
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. 
1st November 2011, 04:31 PM  #4361 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234

a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1
So long as Michael Mozina continues to wallow in the pit of denial he's dug for himself, we might as well finish up the derivation of magnetic reconnection in the experiment he's been running away from for most of the past year. By giving up on Michael Mozina, we free ourselves to use freshmanlevel math and physics that lie far beyond his knowledge and capability.
Simpler demonstrations of magnetic reconnection have already been presented in this or related threads, including
The derivation proceeds along the outline suggested by the five equations I quoted from Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics. Although that is hardly a freshmanlevel textbook, equivalents of those particular equations appear within Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism and other introductory textbooks. Equation 1 (Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction) That's one of the four Maxwell's equations. By conducting the experiment in a vacuum and changing the magnetic field slowly, we can make Maxwell's correction as small as desired. (Changing the magnetic field more slowly makes magnetic reconnection happen more slowly, so you might be afraid this demonstration will be like watching grass grow. Never fear: We can compensate by using timelapse animation to view the reconnection.) We can simplify our math by making Maxwell's correction negligible and dropping it from the equation to obtain Ampère's original law: Equation 2 (relationship between H and B) Ampère's law is stated using the Hfield. For our derivation, we need to use the Bfield. In a vacuum, converting from the Hfield to the Bfield involves a change of units. The conversion factor µ_{0} is known as the magnetic constant: Substituting for H in Ampère's original law, we get Equation 3 (applying the KelvinStokes theorem) Let S be any smooth compact 2dimensional surface, and let C (a 1dimensional curve) be the boundary of S. Applying the KelvinStokes theorem (which is a corollary of the fundamental theorem of calculus in n dimensions) to the equation above, we get Equation 4 (magnetic field around a currentcarrying rod) For our experiment, we can use long rods and perform all of our measurements of the magnetic field in the vicinity of the rods' centers. Under those conditions, the magnetic fields we measure will be the same (to within experimental error) as the magnetic fields around infinitely long rods. We need to start by calculating the magnetic field around a single currentcarrying rod. By symmetry, the magnetic field will look the same in every plane that intersects the rod at a right angle. Taking S to be a disk of radius R in one of those planes with the rod at its center, we find that the integral of B along the boundary of that disk is equal to the total current flux through the disk. By Ampère's law, the magnetic field is tangent to that boundary at every point (with direction determined by the right hand rule). By symmetry, the magnitude of the field is the same at every point on the circle. Denoting the current through a single rod at time t by I(t), the current flux through S is I(t). Hence whence which is a simplification of Jackson's equation. (His equation illustrated the BiotSavart law, which we managed to avoid by appealing to symmetry.) (We have now answered one of Reality Check's critical questions that Michael Mozina was unable to answer.) Equation 5 (superposition) Superposition is so simple that many textbooks don't even bother to state it as an equation. Jackson stated superposition as part of the equation that tells how to convert the Bfields through media of different permeability into the composite Hfield: By conducting our experiment in a vacuum, transforming from component notation to vector notation, and translating the lefthand side of that equation into the equivalent Bfield, we get the unadorned and uncomplicated equation for superposition of magnetic fields: (Yes, the Greek letter that confused Michael Mozina has disappeared altogether. Imagine that.) To be continued... 
Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 1st November 2011 at 05:39 PM. Reason: corrected a minor mistake (while leaving a more serious error untouched) 

1st November 2011, 04:32 PM  #4362 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

Wrong again.
The logic is really simple. Freshman level textbooks describe the theory of electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations, etc.). It is the theory of electromagnetism that supports magnetic reconnection. If you knew or understood EM theory then you would agree but you do not have that knowledge: Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule). 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

1st November 2011, 04:33 PM  #4363 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361


1st November 2011, 04:35 PM  #4364 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

MM: Can you answer sol invictus's question about magnetic field lines and Gauss' law
Wrong: it's *EXACTLY* like arguing with a typical physics cranks: Ignorance, ignorance, dodge, denial, straw man, return to ignorance.
For example, you continue to dodge: MM: Can you answer sol invictus's question about magnetic field lines and Gauss' law first asked by sol invictus on 27 October 2011 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

1st November 2011, 04:38 PM  #4365 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361

BS! That permeability factor that you're running like hell from describes *INDUCTANCE* per unit length, not *RECONNECTIONS* per unit length!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation Your entire argument is based on a fallacy. You've simply redefined the term "inductance" to "reconnection"! 
1st November 2011, 04:41 PM  #4366 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

How ignorant of you MM.
Maxwell's equations don't say a DAMN THING about magnetic reconnection. They also say nothing about

__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

1st November 2011, 04:45 PM  #4367 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length"
Double BS.
Firstly W.D. Clinger is not running away from permeability. The equations he has cited have permeability in them (one equation is the definition of permeability!). ETA: The only reason that he has permeability is so that he can use H instead of B for a while. As in his post above, he then transforms back to B and permeability vanishes! The main idiocy in your post is the delusion that the equations have to have a mythical "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length" in them. 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

1st November 2011, 05:04 PM  #4368 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance
The second delusion in this post (see Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length" for the first one)
is the delusion that permeability is inductance just because permeability has the SI units of henries per meter and inductance has the SI units of henries. MM: FYI, I could measure permeability in cgs units and inductance in SI units and all of a sudden permeability is not inductance according to your twisted logic ! Perpetual Student's post is the best explanation 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

1st November 2011, 07:08 PM  #4369 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234


Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 1st November 2011 at 07:17 PM. Reason: added the previously omitted factor of 1/r 

1st November 2011, 07:59 PM  #4370 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

Missed this:
MM, repeating your ignorance about magnetic reconnection is is not wise. Magnetic reconnection is trivially *POSSIBLE* in basic EM theory. There are no magnetic field lines beginning and ending in magnetic reconnection. The magnetic fields lines are not cut. No ends of magnetic field lines are glued together. See MHD reconnection N.B. The curator of this Scholarpedia article is Eric R Priest. 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

2nd November 2011, 12:54 AM  #4371 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982

Apparently, like in every paper you read, you have not understood the processes said paper was talking about. This is a paper about curvature radiation, the emitted frequency is specifically given for this process. Try to get that to work in a solar flare, really do the math!
Naturally, there are other mechanisms to create gamma radiation, but those are not in the paper as they were unimportant in the physics of neutron star magnetospheres. 
__________________
20 minutes into the future This message is brabrabrought to you by zzzzik zak AndAndAnd I'm going to be back with you  on Network 23 after these realrealrealreally exciting messages (Max Headroom) follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC 

2nd November 2011, 03:10 AM  #4372 
World Maker
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185


__________________
<Roar!> 

2nd November 2011, 03:11 AM  #4373 
World Maker
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185


__________________
<Roar!> 

2nd November 2011, 05:22 AM  #4374 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234

a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1 (erratum)
This is the more serious error I didn't correct when editing my post last night. As you can see, it won't affect our derivation in any way.
No, that equation does not express superposition. It's on page 14 of Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, third edition, in the section immediately following the section on linear superposition, but I misread the equation. As written, it's the equation for translating from B to H in a medium of nonuniform permeability, and there is no superposition. It appears that Jackson never bothers to write down the equation for superposition. Since that's the equation we need, however, I'll continue to refer to the following as our equation 5: 
2nd November 2011, 07:16 AM  #4375 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361

Of course we all know that if *I* had made any of those same mathematical errors, you folks would have been jumping down my throat.
Quote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4303
Quote:
Quote:

2nd November 2011, 07:18 AM  #4376 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361


2nd November 2011, 07:23 AM  #4377 
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235


2nd November 2011, 07:25 AM  #4378 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361

The "funny" (well "sad") part of your participation in this thread is that you've made absolutely no attempt to check out the validity of the statements RC or anyone else is making *BEFORE* jumping into the conversation. Congrats. You're well on your way to becoming a full fledged EU "hater".
Haters are like creationists. They don't care about the actual science. None of the haters (like RC) ever actually addresses or acknowledges the information presented. The haters also fail to provide any published materials to support their claims too like Clinger refuses to provide any PUBLISHED materials to support his handwaves about his "experiment" being an example of "reconnection". Instead he plows right ahead, ignoring the fact that absolutely NONE of his equations related to "reconnections" per unit length. If you HAD spend any time checking out Dungey's work or Peratt's work, you'd already know that both Peratt and Dungey describe what they call "electrical discharges" in plasmas. RC is simply in pure denial of scientific fact. In fact he outright lied! Unlike the haters, I actually *HAVE* provided at least two PUBLISHED references to support my claim. When did you intend to read them? 
2nd November 2011, 07:27 AM  #4379 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361


2nd November 2011, 07:30 AM  #4380 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361


2nd November 2011, 08:00 AM  #4381 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234

Unlikely. Had anyone been so stupid as to jump down your throat for making exactly the same errors I made, you could have pointed out that all three equations were technically correct as written and follow directly from the definitions and calculations.
You could then explain that the only problem with the first two equations was that they didn't directly contradict your ignorant suggestion that magnetic reconnection is incompatible with Gauss's law for magnetism. (You could also have pointed out that the second equation implies the third (which does directly contradict your ignorant claims), that the error in the second equation came from forgetting that the surfaces had been defined using cylindrical coordinates instead of Cartesian, and that the second equation would have been correct had a division by r been placed within the definition of those surfaces (which would have been a more natural place for it) instead of leaving that division for the equations. But really, Michael...you don't need to be all that defensive. ) Do you want to know the real reasons so many people are giving you a hard time? It's because you continue to repeat your errors even after you've been corrected, you run away from all relevant questions that could help you to learn something, and when some nice person tries to help you out, you accuse him of lying, hating, and religious bigotry, all the while pretending to be some sort of expert on subjects you actually know nothing about. For example: That argument isn't working, Michael. Just about everyone has figured out that you don't have a clue about freshmanlevel math or physics, so you can't possibly have understood whatever legitimate math and physics may be contained within your holy texts. 
2nd November 2011, 08:32 AM  #4382 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361

Your personal attacks aren't working Clinger, not in any scientific sense anyway. I've learned a LOT from noting the questions that you REFUSE to address.
You REFUSE to provide *ANY* kind of published references for your claim. Even though I provided TWO published references to support the fact that "electrical discharges" occur in plasma, you refuse to embrace that fact. You refuse to really spend any time at all addressing my questions about changing materials and changing *INDUCTANCE* per distance unit. You REFUSE to explain where any of the kinetic energy comes from at a couple "ZERO" points in magnetic field. You've pretty much REFUSED to address ANY of the relevant questions surrounding your so called "reconnection" experiment. I know you think that attacking the individual has some sort of emotional value to you, but from the standpoint of PHYSICS and KINETIC ENERGY, I know for a fact that you have no idea how to answer any of these questions *WITHOUT* acknowledging CURRENTS that ultimately "reconnect" at that point, particularly in plasma. Sooner or later other people will ask you for PUBLISHED references to support your handwaving, and they'll want answers about the million degree rise in temperatures. They'll be honestly curious to know those answers. Will you treat them as you've treated me? Will you lie through your teeth in an effort to attack that individual too, and will you run like hell from every relevant question they put before you? Will you NEVER read Alfven and Peratt's work for yourself, and rely upon ignorance and arrogance forever and ever? 
2nd November 2011, 11:53 AM  #4383 
World Maker
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185


__________________
<Roar!> 

2nd November 2011, 12:11 PM  #4384 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

It is not a personal attack: I tis a conclusion dram from your display of ignorance, e.g. Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule).
He had given references for his claim (any textbook on electromagnetism) which is that you can demonstrate MR using EM. You have no references  just delusions about them: Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge! 13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different
And as you see above  there is no permeability in the equations when we get back to B. There is no *INDUCTANCE* per distance unit: Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance! 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

2nd November 2011, 12:55 PM  #4385 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

MM: Induction = solar flares take a million years to happen (31st December 2009)
Ignorance overload. We folks are the ones who are FOLLOWING WHAT THE SCIENCE DOES: defining magnetic reconnection as .... magnetic reconnection!
Your entire argument of magnetic reconnection = inductance is based on a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance or maybe a new fallacy which I will call argument from delusion. You continue to ignore the physics that the energy released from solar flares would take a million years if released through induction ! Magnetic Reconnection Redux V (31st December 2009) 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

2nd November 2011, 01:23 PM  #4386 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

That link is a play list of 5 videos. The easiest one to understand in the context of our discussion is Simulation of Magnetic Reconnection in a Dusty Plasma  DENISIS which shows the magnteic field lines curving into the null point at the center of the plasma to form an X and then reconnecting.

__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

2nd November 2011, 06:08 PM  #4387 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234

a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 2
In the first part of this derivation and an erratum, we used 5 equations to derive the magnetic field B around a currentcarrying rod.
In this part of the derivation, we will express that magnetic field in both cylindrical and Cartesian coordinates. In part 3, we will show that the magnetic field around four currentcarrying rods reproduces both of the figures in Dungey's 1958 paper, figure 3a in the survey paper by Yamada et al, and the still figure in Wikipedia's current article on magnetic reconnection. In part 4, I will describe a simple variation of the experiment I've been suggesting to Michael Mozina and prove that the topology of the magnetic field changes during that experiment. As Yamada et al explain in their appendix, that change in the topology of the magnetic field is what we mean by magnetic reconnection. Notation for B When we write ∇∙B, we're thinking of B as a function of points in 3space. When we write dB/dt or ∂B/∂t, we're thinking of B as a function of time. As will become painfully clear if you read Michael Mozina's posts, that contextual overloading of B can confuse people. Let's take a minute to review the notation. We usually speak of B as the magnetic field, which means it's a function from points in 3space (which we write as R^{3}) to vectors of magnetic flux density (which we also write as R^{3}). In that kind of context, B is a function from R^{3} to R^{3}, and it would be correct to write B ∈ (R^{3} ➝ R^{3})where (R^{3} ➝ R^{3}) is the set of all functions from R^{3} to R^{3}. When we speak of B as a function from time to magnetic fields, it would be correct to write B ∈ (R ➝ (R^{3} ➝ R^{3}))We may also regard B as a function of four variables (x, y, z, and t), so it would be correct to write B ∈ ((R^{3} × R) ➝ R^{3})Because (R ➝ (R^{3} ➝ R^{3})) is isomorphic to ((R^{3} × R) ➝ R^{3}), these last two meanings for B are consistent. I'll continue to use the traditional notation (instead of lambda calculus, which would be more precise), but everyone should keep in mind that context determines whether we're thinking of B as a function of space or time. From part 1, here are the equations we'll need as we move forward: Equation 3 (integral form of Ampère's law) Equation 4 (magnitude of magnetic field around a currentcarrying rod) In cylindrical coordinates: where those first two equalities illustrate the contextdependent overloading of B. Equation 5 (superposition) Magnetic field around a single rod (cylindrical coordinates) From equations 3 and 4, the magnetic field around a single currentcarrying rod positioned at r=0 is where e_{θ} is the unit vector in the θ direction. Magnetic field around a single rod (Cartesian coordinates) In part 3, we'll derive the magnetic field for two and then four currentcarrying rods. They won't all be positioned at r=0. To derive the magnetic field around rods positioned elsewhere, Cartesian coordinates will be more convenient. From the equation above for cylindrical coordinates, the magnetic field around a single currentcarrying rod positioned at the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system is where e_{x} and e_{y} are the unit vectors in the x and y directions. Everything we've done so far is found within standard textbooks on electromagnetism. In part 3, we'll go beyond freshmanlevel textbooks by reproducing the magnetic fields shown in Dungey's figures and in Yamada et al's figure 3a. 
2nd November 2011, 06:18 PM  #4388 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

The existence of the Yamada et. al. does emphasis a problem that Michael Mozina seems to have: he is so convinced that his fantasies are correct that he ignores the actual science and any citations to the actual science.
Yamada et al were first cited in this thread on 27th January 2011 by tusenfem and there is no sign that MM has even looked at the paper . 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

2nd November 2011, 07:16 PM  #4389 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361

In other words, just like any good creationist, you absolutely, positively refuse to provide ANY kind of published work to support your OUTRAGEOUS claims, instead you just keep handwaving away and tossing around formulas related to INDUCTANCE per distance unit, not RECONNECTION. You also refused to answer any of my related questions about kinetic energy at two zero points in a magnetic field. You just keep flailing away, and trying to use completely unrelated work inside of ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PLASMAS to support your case (Dungey/Yamada). Wow. Evidently you never intend to address those permeability questions or electrical discharge questions (Dungey) in any meaningful way.

2nd November 2011, 07:26 PM  #4390 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361

Huh?
Let see. Clinger has name dropped four names now, Purcell, Jackson, Dungey and Yamada in support of his personal "reconnection experiment", two of which NEVER EVEN MENTIONED reconnection. The other two papers he keeps referring to (Dungey/Yamada) occur in PLASMAS, include ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES/Discharge chambers, and have NOTHING whatsoever to do with Clinger's personal 'experiment'. Would Clinger like to throw in Jesus and Einstein too as MR proponents? They never mentioned "magnetic reconnection" either, but that clearly doesn't seem to stop him from trying to use them to support his case. 
2nd November 2011, 07:35 PM  #4391 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361

http://books.google.com/books?id=e63...dungey&f=false
I think it's reasonable to be asking yourself who's telling you the truth and who isn't. RC is in pure denial of the fact that both Dungey and Peratt described "electrical discharges" in plasmas. In fact Dungey (and Giovanelli before him) specifically linked flares to "electrical discharges" and Dungey specifically links "discharges" to "reconnection" events. The sad part is that you simply don't care to find out who's telling the truth. 
2nd November 2011, 07:38 PM  #4392 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361


2nd November 2011, 07:38 PM  #4393 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

In other words, just like any honest person, W.D. Clinger is trying (obviously in vain) to educate you about the basic EM theory that the experiment I've been suggesting to Michael Mozina uses.
You continue to lie about his claim: W.D. Clinger'sclaim is that you can use freshmanlevel EM to describe magnetic reconnection. His 2 'simple derivation' posts so far have used freshmanlevel EM to describe the magnetic field around a current carying rod. FYI: Maxwell's equations are introduced to physics students in their first (freshman) year. You continue to lie about his references: W.D. Clinger has cited at least one freshmanlevel EM textbook, one book on magnetic reconnection and one magnetic reconnection paper (a 2010 review). He refused to answer your 'kinetic energy at two zero points in a magnetic field' question becuase the question is
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 2
Quote:

__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

2nd November 2011, 07:41 PM  #4394 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361


2nd November 2011, 07:43 PM  #4395 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361


2nd November 2011, 07:47 PM  #4396 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361

Clingers use of circuit theory is quite ironic, particularly in current carrying plasma (like Yamada and Dungey) where Alfven's double layer paper makes MR theory OBSOLETE.

2nd November 2011, 07:48 PM  #4397 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

Oh, science by plug the laws of physics into a completer simulation and see what we get  pretty pictures that illustrate the science !
This is not your very ignorant 'I see bunnies in the clouds' logic where you ignore the science in favor of your fantasies, e.g.

__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

2nd November 2011, 07:53 PM  #4398 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

An honest man would not lie about what W.D. Clinger has stated.
He has never stated that the proposed experiment is in a PUBLISHED REFERENCE. You have been cited many PUBLISHED REFERENCES on magnetic reconnection experiments that are DIRECTLY RELATED to his actual experiment. He does not have to answer gibberish that is unrelated to his proposed experiment. He does not have to cater to your delusions: Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance! 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

2nd November 2011, 07:55 PM  #4399 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136

None of it relates to INDUCTANCE (and never will) and not a single bit of it relates to magnetic reconnection  yet.
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance! 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

2nd November 2011, 07:56 PM  #4400 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361


Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

