ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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

Closed Thread
Old 2nd November 2011, 07:57 PM   #4401
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
Then from the standpoint of science and skeptical debate he's no better than a two bit creationist handwaving away!

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 2nd November 2011 at 08:10 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 08:07 PM   #4402
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Exclamation Michael Mozina's delusion about Alfvén's solar flare paper

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
Really ignorant - there is no 'circuit theory' (as in Alfvén's double layer paper) in
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1 and an erratum,
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 2
No circuit. No resistors. No capacitors. No inductors. Not even any double layers!

It looks like we have an old delusion resurrected. Alfvén's paper used a circuit model of solar flares to calculate the total energy emitted in a flare (and got it right!).
  1. This circuit model only applies to solar flares.
  2. This circuit model can never explain any details of the solar flare. That needs MR theory:
    Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003
    (you know - all of the observations that Alfvén's circuit theory cannot match)
It is delusional to think that this one paper on one phenomena that cannot explain much makes 'MR theory OBSOLETE'.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 08:10 PM   #4403
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Then from the standpoint of science and skeptical debate he's no better than two bit creationist handwaving away!
A rather idiotic comment.
Magnetic reconnection in vacuum (or air) is so trivial that no one seems to have bothered to publish a detailed description of it.

W.D. Clinger's posts are based on science, not your or creationist fantasies
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1and an erratum,
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 2
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 08:12 PM   #4404
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A rather idiotic comment.
Magnetic reconnection in vacuum (or air) is so trivial that no one seems to have bothered to publish a detailed description of it.
Ya and "God created the universe 6000 years ago" is so trivial, nobody bothered to publish any scientific data on it.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 08:13 PM   #4405
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Everywhere you see a permeability variable in his equations it's a measure of INDUCTANCE per unit distance, not RECONNECTIONS!
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length"

Everywhere you see a permeability symbol in the EM equations (not his) is is 'a measure of' permeability.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 08:14 PM   #4406
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Ya and "God created the universe 6000 years ago" is so trivial, nobody bothered to publish any scientific data on it.
Ya and magnetic reconnection in vacuum is so trivial, nobody bothered to publish any scientific papers about it that we can find.

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd November 2011 at 08:18 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 08:18 PM   #4407
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Really ignorant - there is no 'circuit theory' (as in Alfvén's double layer paper) in
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1 and an erratum,
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 2
No circuit. No resistors. No capacitors. No inductors. Not even any double layers!
Ya, but nothing in any of the formulas relate to "magnetic reconnection" either, and his handwave experiment isn't published ANYWHERE!
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 08:19 PM   #4408
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Ya and magnetic reconnection in vacuum is so trivial, nobody bothered to publish any scientific papers about it that we can find.
From the standpoint of skeptical debate and critical thinking, you're up a creek without a published paddle.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 2nd November 2011 at 08:20 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 08:30 PM   #4409
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
From the standpoint of skeptical debate and reason, you're up a creek without a published paddle.
From the standpoint of knowledge of science and any dispolayed ability to learn, you're up a creek without a intellegent paddle:
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length"
Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule).

I actually do have a published paddle (sort of) though!
Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990
Quote:
In an vacuum, magnetic reconnection is trivial process...
ETA: An actual published paddle:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
"Section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" covers this topic in a page and a half !
So now we have a published source for magnetic reconnection in vacuum, you should admit that it exists (but of course you will continue with your delusional belief that it does no )

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd November 2011 at 08:37 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 08:53 PM   #4410
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
From the standpoint of knowledge of science and any dispolayed ability to learn, you're up a creek without a intellegent paddle:
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length"
Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule).

I actually do have a published paddle (sort of) though!
Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990


ETA: An actual published paddle:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
"Section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" covers this topic in a page and a half !
So now we have a published source for magnetic reconnection in vacuum, you should admit that it exists (but of course you will continue with your delusional belief that it does no )
It's really ironic to me that you don't bother actually reading or comprehending the materials that you cite. That specific author explicitly uses the terms "current" and "induced E fields" RC. He simply names the PROCESS "reconnection". I have no problem with "current reconnection" inside a "separatrix/double layer" which "encloses both currents". The behaviors of that "double layer/separatrix" are already explained in Alfven's double layer paper *WITHOUT* MR theory. Essentially Boris (like Dungey) agrees with Alfven that "magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than a pseudonym for current sheet acceleration and he clearly explains the E field that is INDUCED by the magnetic field changes. Nice job shooting yourself in the foot there RC.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 2nd November 2011 at 08:56 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 09:07 PM   #4411
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
FYI, page 105 has a paragraph about "reconnecting current sheets" in plasma. Like I said, I have no problem with "current reconnection". Current flow (Dungey's electrical discharges) into the X point can indeed provide the kinetic energy necessary to explain those million degree temperatures and those gamma rays. Two "magnetic lines" connected at a couple of ZERO points isn't going to posses any particle kinetic energy to "reconnect" to anything else, but two CURRENTS is a completely different matter. I have no problem with "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection" or something that explains the actually kinetic energy exchange process ACCURATELY.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 2nd November 2011 at 09:09 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 09:33 PM   #4412
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Wow RC, you struck the motherload with that author. Turn to page 108.

Read section 4.5 entitled: "Acceleration in current sheets, why?"

He even uses the term "reconnecting current sheets". I don't know how much clearer he could be about the "reconnection" process being a pseudonym for "current sheet acceleration" just like Alfven said!
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 10:36 PM   #4413
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://www.google.co.nz/search?tbo=p...s+solar+flares

Hey RC, if you need more reference material for electrical discharges in solar flares, why don't you do a Google book search on that topic too?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2011, 11:16 PM   #4414
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9704264

Here's another paper about electrical discharges in plasma too by the way.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 12:00 AM   #4415
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501334

In section 2 of this paper Li talks about Alfven's discharge theories in relationship to solar flares. It's a great paper too.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 02:37 AM   #4416
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I think it's reasonable to be asking yourself who's telling you the truth and who isn't.
If I start doing that, you might wind up with another opponent.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 02:48 AM   #4417
nvidiot
Botanical Jedi
 
nvidiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,121
This is rapidly becoming more and more farcical.

The projection in this thread on MM's part is almost pathological.
__________________
www.sq1gaming.com
nvidiot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 03:02 AM   #4418
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Almost?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 03:42 AM   #4419
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
FYI, page 105 has a paragraph about "reconnecting current sheets" in plasma
FYI: reconnecting current sheets is part of magnetic reconnection!
The change in magnetic field topology (reconnection!) allows current sheets to reconnect. Wow !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 03:49 AM   #4420
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Hey RC, if you need more reference material for electrical discharges in solar flares, why don't you do a Google book search on that topic too?
Bacuase you are the one with that unphysical fantasy.
You need to provide the citations from Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!:
Michael Mozina: Google Books list for electrical discharges within plasma?
28th October 2011
Remember to quote the full text rather lying (quote mining) as you doo about Anthony Peratt's book).

P.S. You will find plenty of results since any references to Dungey (which any such book should include) will adopt his usage: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 03:50 AM   #4421
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Read section 4.5 entitled: "Acceleration in current sheets, why?"
Particles are accelerated in curent sheets. Why they are accelerated is the topic of the section. Duh !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 04:04 AM   #4422
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Question MM: Quote Alfvén stating that there are electrical discharge in plasma

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9704264

Here's another paper about electrical discharges in plasma too by the way.
Oh dear - you are displaying your ignorance yet again.
Heliospheric Origin of Gamma-Ray Bursts has the term 'electrical discharge' in its abstract. Big woo! Lots of publications call discharges of electrons, 'electrical discharges'
The discharge model is from Alfvén H. 1981, Cosmic Plasma.

Wait a minute - you have the book, Michael Mozina!
Can you quote Alfvén stating that there are electrical discharge in plasma without a double layer?
DL's accelerate electrons and that is sometimes (as in this paper) called an 'electrical discharge', i.e. a sudden acceleration of electrons. It is not the usual definition as in Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge (no dielectric breakdown)
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 04:24 AM   #4423
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501334

In section 2 of this paper Li talks about Alfven's discharge theories in relationship to solar flares. It's a great paper too.
Let us do what any competent person would do:
Note that this is a pre-print with no record of having been published.
Well maybe it has been cited - whoops no sign of that either!
Maybe ADSABS has a publication or citations for this preprint - no again!

Thus Heliospheric Origin of Gamma-Ray Bursts shows no signs of being a paper at all !

Section 3 has this one sentence about Alfvén and Carlqvist's double layer theory for solar flares
"In fact, Alfv´en and Carlqvist (1967) suggested exploding discharges of electric double layers to be responsible for solar flares."

Alfvén double layer theory for solar flares that is severely limited in its ability to explain solar flare, e.g. it cannot say anything about the electric or magnetic filed topology in flares.


Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:31 AM   #4424
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
If I start doing that, you might wind up with another opponent.
Check it out. I might not.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:34 AM   #4425
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by nvidiot View Post
This is rapidly becoming more and more farcical.

The projection in this thread on MM's part is almost pathological.
Ya, like I'm PROJECTING the fact that his permeability feature describes *INDUCTANCE* per distance unit? Sorry to burst your bubble and "project" scientific fact. FYI, Alfven rejected the whole MR concept as "pseudoscience" for decades, till the day he died.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 06:40 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:35 AM   #4426
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
FYI: reconnecting current sheets is part of magnetic reconnection!
Yes, I know. That's why I've been calling it "current reconnection".
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:53 AM   #4427
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
FYI: reconnecting current sheets is part of magnetic reconnection!
Yes, I know.

So we all agree that magnetic reconnection does exist despite the persistent claim that Alfvén...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
[...] rejected the whole MR concept as "pseudoscience" for decades, till the day he died.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:54 AM   #4428
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Let us do what any competent person would do:
Note that this is a pre-print with no record of having been published.
Talk about BLATANT HYPOCRISY! Clinger's claims have NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED EITHER!

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 06:56 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:55 AM   #4429
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
So we all agree that magnetic reconnection does exist despite the persistent claim that Alfvén...
No, I agree that "current reconnection" happens in plasma, as do "electrical discharges".
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 09:49 AM   #4430
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Wow RC, you struck the motherload with that author. Turn to page 108.

Read section 4.5 entitled: "Acceleration in current sheets, why?"

He even uses the term "reconnecting current sheets". I don't know how much clearer he could be about the "reconnection" process being a pseudonym for "current sheet acceleration" just like Alfven said!
How convenient that pages 107 and 108 are not available at google books. So this is once more pulled out of context.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 11:44 AM   #4431
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Talk about BLATANT HYPOCRISY! Clinger's claims have NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED EITHER!
Talk about BLATANT IGNORANCE! Clinger's claims have BEEN PUBLISHED:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
"Section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" covers this topic in a page and a half !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 11:52 AM   #4432
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Yes, I know. That's why I've been calling it "current reconnection".
It is magnetic connection (changing of magnetic field topology) that allows current sheets to reconnection. The first thing that happens is magnetic reconnection. That is why scientists call the process magnetic reconnection.

Of course you are now admitting that magnetic reconnection happens just as thousands of scientists over 60 decades say is happens !
You just have an obsession with renaming it.
And you get that wrong - it should be 'current sheet reconnection'.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 11:58 AM   #4433
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Missed this bit of stupidity:
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That specific author explicitly uses the terms "current" and "induced E fields" RC.
Every book on plasma physics should include the words "current" and "induced E fields" MM.
Plasmas have currents.
Plasmas have induced E fields.

The point of this citation is that it covers what you say is not covered:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
"Section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" covers this topic in a page and a half !
The entire page and a half is available in Google Books.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 12:02 PM   #4434
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No, I agree that "current reconnection" happens in plasma, as do "electrical discharges".
Still wrong: real electrical discharges (e.g. lightning) can never happen in plasma by definition.

In the context of magnetic reconnection, high current densities are called electrical discharges: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
In the context of double layers, electron acceleration can be called electrical discharge.

That currents can connect in plasma is obvious.
That current sheets reconnect during magnetic reconnection is standard magnetic reconnection.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 12:08 PM   #4435
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Talk about BLATANT IGNORANCE! Clinger's claims have BEEN PUBLISHED:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
"Section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" covers this topic in a page and a half !
Somov also talks about "INDUCTED E fields"! Hoy Vey.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 12:16 PM   #4436
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
How convenient that pages 107 and 108 are not available at google books. So this is once more pulled out of context.
No, it's actually not out of context in any way. FYI, I thought that author sounded very familiar to me, but I didn't recognize the text. I went through my plasma physics books at work and lo and behold, I own his book "Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics". He talks extensively about current sheets and current sheet acceleration in that book too.

On page 308 of the book I have, Somov talks all about Alfven's circuit orientation. I'm absolutely certain that Somov understands both the E and B orientations.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 12:18 PM   #4437
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Talk about BLATANT IGNORANCE! Clinger's claims have BEEN PUBLISHED:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
"Section 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" covers this topic in a page and a half !
Just out of curiosity, which of Clingers equations did you see in Somov's book? Did you see that part about *INDUCED* E fields?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 12:31 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 12:26 PM   #4438
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It is magnetic connection (changing of magnetic field topology) that allows current sheets to reconnection.
Current is MOBILE and quantized. It can indeed "reconnect" to other "circuits" in plasma. So what? It's an ELECTRICALLY DRIVEN, INDUCTANCE per unit length based process!

Quote:
The first thing that happens is magnetic reconnection. That is why scientists call the process magnetic reconnection.
There is no "magnetic reconnection" at two ZERO points in two magnetic fields because there is no magnetic kinetic energy at that location. The CURRENT is the mechanism of energy transfer, and INDUCTION is the method of energy transfer. No "reconnection" of "magnetic lines" (B lines) ever actually takes place because B lines have no beginning and no ending and no physical ability to "disconnect from" nor reconnect to, any other magnetic line.

Quote:
Of course you are now admitting that magnetic reconnection happens just as thousands of scientists over 60 decades say is happens !
No, I admitted years ago that CURRENT RECONNECTION in plasma takes place and electrical discharges in plasma occur as well. So what? What does that have to do with "reconnecting magnetic lines"?

Quote:
You just have an obsession with renaming it.
And you get that wrong - it should be 'current sheet reconnection'.
The obvious reasons to "rename" it "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection" would be to:

A) Be scientifically accurate about the kinetic energy transfer mechanism (current and induction, not monopoles)
B) Make it 100% compatible with all other areas of physics and science, including electrical engineering and particle physics.
C) Make is likely that electrical engineers will understand the E orientation of the process IMMEDIATELY.
D) Makes it obvious that the transfer process of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is measured in INDUCTANCE per distance unit, not 'magnetic reconnections' per distance unit

The obvious problem in the name is best exemplified by your personal foot dragging and pure confusion for the past 2 years. If you weren't so damn confused you would have agreed with me YEARS ago that the COMPLETE PROCESS can also be called "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection".

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 12:37 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 01:19 PM   #4439
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Just out of curiosity, which of Clingers equations did you see in Somov's book? Did you see that part about *INDUCED* E fields?
Just out of curiosity - do you imagine that all of Somov's book is available in Google Books?
Since Clinger's equations are the basic equations of EM and MHD, they should be in every book about plasma physics, e.g. Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma

I saw the part about *INDUCED* E fields.

Did you see that part about: MAGNETIC RECONENCTION IN VACUUM?

ETA: Since you are quote mining (lying) again here is the full text:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
Quote:
Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle of particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.
(emphasis in the original text)

So the changing magnetic fields induce an electric field and that accelerated particles.

Can you see how insane it is to cite a book on magnetic reconnection (that explicitly addresses magnetic reconnection in vacuum) when it is your assertion that magnetic reconnection does not exist?

Alternately you think that MR exists but just have an obsession with changing its name. To bad - it has a had a good name that describes what actually happens for over 60 years.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd November 2011 at 01:36 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 01:20 PM   #4440
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Somov also talks about "INDUCTED E fields"! Hoy Vey.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Every book on plasma physics should include the words "current" and "induced E fields" MM.
Plasmas have currents.
Plasmas have induced E fields.
Such ignorance. Hoy vey.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.