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 4th November 2011, 03:36 PM   #4521
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
The magnets in this animation have both B and H fields. If the magnets are moved far enough apart, virtually all lines will break and reconnect. I can't say much about what happens in solar flares, but the "reconnection" I am seeing here seems both real and inevitable.

http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/motion09.htm

Mozina, as usual you dodged and danced to avoid my questions about the reconnection of the magnetic field lines shown above.
__________________
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, 04:11 PM   #4522
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
The magnets in this animation have both B and H fields. If the magnets are moved far enough apart, virtually all lines will break and reconnect. I can't say much about what happens in solar flares, but the "reconnection" I am seeing here seems both real and inevitable.

http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/motion09.htm

Mozina, as usual you dodged and danced to avoid my questions about the reconnection of the magnetic field lines shown above.
No, actually I answered your questions *VERY THOROUGHLY*, and completely, but you absolutely, positively refuse to differentiate between H lines and B lines, "attraction/repulsion" and "reconnection". Typical. I love how you folks bitch at me about making an argument based on pretty pictures rather than mathematics and then you turn right around do it yourselves!

FYI, you already agreed that the magnets simply attract and repulse if we don't touch them together. The only magnetic lines that "reconnect" by physically reconnecting the magnets together are the H lines. You don't like it, so you DODGED THE ANSWER!

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 04:13 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 4th November 2011, 04:17 PM   #4523
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Guess again.
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~p...nection_10.pdf

Why? I was right.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 04:22 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 4th November 2011, 04:26 PM   #4524
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Ooops. I guess you're actually right. It looks like Giovanelli started the idea but Dungey was the one that actually kludged the term. Oh well. Sorry Ronald.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 04:32 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 4th November 2011, 04:35 PM   #4525
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://books.google.com/books?id=5vS...page&q&f=false

FYI, I guess Giovanelli was also the first one to suggest that the process involved *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 4th November 2011, 05:03 PM   #4526
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
The magnets in this animation have both B and H fields.
Which is which?
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, 05:28 PM   #4527
Humanzee
Muse
 
Humanzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 530
Thanks for posting the animation Perpetual Student.

In the animation two B field loops merge to become a single loop.

Two loops...
two loops.gif

...become a single loop
one loop.gif

Isn't that B field connection?

And isn't the H field represented by the dark lines seen inside the magnets?
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 4th November 2011, 05:30 PM   #4528
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Humanzee View Post
Thanks for posting the animation Perpetual Student.

In the animation two B field loops merge to become a single loop.
First of all, how do you know that is actually a B field line and not a H field line?

Quote:
And isn't the H field represented by the dark lines seen inside the magnets?
I haven't a clue. You tell me.
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, 05:45 PM   #4529
Humanzee
Muse
 
Humanzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 530
Well B field lines never end, or rather, are loops. H field lines pass through the magnet and end at the south pole.

I'll just quote Wiki;
"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)"

Seems like the black lines are H and the colored are B. Do you disagree? Regardless of the field do you agree my example is re-connection?
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 4th November 2011, 05:47 PM   #4530
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Humanzee View Post
Well B field lines never end, or rather, are loops. H field lines pass through the magnet and end at the south pole.

I'll just quote Wiki;
"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)"

Seems like the black lines are H and the colored are B. Do you disagree? Regardless of the field do you agree my example is re-connection?
I don't know. I don't even agree that the black lines are NECESSARILY H lines, or that any of the colors of the lines mean anything in particular. How do you know that the colors are even relevant?

Your citation would tend to FALSIFY your claim because it says that B fields do NOT have a beginning or ending whereas H lines do.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 05:50 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 4th November 2011, 05:55 PM   #4531
Humanzee
Muse
 
Humanzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 530
Alright. I'll look into that. I don't see where it is falsified however as the example in post 4527 doesn't show the B fields having a beginning or ending. Rather two continuous loops becoming one loop. That B field loop is continuing through the magnet.
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 4th November 2011, 05:57 PM   #4532
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Humanzee View Post
Alright. I'll look into that.
Keep me posted.
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, 06:04 PM   #4533
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Humanzee View Post
Alright. I'll look into that. I don't see where it is falsified however as the example in post 4527 doesn't show the B fields having a beginning or ending. Rather two continuous loops becoming one loop. That B field loop is continuing through the magnet.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4473

FYI, in PS's two magnet experiment, he already agreed that while the magnets are apart the fields simply "attract" and "repulse". AFAIK, the only dispute relates to what happens when the magnets physically come together. I've already agreed that H lines can "reconnect" along with the solid magnets.
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, 06:23 PM   #4534
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Thanks Humanzee for pursuing these questions.
All this discussion about which are B and which are H lines seems to be so much dodging and dancing. That same wikipedia article says, "Outside of a material (i.e., in vacuum) the B and H fields are indistinguishable."
It is clear that as the magnets are pulled apart the magnetic lines are breaking and reconnecting. So it does not matter; B and H are indistinguishable and they are breaking and reconnecting. What other excuses can Mozina come up with to avoid admitting that magnetic lines break and reconnect?
Actually, the simulations we have been looking at provide a nice visual for the process, but we knew that the lines must break and reconnect otherwise we would have to believe that the different configurations of the lines would come about by magic when this:

[N<<<<<<<S][N<<<<<<<S]

becomes this:

[N<<<<<<<S] ................................................. [N<<<<<<<<S]

(We all know what the magnetic lines associated with such magnets look like -- don't pretend and posture otherwise, Mozina)
__________________
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

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 4th November 2011 at 06:27 PM.
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, 06:25 PM   #4535
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4473

FYI, in PS's two magnet experiment, he already agreed that while the magnets are apart the fields simply "attract" and "repulse". AFAIK, the only dispute relates to what happens when the magnets physically come together. I've already agreed that H lines can "reconnect" along with the solid magnets.
I agreed that the magnets attract and repulse; nothing more. That has nothing to do with this question about the breaking an reconnecting lines. Stop dodging the question!
__________________
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, 06:31 PM   #4536
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I agreed that the magnets attract and repulse; nothing more. That has nothing to do with this question about the breaking an reconnecting lines.
*BEFORE THEY TOUCH* are you claiming that your two magnets are doing anything other than attracting and repulsing? In other words, are you claiming that "reconnection" is a feature of "attraction and repulsion" and occurs during the attractive repulsive phase?

Quote:
Stop dodging the question!
Irony overload. This whole problem is related to the second question that you refused to answer. I asked you WHEN the fields stop doing anything other than "attracting" and "repulsing" and actually begin "reconnecting". Care to stop dodging that question? I can't read your mind.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 06:32 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 4th November 2011, 06:40 PM   #4537
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Thanks Humanzee for pursuing these questions.
All this discussion about which are B and which are H lines seems to be so much dodging and dancing. That same wikipedia article says, "Outside of a material (i.e., in vacuum) the B and H fields are indistinguishable."
It is clear that as the magnets are pulled apart the magnetic lines are breaking and reconnecting. So it does not matter; B and H are indistinguishable and they are breaking and reconnecting.
You know, it would be a WHOLE lot easier if you would simply be forthcoming about WHEN you think it changes from "attraction/repulsion" to "reconnection". I can only ASSUME that you're now confusing ordinary INDUCTION processes related to MOVING MAGNETS with 'magnetic reconnection'. I really suck at mind reading PS. If you answered my questions, I could clear up your confusion a lot faster.

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

Are you claiming that MOVEMENTS of the magnets that cause that "breaking" you're talking about is something OTHER THAN an induction process?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 4th November 2011 at 06:50 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 4th November 2011, 08:43 PM   #4538
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
*BEFORE THEY TOUCH* are you claiming that your two magnets are doing anything other than attracting and repulsing? In other words, are you claiming that "reconnection" is a feature of "attraction and repulsion" and occurs during the attractive repulsive phase?
Of course! How else can the magnetic lines change their topology, if lines are not broken and reconnected? However, whether reconnection is a "feature of attraction and repulsion" -- as you phrase it -- or whether it is a simultaneous event not involved in the forces -- I'll allow the physicists answer that. Clearly both attraction/repulsion occur while lines are breaking and reconnecting.

Quote:
Irony overload. This whole problem is related to the second question that you refused to answer. I asked you WHEN the fields stop doing anything other than "attracting" and "repulsing" and actually begin "reconnecting". Care to stop dodging that question? I can't read your mind.
I have not dodged this question; it simply makes no sense. It seems to me to be a naive way of looking at this. I cannot imagine other than reconnecting happens as soon as there is any movement, even if it is on a microscopic level. You seem to be implying that attraction happens and then reconnection happens at different times, which makes no sense. As I said above, clearly both attraction/repulsion occur while lines are breaking and reconnecting.
__________________
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, 08:51 PM   #4539
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You know, it would be a WHOLE lot easier if you would simply be forthcoming about WHEN you think it changes from "attraction/repulsion" to "reconnection". I can only ASSUME that you're now confusing ordinary INDUCTION processes related to MOVING MAGNETS with 'magnetic reconnection'. I really suck at mind reading PS. If you answered my questions, I could clear up your confusion a lot faster.

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

Are you claiming that MOVEMENTS of the magnets that cause that "breaking" you're talking about is something OTHER THAN an induction process?
My confusion? The arrogance is palpable! What are you talking about? "Ordinary INDUCTION processes" do not exist. Induction is a property, not a process! You really need to learn a little fundamental electricity and magnetism to have this discussion. Buy a good freshman physics book and brush up or learn or whatever. After a few months come back here and admit your errors.
__________________
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, 08:55 PM   #4540
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Humanzee View Post
Thanks for posting the animation Perpetual Student.

In the animation two B field loops merge to become a single loop.

Two loops...
Attachment 23920

...become a single loop
Attachment 23921

Isn't that B field connection?
J W Dungey's 1958 paper (to which Michael Mozina refers almost daily) contains even clearer examples of magnetic reconnection in the B field. His Figure 2 shows a magnetic field in the shape of a "figure eight". That's the field produced by two current-carrying rods placed in parallel, in a vacuum.

In parts 1 and 2 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, I derived equations for the B field around a single current-carrying rod; these equations or their equivalent are found in any decent textbook on electromagnetism. The equation for the B field in the vicinity of two current-carrying rods follows immediately by linear superposition, and I'll state that equation in part 3. When you graph that B field and some of its magnetic field lines, you get



That's just a more colorful version of Dungey's Figure 2 (except I haven't yet added the arrows that show the counter-clockwise direction of every magnetic field line in that graph; I should be able to add those arrows by Monday evening). Notice the two magnetic field lines that are almost touching at the neutral (totally black) point in the center. If you make a very small change to the current passing through the rods at the centers of the white disks, those two magnetic field lines will either withdraw from each other or merge to become a single magnetic field line.

(Whether they withdraw or merge depends on whether you reduce or increase the current in the rods. It also depends on the mathematical conventions you adopt for talking about the identity of those magnetic field lines, because magnetic field lines have no persistent identity in and of themselves. Indeed, some of the less thoughtful Electric Sun folk will tell you that magnetic field lines don't really exist, even as they insist that Gauss's law for magnetism says these non-existent lines can't merge or separate over time. )

Although people often speak of the merging and separation of magnetic field lines as magnetic reconnection, there's a more important notion that can't be dismissed as arbitrary or imaginary: When the topology of an entire magnetic field changes over time, the field is undergoing magnetic reconnection.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 4th November 2011 at 08:57 PM.
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 5th November 2011, 06:52 AM   #4541
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'm willing to risk it. Education is always a good thing.
Are you willing to be educated ?
__________________
<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 5th November 2011, 06:55 AM   #4542
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
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.
1) Explain to me how you can have electrical discharge without electrons.

2) What does it have to do with me ?

Quote:
That *SINGLE* revelation/piece of knowledge would put you way ahead of every EU hater in this thread.
"Hater" ? What does that mean ?
__________________
<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 5th November 2011, 07:27 AM   #4543
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Of course! How else can the magnetic lines change their topology, if lines are not broken and reconnected? However, whether reconnection is a "feature of attraction and repulsion" -- as you phrase it -- or whether it is a simultaneous event not involved in the forces -- I'll allow the physicists answer that. Clearly both attraction/repulsion occur while lines are breaking and reconnecting.


I have not dodged this question; it simply makes no sense. It seems to me to be a naive way of looking at this. I cannot imagine other than reconnecting happens as soon as there is any movement, even if it is on a microscopic level. You seem to be implying that attraction happens and then reconnection happens at different times, which makes no sense. As I said above, clearly both attraction/repulsion occur while lines are breaking and reconnecting.
Emphasis mine. Thanks for that. At least I now have SOME idea of what you're talking about.

Do you have the mathematical formulas that were used to create those images you've posted? AFAIK, they are simple "cartoon-like depictions'' (not real in any way) of what actually happens to the magnetic lines. If those images do happen to be created mathematically (which I doubt), the formulas themselves should resolve the issue. Do you have them? Do you have ANY background information on those cartoons/images?

As far as I can tell, you're talking about MAGNETIC FLUX. You would agree that the movement of the magnets creates a change in the B fields in that area?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 5th November 2011 at 08:41 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 5th November 2011, 07:29 AM   #4544
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Are you willing to be educated ?
Of course. That's why I'm here in fact. How about 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 5th November 2011, 07:39 AM   #4545
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
1) Explain to me how you can have electrical discharge without electrons.
I can't.

Quote:
2) What does it have to do with me ?
I don't know. Why did YOU ask that question? Why are you participating in this specific thread?

Quote:
"Hater" ? What does that mean ?
An "Electric Universe Hater" is someone that HATES any and all EU oriented concepts. It doesn't really matter if it's "electric comet" theories, or "electric sun" theories, or "electric anything in space" theories, they're all over it because they HATE the possibility that the universe we live in is ELECTRICAL in nature.

EU haters argue like creationists. It's mostly a denial based belief system. RC, GM and Clinger for instance are all in STAUNCH denial that electrical discharges can occur in plasma. Not one of them has ever produced a reference that actually makes such a claim, but they handwave away anyway. Clingers whole "experiment" for instance is a pure handwave. He's provided NO published references related to HIS experiment specifically. RC FINALLY found a reference from Somov about reconnection but Somov specifically associates "reconnection" with "electric fields", induced E fields at that X point, and current reconnection. In other words they typically don't present any published materials to support their SPECIFIC claims, they simply HANDWAVE away, hoping nobody notices they have no real scientific data to support their claim.

They typically aren't even particularly knowledgeable in the topic. Most of them do not own, nor have ever read a book on plasma physics. They love to attack the individual just like a creationists. In this realm they can't call me "evil'', so they use other types of derogatory terms like "crank", "crackpot", yada yada yada.

PS's claim for instance is a great example of a hater's argument. It seems to be based entirely upon a CARTOON that he found somewhere on the internet, it's not even a MATHEMATICAL or a published argument. What am I supposed to do with that?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 5th November 2011 at 07:46 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 5th November 2011, 07:43 AM   #4546
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
J W Dungey's 1958 paper (to which Michael Mozina refers almost daily) contains even clearer examples of magnetic reconnection in the B field.
I can't believe your still trying to use DUNGEY to support your claims. Do you agree with DUNGEY that ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES occur at that X point, yes or no?
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 5th November 2011, 08:38 AM   #4547
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
PS,

If I understand your argument correctly, you're associating a "topology change in the magnetic lines of attraction (and repulsion?) between the two magnetic fields" with "magnetic reconnection". Do I properly understand your argument? Are you including or excluding the lines of repulsion in terms of "flux" and/or "reconnection"?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 5th November 2011 at 08:46 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 5th November 2011, 09:24 AM   #4548
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I can't believe your still trying to use DUNGEY to support your claims.

James Dungey, whose name is generally not shouted by legitimate scientists by the way, was one of the pioneers in assembling the theories of magnetic reconnection as it applies to activity in the solar atmosphere. Either Dungey can be used as a reference here, in which case we accept magnetic reconnection as a genuine observable phenomenon, or we leave Dungey aside and get back to the pseudoscience of the electric Sun conjectures.
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 5th November 2011, 09:59 AM   #4549
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
...
Do you have the mathematical formulas that were used to create those images you've posted? AFAIK, they are simple "cartoon-like depictions'' (not real in any way) of what actually happens to the magnetic lines. If those images do happen to be created mathematically (which I doubt), the formulas themselves should resolve the issue. Do you have them? Do you have ANY background information on those cartoons/images?
When we go from: [N<<<<<<<S][N<<<<<<<S]

to: [N<<<<<<<S] ................................................. [N<<<<<<<<S]

if you accept ∇∙B = 0, every time magnetic lines break they must instantaneously reconnect. What more is there to say?

The mathematical formulas that were the basis of the actions in those animations must start with this fundamantal law of physics.


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
PS,

If I understand your argument correctly, you're associating a "topology change in the magnetic lines of attraction (and repulsion?) between the two magnetic fields" with "magnetic reconnection". Do I properly understand your argument? Are you including or excluding the lines of repulsion in terms of "flux" and/or "reconnection"?
What? Magnetic lines are magnetic lines; there is no distinction between those of flux, repulsion/attraction, reconnection, etc. The only difference I can discern (from your abuse of these terms) is that in reconnection and when in flux, the magnetic lines are moving, whereas in repulsion/attraction they may or may not be moving.
__________________
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

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 5th November 2011 at 10:01 AM.
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 5th November 2011, 11:19 AM   #4550
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
When we go from: [N<<<<<<<S][N<<<<<<<S]

to: [N<<<<<<<S] ................................................. [N<<<<<<<<S]

if you accept ∇∙B = 0, every time magnetic lines break they must instantaneously reconnect. What more is there to say?

The mathematical formulas that were the basis of the actions in those animations must start with this fundamantal law of physics.




What? Magnetic lines are magnetic lines; there is no distinction between those of flux, repulsion/attraction, reconnection, etc. The only difference I can discern (from your abuse of these terms) is that in reconnection and when in flux, the magnetic lines are moving, whereas in repulsion/attraction they may or may not be moving.
http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/...Lines_2007.pdf
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 5th November 2011, 11:27 AM   #4551
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
James Dungey, whose name is generally not shouted by legitimate scientists by the way, was one of the pioneers in assembling the theories of magnetic reconnection as it applies to activity in the solar atmosphere.
Yes, and he explained as Somov explained that an E field was INDUCED at that X point and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE occurs as a result.

Quote:
Either Dungey can be used as a reference here,.....
Well, we all know that YOU, RC and Clinger can't use him as a reference because you're all in complete denial of the FACT that electrical discharges occur in plasmas.

On the other hand I'm fine with his math and his basic explanation of the PROCESS, he just picked a ridiculous name to describe the reconnection of a couple of *field aligned currents*. The only complaint I have about his work is the ridiculous NAME he gave to an E INDUCING, electrical discharge producing, *INDUCTION* based process.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 5th November 2011 at 11:39 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 5th November 2011, 11:36 AM   #4552
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
FYI PS,

I can't for the life of me figure out how you decided if an individual line actually "broke" somewhere away from the magnets and "reconnected" to a different broken field line away from the magnets. For all I can tell from your simple cartoon, the lines simply form, stretch, dissipate over distance, and new B lines form between the magnets to compensate for the movement. I have no evidence from your simple cartoon that any lines were actually "broken" in space or "reconnected" to other individual lines.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 5th November 2011 at 11:42 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 5th November 2011, 11:50 AM   #4553
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
(Whether they withdraw or merge depends on whether you reduce or increase the current in the rods.
FYI, I just LOVE the irony of the fact that your device has to be "plugged in" and turned on (with current), but you can't accept the fact that we live inside of an ELECTRIC universe.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 5th November 2011 at 11:51 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 5th November 2011, 12:57 PM   #4554
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
FYI PS,

I can't for the life of me figure out how you decided if an individual line actually "broke" somewhere away from the magnets and "reconnected" to a different broken field line away from the magnets. For all I can tell from your simple cartoon, the lines simply form, stretch, dissipate over distance, and new B lines form between the magnets to compensate for the movement. I have no evidence from your simple cartoon that any lines were actually "broken" in space or "reconnected" to other individual lines.
Look, the animations are not presented as evidence. They are illustrations intended to focus the mind on the processes going on. Using Humanzee's two still pictures from that animation, how can any lines dissipate as they evolve from the first into the second picture? Can you posit any way that ∇∙B = 0 can be maintained when a line breaks if it does not instantaneously reconnect as shown below?
The only way I know that magnetic lines can dissipate is if a current supporting it decreases. There are no currents here to decrease, since the magnetism is due to the intrinsic properties of the magnets. How can a magnetic line from a bar magnet dissipate?
Attached Images
File Type: gif two%20loops.gif (17.7 KB, 1 views)
File Type: gif one%20loop2.gif (17.4 KB, 1 views)
__________________
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 5th November 2011, 01:57 PM   #4555
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Look, the animations are not presented as evidence. They are illustrations intended to focus the mind on the processes going on. Using Humanzee's two still pictures from that animation, how can any lines dissipate as they evolve from the first into the second picture?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Ho7...eature=related

Look, I'm not using this cartoon/illustration as "evidence", but how can Yosemite Sam take those cannonballs to the face and that not be a real physics demonstration that cannonballs to the face are not lethal?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 5th November 2011 at 02:13 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 5th November 2011, 02:30 PM   #4556
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Ho7...eature=related

Look, I'm not using this cartoon/illustration as "evidence", but how can Yosemite Sam take those cannonballs to the face and that not be a real physics demonstration that cannonballs to the face are not lethal?
This is the kind of adolescent debating that makes you so infamous as a nuisance and a fraud. You made no effort to address the substance of my comment while taking my use of an illustration out of context. Do you have any genuine interest in this subject or are you just here to gain pleasure from your obfuscating? My patience is running thin. Do you have any serious response to my comment (repeated below) or are you admitting magnetic reconnection is a real process?
Quote:
Using Humanzee's two still pictures from that animation, how can any lines dissipate as they evolve from the first into the second picture? Can you posit any way that ∇∙B = 0 can be maintained when a line breaks if it does not instantaneously reconnect as shown below?
The only way I know that magnetic lines can dissipate is if a current supporting it decreases. There are no currents here to decrease, since the magnetism is due to the intrinsic properties of the magnets. How can a magnetic line from a bar magnet dissipate?
__________________
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 5th November 2011, 02:54 PM   #4557
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
This is the kind of adolescent debating that makes you so infamous as a nuisance and a fraud. You made no effort to address the substance of my comment while taking my use of an illustration out of context. Do you have any genuine interest in this subject or are you just here to gain pleasure from your obfuscating? My patience is running thin. Do you have any serious response to my comment (repeated below) or are you admitting magnetic reconnection is a real process?
Oy Vey! You're trying to use SOME RANDOM IMAGE YOU FOUND ON THE INTERNET to make your *ENTIRE* case PS! No published paper comes with it. No math comes with it. Nothing at ALL comes with it. It's just a CARTOON for all I know! Talk about BLATANT FRAUD!

You never even responded to the paper I offered you to EXPLAIN that process.

As best as I can tell, the lines FORM, stretch, change shape and eventually new lines take the place of old lines and old lines simply "fade away". I really can't tell ANYTHING about what occurs between two CARTOON/ILLUSTRATION images PS. It's not even rational to ask me to "explain" some random image you found on the internet without a SHRED of background information about the image.

It seems to me that what you're describing PS amounts to nothing more than "changing magnetic fields over time". Add a conductor like plasma to the mix and like Somov suggests, an E field will be INDUCED between the magnets. So what? Do you agree with Somov that an E field will be induced at that X point? Do you agree with Dungey that induced E field will eventually result in an "electrical discharge" in plasma?

Don't dodge my direct questions this time. Answer them.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 5th November 2011 at 03:04 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 5th November 2011, 04:30 PM   #4558
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Mozina, read this carefully so you understand my position here:
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Oy Vey! You're trying to use SOME RANDOM IMAGE YOU FOUND ON THE INTERNET to make your *ENTIRE* case PS! No published paper comes with it. No math comes with it. Nothing at ALL comes with it. It's just a CARTOON for all I know! Talk about BLATANT FRAUD!
I initially posed a question involving two bar magnets to gain an understanding of what is meant in this thread by magnetic reconnection. I used a simple diagram to pose my question. Then, I found the animation in question and posted it because it provided a good image for my question. My question was (and still is): The magnetic fields of two separate magnets has a different topology than when they are combined. How can the these two different topological shapes come about if magnetic lines do not break and reconnect? Perhaps, if you have not studied topology, you do not understand the significance of this point -- is that the problem?
We also have Gauss (∇∙B = 0), which makes it impossible for magnetic lines to break without simultaneously reconnecting.

Quote:
You never even responded to the paper I offered you to EXPLAIN that process.
The paper you "offered" had nothing to do with bar magnets and you "offered" no accompanying comments to reveal its relevance.

Quote:
As best as I can tell, the lines FORM, stretch, change shape and eventually new lines take the place of old lines and old lines simply "fade away". I really can't tell ANYTHING about what occurs between two CARTOON/ILLUSTRATION images PS. It's not even rational to ask me to "explain" some random image you found on the internet without a SHRED of background information about the image.
OK, that's fine. There is nothing wrong with not understanding. Obviously, you do not know why or how the magnetic fields topologically change when bar magnets are brought together and then pulled apart. That is really the end of this discussion. Others here have made it clear that the process comes about through magnetic reconnection. Thanks for playing.


Quote:
It seems to me that what you're describing PS amounts to nothing more than "changing magnetic fields over time". Add a conductor like plasma to the mix and like Somov suggests, an E field will be INDUCED between the magnets. So what? Do you agree with Somov that an E field will be induced at that X point? Do you agree with Dungey that induced E field will eventually result in an "electrical discharge" in plasma?

Don't dodge my direct questions this time. Answer them.
I have no idea why you think my opinions about the above have any value, but I'll do my best even though I am not a plasma physicist and I know very little about electrical discharges and plasmas.
I can say that if a conductor is introduced in a changing magnetic field a current will be induced. Whether that current is a discharge (if the conductor is a plasma -- based on previous discussions here) seems to be a matter of semantics.
__________________
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 5th November 2011, 04:56 PM   #4559
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Yes, and he explained as Somov explained that an E field was INDUCED at that X point and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE occurs as a result.

Tough. Dungey and Somov both made it pretty clear they accept magnetic reconnection as a viable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and the heating of the corona. Neither of them had some alternative meaning hidden in a few selected words tucked away in their writings about magnetic reconnection. None of the references or arguments from incredulity and ignorance offered in this thread have refuted their position. And no amount of silly semantic games, gross distortions of actual plasma physics, or cherry picked terms will make the real science of magnetic reconnection go away.

Also, the lack of support for the claims that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of giant bolts of lightning (which is impossible within a conductor) and that the Sun is a cathode (which doesn't really act like a cathode) is obvious. All the glaringly wrong criticism of contemporary solar physics, even if it wasn't wrong, would not be support for alternative explanations. The contemporary magnetic reconnection solar model stands pretty well on its own, regardless of how poorly understood it may be by some. The burden of proof in this thread is not on the real scientists. It is on those supporting an electric Sun conjecture.
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 5th November 2011, 05:13 PM   #4560
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Mozina, read this carefully so you understand my position here:

I initially posed a question involving two bar magnets to gain an understanding of what is meant in this thread by magnetic reconnection.
The problem is that there seems to be any number of different meanings depending on whom you ask. In all the textbooks on plasma physics that I own, the process is an E inducing, electrical discharge process associated with PLASMA and only plasma.

Clinger's definition is RADICALLY different since he's not got a single plasma particle to his name, and he's fine with "solid magnet reconnection" as an example of "magnetic reconnection". Who's DEFINITION are we using, Dungey's plasma discharge definition or Clinger's vacuum handwave thingy?

Quote:
I used a simple diagram to pose my question. Then, I found the animation in question and posted it because it provided a good image for my question. My question was (and still is): The magnetic fields of two separate magnets has a different topology than when they are combined. How can the these two different topological shapes come about if magnetic lines do not break and reconnect?
I've already agreed that the H fields can and do "reconnect" with the solid magnet reconnection process. The B lines stretch and change too, but they don't begin or end. The "reconnection" process however would be INSIDE the material, not OUTSIDE of it.

Quote:
Perhaps, if you have not studied topology, you do not understand the significance of this point -- is that the problem?
No. The problem seems to be related to the fact that you're essentially describing topology changes (not necessary reconnection) in the magnetic field that would in fact tend to INDUCE an E field in plasma as DUNGEY is describing the process. I'm doing my best to relate your analogy BACK TO PLASMA PHYSICAL PROCESSES where the term is actually used in a real published textbook or paper on the topic.

Quote:
We also have Gauss (∇∙B = 0), which makes it impossible for magnetic lines to break without simultaneously reconnecting.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that new lines can form (or existing lines become stronger), old lines can dissipate and nothing needs to necessarily disconnect or reconnect in that illustration. The "long" line between the magnets may simply have formed or become stronger between images and the other two lines may have "dissipated" due to the formation of the new line. I can't even be sure what the author of that image had in mind when he drew that image PS. Surely he's not show ALL the lines, just a few.

Quote:
The paper you "offered" had nothing to do with bar magnets and you "offered" no accompanying comments to reveal its relevance.
You're right, I'm sorry, I should have explained. The relevance is that it addresses those magnetic field topology changes you're worried about. The topology changes will induce an E field in plasma. Nothing much is going to happen in a vacuum in terms of a release of energy, and Clinger's experiment is DOOMED because he's trying to change dB/dt "slowly" and nothing much is going to happen. He doesn't have a single electron to his name to work with, so I have no idea how he expects to release energy from that contraption yet. All I know so far is that he's painting himself into an energy corner in terms of kinetic energy and it's nothing like the electrical discharge process Dungey describes.


Quote:
OK, that's fine. There is nothing wrong with not understanding. Obviously, you do not know why or how the magnetic fields topologically change when bar magnets are brought together and then pulled apart. That is really the end of this discussion. Others here have made it clear that the process comes about through magnetic reconnection. Thanks for playing.
Huh? I explained awhile back that I personally really, *REALLY* suck at mind reading. I'm TERRIBLE at it. I can't read the mind of the author of that image about what he was trying to imply with those two frames of that video. I have no idea if he meant to suggest a new line formed or simply became stronger between the frames and the two existing ones faded in strength so he drew the more POWERFUL one. I have no idea what he THOUGHT about what occurs BETWEEN his two images. Neither of the two images show anything actually "reconnecting" and I can't speak for the authors intent because I don't even know who the author might have been! Evidently you read minds better than I do.

Quote:
I have no idea why you think my opinions about the above have any value,
After you called me a fraud today for not reading your illustrators mind today, I assure you I don't think much of your opinions today.

Quote:
but I'll do my best even though I am not a plasma physicist and I know very little about electrical discharges and plasmas.
You can read Dungey's writings, correct? He does use that term doesn't he? This is the "dodging" part that I find really frustrating. In terms of plasma physics, there is a clear right or wrong answer. Either electrical discharges do or they do not occur in a plasma. Which is it?

Quote:
I can say that if a conductor is introduced in a changing magnetic field a current will be induced.
There you go. You already know a HELL of a lot more than Clinger understands. As Somov explained, those changing magnetic fields your talking about will induce currents in the plasma, and an E field at that X point. You'll need a hell of powerful change in the magnetic field to induce an electrical discharge powerful enough to release x-rays and gamma rays and produce neutron capture signatures. Clinger is still trying to change his B field "slowly". Guess who's experiment is going to be a total dud?

Quote:
Whether that current is a discharge (if the conductor is a plasma -- based on previous discussions here) seems to be a matter of semantics.
Baloney. It's a matter of PHYSICS!

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 5th November 2011 at 05:33 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
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 05:17 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.