Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Merged: Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

 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

 8th November 2011, 08:36 PM #4761 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student 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.
 8th November 2011, 08:38 PM #4762 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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
 8th November 2011, 08:39 PM #4763 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,234 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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 $ $f(x,y) = \frac{x-1}{x^2 - 2x + 1 + y^2}$$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 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.
 8th November 2011, 08:40 PM #4764 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student 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?
 8th November 2011, 08:42 PM #4765 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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.
 8th November 2011, 08:46 PM #4766 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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.
 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 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 8th November 2011, 09:02 PM #4768 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,234 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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 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 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 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.
 8th November 2011, 09:24 PM #4769 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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.
 8th November 2011, 09:38 PM #4770 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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.
 8th November 2011, 10:39 PM #4771 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Gekelman, Collette & Vincena: Magnetic Reconnection Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by Humanzee 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
 8th November 2011, 10:49 PM #4772 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Dungey & Magnetic Reconnection Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I'm fine with Dungey's electrical discharge and solar flare paper. Okee-Dokee ... Dated 7 Dec 2010 ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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
 8th November 2011, 11:03 PM #4773 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,234 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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  \begin{align*} \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} &= \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} (x, y, z, t) = \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} (t) (x, y, z) \\ &= \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I^{(p)}(t)}{(x-x_0)^2+(y-y_0)^2} \left( - (y-y_0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-x_0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \end{align*}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  \begin{align*} p_E &= \langle 1, 0 \rangle \\ p_W &= \langle -1, 0 \rangle \\ p_N &= \langle 0, 1 \rangle \\ p_S &= \langle 0, -1 \rangle \\ I_E(t) &= I^{p_E}(t) = \hbox{{1000 amperes}} \\ I_W(t) &= I^{p_W}(t) = I_E(t) \\ I_N(t) &= I_S(t) = - I_E(t) = - I_W(t) \\ \hbox{{B}}_E &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_E)} \\ \hbox{{B}}_W &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_W)} \\ \hbox{{B}}_N &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_N)} \\ \hbox{{B}}_S &= \hbox{{B}}^{(p_S)} \\ \hbox{{B}}_2 &= \hbox{{B}}_E + \hbox{{B}}_W \\ \hbox{{B}}_4 &= \hbox{{B}}_E + \hbox{{B}}_W + \hbox{{B}}_N + \hbox{{B}}_S \end{align*} Since that was too hard for you, let's simplify it. Letting B=B4 and I=1000 amperes, we have  \begin{align*} B_x &= \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{-y}{x^2 - 2x + 1 + y^2} + \frac{-y}{x^2 + 2x + 1 + y^2} - \frac{-y+1}{x^2 + y^2 - 2y + 1} - \frac{-y-1}{x^2 + y^2 + 2y + 1} \right) \\ B_y &= \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{x-1}{x^2 - 2x + 1 + y^2} + \frac{x+1}{x^2 + 2x + 1 + y^2} - \frac{x}{x^2 + y^2 - 2y + 1} - \frac{x}{x^2 + y^2 + 2y + 1} \right) \end{align*} 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?
 8th November 2011, 11:34 PM #4774 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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
 8th November 2011, 11:48 PM #4775 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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
 9th November 2011, 03:29 AM #4776 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 66,185 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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 ? __________________
 9th November 2011, 03:33 AM #4777 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 66,185 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina FYI Please stop that. __________________
 9th November 2011, 08:02 AM #4778 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Belz... 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.
 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.
 9th November 2011, 08:56 AM #4780 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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
 9th November 2011, 09:20 AM #4782 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem 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?
 9th November 2011, 09:32 AM #4784 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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".
 9th November 2011, 09:39 AM #4785 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.
 9th November 2011, 09:54 AM #4786 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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.
 9th November 2011, 10:16 AM #4787 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem 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.
 9th November 2011, 10:20 AM #4788 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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.
 9th November 2011, 10:25 AM #4789 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 66,185 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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. __________________
 9th November 2011, 10:58 AM #4790 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Belz... 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.
 9th November 2011, 11:12 AM #4791 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.
 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.
 9th November 2011, 12:12 PM #4794 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,234 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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.
 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?
 9th November 2011, 12:23 PM #4796 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.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. 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.
 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
 9th November 2011, 12:39 PM #4798 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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 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
 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?
 9th November 2011, 12:45 PM #4800 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit