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 8th November 2011, 08:36 PM   #4761
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Now that's funny!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riding_coattails

It's kind of funny to me that he's been riding Dungey's electrical discharge in plasma coattails for weeks now too.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 8th November 2011 at 08:38 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 8th November 2011, 08:38 PM   #4762
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
FYI, it's going to take me awhile to get through this paper, mostly because it's an EXCELLENT paper and I want to enjoy it. From what I've read so far they described CURRENT and INDUCTION based processes. I haven't been through the whole paper yet, but I'm definitely enjoying it. It's a bit busy at work so bear with me a bit. I will get back to you, but I do want to finish the whole paper. As far as I can tell so far, they are using the term "reconnection" consistently with the way that Somov uses the term. Specifically it's an induced field generation process caused by 'magnetic flux' and particle movements. Cool paper. Thanks again for the reference.
That's really great! When you do decide to comment on that paper, since it is supported with many mathematical equations describing the processes involved, I assume your comments will include a good deal of mathematics.
__________________
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 8th November 2011, 08:39 PM   #4763
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Still waiting.
For what?

If you're waiting for us to tell you how to perform the trivial calculation you are apparently unable to perform, you needn't wait any longer. I'll give you a hint: Consider
<br />
\[<br />
f(x,y) = \frac{x-1}{x^2 - 2x + 1 + y^2}<br />
\]<br />
When you have calculated ∂f/∂x and ∂f/∂y, you'll have completed almost 1/8 of the calculation. Please tell us what you get for ∂f/∂x and ∂f/∂y, so I'll know whether you need more hints.


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That electrical discharge from your calculations will be included, right?
If you're asking about the large current density at the neutral point, then yes: I will explain the main result of Dungey's 1958 paper, which is in his second section on Lenz's Law.

Please note that Dungey's main result was obtained by considering the signs of the partial derivatives you are apparently unable to calculate. Before you can understand Dungey's 1958 paper, you'll have to learn something about the partial derivatives of B4. When you're ready for us to grade your math homework, please let us know.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2011, 08:40 PM   #4764
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
That's really great! When you do decide to comment on that paper, since it is supported with many mathematical equations describing the processes involved, I assume your comments will include a good deal of mathematics.
Why would I bother? It's a fantastic paper! Unfortunately for you, I see nothing in the paper that claims that magnetic B lines reconnect. Perhaps I missed it and you would be so kind as to point out where in the paper they actually made such a claim?
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 8th November 2011, 08:42 PM   #4765
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
For what?
I'm waiting for the electrical discharge and mathematical proof that your B lines actually "reconnect", rather than INDUCE E fields and generate current. I want mathematical proof that B lines begin and end at that X in a vacuum. I don't want hints, I want your math. Got it? Yes or no?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 8th November 2011 at 08:44 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 8th November 2011, 08:46 PM   #4766
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
If you're asking about the large current density at the neutral point, then yes: I will explain the main result of Dungey's 1958 paper, which is in his second section on Lenz's Law.
Too bad you don't have a charged particle to your name to work with then, eh? It literally sucks that you claimed that you could do this in a vacuum.
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 8th November 2011, 08:52 PM   #4767
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Still waiting. That electrical discharge from your calculations will be included, right?
Oh dear - your delusions abut the experiment persist!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
It is idiocy to think that a large current density (Dungey's 'electrical discharge' term that is no longer used) in plasma in an experiment that has no plasma (is in vacuum) !
W.D. Clinger may get to magnetic reconnection in plasma. But then he will not be able to include any 'electrical discharge' because electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.
He may cite the relevent textbooks (which you will ignore yet again) where there are equations for current densities in MR.
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 8th November 2011, 09:02 PM   #4768
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I'm waiting for the electrical discharge
I'll discuss that in part 5 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
and mathematical proof that your B lines actually "reconnect",
I'll give a very simple topological proof of that in part 4 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
rather than INDUCE E fields and generate current.
I have already explained that, for any given upper limit on the E field, we can change the B field so slowly that the magnitude of the E field never exceeds that upper limit. For a proof of that, I suggest you understand Faraday's law of induction.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I want mathematical proof that B lines begin and end at that X in a vacuum. I don't want hints, I want your math. Got it? Yes or no?
Yes, I have math.

Too bad you don't.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2011, 09:24 PM   #4769
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I'll discuss that in part 5 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.
You know Clinger, Belz actually nailed your BIGGEST PROBLEM on the VERY FIRST question. It's a pity he directed the right question at the wrong individual. I think your whole show would have fallen apart in about 4 or 5 posts. I guess Belz, part 5 will be the "switcheroo" installment of his presentation, where he finally trades in his "vacuum" for "plasma".

Honestly Belz, it's a pity you didn't ask Clinger that question as your first question to him. I think his house of cards would have fallen in a day and you would have accomplished MIRACLES. You really do have the right instinct in terms of the right questions. Are you sure you don't want to join my side for awhile? You can always switch back and forth if you like. I'm not attached.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 8th November 2011 at 09:25 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 8th November 2011, 09:38 PM   #4770
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Yes, I have math.

Too bad you don't.
Ya, but I've got physics, plasma particles to work with, and textbooks on plasma physics. Too bad you don't.

Besides, whatever math you have that answers any of my fundamental questions still remains a mystery to the rest of us. Please show us your math.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 8th November 2011 at 09:50 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2011, 10:39 PM   #4771
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Gekelman, Collette & Vincena: Magnetic Reconnection

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by Humanzee View Post
Micheal, I'm wondering if you have read this paper from UCLA. http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/paper...ng-plasmas.pdf

From the summary and conclusions;
"two magnetic “bubbles” collide. The collision produces turbulent local magnetic fields...
FYI, it's going to take me awhile to get through this paper, mostly because it's an EXCELLENT paper and I want to enjoy it. From what I've read so far they described CURRENT and INDUCTION based processes. I haven't been through the whole paper yet, but I'm definitely enjoying it. It's a bit busy at work so bear with me a bit. I will get back to you, but I do want to finish the whole paper. As far as I can tell so far, they are using the term "reconnection" consistently with the way that Somov uses the term. Specifically it's an induced field generation process caused by 'magnetic flux' and particle movements. Cool paper. Thanks again for the reference.
That's really great! When you do decide to comment on that paper, since it is supported with many mathematical equations describing the processes involved, I assume your comments will include a good deal of mathematics.
Why would I bother? It's a fantastic paper! Unfortunately for you, I see nothing in the paper that claims that magnetic B lines reconnect. Perhaps I missed it and you would be so kind as to point out where in the paper they actually made such a claim?

The paper is Three-dimensional current systems generated by plasmas colliding in a background magnetoplasma by Gekelman, Collette & Vincena; Physics of Plasmas 14(6): 062109, June 2007. The claim is found in the final section, summary and conclusions: "In the first microsecond of the process, it seems that the initial electron current is driven by magnetic field-line reconnection." There is a similar later comment, but I am not sure whether the authors are referring to their own experiment, or another that they are also talking about: In this experiment, magnetic field line reconnection sites pepper the plasma volume and are identified with the Alfven wave structures."

That other paper, the 1958 Dungey paper, also explicitly identifies the reconnection of magnetic field lines as the initial source of energy for his "electric discharge". Not, mind you, the reconnection of "field aligned currents", but rather the reconnection of the lines of force of the magnetic field.
__________________
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 8th November 2011, 10:49 PM   #4772
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Dungey & Magnetic Reconnection

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I'm fine with Dungey's electrical discharge and solar flare paper.

Okee-Dokee ... Dated 7 Dec 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

So, you're fine, I take it, with Dungey pegging the reconnection of the magnetic field lines of force as the source of the energy for his "electric discharge"?
__________________
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 8th November 2011, 11:03 PM   #4773
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Yes, I have math.

Too bad you don't.
Ya, but I've got physics, plasma particles to work with, and textbooks on plasma physics. Too bad you don't.

Besides, whatever math you have that answers any of my fundamental questions still remains a mystery to the rest of us. Please show us your math.
I already have, but it doesn't appear to have done you any good.

To repeat:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
<br />
\[<br />
\begin{align*}<br />
\hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} &= \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} (x, y, z, t) = \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} (t) (x, y, z) \\<br />
&= \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I^{(p)}(t)}{(x-x_0)^2+(y-y_0)^2}<br />
\left( - (y-y_0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-x_0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right)<br />
\end{align*}<br />
\]<br />
where ex and ey are the unit vectors in the x and y directions.


Magnetic fields around multiple rods

Applying that equation to our four rods, we define
<br />
\[<br />
<br />
\begin{align*}<br />
p_E &= \langle 1, 0 \rangle \\<br />
p_W &= \langle -1, 0 \rangle \\<br />
p_N &= \langle 0, 1 \rangle \\<br />
p_S &= \langle 0, -1 \rangle \\<br />
I_E(t) &= I^{p_E}(t) = \hbox{{1000 amperes}} \\<br />
I_W(t) &= I^{p_W}(t) = I_E(t) \\<br />
I_N(t) &= I_S(t) = - I_E(t) = - I_W(t) \\<br />
\hbox{{B}}_E &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_E)} \\<br />
\hbox{{B}}_W &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_W)} \\<br />
\hbox{{B}}_N &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_N)} \\<br />
\hbox{{B}}_S &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_S)} \\<br />
\hbox{{B}}_2 &= \hbox{{B}}_E + \hbox{{B}}_W \\<br />
\hbox{{B}}_4 &= \hbox{{B}}_E + \hbox{{B}}_W + \hbox{{B}}_N + \hbox{{B}}_S<br />
\end{align*}<br />
\]<br />
Since that was too hard for you, let's simplify it. Letting B=B4 and I=1000 amperes, we have

<br />
\[<br />
\begin{align*}<br />
B_x &= \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} <br />
            \left(<br />
            \frac{-y}{x^2 - 2x + 1 + y^2} +<br />
            \frac{-y}{x^2 + 2x + 1 + y^2} -<br />
            \frac{-y+1}{x^2 + y^2 - 2y + 1} -<br />
            \frac{-y-1}{x^2 + y^2 + 2y + 1}<br />
            \right) \\<br />
B_y &= \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} <br />
            \left(<br />
            \frac{x-1}{x^2 - 2x + 1 + y^2} +<br />
            \frac{x+1}{x^2 + 2x + 1 + y^2} -<br />
            \frac{x}{x^2 + y^2 - 2y + 1} -<br />
            \frac{x}{x^2 + y^2 + 2y + 1}<br />
            \right)<br />
\end{align*}<br />
\]<br />

When I compute those components at the origin, I get zero for both of them. That means there is no magnetic field line that goes through the origin. Are you with us so far, or am I going too fast for you?
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th November 2011, 11:34 PM   #4774
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Could you start by explaining to me why it's impossible for one electron or charged particle from one field aligned current to physically jump current streams and "reconnect" with the other one? IMO from your last response, this is our basic area of disagreement. I'd rather we focus on one issue at a time.
I have not got the foggiest what you are trying to say here.

"impossible for one electron ... to physically jump"

There is no "jumping of current streams" (whatever current streams are), the electrons (and ions) just flow as they should and no "jumping" is required. That is you limited view in circuit theory probably.

In the simplest case of reconnection (petchek, sweet-parker) there are no field aligned currents of any importance (there are some though along the separatrices). Unless you understand the simplest model of reconnection it is useless to try and discuss more complicated stuff.
__________________
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 8th November 2011, 11:48 PM   #4775
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Anyone can parrot the term "reconnection" RC. The term is technically "magnetic reconnection", not "magnetic B LINE reconnection". Nobody disputes the fact that magnetic field FLUX can INDUCE (not reconnect) E fields which result in electrical discharges in plasma RC (except you). Nobody has shown any math to demonstrate that B field lines "reconnect".
Well, as you are only parrotting yourself ... ah never mind.

Nobody has shown any math? Really? How about the following books:

Somov, Plasma Astrophysics: Part II reconnection and flares
Biskamp, Magnetic reconnection in plasmas
Priest & Forbes, magnetic reconnection: MHD theory and applications
Parker: Conversations on electric and magnetic fields in the cosmos (which also has an excellent discussion about circuit theory)

These books have more math on MRx than you can ever hope to understand.
__________________
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 9th November 2011, 03:29 AM   #4776
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
Hmmm. Well, let's start by saying that I am not trying to suggest that there is now, or ever was 100% agreement on any position. Alfven totally REJECTED the idea of B field line reconnection for instance. He called the whole MR theory "pseudoscience" and replaced the idea with a double layer transaction involving current sheet acceleration with NO magnetic line reconnection. He utterly rejected the idea in CURRENT CARRYING, or light plasma and he viewed the entire universe as a current carrying environment.

I'm not sure who even counts today as an "authority" on plasma physics, or how many of them there might be. To my knowledge there has NEVER been full agreement on any position related to MR theory. About the BEST I could do for you is start with the folks that CREATED the magnetic reconnection theory (Giovanelli and Dungey) and go from there. Peratt is one of Alfven's first generation students. I'm sure that he believes it's an electrical discharge. I know that Dungey and Giovanelli used the term "electrical discharge" when describing the whole "process" of energy exchange. I can name "some" MR proponents that agree. I can't say all would necessarily agree, in fact I know for a fact that tusenfem DISAGREES with me and I would agree he's somewhat of an "authority" since he at least HAS read the relevant work and is professionally employed in the area. That pretty much eliminates any possibility of 100% agreement.

FYI, while I can appreciate the value of studying Dungey's early work and Giovanelli's work on this topic, and the work of others as well, I'm not convinced that anything much is gained by citing MORE references. Furthermore, we risk bordering on an appeal to authority fallacy if that is ALL we try to use as a means to judge the validity of some position or another. In theory the science should speak for itself, and authorities aren't relevant.
So if you admit that there is no agreement amongst experts, why do you then assume there should be 100% agreement here, with you ?
__________________
<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 9th November 2011, 03:33 AM   #4777
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
FYI
Please stop that.
__________________
<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 9th November 2011, 08:02 AM   #4778
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So if you admit that there is no agreement amongst experts, why do you then assume there should be 100% agreement here, with you ?
I don't really expect 100 percent agreement. I just expect logical, scientifically based "disagreements" and arguments. Humanzee's latest approach of providing a relevant (excellent) published paper to review and comment on is a very logical and reasonable way to debate scientific points. I'm STILL finishing up that paper in fact. It's worth making an effort to work through these kinds of resources.

PS's handwave about a random image that he found on a website however is just bizarre. It's the kind of argument that a creationist would engage in. When I had a hard time understanding the point PS was trying to make (because he misread the website), I got called a "fraud" and worse for my efforts. That's the kind of BS that has no place in a real scientific debate. Ditto on Clingers so called handwavy "experiment". I mean the guy doesn't have a single electron or plasma particle to his name to work with, so he is never going to get an "electrical discharge" from that contraption. He doesn't even have CURRENT to generate any B fields at his X point. You caught that problem in the VERY FIRST QUESTION. Clinger has never read a book on plasma physics and he's STILL trying to "reconnect" B lines in a vacuum while berating me personally every day for not reading his mind evidently.

Published works are a logical way to argue science. The haters of this thread however seem to get by without reading or responding much to the materials, without providing any published materials to support their own claims. Instead they typically just handwave away and engage themselves in daily personal attacks. Haters don't even debate logically or rationally.

FYI, I have an extremely busy day ahead of me. I'm not sure how much time I'll have today to respond to this board.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 08:35 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 9th November 2011, 08:07 AM   #4779
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Are you going to ask *THEIR SIDE* any questions Belz? Honestly, I'd *LOVE* to hear you ask Clinger how he intends to get an electrical discharge from his vacuum contraption, or how he expects a B field to form at the X without a single plasma particle to work with, and no possibility of current flow at that location. That would not be a comfortable conversation for Clinger, in fact I suspect he'd run like hell from 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 9th November 2011, 08:56 AM   #4780
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Honestly, I'd *LOVE* to hear you ask Clinger how he intends to get an electrical discharge from his vacuum contraption, or how he expects a B field to form at the X without a single plasma particle to work with, and no possibility of current flow at that location.
Again, you have not understood a thing, have you?
The X lines forms in the, as you so often call is, continuum that is the B field, between oppositely directed magnetic field lines that are pressed together.
The X line is not creating the magnetic field, as you seem to imply here, cf. "a B field to form at the X".
Bringing fields together does that automatically, there need not be a plasma. However, without a plasma you will not get interesting effects, like e.g. the creation of aurorae.
__________________
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 9th November 2011, 09:18 AM   #4781
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Are you going to ask *THEIR SIDE* any questions Belz? Honestly, I'd *LOVE* to hear you ask Clinger how he intends to get an electrical discharge from his vacuum contraption, or how he expects a B field to form at the X without a single plasma particle to work with, and no possibility of current flow at that location. That would not be a comfortable conversation for Clinger, in fact I suspect he'd run like hell from it.
See the problem? This guy is so intellectually paralyzed by his own delusions, that he fantasizes that everyone has a "side."
I am not a physicist, so when I ask a question, it is asked out of genuine curiosity. Some people have given me useful answers, which have enhanced my understanding in matters where I have no training. Mozina invariably misunderstands the question, obfuscates, seems to be confused by my questions, is evasive, changes the subject and inevitably becomes combative because I have taken a "side."
Now, I have never studied plasmas or solar physics and my electromagnetism training is based only on my physics minor (math major) over 40 years ago.
Mozina, with less training than I have, reads "papers" without the mathematics background and physics training to understand them, comes to an uninformed conclusion and challenges those who have training and knowledge in these matters.
So, Belz..., soon you too will soon have taken a "side" and will be cast in the role of adversary. This thread is really just an exercise in futility and, if it were not for the informative comments made by knowledgeable people here, it would be a total waste of time.
__________________
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 9th November 2011, 09:20 AM   #4782
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Again, you have not understood a thing, have you?
About Clinger's handwavy "experiment"? Nah. I don't profess to either. I can't imagine how he intends to get an electrical discharge to occur in a "vacuum", let alone get B lines to "begin" and "end" at X. Beats me (shrug). I doubt any of it will make any sense to me in fact until we get to installment five where he pulls the switcheroo and replaces his vacuum with a real plasma. Maybe then it will work.

Quote:
The X lines forms in the, as you so often call is, continuum that is the B field, between oppositely directed magnetic field lines that are pressed together.
So they don't actually "begin" at the X?
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 9th November 2011, 09:24 AM   #4783
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
See the problem? This guy is so intellectually paralyzed by his own delusions, that he fantasizes that everyone has a "side."
Did you call Clinger a "fraud" PS? You *MISREAD* some website in cyberspace and YANKED ONE IMAGE from that page, providing me me with NO information about it. I still CORRECTLY explained to you that it described "solid magnet reconnection", not an electrical discharge in a plasma. You then proceeded to BERATE me personally for 'not answering your questions', while AVOIDING answering any of the questions I asked you that would have helped me to understand the idea that you were trying to convey (changing magnetic flux). In the end, you never apologized for YOUR error, and you still continue to attack me personally every few weeks. If you don't have a "side", what's with all the BS about me being a "fraud" and where is my apology for YOUR error?

What kinds of relevant questions have you asked Clinger about his handwavy experiment in terms of all that missing plasma and that BS about B lines "beginning" in a vacuum?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 09:28 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 9th November 2011, 09:32 AM   #4784
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I already have, but it doesn't appear to have done you any good.
I doubt it will make a lot of sense to me until I see that electrical discharge process explained mathematically in your "vacuum".

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 9th November 2011, 09:39 AM   #4785
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
The paper is Three-dimensional current systems generated by plasmas colliding in a background magnetoplasma by Gekelman, Collette & Vincena; Physics of Plasmas 14(6): 062109, June 2007. The claim is found in the final section, summary and conclusions: "In the first microsecond of the process, it seems that the initial electron current is driven by magnetic field-line reconnection." There is a similar later comment, but I am not sure whether the authors are referring to their own experiment, or another that they are also talking about: In this experiment, magnetic field line reconnection sites pepper the plasma volume and are identified with the Alfven wave structures."

That other paper, the 1958 Dungey paper, also explicitly identifies the reconnection of magnetic field lines as the initial source of energy for his "electric discharge". Not, mind you, the reconnection of "field aligned currents", but rather the reconnection of the lines of force of the magnetic field.
Actually Tim, you caught me. I haven't finished that entire paper yet, and I haven't gotten to the summary yet. It was a busy day yesterday and I took my time reading through the whole paper rather than just reading the abstract and conclusion. I've seen the concept of induced E field and field aligned currents used a TON of times. I'll have to wait to comment on those FEW instances where the used the term 'line'. It's not clear yet to me if he means the 'field aligned current line', or an actual magnetic line. I won't forget your question, but you'll need to be patient. I'm not done.

In terms of the inducement of an E field as Dungey and Somov describe it, that actually only requires "changing magnetic flux" (bending, twisting), not necessarily "reconnection". Therein lies the rub for me (and Alfven as well). How can any of you be POSITIVE that the MAGNETIC lines actually disconnect or reconnect rather than simply 'flux', particularly when were talking about FIELD ALIGNED CURRENTS, not just magnetic lines?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 09:41 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2011, 09:54 AM   #4786
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Are you with us so far, or am I going too fast for you?
I actually do have a "basic" question about your formulas that still makes no sense to me. How did you arbitrarily decide that BW and BE (and BS and BN) were DIFFERENT, and INDEPENDENT B lines? In other words, why not just a B(n/s) and a B(e/w)? Why four lines rather than two?

Since you have no "current" at the X and no "magnet" at the X, but you claim that the magnetic lines "begin" and "end" at the X, what GENERATES the B fields at X in the first place?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 09:56 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2011, 10:16 AM   #4787
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
However, without a plasma you will not get interesting effects, like e.g. the creation of aurorae.
Ya, it also creates that interesting effect of "electrical discharges" that Clinger is NEVER going to create in a vacuum. It's one thing to say that the lines come "together" at the X and create "flux" at that X. It's another thing entirely to claim they BEGIN at X and END at X. Is Clinger right or wrong about that claim in your opinion?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 10:23 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 9th November 2011, 10:20 AM   #4788
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
W.D. Clinger may get to magnetic reconnection in plasma. But then he will not be able to include any 'electrical discharge' because electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.
OMG are you confused. He won't get an "electrical discharge" *WITHOUT* a plasma! No electrons, no protons, no discharge. Get it?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 10:21 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2011, 10:25 AM   #4789
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
Are you going to ask *THEIR SIDE* any questions Belz? Honestly, I'd *LOVE* to hear you ask Clinger how he intends to get an electrical discharge from his vacuum contraption, or how he expects a B field to form at the X without a single plasma particle to work with, and no possibility of current flow at that location. That would not be a comfortable conversation for Clinger, in fact I suspect he'd run like hell from it.
I already have. You haven't been following.

Also, I'm the least of your troubles here.
__________________
<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 9th November 2011, 10:58 AM   #4790
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I already have. You haven't been following.

Also, I'm the least of your troubles here.
You're not any trouble because you're not a hater. You're just having fun and asking logical questions. If you simply redirect that electrical discharge without electrons question at Clinger, I assure you that you'll have more fun.

I'm totally cool with skeptics like you. That's what skepticism is about. PS handwaves around an artists illustration at me of changing magnetic flux, and solid magnet reconnection, with no references or text whatsoever. He erroneously claimed it was "magnetic reconnection". When it finally became clear that he simply MISREAD the website (as did RC), he never apologized for calling me a fraud. PS is trouble because he's an EU hater. His actions and statements are not based on logic, but upon EMOTION. His skepticism is not applied to ALL sides of the debate, just at EU oriented idea, and his attacks are not directed at the scientific argument, but upon the individual ("fraud"). That behavior is "trouble". Skeptics like you are "fun". I'm enjoying your input thus far and I've copped to my "sin" of exasperation with RC. You're no trouble at all.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 11:03 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 9th November 2011, 11:12 AM   #4791
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Okee-Dokee ... Dated 7 Dec 2010 ...


Quote:
"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
So, you're fine, I take it, with Dungey pegging the reconnection of the magnetic field lines of force as the source of the energy for his "electric discharge"?
I'm fine as long as you and I can agree that the lines of force and "strings" include plasma filaments and include a discharge current that is flowing through it. That is why I'm fine with the term "current reconnection". Honestly Tim, I wish you would just meet me in the middle.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 11:15 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 9th November 2011, 11:38 AM   #4792
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
The comedy continues...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That's the kind of BS that has no place in a real scientific debate. Ditto on Clingers so called handwavy "experiment". I mean the guy doesn't have a single electron or plasma particle to his name to work with, so he is never going to get an "electrical discharge" from that contraption. He doesn't even have CURRENT to generate any B fields at his X point.
The highlighted statement is absurd on several levels.

As I have been telling you since last December, the experiment I suggested reproduces the magnetic fields shown in Dungey's 1958 paper by the bog-simple expedient of running current through four parallel rods. As I stated in part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, I'm using 1000 amperes of current in each of the four rods to generate the magnetic field.

What's more, the B field is zero at the X point; that's why Dungey and everyone else call it a neutral (or null or zero) point. We want B to be zero at that point, because we're trying to demonstrate magnetic reconnection, which can only happen where the B field is zero.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Honestly, I'd *LOVE* to hear you ask Clinger how he intends to get an electrical discharge from his vacuum contraption, or how he expects a B field to form at the X without a single plasma particle to work with, and no possibility of current flow at that location. That would not be a comfortable conversation for Clinger, in fact I suspect he'd run like hell from it.
You are arguing as though you think the B field must be zero wherever the current density is zero.

The proper scientific term for your apparent belief is "abject ignorance". As tusenfem wrote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Again, you have not understood a thing, have you?
The X lines forms in the, as you so often call is, continuum that is the B field, between oppositely directed magnetic field lines that are pressed together.
The X line is not creating the magnetic field, as you seem to imply here, cf. "a B field to form at the X".
Bringing fields together does that automatically, there need not be a plasma. However, without a plasma you will not get interesting effects, like e.g. the creation of aurorae.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Again, you have not understood a thing, have you?
About Clinger's handwavy "experiment"? Nah. I don't profess to either.
None of us expect you to understand a thing. You aren't trying to understand. You're trying your best not to understand.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I can't imagine how he intends to get an electrical discharge to occur in a "vacuum",
I do not intend to get an electrical discharge to occur within a vacuum, and have never claimed that I would. That's just another of your straw men, endlessly repeated.

What I have been saying is that you (and many others) would find it easier to understand magnetic fields and magnetic reconnection in a vacuum than in plasma. Once you understand magnetic fields and magnetic reconnection, we can then add plasma and try to understand the far more complex phenomena that can occur when plasma interacts with magnetic fields.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
let alone get B lines to "begin" and "end" at X. Beats me (shrug).
So after all your absurd remarks about the hand-waving of my math, followed by your explicit request to "please show us the math", you aren't even trying to understand the math.

How could I ever have seen that coming?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I doubt any of it will make any sense to me in fact until we get to installment five where he pulls the switcheroo and replaces his vacuum with a real plasma. Maybe then it will work.
I will indeed add plasma in part 5, and yes it will work. After all, I'm just going through exactly the same math and physics that Dungey used in his 1958 paper.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Quote:
The X lines forms in the, as you so often call is, continuum that is the B field, between oppositely directed magnetic field lines that are pressed together.
So they don't actually "begin" at the X?
Two magnetic field lines actually begin at the neutral (X) point. I have already sketched a proof of that, complete with algebra you were unable to do on your own. (I'll give up on you now and post a grown-up derivation of the fact that magnetic field lines can begin or end at neutral points, because it's an interesting fact that contradicts a popular myth.)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I doubt it will make a lot of sense to me until I see that electrical discharge process explained mathematically in your "vacuum".

I doubt whether it will make any sense at all to you even after you've seen the math.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
How can any of you be POSITIVE that the MAGNETIC lines actually disconnect or reconnect rather than simply 'flux', particularly when were talking about FIELD ALIGNED CURRENTS, not just magnetic lines?
Because we've done the math. Because we know how magnetic flux and magnetic field lines are defined. Because we know the differences between magnetic reconnection, magnetic flux, and field aligned currents.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I actually do have a "basic" question about your formulas that still makes no sense to me. How did you arbitrarily decide that BW and BE (and BS and BN) were DIFFERENT, and INDEPENDENT B lines? In other words, why not just a B(n/s) and a B(e/w)? Why four lines rather than two?
You are very confused. BE, BW, BN, and BS are magnetic fields, not magnetic field lines. B4 is their linear superposition; it is also the magnetic field shown in Dungey's figure 1. With a linear superposition of BE and BW, you get Dungey's figure 2.

You may view those magnetic fields by clicking on the hyperlinks I just gave you.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Since you have no "current" at the X and no "magnet" at the X, but you claim that the magnetic lines "begin" and "end" at the X, what GENERATES the B fields at X in the first place?
Once again, you sound as though you think the B field must be zero wherever the current density is zero. Once again, the proper scientific term for that belief is "abject ignorance".

The magnetic field B4 (which is essentially the same as the magnetic field shown in Dungey's figure 1) is generated by the current that's running through four parallel rods that lie outside the area shown in my zoomed graph and Dungey's figure 1.

For details, please pay attention to the experiment I've been recommending to you for most of the past year.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It's one thing to say that the lines come "together" at the X and create "flux" at that X. It's another thing entirely to claim they BEGIN at X and END at X. Is Clinger right or wrong about that claim in your opinion?
The reason we call it a neutral point is that there is no magnetic flux at that X point. There is magnetic flux everywhere else, but not at that neutral point. That's why magnetic reconnection can happen at the X, but can't happen anywhere else. That's also why magnetic field lines can begin and end at the neutral point. (By Gauss's law for magnetism, magnetic field lines can't begin or end anywhere except at a neutral point.)
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2011, 11:55 AM   #4793
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3861

Quote:
I suggested that experiment to you because it would have helped you to understand that

Dungey is describing magnetic reconnection.
There is no "circuit reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
There is no "current reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can occur with a near-zero electric (E) field.
How many of these statements do you still stand by Clinger?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 11:57 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 9th November 2011, 12:12 PM   #4794
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3861

Quote:
I suggested that experiment to you because it would have helped you to understand that

Dungey is describing magnetic reconnection.
There is no "circuit reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
There is no "current reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can occur with a near-zero electric (E) field.
How many of these statements do you still stand by Clinger?
That's a trick question. I still stand by the five indented statements, of course, but the highlighted part is false: Nothing will help you to understand.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2011, 12:19 PM   #4795
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
One more question Clinger: Do electrical discharges occur in solar flares?
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 9th November 2011, 12:23 PM   #4796
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
That's a trick question. I still stand by the five indented statements, of course, but the highlighted part is false: Nothing will help you to understand.
Then you learned nothing by your efforts. What you should have learned is that the following four statements are false:

Quote:
There is no "circuit reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
There is no "current reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can occur with a near-zero electric (E) field.
Dungey's paper *INCLUDED* (didn't exclude) an E induced "electrical discharge" inside of a plasma. That is the actual single sentence "definition" (*DUNGEY's DEFINITION*) of "magnetic reconnection".

There is current flowing through the plasma that "reconnects' all over the place. There are "circuits" in plasma that exchange PARTICLES.

The magnetic reconnection described by Dungey, the one that explains solar flares in plasma could NEVER be reproduced without plasma. That was and is a flat out lie.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 12:25 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 9th November 2011, 12:28 PM   #4797
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Essentially you've dumbed down the term to suit yourself.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...l_oversimp.htm
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 9th November 2011, 12:39 PM   #4798
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
About Clinger's handwavy "experiment"? Nah. I don't profess to either.
Clinger's model/experiment is the point at which every reconnection course starts. Like I say, maybe you should understand the simple models first and then move on to more complicated stuff.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
So they don't actually "begin" at the X?
Why on Earth would they "begin at the X" that makes no sense at all!

Again, read up on the first chapters of a book on reconnection, that you actually understand the basics of Petschek and Sweet-Parker.
__________________
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 9th November 2011, 12:41 PM   #4799
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Do electric discharges occur in solar flares Clinger, yes or no?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2011, 12:45 PM   #4800
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Ya, it also creates that interesting effect of "electrical discharges" that Clinger is NEVER going to create in a vacuum. It's one thing to say that the lines come "together" at the X and create "flux" at that X. It's another thing entirely to claim they BEGIN at X and END at X. Is Clinger right or wrong about that claim in your opinion?
discharge, schmischarge!

Like I said the same thing happens to the B field lines in vacuum, however there are no interesting effects associated with the process. Don't state the obvious as if it is a revelation, that in vacuum there are no particles to accelerate.

And if you would actually know something about electrodynamics, you would understand that there is no "created flux at the X" because at the X the field strength is zero.

The claim has never been (at least not by me) that they (the field lines I guess) start and end "at the X."

Once more, try to learn the basics, you have to know how to walk before you can run (and more platitudes like that).
__________________
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
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 05:21 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.