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 5th November 2011, 05:28 PM   #4561
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
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.
They also make it clear that you're utterly full of it about electrical discharges in plasma. I love how you cherry pick what you want to hear, specifically one work "reconnection" and ignore the actual physics involved. It's priceless and classic denial at it's finest.


Quote:
Neither of them had some alternative meaning hidden in a few selected words tucked away in their writings about magnetic reconnection.
No, they were very upfront about that induced E field and that electrical discharge process. What a pity you're still stuck in pure denial of scientific history.

Quote:
None of the references or arguments from incredulity and ignorance offered in this thread have refuted their position.
I don't have to refute the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasmas and E field are induced by magnetic field topology changes. I already know these things. I know because I've actually read Somov's work for myself. I've already read Alfven's work for myself. I've already read Peratt's work for myself. You're clueless by choice.

Quote:
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.
You got that part right Mr. "Electrical Discharges? What electrical discharges"?

Quote:
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)
False. The actually FAST RELEASE of "stored energy" requires a "conductor". You know that but you keep lying about it anyway.

Quote:
and that the Sun is a cathode (which doesn't really act like a cathode) is obvious.
It's obvious Birkeland was right about "electrical discharges" and flares too.

Quote:
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.
Considering the fact you're still in stanch denial of the fact that electrical discharges occur in flares, that was a RIOT!

Quote:
The burden of proof in this thread is not on the real scientists. It is on those supporting an electric Sun conjecture.
The burden of proof requires that you actually read and respond logically to the materials presented. Since you still deny that electrical discharges occur in flares, that's clearly not happening. I'm not responsible for your personal little denial process.
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, 05:32 PM   #4562
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb B and H and Dungey and Reconnection

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Do you agree with DUNGEY that ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES occur at that X point, yes or no?

From 7 December 2010 ...
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
See The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, J.W. Dungey, 1958 (this is the paper that Mozina's "Dungey" comment above refers to).

"Certain other features of flares may be accounted for by the bulk motion resulting from a discharge at a neutral point. The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly. The 'reconnection' upsets the mechanical equilibrium in the neighborhood in a way that can be visualized, if the lines of force are seen as strings. Then the mechanical disturbance will spread from the neutral point and may have energy comparable to the energy of the spot field in the solar atmosphere."
Dungey, 1958, page 139

Do you (Mozina) agree with DUNGEY that RECONNECTION of magnetic field lines is an energy source in the plasma?


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The act of physically reconnecting the magnets does indeed physically "reconnect" the H lines.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The only magnetic lines that "reconnect" by physically reconnecting the magnets together are the H lines.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I've already agreed that H lines can "reconnect" along with the solid magnets.

OK. After lo these may years, we have an explicit agreement from Mozina: The H magnetic field lines can and do reconnect. However, he maintains that the B magnetic field lines do not.

The H magnetic field is related to the B magnetic field by the following definition: H = B/0 - M (see, e.g., Electromagnetic Fields and Waves by Lorrain & Corson, Freeman 1970 (2nd ed), the text I used as an undergraduate student; page 394). One can also write the same equation as B = 0(H + M). Here, the vector M is the magentization due to magnetic fields inside a material body, and M is defined as M = Nm where N is the number of atoms per unit volume and m is the average magnetic moment per atom. So we see that H, B and M are simple vectors and they are related to each other in entirely linear fashion.

The fact that these vectors are all linearly related to each other makes it physically impossible for the H-lines to be able to reconnect while the B-lines cannot. Either they both reconnect or neither does, one has only these two choices. Mozina must now either reverse himself, and drop his assertion that H-lines can reconnect, while B-lines cannot, or Mozina must agree that both H-lines and B-lines can reconnect.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.

Whether or not field lines begin or end is a sham argument, since the reconnection process does not require field lines to "end" anyway (that's why back in Alfven's day it was called magnetic merging). The mathematical definitions above do not permit one to reconnect while the other does not, under any circumstances.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson 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, 11:30 PM   #4563
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
What new diversionary tactic will the dodging and dancing Mozina come up with now in response to the above embarrassing demonstration?
__________________
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, 11:33 PM   #4564
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
__________________
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 6th November 2011, 09:12 AM   #4565
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
From 7 December 2010 ...



Do you (Mozina) agree with DUNGEY that RECONNECTION of magnetic field lines is an energy source in the plasma?
I agree with Dungey, that *IN A PLASMA*, magnetic field aligned (current) energy is being converted into particle kinetic energy *VIA INDUCED E FIELDS* that are created at that X point, which ultimately results in an "electrical discharge" we call a flare as Dungey describes the process, yes.

Quote:
OK. After lo these may years, we have an explicit agreement from Mozina: The H magnetic field lines can and do reconnect. However, he maintains that the B magnetic field lines do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Quote:
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.
That is the BASIC DIFFERENCE between H and B field lines Tim. I certainly didn't make up the fact that H lines have a beginning and an ending. They point differently inside of the magnet too. These are defining *DIFFERENCES* and characteristics that make H lines different from B lines. I already posted the whole WIKI article on the differences.

Quote:
The fact that these vectors are all linearly related to each other makes it physically impossible for the H-lines to be able to reconnect while the B-lines cannot.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4560

Quote:
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.
*OUTSIDE* of the magnet, that's true Tim. Inside the magnet however the H lines are DIFFERENT FROM B LINES! They have a beginning and and ending. They start at one pole and end at another. If you physically change the magnetic poles, the H lines have to begin and end at DIFFERENT locations. I'm wondering how much of basic EM theory any of you actually remember at this point. It really seems like you all seem to suffer from "sometimers". Sometimes you remember the key points of EM theory. Sometimes you ignore them completely!

Quote:
Either they both reconnect or neither does, one has only these two choices.
No Tim, that's a false dichotomy fallacy. Unlike B lines, the H lines have a beginning and an ending. They physically move from one pole to another and they point differently inside the actual physical magnetic. Because they are INTERNALLY unique, it's not an either/or proposition.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 6th November 2011 at 09:43 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 6th November 2011, 09:18 AM   #4566
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
They [...]

... [Dungey and Somov] both made it pretty clear they accept magnetic reconnection as a reasonable, objective, quantitative explanation for the energy release in solar flares and 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 6th November 2011, 09:19 AM   #4567
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
What new diversionary tactic will the dodging and dancing Mozina come up with now in response to the above embarrassing demonstration?
Considering how fast you ran from that electrical discharge in plasma question, you shouldn't be throwing any stones PS. One good authority figure telling it like it is about electrical discharges in plasma, would have ended all this nonsense A YEAR AGO!
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 6th November 2011, 09:22 AM   #4568
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
... [Dungey and Somov] both made it pretty clear they accept magnetic reconnection as a reasonable, objective, quantitative explanation for the energy release in solar flares and the heating of the corona.
They also agree that the process of transfering magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is a result of *INDUCED E FIELDS* at that X point that result in *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES* in plasma. Go ahead and keep dancing around the physics all you like GM, but you LIED THROUGH YOUR TEETH when you claimed that electrical discharges could not occur in a plasma. Worse still, you've NEVER acknowledged your mistake.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 6th November 2011 at 09:29 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 6th November 2011, 09:41 AM   #4569
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
They also agree that the process of transfering magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is a result of *INDUCED E FIELDS* at that X point that result in *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES* in plasma. Go ahead and keep dancing around the physics all you like GM, but you LIED THROUGH YOUR TEETH when you claimed electrical discharges could not occur in a plasma.

Neither Dungey nor Somov even remotely suggested that the Sun works like a giant cathode or that solar flares and CMEs are somehow analogous to lightning here on Earth. No objective assessment of their research would lead anyone to believe that, and no valid criticism of their positions on magnetic reconnection has been offered in this thread.
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 6th November 2011, 09:49 AM   #4570
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Neither Dungey nor Somov even remotely suggested that the Sun works like a giant cathode....
What a BLATANT dodge! You're still in PURE DENIAL of the SCIENTIFIC FACT that "electrical discharges" occur in plasmas and you refuse to correct your mistake. You latched on to ONE WORD (reconnection) of Dungey's paper and IGNORED that term "electrical discharge" completely. It is a lie that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma and denial is (rightly) considered to be a PATHOLOGICAL behavior. When did you intend to acknowledge the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma?
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 6th November 2011, 10:28 AM   #4571
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
I made still another vain attempt to engage Mozina in order to see if I could learn the cause of the blockage concerning magnetic reconnection. After all, physicists throughout the world, including specialists in plasma physics, astrophysics, electromagnetism understand this phenomenon, so what is the basis of the Mozina dissonance? Anyone interested can review the exchange over the last two or so pages, although it's quite boring and probably a waste on time.
However, this attempt has helped me understand the root of the problem here. A review of the exchange makes it quite transparent that Mozina is simply not intellectually capable of understanding even the most basic logical argument. Real physics is considerable beyond his capacity, which is why he embraces the delusional pseudoscience of EU -- or whatever it is. Pseudoscience does not require mathematics, or logic for that matter. Pseudoscience only requires belief and so it can defy genuine analysis and scientific scrutiny.
Who knows how long this thread will continue? As long as anyone is willing to try using logic, mathematics or real science, Mozina will counter with his illogical song and dance. I have no doubt that he very much enjoys the chase, while believing he is engaging people who really understand science in an intellectual battle. I've had my fill. For my own piece of mind, he will go back on "ignore" while I tune in here from time to time to gain some insights from those who really understand science.
__________________
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 6th November 2011, 01:08 PM   #4572
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I made still another vain attempt to engage Mozina in order to see if I could learn the cause of the blockage concerning magnetic reconnection. After all, physicists throughout the world, including specialists in plasma physics, astrophysics, electromagnetism understand this phenomenon, so what is the basis of the Mozina dissonance? Anyone interested can review the exchange over the last two or so pages, although it's quite boring and probably a waste on time.
However, this attempt has helped me understand the root of the problem here. A review of the exchange makes it quite transparent that Mozina is simply not intellectually capable of understanding even the most basic logical argument. Real physics is considerable beyond his capacity, which is why he embraces the delusional pseudoscience of EU -- or whatever it is. Pseudoscience does not require mathematics, or logic for that matter. Pseudoscience only requires belief and so it can defy genuine analysis and scientific scrutiny.
Who knows how long this thread will continue? As long as anyone is willing to try using logic, mathematics or real science, Mozina will counter with his illogical song and dance. I have no doubt that he very much enjoys the chase, while believing he is engaging people who really understand science in an intellectual battle. I've had my fill. For my own piece of mind, he will go back on "ignore" while I tune in here from time to time to gain some insights from those who really understand science.
Wow, talk about pegging the irony meter. Between you, GM, RC and Clinger, not a single one of you owns or has read a textbook related to plasma physics. Not a single one of you will accept the WHOLE PROCESS that involves INDUCING an E field at that X point, and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE at that X point. It's like a trip in the twilight zone around here because you all argue from a place of pure blind ignorance, and pure hatred to the E orientation of plasma physics. It's irrational absurd behavior on par with the very WORST type of denial based "creationist" beliefs. The fact your arguments rely on PURE HANDWAVING of cartoons and VACUUM equations is PROOF positive that not only don't you have a credible argument, you don't even understand how to BUILD or PUT FORTH a credible PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC argument. It's pathetic. Not a single one of the real "haters" even owns a textbook, let alone has ever read a textbook on plasma physics, so of course none of you understand the E orientation to plasma physics. It's all just about one word to this ignorant crew, specifically the word "reconnection".

FYI, the term relates to a PROCESS that involves the INDUCEMENT of an E field at that X point that results in an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE IN PLASMA according to the guy that coined the term "reconnection".

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 6th November 2011 at 01:16 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 6th November 2011, 01:20 PM   #4573
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I made still another vain attempt to engage Mozina in order to see if I could learn the cause of the blockage concerning magnetic reconnection.
What did you personally use as MATERIAL when attempting to engage me PS? Math? Dungey's work? No. You used an ILLUSTRATION from an UNKNOWN and UNSPECIFIED author with no published background material AT ALL! I've seen creationist build a better scientific argument with actual "published" (if you can call it that) materials and everything. Holy cow! EU haters are just IRRATIONAL, when it comes to scientific debate.
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 6th November 2011, 01:44 PM   #4574
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 can't.
Interesting.

Quote:
I don't know. Why did YOU ask that question? Why are you participating in this specific thread?
To point out that some of your posts are pointless.

Quote:
An "Electric Universe Hater" is someone that HATES any and all EU oriented concepts.
Do you even know what the word "hate" means ? The posters here DISAGREE with the theory. You are far too emotionally invested in it to be rational about it, in my opinion.

Quote:
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.
That might have something to do with the fact that we know gravity exists.

Quote:
RC, GM and Clinger for instance are all in STAUNCH denial that electrical discharges can occur in plasma.
You just admitted yourself that such discharges are impossible (at least, impossible to explain by you). Evidence for those discharges ?
__________________
<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 6th November 2011, 01:49 PM   #4575
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
What a BLATANT dodge! You're still in PURE DENIAL of the SCIENTIFIC FACT that "electrical discharges" occur in plasmas and you refuse to correct your mistake. You latched on to ONE WORD (reconnection) of Dungey's paper and IGNORED that term "electrical discharge" completely. It is a lie that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma and denial is (rightly) considered to be a PATHOLOGICAL behavior. When did you intend to acknowledge the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma?
Please stop shouting. You accuse others of denial. Ok, fine. But I haven't seen a credible source by you since I started following this thread. I am willing to admit I didn't follow the whole thing and, of course after so many pages it might be a good idea to refresh our memory so... why don't you post the _best_ piece of evidence in favour of the theory you espouse, and we'll work from there.
__________________
<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 6th November 2011, 01:53 PM   #4576
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Wow, talk about pegging the irony meter. Between you, GM, RC and Clinger, not a single one of you [...]
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What did you personally [...]

The purpose of this thread is for any electric Sun proponents to provide support for their conjectures, and specifically to support claims that the Sun is some kind of giant cathode (which doesn't act like a cathode), and that solar flares and CMEs are or are caused by electrical sparks like lightning here on Earth (which is a physical impossibility). So the above quotes, comprised almost exclusively of uncivil personal attacks and lacking any quantitative or objective commentary at all, are irrelevant.
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 6th November 2011, 02:05 PM   #4577
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Interesting.
Yes indeed. Clinger already started his "reconnection" process with one hand tied behind his back, and he needs them to "reconnect".

Quote:
To point out that some of your posts are pointless.
Point noted. Now what?

Quote:
Do you even know what the word "hate" means ? The posters here DISAGREE with the theory.
You can't actually "disagree" with something you don't understand in the first place. Haters don't take take the time, nor make the effort to educate themselves to the topic before "disagreeing" with it.

Quote:
You are far too emotionally invested in it to be rational about it, in my opinion.
You're too much of a "newbie" to the topic to be educated in your choice IMO. Assuming you read a bit on the topic, I'm confident you'll see my point in short order. Dungey would an appropriate first choice of reading materials for you personally since it will "cut to the chase" on most of these issues.

Quote:
That might have something to do with the fact that we know gravity exists.
"We" (as in Dungey, Peratt, Alfven, myself, etc) understand that electrical discharges occur in plasmas too. Most "educated" individuals on the topic of *plasma physics* understand this stuff. It's basic stuff actually.

Quote:
You just admitted yourself that such discharges are impossible (at least, impossible to explain by you). Evidence for those discharges ?
No, that's not what I actually said. I don't have a clue how Clinger expects to reconnect anything in vacuum at two zero points in two magnetic fields while only increasing B "slowly". I'm absolutely clueless how Clinger's handwavy form of "reconnection" is supposed to work (yet). He's not "finished" yet, so I can't comment yet.

Most "magnetic reconnection" papers I've ever read involve "plasma" including lots of lots of electrons and protons etc. They all involve the inducement of E fields at that X point, and an "electrical discharge" at that X point.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 6th November 2011 at 02:28 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 6th November 2011, 02:21 PM   #4578
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Please stop shouting.
FYI, honestly, I'm not shouting, I'm simply emphasizing the words in my sentences that I would emphasize in an ordinary spoken conversation. It's more of a "voice inflection" than yelling, at least IMO.

Quote:
You accuse others of denial. Ok, fine. But I haven't seen a credible source by you since I started following this thread. I am willing to admit I didn't follow the whole thing and, of course after so many pages it might be a good idea to refresh our memory so... why don't you post the _best_ piece of evidence in favour of the theory you espouse, and we'll work from there.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958IAUS....6..135D

I'm not sure this is the "best" piece of evidence, but it's probably the most relevant evidence in terms of resolving some key points of dispute for you quickly, and the easiest one for me to find at the moment. Dungey was (to my actual surprise) the individual that actually coined the term "magnetic reconnection". He describes this energy release process as a process in *plasma* (not a vacuum) that results from an inducement of an E field at the X point, and a resulting "electrical discharge" process. That should pretty much point you in the right direction on most of the key "issues" of dispute. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll try my best to help.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 6th November 2011 at 02:24 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 6th November 2011, 02:25 PM   #4579
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
The purpose of this thread is for any electric Sun proponents to provide support for their conjectures,
Yes, but it's a step by step process. Since you won't take the first step off the denial-go-round over the electrical discharges in plasma issue, around and around you go.
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 6th November 2011, 02:28 PM   #4580
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That explains EVERYTHING!
The fact that you have read some books and still cannot understand them explains EVERYTHING!
Including your ignorance of high school science (Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 02:51 PM   #4581
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
So what? It's still an INDUCTION process with permeability measured in *INDUCTANCE* per unit distance, not "magnetic reconnections".
Your remain deluded: Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
And maybe: Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length" !

And unable to read . This section is describing the process of reconnection in a vacuum.
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
Quote:
Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
...
This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.

Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since
[equation 4.65]
where A is the vector potential of magnetic field,
[equation 4.66]
In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65)
[equation 4.67]
the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.
The inductive electgric field is generated by the chnage in magnetic field potential as in equation 4.67.
The mention of the induction of an electric field is after the description of magnetic reconnection.



You have repeated this inability to understand what you read enough to make this into another delusion: The delusion that a chapter
  • titled "Reconnection in a Vacuum"
  • which describes magnetic reconnection (in a vacuum!)
  • and then shows an electric field is induced by the change in magnetic field potential
is about induction.

And another minor deletion - there is no permeability in that section !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 03:04 PM   #4582
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
He also has CURRENT flowing through his X points.
Thus just demonstrates your inability to understand what you read
  • There is only 1 X point.
  • The currents are to either side of the null point.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Sure, as long as you realize it is INDUCTION that transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy.
Sure, so long as you realize that you are continuing to be DELUDED about INDUCTION transferring magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy during magnetic reconnection.
MM: Induction = solar flares take a million years to happen (31st December 2009)

The rest of your post is your usual rant.
But you do get one thing right - it is just the usual induction of electric fields by a changing magnetic field.
A pity you do not understand what you wrote - the changing magnetic field is the magnetic reconnection that Somov has just described !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 03:17 PM   #4583
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
Somov has an equation for the electric field generated from a magnetic potential A that is changing. This is related to the magnetic field (B = curl A).

According to Somov, magnetic field lines merge and reconnect. It is that which INDUCES the E fields according to Somov.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 03:27 PM   #4584
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Question MM: Do you realize your mistakes about W.D. Clinger's experiment

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
We are still waiting for you to realize your mistakes.
  • There are no such things as 'zero points' - they are called null points or the older term (as in Dungey) neutral points .
  • There is only one null point in W.D. Clinger's experiment.
  • There are no plasma particles in W.D. Clinger's experiment.
  • there is current (in fact 2 of them!)
  • there is induction of electric fields (changing magnetic fields always induct E fields).
W.D. Clinger's experiment is basically Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov, 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
The only difference is that W.D. Clinger has the currents in rods and being done in air so that it can be done as an actual experiment.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 03:43 PM   #4585
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Question MM: Do you agree that Bruce's idea that there is lightning on the Sun is wrong

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
If you knew a little bit about plasma physics, you might know that electrical discharges occur in plasmas.
Only a total idiot would state that electrical discharges occur in plasma because the usual definition of electrical discharges states that this cannot happen (no dielectric medium to breakdown). See Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.
Even you are idiotic enough to claim that lightning happens in plasma !
Though you sometimes slip and cite Bruce's debunked lightning in plasma work.
So let us check this out:
Michael Mozina,
Do you agree that Bruce's idea that there is lightning on the Sun is wrong?
His hypothetical dust particles cannot exist because the temperature of the Sun is ~5700 K at the photosphere.
If they existed then they would be embedded in a conductive plasma, i.e. no dielectric medium to breakdown and so there will be currents, not electrical discharges.
These hypothetical dust particles have never been observed in the many decades since he proposed them.

Where the idoicy lies is in that you have not been able to find and stick to a definition of electrical discharge that happens in plasma.
You have cited 60 year old (not modern) usage by Dungey and not understood that means that solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

You have this consistant fantasy: Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!:
(including lying about the definition ).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 03:54 PM   #4586
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Only a total idiot would state that electrical discharges occur in plasma ....
You know Belz, my honey-do list today is rather lengthy so I don't have time to respond to RC's nonsense at the moment.

After you've read that first paper by Dungey, you might try explaining to RC that he's effectively calling Dungey a "total idiot". Maybe you can talk some sense into him. I've tried now for over a year but he seems to be incapable of listening to reason. I think even a quick conversation with RC over this issue will give you some insight into my pure exasperation with his ridiculous statements.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 6th November 2011 at 03:56 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 03:58 PM   #4587
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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*.
FYI, I guess Giovanelli was the first one to call a high current density, an *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* and the Dungey followed the same practice: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

I know Giovanelli was not the first one to call this physical process magnetic reconnection. So guess again !

From the book that you have been ignoring for years:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0-521-48179-1, contents and sample chapter online

If you bother to read the sample chapter (the introduction) then you will find that
  • Dungey was the first to suggest that "lines of force can be broken and rejoined". According to you this makes him very stupid because thay cannot break and reconenct .
  • It was Parker in his 1957 paper who
    Quote:
    coined the words "reconnection of field lines" and "merging of magnetic fields"

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th November 2011 at 04:06 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 04:02 PM   #4588
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
After you've read that first paper by Dungey, you might try explaining to RC that he's effectively calling Dungey a "total idiot".
Displaying your inability to read again, MM?
Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Anyone idiotic to confuse Dungey's usage of the term with lightning is the one implying that Dungey is an idiot (and proving themnselves totally ignorant as a byproduct).
That is not me.
I am hoping that it is not you. Maybe you can confirm this by confirming that you know that Dungey's 'electric discharge' is high current density in magnetic reconnection?

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th November 2011 at 04:06 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 04:07 PM   #4589
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
For centuries people would read and recite passages from the Christian bible in Latin. Most of these people did not understand the passages, but often they had some sense (from authorities) about what they were reading, but their understanding was generally flawed. They did these readings and recitations because they believed such recitations gave them knowledge and yielded magical benefits.
Sound familiar?
__________________
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 6th November 2011, 04:15 PM   #4590
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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?
No labels for the GIFs but you bother to read Experiments with magnets and our surroundings then will find
Quote:
Magnets in Motion
This page shows how the magnetic fields twist and bend as magnets are moved about with respect to each other.
This is usually the B field but "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.".

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th November 2011 at 04:20 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 04:46 PM   #4591
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No labels for the GIFs but you bother to read Experiments with magnets and our surroundings then will find
......the lines twist and bend but they don't say a darn thing about "reconnection", PS just handwaved that in for himself? That's hardly surprising. EU haters never get the facts straight.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 6th November 2011 at 04:48 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 6th November 2011, 04:49 PM   #4592
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Yes, I already explained that to PS and again to Tim. Whatever "reconnection" happens in the H field happens INSIDE the magnet.
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 6th November 2011, 04:59 PM   #4593
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
FYI, I guess Giovanelli was the first one to call a high current density, an *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* and the Dungey followed the same practice: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

Quote:
Only a total idiot would state that electrical discharges occur in plasma ....
Congrats. You just proved that Dungey and Giovanelli before him were total idiots. I guess we can just toss out "magnetic reconnection" theory altogether then eh?
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 6th November 2011, 05:16 PM   #4594
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
James Dungey was one of the forerunners in understanding and developing the theories of magnetic reconnection as it applies to solar physics. To suggest that he didn't actually mean almost anything he wrote on the issue and really meant to say the Sun operates like a giant cathode with lightning bolts dancing around on its surface would be...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
[...] effectively calling Dungey a "total idiot".
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 6th November 2011, 05:26 PM   #4595
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
......the lines twist and bend but they don't say a darn thing about "reconnection",
...insane haters' stuff snipped...
Wrong: The lines twist, bend, break and reconnect. They say that magnetic field lines outdide of the magnets twist, bend, break and reconnect.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 05:31 PM   #4596
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Yes, I already explained that to PS and again to Tim. Whatever "reconnection" happens in the H field happens INSIDE the magnet.
You really cannot understated what you read:
  1. The magnetic files lines twist, bend, break and reconnect outsdie of the magnets.
  2. "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."
The magnetic field lines are outside of the magnetics so B and H are equivalent (to a multiplicative constant).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 05:36 PM   #4597
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Congrats. You just proved that Dungey and Giovanelli before him were total idiots. I guess we can just toss out "magnetic reconnection" theory altogether then eh?

Dungey never once suggested that some kind of lightning-like phenomenon was occurring in the conductive plasma of the Sun's atmosphere. He certainly wasn't stupid enough to write, suggest, or even imply anything like that. And no matter how he might have used the terms "electrical" and/or "discharge", together or apart, he certainly wasn't advocating anything as ridiculous as the pseudoscience known as the electric Sun conjecture. In large part James Dungey's work in solar physics was the original development of the magnetic reconnection theories, a concept that is generally rejected in its entirety by all the electric Sun proponents.
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 6th November 2011, 05:42 PM   #4598
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You really cannot understated what you read:
  1. The magnetic files lines twist, bend, break and reconnect outsdie of the magnets.
  2. "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."
The magnetic field lines are outside of the magnetics so B and H are equivalent (to a multiplicative constant).
There is no evidence, no demonstration, no mathematics, no logic that will penetrate. He is incapable of understanding scientific concepts.
__________________
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 6th November 2011, 05:43 PM   #4599
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Congrats.
You have demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding what you read yet again, starting with a little quote mine:
Quote:
Only a total idiot would state that electrical discharges occur in plasma ....
when the full text is:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Only a total idiot would state that electrical discharges occur in plasma because the usual definition of electrical discharges states that this cannot happen (no dielectric medium to breakdown). See Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.
(emphasis added because you obviously did not read it)

Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection (based on Giovanelli's usage).
I have proved all along that Dungey and Giovanelli before him were totally competent scientists. They were not idiotic enough to use the usual definition of electrical discharges, making it quite clear that their usage was different.
This was pointed out to you 10 months ago:
Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
13th January 2011 (10 months and counting)
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th November 2011, 05:48 PM   #4600
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wrong: The lines twist, bend, break and reconnect. They say that magnetic field lines outdide of the magnets twist, bend, break and reconnect.
http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/magmotion.htm

Quote:
The two pieces are pulled apart, and reconnected, N to S.
What a load of crap. They are specifically talking about the PHYSICAL MAGNETS that "reconnect", not the B field lines! You don't even understand the text on the webpage where you got the image from! Holy Cow. EU haters are just BIZARRE! You can't tell an electrical discharge process in a plasma from a physical reconnection of two magnets. EU Haters are hopeless.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 6th November 2011 at 05:52 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 05:48 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.