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 3rd November 2011, 09:31 PM   #4481
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
So the only physical thing that actually physically reconnects are the magnets. The fields simply repulse or attract until the magnets are JOINED. The MOVEMENT of the field (the rotation) will in fact INDUCE currents.
What about my questions about the magnetic field lines? How did they change their connections if they did not break and reconnect?
__________________
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, 09:35 PM   #4482
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Are you finding it as amazing as I am that no answers to these questions are forthcoming?
I don't understand which part of your question that you believe I haven't yet answered. I've told you (and you agreed) that no magnetic lines reconnected while the two magnets are SEPARATED. They simple repulse and attract. The MAGNETS will indeed physically "reconnect", but the magnetic lines themselves never do that until or unless you RECONNECT THE MAGNETS. Even then, as RC put it, you're "stretching" (or not) the magnetic lines, not necessarily "reconnecting" them.

RC was also correct that the MOVEMENT (the spin factor) is important to the "magnetic reconnection" process. That movement creates FLUX which INDUCES the E field in plasma.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 09:36 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, 09:39 PM   #4483
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
What about my questions about the magnetic field lines? How did they change their connections if they did not break and reconnect?
The magnets physically "reconnected".
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, 09:45 PM   #4484
Humanzee
Muse
 
Humanzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 530
Amazed and disappointed.
Humanzee 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, 09:46 PM   #4485
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
There's a difference between HIS "magnetic" lines and yours.
Magnetic field lines come in personalized flavors?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
His fields lines don't "reconnect" at a couple of zero points,
Then why did he say they do? You must have missed this bit on your first reading:

Originally Posted by Somov
magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You'd know all this if you'd read his WHOLE book as I have done.
So it wasn't your first reading, but you still missed it. I'm beginning to wonder how well you understand what you read.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Alright, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked RC. I can name at least 5 plasma physics textbooks I've read to date.
Five entire textbooks, and you still have no clue about magnetic fields, magnetic flux, Ampère's law, the Lorentz force, and other basic concepts of freshman electromagnetism. What good is all that reading if you're not going to understand any of it?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You also charged into UNCHARTED TERRITORY since no other author I've ever read makes your claim and doesn't use induction.
You got me all excited for a moment. In science, charging into uncharted territory is a good thing.

Then I realized you're just telling me that, so far as you understand what you've read, I'm in uncharted territory.
W.D.Clinger 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, 09:50 PM   #4486
Humanzee
Muse
 
Humanzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 530
Again, Im not understanding. Field lines that begin and end on magnet A change to begin on magnet A and end on magnet B as magnet B is rotated in the animation. Thats not reconnection?

NVM...I'll let Perpetual Student ask the questions here. I obviously don't understand the problem.

Last edited by Humanzee; 3rd November 2011 at 09:51 PM.
Humanzee 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, 09:56 PM   #4487
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Magnetic field lines come in personalized flavors?
They can have NO energy at a specific location (like your two zero points) or they can have SOME energy at the point of "connection/interaction". You keep trying to connect a couple of zero points and get kinetic energy from it *WITHOUT* induction or current.

Quote:
Then why did he say they do?
Where did he say they connected in a couple of zero points like your experiment? I don't suppose you read page 108 yet?

Quote:
You must have missed this bit on your first reading:
No, I just happen to know how the rest of the book comes out. I happen to have read those points about CURRENT SHEETS and reconnecting electric fields the things you're missing in your experiment.

Quote:
So it wasn't your first reading, but you still missed it. I'm beginning to wonder how well you understand what you read.
Ya, and I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge Dungey's DISCHARGES too.

Quote:
Five entire textbooks, and you still have no clue about magnetic fields, magnetic flux, Ampère's law, the Lorentz force, and other basic concepts of freshman electromagnetism. What good is all that reading if you're not going to understand any of it?
There you go right back to attacking individuals. How sad. What a bunch of crap too since you've yet to cite ANY published work that claims that YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIMENT is an example of "magnetic reconnection". You keep handwaving away, attacking the individual, refusing to address my questions and acting like any good creationist.

Quote:
You got me all excited for a moment. In science, charging into uncharted territory is a good thing.

Then I realized you're just telling me that, so far as you understand what you've read, I'm in uncharted territory.
More personal crap because you can't finish your math assignment and get any kinetic energy from it. Getting frustrated are you?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 10:02 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, 10:07 PM   #4488
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
What about my questions about the magnetic field lines? How did they change their connections if they did not break and reconnect?
Quote:
The magnets physically "reconnected".
Again, what about the field lines?
__________________
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, 10:11 PM   #4489
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Again, what about the field lines?
Based on your questions, I'm guessing that you're confusing B field lines with H lines?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Quote:
B-field lines never end
Main article: Gauss's law for magnetism

Field lines are a useful way to represent any vector field and often reveal sophisticated properties of fields quite simply. One important property of the B-field revealed this way is that magnetic B field lines neither start nor end (mathematically, B is a solenoidal vector field); a field line either extends to infinity or wraps around to form a closed curve.[nb 8] To date no exception to this rule has been found. (See magnetic monopole below.)

Magnetic field lines exit a magnet near its north pole and enter near its south pole, but inside the magnet B-field lines continue through the magnet from the south pole back to the north.[nb 9] If a B-field line enters a magnet somewhere it has to leave somewhere else; it is not allowed to have an end point. Magnetic poles, therefore, always come in N and S pairs. Cutting a magnet in half results in two separate magnets each with both a north and a south pole.

More formally, since all the magnetic field lines that enter any given region must also leave that region, subtracting the 'number'[nb 10] of field lines that enter the region from the number that exit gives identically zero. Mathematically this is equivalent to:



where the integral is a surface integral over the closed surface S (a closed surface is one that completely surrounds a region with no holes to let any field lines escape). Since dA points outward, the dot product in the integral is positive for B-field pointing out and negative for B-field pointing in.

There is also a corresponding differential form of this equation covered in Maxwell's equations below.

H-field lines begin and end near magnetic poles

Unlike B-field lines, which never end, the H-field lines due to a magnetic material begin in a region(s) of the magnet called the north pole pass through the magnet and/or outside of the magnet and ends in a different region of the material called the south pole. Near the north pole, therefore, all H-field lines point away from the north pole (whether inside the magnet or out) while near the south pole (whether inside the magnet or out) all H-field lines point toward the south pole. (The B-field lines, for comparison, form a closed loop going from south to north inside the magnet and from north to south outside the magnet)

The H-field, therefore, is analogous to the electric field E which starts at a positive charge and ends at a negative charge. It is tempting, therefore, to model magnets in terms of magnetic charges localized near the poles. Unfortunately, this model is incorrect; for instance, it often fails when determining the magnetic field inside of magnets. (See "Non-uniform magnetic field causes like poles to repel and opposites to attract" below.)

Outside a material, though, the H-field is identical to the B-field (to a multiplicative constant) so that in many cases the distinction can be ignored. This is particularly true for magnetic fields, such as those due to electric currents, that are not generated by magnetic materials.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 10:17 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, 11:10 PM   #4490
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Again, what about the field lines?
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Based on your questions, I'm guessing that you're confusing B field lines with H lines?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
Reconnection can occur with either B or H field lines.

The Wikipedia excerpt that Michael Mozina quoted repeats one of the myths for which the experiment I've been recommending provides a counterexample. Fortunately, that excerpt qualifies its statement of the myth with both a parenthetical correction and a footnote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
One important property of the B-field revealed this way is that magnetic B field lines neither start nor end (mathematically, B is a solenoidal vector field); a field line either extends to infinity or wraps around to form a closed curve.[nb 8]

The parenthetical remark (that B is a solenoidal vector field) is entirely correct. To understand what it means, however, you have to understand the mathematical concept of divergence that's used to define the notion of a solenoidal field and to state Gauss's law for magnetism.

The idea that "B field lines neither start nor end" is a white lie that's told to people who aren't expected to understand the math. The "[nb 8]" footnote states an exception to that white lie, and the magnetic field seen in Dungey's figure 1, Yamada et al's figure 3a, and the current Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection illustrate a different (but related) counterexample to that white lie.

In short, Michael Mozina has been repeating a dumbed-down version of Gauss's law for magnetism that isn't completely true. Even if it were true, it wouldn't rule out magnetic reconnection (because ∇∙B is altogether different from ∂B/∂t).
W.D.Clinger 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, 11:38 PM   #4491
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
OK, I'll try again:

In the following animation are magnetic lines not breaking and reconnecting? Is this not what everyone here means by "magnetic reconnection"?

http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/motion09.htm
__________________
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 4th November 2011, 12:24 AM   #4492
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Are you finding it as amazing as I am that no answers to these questions are forthcoming?
No not really, because as soon as you ask MM something physics specific, for which he cannot throw in generalizations like "look in the book" he just does not answer, just like my question in which direction the particles in the current sheet are accelerated and in which direction the tension of the magnetic field is accelerating the (bulk) plasma.
__________________
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 4th November 2011, 03:21 AM   #4493
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
Check it out. I might not.
Are you okay ? "Might" includes "might not", you know ?
__________________
<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 4th November 2011, 06:13 AM   #4494
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Are you okay ? "Might" includes "might not", you know ?
I'm willing to risk it. Education is always a good thing.
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 4th November 2011, 06:18 AM   #4495
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
OK, I'll try again:

In the following animation are magnetic lines not breaking and reconnecting? Is this not what everyone here means by "magnetic reconnection"?

http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/motion09.htm
It doesn't matter how many physical magnets or magnet reconnections you work with, it's still the same issue PS. You're still confusing magnetic H lines with B lines. The act of physically reconnecting the magnets does indeed physically "reconnect" the H lines. The changes in the layout of those magnets may also affect the ROUTE of the B lines too. The B lines however do NOT begin, they do not end, they do not disconnect, and they don't "reconnect".

The dB/dt Clinger refers to is what INDUCES the E fields according to Somov, it doesn't result in any "disconnected" or "reconnected" B lines.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 06:19 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 4th November 2011, 06:21 AM   #4496
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
No not really, because as soon as you ask MM something physics specific, for which he cannot throw in generalizations like "look in the book" he just does not answer, just like my question in which direction the particles in the current sheet are accelerated and in which direction the tension of the magnetic field is accelerating the (bulk) plasma.
No. The question you asked has no clear answer when you're working with 3 dimensional *ROTATING* and *MOVING* and *RECONNECTING* field aligned currents.
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 4th November 2011, 06:25 AM   #4497
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Reconnection can occur with either B or H field lines.
No. The "reconnection" of the H lines are directly related to the physical reconnection of the solid magnets.

Quote:
The Wikipedia excerpt that Michael Mozina quoted repeats one of the myths for which the experiment I've been recommending provides a counterexample.
Your "counter example" lacks any kinetic energy at the point of "reconnection".

Quote:
In short, Michael Mozina has been repeating a dumbed-down version of Gauss's law for magnetism that isn't completely true. Even if it were true, it wouldn't rule out magnetic reconnection (because ∇∙B is altogether different from ∂B/∂t).
What a bunch of BS! That ∂B/∂t is the process that *INDUCES THE E FIELD* that Somov is talking about. That's also why you're totally up a kinetic energy creek without a inductive paddle when it comes to releasing any energy at a couple of ZERO points. You've literally cut your nose off to spite your face by trying to change B SLOWLY.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 06:37 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 4th November 2011, 06:26 AM   #4498
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
[...] according to Somov [...]

... magnetic reconnection exists and is a reasonable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and for the heating of the corona.
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 4th November 2011, 06:33 AM   #4499
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
... magnetic reconnection exists and is a reasonable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and for the heating of the corona.
Ya, but according to Somov, it's also an example of "Reconnecting electrical currents", and induced E fields. In fact he describes the filaments/lines in chapter 16 as reconnecting "field aligned currents", or current reconnection.

You're essentially taking about a *COMPLETE PROCESS* that releases stored magnetic field energy by INDUCING E fields in the plasma and by the redirection of current. There's nothing magic about it and it's not a "unique" method of energy exchange. It's simple induction and current redirection.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th 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 4th November 2011, 06:36 AM   #4500
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
... magnetic reconnection exists and is a reasonable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and for the heating of the corona.
Ya, [...]

So moving forward with everyone in agreement that magnetic reconnection exists and is a reasonable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and for the heating of the corona...
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 4th November 2011, 06:39 AM   #4501
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
So moving forward with everyone in agreement that magnetic reconnection exists and is a reasonable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and for the heating of the corona...
Nope. We all agree that current reconnection happens. CURRENTS ARE INDUCED based on changes to the B field. So what if INDUCTION HAPPENS? That has NOTHING to do with B field lines ENDING, DISCONNECTING, and then RECONNECTING to some other B line again. Any change in the B field flux will indeed INDUCE E fields according to pretty much EVERYONE.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 06:41 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 4th November 2011, 06:44 AM   #4502
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Nope. We all agree that CURRENTS ARE INDUCED based on changes to the B field. So what if INDUCTION HAPPENS? That has NOTHING to do with B field lines ENDING, DISCONNECTING, and then RECONNECTING to some other B line again. Any change in the B field flux will indeed INDUCE E fields according to pretty much EVERYONE.

Oh, for a minute there it looked like Somov's work was being offered as an acceptable source on the issue of solar physics. Apparently not. We wouldn't, of course, want to cherry pick some individual words and phrases from Somov while neglecting what amounts to the gist of the remaining body of his work.
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 4th November 2011, 06:52 AM   #4503
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Oh, for a minute there it looked like Somov's work was being offered as an acceptable source on the issue of solar physics. Apparently not. We wouldn't, of course, want to cherry pick some individual words and phrases from Somov while neglecting what amounts to the gist of the remaining body of his work.
Pffft. You're the one ignoring Chapter 16 *ENTIRELY*, cherry picking ONE OR TWO SENTENCES out of his book, and ignoring the rest of the book! That's because you're evidently all too cheap to actually buy a book on plasma physics and learn anything about plasma physics. "Electrical discharges in plasma? What discharges?" Oy 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 4th November 2011, 07:47 AM   #4504
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No. The question you asked has no clear answer when you're working with 3 dimensional *ROTATING* and *MOVING* and *RECONNECTING* field aligned currents.
wow did you learn a few more words to capitalize?
__________________
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 4th November 2011, 07:59 AM   #4505
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
wow did you learn a few more words to capitalize?
You're right. I'm getting carried away these days. I guess I'm just frustrated because between the three primary haters in the thread (GM, RC and Clinger), not a single one of them has read a single plasma physics text book to my knowledge, so not a single one of them understands that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas. The whole conversation is a little surreal from my perspective.

Clinger is over there trying to get something from nothing in terms of kinetic energy, and trying desperately *NOT* to induce any E fields at that X point. He's literally painting himself into a zero energy corner just to AVOID inducing an E field and AVOID that "electrical discharge" Dungey talks about.

It's really frustrating arguing with creationists and EU haters that refuse to educate themselves and that are too cheap and too lazy to read a related textbook. After awhile I guess I start shouting.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 08:00 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 4th November 2011, 09:20 AM   #4506
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Are you okay ? "Might" includes "might not", you know ?
You know Belz....

It's entirely possible that after reading Dungey's paper or Paratt's quote, or any of the other references that I've provided that you'll come to understand and accept the fact that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas. That *SINGLE* revelation/piece of knowledge would put you way ahead of every EU hater in this thread.

For all I know you could end up becoming a very powerful and educated ally. Like I said, I'm willing to risk it. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 09:21 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 4th November 2011, 09:42 AM   #4507
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The whole conversation is a little surreal from my perspective.
Imagine how it looks to people who know a little physics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It's really frustrating arguing with creationists and EU haters that refuse to educate themselves
That's funny.

You can't stop anyone from being wrong on the Internet.

(Except, perhaps, by not saying anything on the Internet.)
W.D.Clinger 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 4th November 2011, 09:48 AM   #4508
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Imagine how it looks to people who know a little physics.


That's funny.

You can't stop anyone from being wrong on the Internet.

(Except, perhaps, by not saying anything on the Internet.)
I'm still waiting to see how you get kinetic energy out of a couple of zero points in a magnetic field, without induction and without current. Aren't you done yet?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 09:49 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 4th November 2011, 09:55 AM   #4509
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Imagine how it looks to people who know a little physics.
FYI, in your case the term 'little' is the operative word. I doubt you've ever read a single plasma physics textbook in your entire life. If you had done so, you'd already realize that you're going to NEED to induce an E field at that X point to get any kinetic energy. You'd already know that currents reconnect at that X point, and you'd already know that electrical discharges occur in plasmas.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 09:56 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 4th November 2011, 10:22 AM   #4510
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Imagine how it looks to people who know a little physics.
FYI, in your case the term 'little' is the operative word. I doubt you've ever read a single plasma physics textbook in your entire life. If you had done so, you'd already realize that you're going to NEED to induce an E field at that X point to get any kinetic energy.
If I knew a little physics, I might know that the energy density of a magnetic field B in vacuum is B·B/(2μ0), regardless of any E field that may or may not be present. I might also know that this energy can be converted into kinetic energy by the Lorentz force acting on charged particles that move through the B field, once again regardless of any E field that may or may not be present.

Unfortunately, I refuse to educate myself as Michael Mozina recommends. To be fair, I cannot deny that Michael Mozina's approach to education has achieved the results seen in his posts.
W.D.Clinger 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 4th November 2011, 10:59 AM   #4511
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
If I knew a little physics, I might know that .......
If you knew a little bit about plasma physics, you might know that electrical discharges occur in plasmas. You don't know that much. You might know that an E field is INDUCED at that X point. Since you don't seem to know these two very BASIC things, it's been a problem communicating with you. When did you intend to acknowledge the FACT that electrical discharges occur in plasmas?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 11:00 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 4th November 2011, 11:22 AM   #4512
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It's entirely possible that after reading Dungey's paper [...]

James Dungey was one of the pioneers in the development of the magnetic reconnection concept as it applies to solar physics. But since it would be dishonest and wholly unscientific to cherry pick some individual words and phrases from Dungey's research to argue against magnetic reconnection, while neglecting much of the remaining body of his work which described and fully supported the science of magnetic reconnection, maybe we should just discard his work entirely.
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 4th November 2011, 11:29 AM   #4513
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
James Dungey was one of the pioneers in the development of the magnetic reconnection concept as it applies to solar physics.
Yep and he explained that electrical discharges occur in plasmas during that "process".

Quote:
But since it would be dishonest and wholly unscientific to cherry pick some individual words and phrases from Dungey's research to argue against magnetic reconnection,
You're like the minister of disinformation. I'm arguing FOR 'current reconnection', "induced E fields" and those pesky parts of plasma physics which you personally know NOTHING about.

Quote:
while neglecting much of the remaining body of his work which described and fully supported the science of magnetic reconnection, maybe we should just discard his work entirely.
I embrace ALL of his work GM, including those electrical discharges and those induced E fields at the X point, not just one word that you happen to like from his work, aka "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 4th November 2011, 11:32 AM   #4514
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I embrace ALL of [Dungey's] work [...]

Good, then we're back to where we all agree that magnetic reconnection exists and provides a reasonable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and heating the corona.
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 4th November 2011, 11:40 AM   #4515
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Good, then we're back to where we all agree that magnetic reconnection exists
Nope. I only agree that "current reconnection', 'induced E fields' and "electrical discharges" occur at that x point. The PROCESS has a stupid name. That wasn't Dungey's fault.
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 4th November 2011, 12:32 PM   #4516
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I might also know that this energy can be converted into kinetic energy by the Lorentz force acting on charged particles that move through the B field, once again regardless of any E field that may or may not be present.
I missed this statement earlier.

Um, I hate to burst your bubble, but "What charged particles"? You claimed to do your 'reconnection' magic in a "vacuum" didn't you?
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 4th November 2011, 12:37 PM   #4517
Almo
Masterblazer
 
Almo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 6,825
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Are you finding it as amazing as I am that no answers to these questions are forthcoming?
No, actually, I'm not.
__________________
Almo!
My Blog
"No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant
"It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia
Almo 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 4th November 2011, 01:11 PM   #4518
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Nope. I only agree that "current reconnection', 'induced E fields' and "electrical discharges" occur at that x point. The PROCESS has a stupid name. That wasn't Dungey's fault.

So magnetic reconnection has a stupid name, but that wasn't Dungey's fault. Who was it that coined the name "magnetic reconnection"?
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 4th November 2011, 01:39 PM   #4519
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
So magnetic reconnection has a stupid name, but that wasn't Dungey's fault. Who was it that coined the name "magnetic reconnection"?
I believe that was Ronald Giovanelli in the 1940s.
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 4th November 2011, 03:25 PM   #4520
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Nope. I only agree that "current reconnection', 'induced E fields' and "electrical discharges" occur at that x point. The PROCESS has a stupid name. That wasn't Dungey's fault.

So magnetic reconnection has a stupid name, but that wasn't Dungey's fault. Who was it that coined the name "magnetic reconnection"?
I believe that was Ronald Giovanelli in the 1940s.

Guess again.
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
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 05:10 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.