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 6th November 2011, 05:53 PM   #4601
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
There is no evidence, no demonstration, no mathematics, no logic that will penetrate. He is incapable of understanding scientific concepts.
That was made fairly obvious several years ago in other threads (and even other forums) that Micheal Mozina has participated in. Little things like not being able to tell that one number (the temperature of the Sun) is higher than another number (the melting or even boiling point of iron) !

In this thread the major things he has displayed is an ignorance of high school science (Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)) and fantasies about several easily understood texts, e.g. Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section - a section about "Reconnection in vacuum' is not actually about reconnection in vacuum !
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, 06:02 PM   #4602
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/magmotion.htm
What a load of crap. They are specifically talking about the PHYSICAL MAGNETS that "reconnect", not the B field lines
What a load of crap.
Experiments with magnets and our surroundings
Quote:
Magnets in Motion
This page shows how the magnetic fields twist and bend as magnets are moved about with respect to each other.
They are specifically talking about how the magnetic fields twist and bend.
They are specifically talking about moving magnet around.
and then:
Quote:
The two pieces are pulled apart, and reconnected, N to S.
These are the PHYSICAL MAGNETS that are pulled apart.
These are the PHYSICAL MAGNETS that reconnected, N to S.

A person who can see will then look at the animations and note that the magnetic field lines twist and bend and break and reconnect.

A knowledgeable person will look at the animations and note that these magnetic field lines that twist and bend and break and reconnect do this outside of the magnets. They will then know that the lines can be either H or B lines.

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th November 2011 at 06:04 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, 06:14 PM   #4603
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That was made fairly obvious several years ago in other threads (and even other forums) that Micheal Mozina has participated in. Little things like not being able to tell that one number (the temperature of the Sun) is higher than another number (the melting or even boiling point of iron) !

In this thread the major things he has displayed is an ignorance of high school science (Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)) and fantasies about several easily understood texts, e.g. Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section - a section about "Reconnection in vacuum' is not actually about reconnection in vacuum !
Notice here Belz that they go right back to attacking the individual rather than acknowledge Dungey's "electrical discharges". The rationalizations are mind numbing after awhile. Neither one of them has read a plasma physics textbook, nor can they understand the text on a random website they found in cyberspace. They then blame me for their personal ignorance. Wow.
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, 06:17 PM   #4604
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Quote:
Magnets in Motion
This page shows how the magnetic fields twist and bend as magnets are moved about with respect to each other.
RC the magnetic fields around the magnets just twist and bend, only the PHYSICAL MAGNETS "reconnect". If you can't understand the text on a website, what hope is there that you will EVER understand a plasma physics textbook, even ASSUMING (hope springs eternal) you ever bother reading one?
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, 06:37 PM   #4605
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Question MM: What is the toptic of "Plasma Astrophysics: Reconnection and flares" by Somov

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Notice here Belz that they go right back to attacking the individual rather than acknowledge Dungey's "electrical discharges". .
Notice here Belz that we go back to noting that Michael Mozina cannot answer a simple high school science question and thus:
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)
And that Michael Mozina is lying about Dungey's "electrical discharges" which we have "acknowledged" for almost a year and pointed out what they happen in magnetic reconnection:
Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
13th January 2011 (10 months and counting)

And that Michael Mozina is lying about us blaming him for his personal ignorance (see above, Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance! and Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length").
What I blame him for is not seeming to want to learn and just twisting valid science into his personal fantasies. His continuous use of this tactic makes him make a number of deluded statements which anyone who reads his sources can easily see.

I do not have not read the Somov book that he has but I wonder what he thinks topic is covered in the book Plasma Astrophysics: Reconnection and flares by Boris V. Somov (2006).
Quote:
This well-illustrated monograph is devoted to classic fundamentals, current practice, and perspectives of modern plasma astrophysics. The first part of the book is unique in covering all the basic principles and practical tools required for understanding and work in plasma astrophysics. The second part represents the physics of magnetic reconnection and flares of electromagnetic origin in space plasmas in the solar system, single and double stars, relativistic objects, accretion disks, their coronae. The level of the book is designed mainly for professional researchers in astrophysics. The book will also be interesting and useful to graduate students in space sciences, geophysics, as well as to advanced students in applied physics and mathematics seeking a unified view of plasma physics and fluid mechanics.
This makes his solar flares = electrical discharges fantasy even unsupported by the author of at least one book that he has read.

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th November 2011 at 06:40 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, 06:43 PM   #4606
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
RC the magnetic fields around the magnets just twist and bend, only the PHYSICAL MAGNETS "reconnect". If you can't understand the text on a website, what hope is there that you will EVER understand a plasma physics textbook, even ASSUMING (hope springs eternal) you ever bother reading one?
MM, the magnetic fields around the magnets just twist and bend and break and reconnect as shown in the animations, and the PHYSICAL MAGNETS split and "reconnect".
If you can't understand the text and animations on a website, what hope is there that you will EVER understand what you have ever read in any physics textbook.

We have little hope of you understanding either this web page or any textbook since you have demonstrated that your ignorance expends to 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 7th November 2011, 04:06 AM   #4607
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
Point noted. Now what?
Now nothing. My point is made. I'll let you know if there's something else you need to know.

Quote:
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.
It still does not indicate the presence of "hate". I think you are emotionally invested in it and feel the need to attach an emotional label to the disagreement.

Quote:
You're too much of a "newbie" to the topic to be educated in your choice IMO.
1) That is not a counter-argument.
2) I know a bit about gravity and nuclear fusion, and I know enough to ask "how can you have electrical discharges without electrons", which you admit you cannot answer.

Quote:
"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.
Then it should be easy to link to.
__________________
<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 7th November 2011, 04:07 AM   #4608
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
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.
Why ? I call people idiots all the time.
__________________
<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 7th November 2011, 04:11 AM   #4609
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Guys, guys, I know how much my approval means to you but, please, stop fighting over me !
__________________
<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 7th November 2011, 06:24 AM   #4610
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
So, MM has come to the conclusion that H can reconnect, whereas B cannot reconnect. I guess that is a step forward. Now, to make the next step, in the plasma experiments on reconnection the relation between B and H still holds and according to Somov (Plasma Astrophysics Part 1, 2006, page 206):

Originally Posted by Somov
In cosmic plasma, the magnetic permeability and the electric permittivity can almost always be replaced by their vacuum values.
As a plasma has no magnetization M, as it does not consist of a collection of magnetic dipoles that can be aligned like in solids (a bar magnet for example), but of a collection of electric monopoles, in the end we find that:

B = μ0 H

So, there is only a scaling value of 4π 10-7 between the two.

Interestingly, in Plasma Astrophysics Part 2 (Reconnection and Flares) by Somov 2006 (the other trustworth source for MM) the word "discharge" is absent, except for 2 titles in the literature list at the end of the book.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is online now   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 7th November 2011, 08:04 AM   #4611
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Why ? I call people idiots all the time.
That might be logical if he were not trying to support "magnetic reconnection" theory, Dungey wasn't the guy that defined it, and Dungey had not described the PROCESS in terms of electrical discharges in plasma.

Keep in mind that I'm not personally obligated to explain how Clinger's vacuum handwave experiment is supposed to work. He's never provided a published reference to support any of his claims and I've never seen anyone try to claim what Clinger is claiming. The closest thing they could find in term of a published reference was one or two sentences from Somov, but Somov uses INDUCED E FIELDS to accelerate plasma. IMO Clinger's contraption won't work for two reasons. He removed the MEDIUM that is conductive, and allows for E fields to be induced at the X point and for CURRENT to flow through the X point as Dungey describes it. He's also trying to change dB/dt "slowly" so as not to induce any E field in the first place. I have no idea how that Clinger handwave experiment is supposed to work. That's his job to explain to you, not mine.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 7th November 2011 at 08:30 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 7th November 2011, 08:09 AM   #4612
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Now nothing. My point is made. I'll let you know if there's something else you need to know.
Okey Dokey.

Quote:
It still does not indicate the presence of "hate". I think you are emotionally invested in it and feel the need to attach an emotional label to the disagreement.
There is no logical or scientific reason for them to dispute the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma. There is PLENTY of documented evidence presented in this thread to support that claim. The only reason they won't accept that process in plasma is because they hate being wrong, and they hate EU theory. They are stuck in a hardcore denial process as a result.

Quote:
1) That is not a counter-argument.
2) I know a bit about gravity and nuclear fusion, and I know enough to ask "how can you have electrical discharges without electrons", which you admit you cannot answer.
I don't have to explain how CLINGER's handwave thing is supposed to work WITHOUT electrons. Dungey's work on "magnetic reconnection" theory occurs in plasma and it REQUIRES them. Clinger has a problem because he has no plasma particles to accelerate in his vacuum. You need to get HIM to explain to you how he intends to work around that problem, not me.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 7th November 2011 at 08:14 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 7th November 2011, 08:16 AM   #4613
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
So, MM has come to the conclusion that H can reconnect, whereas B cannot reconnect. I guess that is a step forward.
For the FORTH TIME now, the H lines only "reconnect" *INSIDE* (not outside) the physical magnet, and that reconnection is a direct result of the physical MAGNET reconnection.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2011, 08:18 AM   #4614
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
MM, the magnetic fields around the magnets just twist and bend and break and reconnect as shown in the animations,...
BS. The website says NOTHING about the field LINES reconnecting. It only claims the lines bend and twist. The only time "reconnection" is mentioned on the website is in relationship to the MAGNET PIECES physically being "reconnected". You can't even tell a field line from a solid 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 7th November 2011, 08:30 AM   #4615
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
There is no logical or scientific reason for them to dispute the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma.
Are all astronomers and physicists "haters" ?

Quote:
I don't have to explain how CLINGER's handwave thing is supposed to work WITHOUT electrons.
Just like you don't actually have to eat. But it would help your argument a whole lot if the theory fit with, you know, reality.
__________________
<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 7th November 2011, 08:32 AM   #4616
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That might be logical if he we're not trying to support "magnetic reconnection" theory, Dungey wasn't the guy that defined it, and Dungey had not described the PROCESS in terms of electrical discharges in plasma.

Dungey was the guy who originated the term "magnetic reconnection". He was a forerunner in that particular area of solar physics. Much of the contemporary understanding of magnetic reconnection and how it applies to solar flares and the heating of the corona was built on a foundation he laid. And if he didn't describe magnetic reconnection in a way that corresponds with the conjecture that solar flares are somehow analogous to lightning on Earth, maybe that's because it would have been ridiculous for him to do so. He wasn't an idiot. Obviously, in his neglecting to even mention it, he didn't consider any sort of cathode Sun or lightning bolt solar flares to be reasonable explanations for how the Sun works.
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 7th November 2011, 08:33 AM   #4617
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Are all astronomers and physicists "haters" ?
Certainly not. Dungey obviously had no problem with electrical discharges in plasma. Peratt has no problem with them. It's only the half dozen or so folks in this thread that are "haters".

Quote:
Just like you don't actually have to eat. But it would help your argument a whole lot if the theory fit with, you know, reality.
Dungey's definition is "reality". Clinger's experiment is a handwave.
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 7th November 2011, 08:56 AM   #4618
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
For the FORTH TIME now, the H lines only "reconnect" *INSIDE* (not outside) the physical magnet, and that reconnection is a direct result of the physical MAGNET reconnection.
Wow, I guess that whole book by your new hero Somov is totally bunk!

So now we had circuit reconnection and current reconnection, and newly in the hitparade magnet reconnection, from nothing to one in one week! Justin Bieber eat your heart out.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is online now   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 7th November 2011, 09:32 AM   #4619
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Wow, I guess that whole book by your new hero Somov is totally bunk!
Not at all. In fact it was Somov who specifically connects the B orientation to the E orientation (including Alfven's ideas) in the last chapter of his book. That's essentially where I got the term "current reconnection" in fact.

Quote:
So now we had circuit reconnection and current reconnection, and newly in the hitparade magnet reconnection, from nothing to one in one week! Justin Bieber eat your heart out.
I hate to break it to you, but according to Somov, this whole "process" is also an example of "Reconnecting electrical currents", and induced E fields. In fact he describes the filaments/lines in chapter 16 as reconnecting "field aligned currents", or current reconnection. That's why I'm cool with the term 'current reconnection'. IMO that would have been a logical term. Then all the haters would not be so DAMN CONFUSED about the actual physical induction process and the electrical discharge processes that it describes. Oy Vey. What's in a name? At least a year of pain and suffering in just this one thread. Your side refuses to embrace the E orientation, so around and around we go.....

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 7th November 2011 at 09:33 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 7th November 2011, 09:38 AM   #4620
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Dungey was the guy who originated the term "magnetic reconnection". He was a forerunner in that particular area of solar physics. Much of the contemporary understanding of magnetic reconnection and how it applies to solar flares and the heating of the corona was built on a foundation he laid.
That's also why you, RC and Clinger are so screwed in terms of embracing 'electrical discharges' in plasma. Dungey describes the release mechanisms as A) an induced E field at the X point, followed by an 'electrical discharge' that releases all that stored EM energy, aka an 'electrical discharge' in Peratt's DEFINITION.

You're personally clinging so tightly to that oversimplification fallacy and that denial-go-round, that it's squealing like a pig. Do you *HONESTLY* think anyone's buying that BS anymore?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 7th 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 7th November 2011, 09:46 AM   #4621
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Not at all. In fact it was Somov who specifically connects the B orientation to the E orientation (including Alfven's ideas) in the last chapter of his book. That's essentially where I got the term "current reconnection" in fact.

I hate to break it to you, but according to Somov, this whole "process" is also an example of "Reconnecting electrical currents", and induced E fields. In fact he describes the filaments/lines in chapter 16 as reconnecting "field aligned currents", or current reconnection. That's why I'm cool with the term 'current reconnection'. IMO that would have been a logical term. Then all the haters would not be so DAMN CONFUSED about the actual physical induction process and the electrical discharge processes that it describes. Oy Vey. What's in a name? At least a year of pain and suffering in just this one thread. Your side refuses to embrace the E orientation, so around and around we go.....

So Somov and Dungey (and pretty much every contemporary solar and plasma physicist) are correct in that magnetic reconnection exists and is a reasonable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and the heating of the corona. It just has a crummy name.
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 7th November 2011, 09:55 AM   #4622
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
So Somov and Dungey (and pretty much every contemporary solar and plasma physicist) are correct in that magnetic......
They are correct that magnetic field energy is transferred to particle kinetic energy by the inducement of an E field at the X point, followed by an "electrical discharge" in plasma, yes.

Deal with it!

The irony of ironies, is that Maxwell's equations solve for either E or B. You're basically trying to claim they can't be solved for E, even though Alfven himself did that DECADES ago and Dungey himself used the term 'electrical discharge'. This really is the human self defense mechanism of denial at it's absolute finest.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 7th November 2011 at 09:57 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 7th November 2011, 10:24 AM   #4623
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
So Somov and Dungey (and pretty much every contemporary solar and plasma physicist) are correct in that magnetic reconnection exists and is a reasonable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and the heating of the corona.
They are correct [...]

Good. That much we can all agree on. Now if it's just a matter of "magnetic reconnection" being a poorly chosen name for a phenomenon which in all essence amounts to magnetic reconnection, how shall we proceed to get tens of thousands of physicists to accept a different name or come up with a new name for it?
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 7th November 2011, 10:45 AM   #4624
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Good. That much we can all agree on. Now if it's just a matter of "magnetic reconnection" being a poorly chosen name for a phenomenon which in all essence amounts to magnetic reconnection, how shall we proceed to get tens of thousands of physicists to accept a different name or come up with a new name for it?
Beats me. All I know is that the term that Dungey selected confused the hell out of you, RC and Clinger and every other EU hater. In fact this whole thread is a testament to the STUPIDITY of the name that Dungey selected since not a single B line actually "disconnects" nor "reconnects", it works by INDUCING an E field at the X point, and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE is the actual "flare". Not a single hater "gets it".
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2011, 11:25 AM   #4625
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Beats me. All I know is that the term that Dungey selected [...]

Yeah, that Dungey, what a maroon. He was quite the idiot when it came to understanding solar physics.

Quote:
[...] confused the hell out of you, RC and Clinger and every other EU hater.

The uncivil personalization of the issue would obviously be unnecessary if there was any valid science to the electric Sun conjecture. There's not. And magnetic reconnection seems to be a pretty good name, not really confusing at all since it succinctly describes an effect where magnetic fields are reconnecting.

Quote:
In fact this whole thread is a testament to the STUPIDITY of the name that Dungey selected since not a single B line actually "disconnects" nor "reconnects", it works by INDUCING an E field at the X point, [...]

Yeah, that Dungey fellow. How stupid he was to come up with that magnetic reconnection nonsense, eh? Maybe some genius can actually put together a cohesive theory that explains how the Sun is a cathode (which doesn't act like a cathode) and how solar flares are like gigantic bolts of lightning (which can't happen in the conductive solar atmosphere, don't look anything like lightning, don't result from the same causes, and don't create the same effect). I wonder when that's going to happen. It's probably that conspiracy to hang on to their funding that keeps all those real scientists from pursuing the "truth". That "truth" would, of course, earn them Nobel prizes and guarantee them unlimited funding. Solar and plasma physicists aren't just a little stupid, they must be very, very stupid.

Quote:
[...] and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE is the actual "flare". Not a single hater "gets it".

Leaving aside the continued incivility and personalization, no, solar flares are essentially made up of accelerated particles, the cause of the acceleration being best understood and described as magnetic reconnection.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th November 2011, 11:32 AM   #4626
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Yeah, that Dungey, what a maroon. He was quite the idiot when it came to understanding solar physics.
I don't question HIS understanding of solar physics, I questions yours. "Electrical discharges in plasma? Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!" Sheesh.
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 7th November 2011, 11:41 AM   #4627
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I don't question [Dungey's] understanding of solar physics, [...]

As I said before, good, we agree that Dungey was correct that magnetic reconnection is a reasonable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and the heating of the Sun's 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 7th November 2011, 12:04 PM   #4628
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
I just realised that if you have MAGNET RECONNECTION on an Integrated Circuit then you get MAGNET-IC-RECONNECTION.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is online now   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 7th November 2011, 12:54 PM   #4629
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
BS. The website says NOTHING about the field LINES reconnecting. It only claims the lines bend and twist.
BS. I know that the website says NOTHING about the field LINES reconnecting.
But I have eyes. I can see field LINES reconnecting in the animations:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Experiments with magnets and our surroundings

They are specifically talking about how the magnetic fields twist and bend.
They are specifically talking about moving magnet around.
and then:

These are the PHYSICAL MAGNETS that are pulled apart.
These are the PHYSICAL MAGNETS that reconnected, N to S.

A person who can see will then look at the animations and note that the magnetic field lines twist and bend and break and reconnect.

A knowledgeable person will look at the animations and note that these magnetic field lines that twist and bend and break and reconnect do this outside of the magnets. They will then know that the lines can be either H or B lines.
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 7th November 2011, 01:19 PM   #4630
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
MM: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Certainly not. Dungey obviously had no problem with electrical discharges in plasma. Peratt has no problem with them.
Two lies in one post .

Dungey (and probably others) called high current densities involved in magnetic reconnection, 'electrical discharges'. This is not plasma in general. This is one specific situation.
P.S. it is one which according to you Alfvén proved MR theory obslolete, i.e. MR can never happen!
This makes your citation of Dungey rather dubious because:
  • Dungey says that magnetic reconnection involves 'electrical discharges' but...
  • Your hero Alfvén (according to you) says the magnetic reconnection cannot happen.
One of them is wrong.

The big problem that you have been ignoring for about a year is that this happens in magnetic reconnection.
So by citing Dungey, you are agreeing with Dungey (and the scientific consensus) that the cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!

Repeating your lie about Peratt does not make it correct: Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!:
(including lying about the definition ).

Repeating your ignorance about Dungey and Peratt definitions just make you seem more ignorant:
Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
(no energy release!)
Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
(no high current density!).
There are different as you have been unable to understand for months
Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
13th January 2011 (10 months and counting)
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Dungey's definition is "reality". Clinger's experiment is a handwave.
Dungey's definition is real only in the context of magnetic reconnection. No MR - no electrical discharge.
Clinger's experiment is a valid demonstration of MR. It is as described by Somov: MM: Do you realize your mistakes about W.D. Clinger's 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 7th November 2011, 01:26 PM   #4631
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
As I said before, good, we agree that Dungey was correct that magnetic reconnection is a reasonable explanation for the energy release in solar flares and the heating of the Sun's corona.
Your agreement must mean that you have *FINALLY* realized your error and that you now agree that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasma and in solar flares. Furthermore you agree that no B field lines actually disconnect or reconnect, correct, it's an INDUCED E field that releases the energy?
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 7th November 2011, 01:29 PM   #4632
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
BS. I know that the website says NOTHING about the field LINES reconnecting.
But I have eyes. I can see field LINES reconnecting in the animations:
No, you can't. You ASSUMED that. You can see a change of topology in the magnetic field lines due to the fact that they are BENDING and TWISTING (magnetic flux), but they don't disconnect or reconnect. You're ASSUMING that part all on your own! The website says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the field lines themselves doing any "reconnecting". Whatever reconnecting you "see" in the pretty little pictures in those lines without a beginning or ending is all in your head.
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 7th November 2011, 01:33 PM   #4633
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
I just realised that if you have MAGNET RECONNECTION on an Integrated Circuit then you get MAGNET-IC-RECONNECTION.
Ya know.....

I really don't "get" you. You personally have the credentials *AND* the knowledge to have explained the INDUCED E field at that x point and the electrical discharges to this crew anytime you chose/choose to do so (still could). Why haven't you FIXED this mess yet? When did you intend to do so?
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 7th November 2011, 01:33 PM   #4634
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Question MM: cite Dungey's "'electrical discharge' that releases all that stored EM energy"

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That's also why you, RC and Clinger are so screwed in terms of embracing 'electrical discharges' in plasma. Dungey describes the release mechanisms as A) an induced E field at the X point, followed by an 'electrical discharge' that releases all that stored EM energy, aka an 'electrical discharge' in Peratt's DEFINITION.
This is where you are so screwed and lying - I at least embrace Dungey's usage of the term in 'electrical discharges' in magnetic reconnection. GeeMack also seems to embrace this term as does Clinger.

And it looks like you have another fantasy:
Michael Mozina
Please cite Dungey's description of "A) ... 'electrical discharge' that releases all that stored EM energy".
I (and anyone who can read) can see that
Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
(no energy release!)
Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
(no high current density!).
are different as you have been unable to understand for months
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 7th November 2011, 01:39 PM   #4635
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No, you can't. You ASSUMED that.
How insane, MM - There is definitely connection:
Originally Posted by Humanzee View Post

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?
The only ASSUMPTION is that in order for 2 loops to become 1 they have to merge somehow, i.e. the two loops break. This has been described for 50 years now as a breaking of the magnetic field lines.
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 7th November 2011, 01:44 PM   #4636
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
This is where you are so screwed and lying - I at least embrace Dungey's usage of the term in 'electrical discharges' in magnetic reconnection. GeeMack also seems to embrace this term as does Clinger.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=14

Originally Posted by GeeMack
There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
BS. This BS has been going on since page one, probably of the ORIGINAL thread. Either you all admit this statement is false or stay on the denial go round, one or the other.
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 7th November 2011, 01:52 PM   #4637
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
In fact this whole thread is a testament to the STUPIDITY of the name that Dungey selected since not a single B line actually "disconnects" nor "reconnects", it works by INDUCING an E field at the X point, and an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE is the actual "flare"..
In fact whole thread is a testament to the ARROGANCE of one poster who thinks that he is smarter than the thousands of scientists over the last 50 years (e.g. E.N. Parker) who have called this process magnetic reconnection because B lines actually disconnect and reconnect.

And a bit of ignorance: Dungey had little to with the namimg of MR. The name came from Parker (1957).
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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


You do know about cause and effect, MM?
The actual cause of a solar flare is the magnetic reconnection. Without the MR there is no high current density. It is this high current density that Dungey called an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE 60 years ago.
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 7th November 2011, 01:56 PM   #4638
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
In fact whole thread is a testament to the ARROGANCE of one poster who thinks that he is smarter than the thousands of scientists over the last 50 years.....
BZZT! Dungey understood that an E field was induced at that X point and that electrical discharges occur in flares. I suspect Belz does too by now. I only claim to be smarter than you, GM and Clinger. Actually I don't even claim to be smarter than any of you three, I'm just better educated on the topic of plasma physics because I've personally invested time and money into educating myself on that topic. That time and effort and financial investment puts me WAY ahead of you three (and PS). That's all I claim RC.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 7th November 2011 at 01:58 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 7th November 2011, 01:59 PM   #4639
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeMack
There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
GeeMack was correct: There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
Whenever someone just states 'electrical discharge' this is the usual definition of electrical discharge that is impossible in plasma.

You can put the term into a different context though:
However there are high current density (which 60 years ago some authors like Dungey called electrical discharge) processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
This is in the context of
  1. 60 year old papers (not modern usage which calls high current densities .... high current densities!)
  2. Magnetic reconnection causing these 'electrical discharge'.
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 7th November 2011, 02:04 PM   #4640
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
GeeMack was correct: There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
The denial-go-round continues. Round and round and round you go, where you'll stop, nobody knows.
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 05:18 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.