particles?

Charged particle kinetic energy is responsible. The helical magnetic fields are generated by the currents in the filament. I am not saying that those magnetic fields are not caused by charged particle motion (nor would I say that about any magnetic field). But of course there is a background magnetic field that is not generated by those charged particles, a background field that was in place before the experiment began. The scientific point in question is not that, but is this: "What is reconnecting?" The actual data are obvious, it is the magnetic field that reconnects and transfers energy to the charged particles (as verified by the time sequence of the real time data).

What evidence suggests to you that magnetic fields are not reconnecting, and that all of the physics involved in particle kinetic energy alone?

Tim Thompson · May 21, 2011

Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo

Michael Mozina said:
Vermonter said:

Just a quick reply for now. This is incorrect. Magnetic reconnection can be demonstrated with simple fridge magnets - no external power needed. That invalidates this claim.

Click to expand...

No, magnetic attraction and repulsion can be demonstrated with simple fridge magnets.

Yes & No. Magnetic attraction is the direct consequence of magnetic field lines connecting the two poles that are attracted. Magnetic repulsion is a direct result of the magnetic field lines pushing each other away from the poles that are repelling each other. So if you move the magnetic poles from repulsion to attraction, you are moving from a regime where no magnetic field lines cross or connect at all, into a regime where all of the magnetic field lines connect from one pole to the other. These two states are easily demonstrated the old fashioned way, by putting bar magnets under paper with iron filings on them. Anyone can do this and literally see the field lines in both the repelling & attracting, unconnected & connected states, right in front of them. That magnetic reconnection must necessarily happen under such circumstances, in vacuo, is obvious.

I think I have attached illustrative iron filing images to this message. We will see when I post it.

Michael Mozina said:
Let's see you create gamma rays with a couple of fridge magnets.

The gamma rays are not a direct result of magnetic reconnection. Rather, they are a direct result of charged particles accelerated by the reconnecting magnetic fields. No plasma, no gamma rays, quite independently of magnetic reconnection. If you really expect magnetic reconnection to produce such phenomena in vacuo, it only reinforces the notion that you really do not know what magnetic reconnection is supposed to be. And that casts serious doubts on your claims that it cannot happen. After all, if you don't know what it is, how can you seriously expect to know whether or not it can happen?

Michael Mozina said:
That's something we observe in flare and in "discharges' in the Earth's atmosphere. It takes electricity to pull off that trick, not just a couple of fridge magnets.

No it does not necessarily take electricity to pull off that trick. It takes accelerated charged particles, which may or may not be "electricity", depending on how one chooses the define "electricity". Certainly no electricity we encounter in our daily lives generates gamma rays.

DeiRenDopa · May 21, 2011

EU to MM, come in MM ...

Here's what EU groupie Jarvamundo wrote, in that thunderblots thread:

oh because yes 'themis' has measured a topological re-arrangement of the field contours so "it must be there"... you think we do not know this? You think that Alfven n co did not realize that this concept should be addressed? He bravely chose his Nobel acceptance to do it?)

Do you actually understand what Alfven was pointing out?

Alfven was pointing out that the very topological field rearrangement is meaningless. Do you know why it is meaningless? You've totally ignored where the energy is stored, and you've totally ignored the rest of the system (currents).

When you interrupt your current (eg when a birkeland current is interrupted, or hey even a copper wire), resistance goes to infinity. When this happens the entire induced magnetic field will rush to escape the circuit. This is violent... again see Steinmetz, he wrote many famous books on this and his work lines the halls of GE (He was called The Wizard of General Electric")... but essentially we are describing one half, of the most famous experiment in electrical engineering (Faraday) ie he flicked the switch off.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblo ... _wheel.htm

Doing something unnecessarily from scratch when a major component or module of your design is already available to you ‘off the shelf’ is foolishly counterproductive. The only reason someone might do such a thing is if he were unaware of the work others have already done to produce exactly what he needs.

Click to expand...

"In the case of the instability leading to the extinction of the current, it should be remembered that every electric circuit is explosive in the sense that if we try to disrupt the current, a release of the whole inductive energy at the point of disruption will occur." - H. Alfvén, Cosmic Plasma, Reidel, Holland, Boston, 1981, p.27

Click to expand...

Remember i told you about those exploding DC power lines?

The entire induced field in miles and miles of transmission, escapes at the point of infinite resistance. So this is the funny part for all the electrical engineers.... whilst the 'solar physicists' are staring closer and closer into "where the re-connection happens"... the engineers are giggling as they sit back and see the complete circuit and the giant induced fields, rushing to escape at the point of infinite resistance.

Now... then you go and say something silly like...

Congratulations, you have demonstrated magnetic reconnection, in your own lab

Click to expand...

Well, no you have not... Forensically this is a terrible examination of an experiment... all you did was measure the magnetic field topological map rearrangement. You did not demonstrate "magnetic field lines" 1: disconnected and then 2: reconnected. (again, the electrical engineers are having a little chuckle, as you peer close and closer at that 'amazing' pop.)

Go have another look at point "N" in that "experiment" paper you sent me.... now pretty much instantly any electrical engineer will point out as a null point. (The diagram is a bit silly, but hey... lets focus on point N)... There is basically no induced field energy there, that is the point where energy in the system is at minimum...(Zero)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6lvw_dfD9Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=280s
There aint no energy there... (the null point)

Click to expand...

In any active electrical circuit, all the topological lines (not real... just a tool) are always changing / moving around... it's how we get something useful out of these fields. Now, if you interrupt a transmission line, and change the conducting path ofcourse the map will rearrange.

All the electrical engineers are saying is... pull your head back a bit... have a look at the amount of energy stored in the giant induced magnetic field which surrounds the transmission line. Have a look at the entire system in your experiments... pay attention to where the energy is (1) stored and (2) breaks down and escapes... they are often quite different locations.

Astrophysicists ignore Alfvén’s work. They attempt to arrive at a de novo explanation for the release of such energy by embracing the notion that the motion and interaction of magnetic field lines is its root cause. They expound on the (basically false) idea that magnetic fields are ‘frozen into’ plasma, and by moving and breaking, these lines carry the plasma along and spew it out into space.

Click to expand...

There is a rich rich history in electrical engineering, and a bank of highly developed engineering science which explains how this phenomena actually works in real life, and inclusive of ALL the components of the system. All of it was empirically derived from the masters, from the natural philosophers, using complete working systems... well well before any particle models and chalk bandits came along.

It may almost be worthwhile to take MM off ignore, to see how he responds to Jarvamundo ... almost.

Of course, EU groupie Jarvamundo studiously avoided commenting on any of the plasma physics experiments, done in MM's fave venue (labs), which demonstrate the reality of magnetic reconnection (not *MAGNETIC RECONNECTION*); instead he is a true believer (or perhaps a "TRUE BELIEVER") - his quotes from Godhead Alfvén and High Priest Scott are, to him, inerrant truth.

Tim Thompson · May 22, 2011

On Field Lines & Pinches

So why am I motivated to say things like this about Mozina? ...

Tim Thompson said:
Witness the display of unfettered ignorance ...

It should come as no surprise to anyone that in a complicated topic such as plasma physics, a certain base of technical knowledge is required to discuss the matter reasonably intelligently. Although we are to "address the argument, not the arguer", the knowledge base of the arguer with respect to the topic is certainly fair game, because it bears directly on the credibility of the arguer not to just forward a message from someone else, but to make independent claims that are alleged to be based in fact & knowledge.

With that in mind, I call your collective attention to this ...

Michael Mozina said:
The term "magnetic line" is a *GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION* of a "Bennett Pinch" in plasma!

Magnetic field lines and Bennett Pinches are so remarkably different that one cannot imagine any knowledgeable person actually mistaking one for the other. The fact that Mozina thinks they are so much alike to create this level of confusion is prima facie evidence that he does not know or understand what either of them are. It is evidence of unfettered ignorance. And since he makes specific claims regarding both, one must clearly not give credence to his ideas without strong independent validating evidence.

Bennett pinch refers to the tendency of a cylindrical current to be pinched by the magnetic field generated by the current. This is also called a z-pinch with reference to the fact that the current is axial, or along the z-axis in cylindrical coordinates. It's named after Willard H. Bennett, who first called attention to the effect in Bennett, 1934. The z-pinch in particular is notoriously unstable (the z-pinch is characterized by an axial current surrounded by an helical magnetic field, whereas a theta-pinch is characterized by helical currents surrounding an axial magnetic field). The key point here is that "Bennett pinch" refers to an effect experienced by an axial current. Details of the relevant physics can be found, for instance, in Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan (Cambridge University Press, 2006) or The physics of Plasmas by Boyd & Sanderson (Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Magnetic field lines are an idea from Michael Faraday for the practical understanding of magnetic fields. James Clerk Maxwell formalized the idea, made it mathematical, and used it as a general foundation of classical field theory, which may be Maxwell's primary contribution to science, aside from inventing electromagnetism as a modern science. A field line, simply put, is a curve that connects points of equal field strength. So a magnetic field line connects together the points of equal magnetic field strength.

The first thing to note is that Bennett pinch refers to an electric current, a stream of electrically charged particles. The second thing to note is that a magnetic field line connects points in space such that the strength of the magnetic field is the same everywhere on the line. Now, does anyone, aside perhaps from Mozina, seriously think that plasma physicists cannot tell the difference between a line of equal magnetic field strength and a flow of electrically charged particles? I hope not.

Michael Mozina · May 22, 2011

Tim Thompson said:
Ah, but what seems "extraordinary" to you is more a manifestation of your own serious lack of knowledge than anything to do with the actual physics involved. And I strongly reject your notion that it is not supported either by the experiments or by the authors. Quite contrary, the experiments and the authors are quite explicit in what they say. Just look at the abstract for Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008: "J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact.

Notice that the magnetic field is simply "diverting the current" Tim? Notice how the "current" is the part that "reconnects" between the actual filaments?

Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents.

Click to expand...

Ya, reconnection of CURRENTS has been seen between the two filament channels at multiple locations. Like I said Tim, I have no problem calling the process "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection". You are however blatantly ignoring the fact that you're ultimately "reconnecting" a couple of *ELECTRIC* fields and trying to pass it off as "magnetic reconnection". The electric horse of charge separation and current does all the work. All the magnetic field does is divert the current.

This is where you are constantly bashing your head against the brick wall of "obvious": magnetic reconnection is observed.

Click to expand...

No Tim, "current reconnection" is observed. Magnetic fields simply cause charge attraction and charge repulsion of individual charged particles. The electric horse is actually doing all the work in terms of the energy release. We can demonstrate this point by shutting off the cathodes and the party is over.

Contrary to what you may think, these people are not all blithering morons who don't even know what they are looking at.

Click to expand...

Strawman alert. How did you get from "I'm fine with their paper to "blithering moron"? I don't question *THEIR* understanding of the physics Tim, just yours. They are explicit and clear about the where the current originates and the fact that *CURRENT* reconnects. It's YOUR understanding I'm questioning, not theirs.

Michael Mozina · May 22, 2011

Tim Thompson said:
So why am I motivated to say things like this about Mozina? ...

Beats me. It's darn hard to justify such behavior considering the fact that just last week you were telling me that current does not come first, when evidently what you really meant was "of course current comes first".

You just love to post my last name over and over again and attack the individual. Evidently you're fine with attacking the arguer rather than the argument. I'll skip your obvious rationalization.

Magnetic field lines and Bennett Pinches are so remarkably different that one cannot imagine any knowledgeable person actually mistaking one for the other.

Well, actually I agree, but your cited experiment does *NOT* begin with a couple of simple magnetic lines, it begins and ends with *ELECTRIC FIELDS*, and "current carrying filaments" of plasma moving in opposite directions. That's hardly a simple "magnetic line".

The fact that Mozina thinks they are so much alike to create this level of confusion is prima facie evidence that he does not know or understand what either of them are. It is evidence of unfettered ignorance. And since he makes specific claims regarding both, one must clearly not give credence to his ideas without strong independent validating evidence.

That's actually quite an irony overload considering the fact that your so called "magnetic lines" turn out to be a couple of "current carrying filaments" that require "charge separation" and "current" to make them work.

I used your own cited "experiment" to demonstrate that you're beginning with current carrying plasma pinches, not "magnetic lines". Wake up and smell the coffee. Its precisely because they *ARE* different and you're using the WRONG ONE in the "experiment" that stinks to high heaven. You're "reconnecting" electric fields" and calling it "magnetic reconnection" just because you "dumbed down" the math to the B orientation alone!

Michael Mozina · May 22, 2011

Tim Thompson said:
No it does not necessarily take electricity to pull off that trick. It takes accelerated charged particles, which may or may not be "electricity", depending on how one chooses the define "electricity".

Show me. Show me one experiment where gamma rays were produced by "magnetic reconnection".

Certainly no electricity we encounter in our daily lives generates gamma rays.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5712/1085.abstract

You mean besides ordinary electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere? You've never seen a lightning storm?

Michael Mozina · May 22, 2011

DeiRenDopa said:
Here's what EU groupie Jarvamundo wrote, in that thunderblots thread:

It may almost be worthwhile to take MM off ignore, to see how he responds to Jarvamundo ... almost.

Of course, EU groupie Jarvamundo studiously avoided commenting on any of the plasma physics experiments, done in MM's fave venue (labs), which demonstrate the reality of magnetic reconnection (not *MAGNETIC RECONNECTION*); instead he is a true believer (or perhaps a "TRUE BELIEVER") - his quotes from Godhead Alfvén and High Priest Scott are, to him, inerrant truth.

If you ever do take me off ignore I suppose you'll probably end up being disappointed. He's right. Current comes first and you're all ignoring the current. It's actually the "current" that "reconnects" and two electric fields that "reconnect" according to Tim's cited experiment. If you blindly ignore the fact that the current and charge separation do all the work, and the magnetic field simply pushes a few particles into the other current carrying filament, I guess it's "ok" to call it "reconnection". The only thing that actually "reconnects" is are the electric fields, but that doesn't stop you from trying to call it "magnetic reconnection". The movement/deflection of charge particles isn't even due to 'reconnection", it's actually due to "magnetic attraction/repulsion" of charged particles in the current.

GeeMack · May 22, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Beats me. It's darn hard to justify such behavior considering the fact that just last week you were telling me that current does not come first, when evidently what you really meant was "of course current comes first".

You just love to post my last name over and over again and attack the individual. Evidently you're fine with attacking the arguer rather than the argument. I'll skip your obvious rationalization.

Well, actually I agree, but your cited experiment does *NOT* begin with a couple of simple magnetic lines, it begins and ends with *ELECTRIC FIELDS*, and "current carrying filaments" of plasma moving in opposite directions. That's hardly a simple "magnetic line".

That's actually quite an irony overload considering the fact that your so called "magnetic lines" turn out to be a couple of "current carrying filaments" that require "charge separation" and "current" to make them work. I used your own cited "experiment" to demonstrate that you're beginning with current carrying plasma pinches, not "magnetic lines". Wake up and smell the coffee. Its precisely because they *ARE* different and you're using the WRONG ONE in the "experiment" that stinks to high heaven. You're "reconnecting" electric fields" and calling it "magnetic reconnection" just because you "dumbed down" the math to the B orientation alone!

Nothing here but unsupported assertions based on an unqualified and misunderstood interpretation of real science. Failed.

GeeMack · May 22, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Show me. Show me one experiment where gamma rays were produced by "magnetic reconnection".

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5712/1085.abstract

You mean besides ordinary electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere? You've never seen a lightning storm?

The consideration that solar flares and coronal loops are some kind of gigantic electrical sparks analogous to lightning here on Earth has been shown time and again to be a ridiculous argument. Given the composition of the solar atmosphere and the physical requirements for such a phenomenon to occur, it is simply impossible. Argument failed.

GeeMack · May 22, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
If you ever do take me off ignore I suppose you'll probably end up being disappointed. He's right. Current comes first and you're all ignoring the current. It's actually the "current" that "reconnects" and two electric fields that "reconnect" according to Tim's cited experiment. If you blindly ignore the fact that the current and charge separation do all the work, and the magnetic field simply pushes a few particles into the other current carrying filament, I guess it's "ok" to call it "reconnection". The only thing that actually "reconnects" is are the electric fields, but that doesn't stop you from trying to call it "magnetic reconnection". The movement/deflection of charge particles isn't even due to 'reconnection", it's actually due to "magnetic attraction/repulsion" of charged particles in the current.

More quote-marked terms used in clearly unconventional ways, and yet undefined in their context. That makes the argument gibberish. Real scientists communicate with terms that are understood by each other. Assembling an argument from words and phrases whose meanings are intentionally hidden is not scientific. An argument so constructed is nonsense and may be dismissed as such. Argument failed.

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2011

GeeMack said:
More quote-marked terms used in clearly unconventional ways, and yet undefined in their context. That makes the argument gibberish. Real scientists communicate with terms that are understood by each other. Assembling an argument from words and phrases whose meanings are intentionally hidden is not scientific. An argument so constructed is nonsense and may be dismissed as such. Argument failed.

Good point.

Since you quoted MM, I can see what he wrote.

I'll re-write the key part of it, replacing undefined terms with <!#%n>, where n is 1, 2, ... 8 and identifies each such term.

Current comes first and you're all ignoring the current. It's actually the <!#%1> that <!#%2> and two electric fields that <!#%3> according to Tim's cited experiment. If you blindly ignore the fact that the current and charge separation do all the work, and the magnetic field simply pushes a few particles into the other current carrying filament, I guess it's <!#%4> to call it <!#%5>. The only thing that actually <!#%2> is are the electric fields, but that doesn't stop you from trying to call it <!#%6>. The movement/deflection of charge particles isn't even due to <!#%7>, it's actually due to <!#%8> of charged particles in the current.

Now since MM is writing in English (sorta - note the odd "is are" construction), perhaps we can relax things a bit, and reduce the number of undefined terms a bit:

Current comes first and you're all ignoring the current. It's actually the <!#%1> that <!#%2>s and two electric fields that <!#%2> according to Tim's cited experiment. If you blindly ignore the fact that the current and charge separation do all the work, and the magnetic field simply pushes a few particles into the other current carrying filament, I guess it's <!#%3> to call it <!#%2>ion. The only thing that actually <!#%2>s is are the electric fields, but that doesn't stop you from trying to call it <!#%4> <!#%2>ion. The movement/deflection of charge particles isn't even due to <!#%5>, it's actually due to <!#%4> <!#%6> of charged particles in the current.

Of course, it's possible that <!#%5> is the same as <!#%2>ion, but with MM you never know.

In any case, as GM writes, the argument is clearly gibberish.

Reality Check · May 23, 2011

The idiocy of comparing a Saturn analogy (visible light) to a solar image in x-rays

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

Was the sun a "cathode" according to Birkeland? Was his sphere a "cathode" in 247A? This pure denial of scientific fact is just boring now. Did he, or did he not compare his cathode terella experiments to solar activity *LATER IN HIS BOOK*? Yes or no?

How idiotic: nothing to do with what I posted!

The newspaper report yet again !
The reporter states that Birkleand proposed that the Sun is negatively charged. Negatively objects are usually considered to be cathodes.
Birkleand did compare his cathode terella experiments to solar activity *LATER IN HIS BOOK*.

The solar wind is made of an equal number of negative electron and positive ions. It is neutral. So Birkeland was wrong when he proposed that the Sun just emnitted positive ions and so was negatively charged.
As for his idea that these ions formed the planets that is laughable given out modern knowledge (but understandable given the state of science in 1913)

The Sun could have a small charge (negative or positive) but if is was too big then the Sun will explode. The electrostatic limit is 77 Coulombs (On the global electrostatic charge of stars). ETA:

The charges in static electricity from rubbing materials together are typically a few microcoulombs.[10]
The amount of charge that travels through a lightning bolt is typically around 15 C, although large bolts can be up to 350 C.[11]
The amount of charge that travels through a typical alkaline AA battery is about 5 kC = 5000 C = 1400 mAh. After that charge has flowed, the battery must be discarded or recharged

The stupidity in your image is that Figure 247a is an image of his analogy with Saturn's rings, not the Sun leading to The idiocy of comparing a Saturn analogy (visible light) to a solar image in x-rays! and the even greater stupidity that the two images do not look alike.

Reality Check · May 23, 2011

A few several outstanding questions for MM:
MM: Do you know that 100 seconds is a lot less thanh a million years?
(i.e. induction can only release the amount of energy seen in solar flares in a million years, flares last 100 seconds)
10th May 2011
Of course if you can show that induction over the length scale of flares can happen in 100 seconds then there is at least one textbook that is wrong.
N.B. The Mann and Onel paper uses a circuit model that ignores the scale of the flares.

MM: Where are your citations for the theory of current reconnection?
13th May 2011
Why did this experiment not detect and report your 'current reconnection'?
16th May 2011

Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

Philosopher

Master Poster

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Philosopher

Muse

Muse

Attachments

Master Poster

Muse

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Share this page

ISF - Join now!