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

 9th November 2011, 12:47 PM #4801 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem Why on Earth would they "begin at the X" that makes no sense at all! Beats me. Talk to Clinger: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4747 Quote: Although I have shown computer-generated graphs of the B field and some of its magnetic field lines, including the four magnetic field lines that begin or end at the neutral point of the X-shaped field in Dungey's figure 1, it is true that I have not shown every single step of the calculations that prove those lines begin or end at the X point. What the hell is he talking about by "proving" that those lines begin and end at the x? Could you please translate and give me a clue or give him a clue? I'm utterly baffled by that statement. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 12:53 PM.
 9th November 2011, 12:51 PM #4802 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Do electric discharges occur in solar flares Clinger, yes or no? Can we finally stop with the idiocy of continuing insistence on your term "electrical discharge" where there are a bezillion different definitions as I have shown in a post long long ago in a galaxy far far away. __________________ 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, 12:54 PM #4803 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem Can we finally stop with the idiocy of continuing insistence on your term "electrical discharge" where there are a bezillion different definitions as I have shown in a post long long ago in a galaxy far far away. Sure, just as soon as everyone agrees that electrical discharges occur in plasma and in flares.
 9th November 2011, 12:57 PM #4804 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Beats me. Talk to Clinger: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4747 What the hell is he talking about by "proving" that those lines beginning and ending at the x? Could you please translate and give me a clue or give him a clue? I'm utterly baffled by that statement. There the nomenclature is actually different, these are the separatrices and they seem to "begin and end" at the X point. However, one can see that these are the extreme cases and still one can see how the lines in and out of the X are still continuous, but not differentiable at the X point. However, exactly at the X point B=0. __________________ 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, 12:59 PM #4805 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem There the nomenclature is actually different, these are the separatrices and they seem to "begin and end" at the X point. However, one can see that these are the extreme cases and still one can see how the lines in and out of the X are still continuous, but not differentiable at the X point. However, exactly at the X point B=0. So the B lines do NOT begin or end at the X?
 9th November 2011, 01:04 PM #4806 Almo Masterblazer     Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,825 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Sure, just as soon as everyone agrees that electrical discharges occur in plasma and in flares. Voice style: Daffy duck from Duck Amuck when Bugs tries to end the cartoon early after he says, "Let's get this picture started." "NO NO!" You are using the wrong definition for electrical discharge. If you want to talk physics with the big dogs, you have to bark, not meow. We have an agreed-upon set of definitions so we all know what we're talking. If you refuse even to make the tiny step of using our language, it's just proof that you have no real desire to engage us in a productive discussion. You don't need us if you want to use your own set of definitions. __________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia
 9th November 2011, 01:06 PM #4807 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 66,185 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You're not any trouble because you're not a hater. Nobody's a hater, here. I've already explained all this. A few posts ago, you said I was a hater. You don't know what you think. Quote: If you simply redirect that electrical discharge without electrons question at Clinger, I assure you that you'll have more fun. I've got a better idea: are there really electrical discharges in plasma ? __________________
 9th November 2011, 01:07 PM #4808 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 66,185 Originally Posted by tusenfem Can we finally stop with the idiocy of continuing insistence on your term "electrical discharge" where there are a bezillion different definitions as I have shown in a post long long ago in a galaxy far far away. Actually, I'd like to know if there are or not. __________________
 9th November 2011, 01:11 PM #4809 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Almo Voice style: Daffy duck from Duck Amuck when Bugs tries to end the cartoon early after he says, "Let's get this picture started." "NO NO!" You are using the wrong definition for electrical discharge. If you want to talk physics with the big dogs, you have to bark, not meow. We have an agreed-upon set of definitions so we all know what we're talking. If you refuse even to make the tiny step of using our language, it's just proof that you have no real desire to engage us in a productive discussion. You don't need us if you want to use your own set of definitions. "My definitions and terms"? "Wrong definition for electrical discharge?" WTF? These are DUNGEY's DEFINITIONS AND TERMS, not mine. You're the one that won't start with a common denominator (Dungey) and have a logical discussion. Now I have to somehow "bark" some "new lingo" that you personally happen to like just to please you?
 9th November 2011, 01:35 PM #4810 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 It's a little surreal that some of you expect me to discuss Dungey's work on "magnetic reconnection" theory *WITHOUT* using the actual terms that he used. It's like trying to discuss GR theory but not use any of the terms or variables that Einstein used. Wow! Why complicate the process?
 9th November 2011, 02:07 PM #4811 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student See the problem? This guy is so intellectually paralyzed by his own delusions, that he fantasizes that everyone has a "side." Ok PS, demonstrate for us that your don't have a side. Tusenfem has been so kind as to begin to "translate" a bit for Clinger in terms of his outrageously ridiculous claim about magnetic lines "beginning and ending" at the X in his vacuum contraption. How about asking Clinger to either retract that claim, or to clarify what the hell he's talking about. He seems to have no respect for me, but maybe you can talk some sense into him. Surely you're into 'educating' Clinger as much as you're into educating lil' ol me? Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 02:26 PM.
 9th November 2011, 02:15 PM #4812 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Belz... Nobody's a hater, here. I've already explained all this. A few posts ago, you said I was a hater. You don't know what you think. I recall suggesting that you were "on your way", but you'd have to go for years without reading or seriously responding to any of the materials and you'd have to engage in personal attack behaviors too (which I've yet to see you engage in actually). I'm afraid you don't qualify as a full fledged EU hater at the moment. On the other hand I've been talking to this crew for YEARS now and I pretty much know what to expect from them. We'll see if PS actually gets on Clinger's case about those mythical, magical, mathical "beginning and endings" of magnetic field lines at the X. Based on past behaviors the odds are highly unlikely that PS will confront Clinger on that issue. Let's see how that goes. With some public pressure, who knows with might happen. Quote: I've got a better idea: are there really electrical discharges in plasma ? Nah, arguing semantics isn't fun. Watching Clinger Roast himself, now THAT is fun. On second thought, if you are in fact asking if Dungey's paper is correct, it's correct. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 02:35 PM.
 9th November 2011, 03:02 PM #4813 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,234 proof that magnetic field lines can begin/end at a neutral point According to Wikipedia's current article on magnetic fields: Originally Posted by Wikipedia magnetic B field lines neither start nor end As I'll prove below, that isn't quite true. (To be fair, I've taken that excerpt a little out of context. In the Wikipedia article, those words are immediately qualified by a parenthetical statement that states the complete truth in a mathematically correct way.) Magnetic B field lines can begin or end at the same neutral points where magnetic reconnection can occur. In what follows, I'll provide a mathematically rigorous proof of that fact, using a simple counterexample to Wikipedia's informal statement above. That counterexample involves the same X-shaped magnetic field that's often used to illustrate magnetic reconnection. First, however, we need a mathematically precise definition of magnetic field lines. Magnetic Field Lines The magnetic field lines of a magnetic field B are the curves that run parallel to B. By a curve in three-dimensional space, we mean a one-parameter function c(γ) that maps values of its real parameter γ to points in 3-space. By parallel to B, we mean that the derivative of c(γ) with respect to γ is B(c(γ)) at every point on the curve (in other words, for every real number γ). Formally:  \begin{align*} \frac{\partial c}{\partial \gamma} &= \hbox{{\bf B}}(c(\gamma)) \end{align*}In other words, a magnetic field line is a curve that satisfies that differential equation. To compute the magnetic field line through some particular point p0=, we can set c(0)=p0= and use numerical integration to trace the locus of points along  \begin{align*} c (\gamma) &= \langle x_0, y_0, z_0 \rangle + \int_0^\gamma \hbox{{\bf B}}(c(\gamma^\prime)) d \gamma^\prime \end{align*}Using a standard library for Runge-Kutta integration, the magnetic field line through can be computed in only a few lines of code: Code: (define (integrate-field-line B x0 y0 z0 stepsize) (integrate-system (lambda (p) (let ((x (xpart p)) (y (ypart p)) (z (zpart p))) (B x y z))) (vector x0 y0 z0) stepsize)) That's how I computed the magnetic field lines shown in my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection. Approximating magnetic field lines via numerical integration provides great insight, and is good enough for almost all applications in science and engineering, but a rigorous mathematical counterexample must use exact calculations. To make those exact calculations feasible, we'll use the magnetic field B4 I defined in one of my previous posts. An X-shaped Magnetic Field B4 is the magnetic field generated by four rods that run parallel to the z axis and are positioned exactly 1 meter east, west, north, and south of the origin in the xy plane at z=0. A current of magnitude I flows through each of the east and west rods in the z direction. The north and south rods each carry current I in the opposite (minus z) direction. If we zoom in on the unit square (so all four of the conducting rods are out of the picture), B4 looks like this: The false colors in that graph indicate the intensity of the magnetic field. The field is weakest within the black region near the origin, and is actually zero at the origin. Within the area shown in that graph, the intensity of the field increases with distance from the origin (from which you can infer the color scale I'm using). There are four magnetic lines on the diagonals. Naming these four magnetic lines after the compass direction for their quadrant:Magnetic line NE (with x = y > 0) points toward the origin and fades into nothingness at the origin. Magnetic line SW (with x = y < 0) also points toward the origin and fades into nothingness at the origin. Magnetic line NW (with x = -y < 0) points away from the origin and grows out of nothing at the origin. Magnetic line SE (with x = -y > 0) also points away from the origin and grows out of nothing at the origin. The Counterexample The equations for that magnetic field (B4) are shown in part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection. (If you don't trust me, you can re-derive the equations yourself. It's a straightforward exercise in first-year physics.) Let Bx and By be the x and y components of B4. (The z component is always zero.) If x = y (as for magnetic field lines NE and SW), then the equations for B4 simplify to  \begin{align*} B_x &= B_y = \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{1}{2 x^2 + 2x + 1} - \frac{1}{2 x^2 - 2x + 1} \right) \end{align*}Since Bx=By, we know that magnetic field lines NE and SW never leave the line x=y. First-year calculus tells us that  \begin{align*} \lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0} B_x(\delta) &= \lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0} B_y(\delta) = 0 \end{align*}and both components actually become zero at the origin. That proves that the magnetic field lines NE and SW either begin or end at the origin. Finally, a bit of high school algebra shows thatBx is negative when x is positive. Bx is positive when x is negative. That tells us that magnetic field lines NE and SW are both directed toward the origin (as was already evident from the graph), so both of those magnetic field lines end at the origin. Repeating the above calculations for x = - y (as for magnetic field lines NW and SE) shows that magnetic field lines NW and SE remain on the diagonal and are directed away from the origin, so both of them begin at the origin. Lines NW and SE are the only magnetic field lines of B4 that begin anywhere within the xy plane. Lines NE and SW are the only magnetic field lines of B4 that end anywhere within the xy plane. That's true for every xy plane, regardless of the value of z. B4 therefore has an uncountable infinity of magnetic field lines that begin at a definite point in space, and another uncountable infinity of magnetic field lines that end at a definite point in space. Both of those sets have measure zero, and a set of measure zero isn't likely to affect any scientific measurements or engineering calculations. That's why the popular myth that's repeated within Wikipedia's article on magnetic fields is only slightly incorrect. The only people who are likely to notice that it's incorrect at all are called mathematicians.
 9th November 2011, 03:11 PM #4814 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger According to Wikipedia's current article on magnetic fields: As I'll prove below, that isn't quite true. (To be fair, I've taken that excerpt a little out of context. In the Wikipedia article, those words are immediately qualified by a parenthetical statement that states the complete truth in a mathematically correct way.) Magnetic B field lines can begin or end at the same neutral points where magnetic reconnection can occur. So I'm clear, you're claiming that a magnetic field CREATED by an (electro)magnet a meter away always begins and ends somewhere outside of that magnet, specifically at the 0/Null point, even in a vacuum?
 9th November 2011, 03:38 PM #4815 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 It seems to me Clinger that your entire "magic trick" is renaming the CENTER of the region of the graph an "origin", *SUBJECTIVELY* tinkering with the direction of the arrows in the middle, and then linking it to an X/Y grid. It's not an "origin" in any sense. Those magnetic lines exist BEFORE they might "connect" to some other null point (not reconnect). There's no particle kinetic energy at two NULL points to actually 'reconnect' to another line, not even photon kinetic energy. You're confusing CONNECTION with "RECONNECTION" and CENTER with "ORIGIN". The fields are CREATED in the (electro)magnet, but the lines don't all start and end at the the null points in each and every line, or any line, not even if they happen to "connect" to some other line at some other ZERO/NULL energy point. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 03:45 PM.
 9th November 2011, 04:22 PM #4817 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Thanks. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 04:29 PM.
 9th November 2011, 04:31 PM #4818 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Now ask him why the directional arrows of the B field line in the middle of his graph are FUBAR (not right)? The lines in the middle are correct. Quote: No other lines are multi-directional. That's the "slight of hand" where his "magic" begins. The lines in the middle aren't multi-directional either. The explanation has been simple and concise. It has to do with magnetic reconnection.
 9th November 2011, 04:34 PM #4819 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 I'm so happy that I am not taking a side! __________________ 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
 9th November 2011, 04:36 PM #4820 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack The lines in the middle are correct. The lines in the middle aren't multi-directional either. The explanation has been simple and concise. It has to do with magnetic reconnection. I changed my mind about even posting that post. No, he just pulled a fast one. He renamed the center of the quadripolar field an "origin" and away he went. (rotating it appropriately to match Dungey's "electrical discharge/reconnection" diagram of course) Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 04:37 PM.
 9th November 2011, 04:38 PM #4821 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student I'm so happy that I am not taking a side! When you call him a fraud, *THEN* I'll believe you.
 9th November 2011, 04:41 PM #4822 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 FYI, I'm dying to know if Clinger comes out of the closet in part 5 and finally admits that, yes indeed, it does indeed take a plasma to get an "electrical discharge" process like Dungey described, and (drum roll please), whether he finally admits that electrical discharges occur in solar flares.
 9th November 2011, 04:50 PM #4823 phunk Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,530 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I changed my mind about even posting that post. No, he just pulled a fast one. He renamed the center of the quadripolar field an "origin" and away he went. (rotating it appropriately to match Dungey's "electrical discharge/reconnection" diagram of course) He didn't rename it origin, origin means 0,0 coordinates on the graph.
 9th November 2011, 04:55 PM #4824 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by phunk He didn't rename it origin, origin means 0,0 coordinates on the graph. But it's just the origin of the graph, not the origin of the magnetic lines. The magnetic lines simply go through that point (at a zero field strength). It's just like any other point as far as any magnetic lines are concerned. They all are created in the electromagnets. None of them 'begin', or end in the "origin" of his graph. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 04:58 PM.
 9th November 2011, 05:13 PM #4825 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina FYI, I'm dying to know if Clinger comes out of the closet in part 5 and finally admits that, yes indeed, it does indeed take a plasma to get an "electrical discharge" process like Dungey described, and (drum roll please), whether he finally admits that electrical discharges occur in solar flares. Your position on this is wholly adolescent. It has been made abundantly clear by so many people here that the term discharge has been used inconsistently over the years. Some usages require the breakdown of an insulator while others refer merely to surges in current, as when a capacitor discharges. So, if you are saying that there are surges in current in solar flares or plasmas, you will have agreement; if you are saying that a dielectric material has broken down in plasmas and solar flares, you will not have agreement. So, rather than persisting in using this ambiguous word (and just going around and around), why don't you specify if you mean a surge in current or the breakdown of a dielectric. Then, the people here will say yes or no and we will all know what you are talking about and perhaps end this useless discussion (at least that one aspect of these discussions). __________________ 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
 9th November 2011, 11:12 PM #4826 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Your position on this is wholly adolescent. It has been made abundantly clear by so many people here that the term discharge has been used inconsistently over the years. So what? I'm sure the term "electrical discharge" in the Earth's atmosphere has been used inconsistently by various human beings over the span of human history too. That doesn't mean that electrical discharges do not occur in the Earth atmosophere or in plasma! What a weird rationalization. You also seem to forget that I provided you with Peratt's CLEAR definition of an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma, well over a year ago at this point. You guys talk about wanting to be "Big Dogs", but you all cower away like thunderstruck wimpering little puppies from the sound of Dungey's electrical discharge in a solar flare! Bah! Haters are incapable of 'meeting in the middle', else the hate ends. Hence the denial go round continues. Sooner or later Clinger is going to get fried by that missing electrical discharge in his vacuum contraption that doesn't do squat in terms of "magnetic reconnection". FYI, as best as I can tell (aside from all his ridiculous handwaving about magnetic lines beginning and ending in the null region), his vacuum contraption turns out to be nothing more than a quadrapole magnetic field generator (for lack of a better term). I guess I went through a years worth of verbal abuse for nothing. I think if you get Clinger to rerun his graph, keeping the whole experiment in the POSITIVE X,Y quadrant, and include all the lines starting at the four poles, he'll see the error of his ways pretty quickly. Magnetic lines don't begin or end in the NULL zone, they simply don't have any strength in that region. No kinetic field or plasma particle energy, no "reconnection" in the null zone. It's nothing more than a 'dead party zone' where no kinetic energy action is happening. You might also want to clue him in that he'll also need "rapidly changing magnetic flux" to get Dungey's electrical discharge, not a slow dB/dt increase/decrease, oh ya *AND PLASMA*. Watching this denial-go-round unfold and unravel is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th November 2011 at 11:21 PM.
 9th November 2011, 11:14 PM #4827 mimada Student   Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 26 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student I'm so happy that I am not taking a side! Originally Posted by Michael Mozina When you call him a fraud, *THEN* I'll believe you. If Perpetual Student calls W.D.Clinger a fraud, he has taken your side and directly contradicted his statement of neutrality.
 9th November 2011, 11:23 PM #4828 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by mimada If Perpetual Student calls W.D.Clinger a fraud, he has taken your side and directly contradicted his statement of neutrality. He already did that when called me a fraud for not reading his mind while he refused to answer my questions. At least he'd be an equal opportunity offender.
 10th November 2011, 12:20 AM #4829 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Again: Quote: Some usages require the breakdown of an insulator while others refer merely to surges in current, as when a capacitor discharges. So, if you are saying that there are surges in current in solar flares or plasmas, you will have agreement; if you are saying that a dielectric material has broken down in plasmas and solar flares, you will not have agreement. So, rather than persisting in using this ambiguous word (and just going around and around), why don't you specify if you mean a surge in current or the breakdown of a dielectric. Then, the people here will say yes or no and we will all know what you are talking about and perhaps end this useless discussion (at least that one aspect of these discussions). So, which is it? Why not end this silly semantic bickering? It's very simple: when you say discharge do you mean a surge in current or do you mean that a dielectric has broken down? __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ Last edited by Perpetual Student; 10th November 2011 at 12:31 AM.
 10th November 2011, 01:38 AM #4830 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by Belz... Actually, I'd like to know if there are or not. That all depends on how you define an electrical discharge. (and no that is not a "Clinton") Let me find the message where I went through several of the books/papers that MM "trusts" and how electrical discharge was defined in those. Okay, that took some effort, because I posted that in January, pose 1441 (actually easy to remember). In that post I give a list about how differnt authors use the term "electrical discharge" in different ways. In some it will be an atmospheric lightning process (charge build up with an abrupt release through break down of the insulator), whereas in other papers an "electrical discharge" is just an increase in the current that is flowing in the plasma (Dungey for example). So, it is totally useless to talk about electrical discharges unless you specify in a detailed way what exactly you mean by that. Therefore, I decided not to discuss this anymore, it's a waste of time, and prefer to talk about the actual physical processes that are taking place in the various situations. __________________ 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 Last edited by tusenfem; 10th November 2011 at 01:40 AM.
 10th November 2011, 03:23 AM #4831 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 66,185 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina On second thought, if you are in fact asking if Dungey's paper is correct, it's correct. Good. Evidence, please. __________________
 10th November 2011, 06:02 AM #4832 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,234 With regard to J W Dungey. The neutral point discharge theory of solar flares. A reply to Cowling's criticism. Proceedings of Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics, edited by Bo Lehnert. International Astronomical Union number 6, Cambridge University Press, page 135. 1958 Originally Posted by Belz... Originally Posted by Michael Mozina On second thought, if you are in fact asking if Dungey's paper is correct, it's correct. Good. Evidence, please. We must distinguishwhat Dungey wrote in that paper what Michael Mozina thinks Dungey wrote in that paper So far as I can tell, what Dungey wrote is correct. (I'll give some evidence for that in part 5 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.) As for what Michael Mozina thinks Dungey wrote, that's completely bonkers. If you want evidence for that, just read the last few pages of this thread:Michael Mozina doesn't understand that Dungey's two figures show magnetic field lines. Michael Mozina doesn't understand that Dungey is talking about reconnection of magnetic field lines. Michael Mozina doesn't understand that the magnetic field can be nonzero at points where no current is flowing and the E field is zero. Michael Mozina doesn't understand basic concepts of electromagnetism such as "magnetic flux" and "magnetic flux density". Michael Mozina doesn't know what Dungey is talking about when Dungey uses basic technical phrases such as "magnetic field line", "neutral point of the magnetic field", "magnetic force density", "magnetic force", "lines of force". Don't ask me how Michael Mozina managed to read five books on plasma physics without learning even the basics of electromagnetism. I can only speculate. Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 10th November 2011 at 06:03 AM.
 10th November 2011, 10:37 AM #4833 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student So, which is it? Why not end this silly semantic bickering? It's very simple: when you say discharge do you mean a surge in current or do you mean that a dielectric has broken down? That's actually a false dichotomy fallacy IMO. Technically all planets are embedded in cosmic plasma and that kind of 'electrical discharge' is just a SUBSET of the definition of all possible types of electrical discharges that occur in and inside of atmospheres of objects that are embedded in plasma. Quote: 1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line. The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2). On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 10th November 2011 at 10:39 AM.
 10th November 2011, 10:40 AM #4834 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem That all depends on how you define an electrical discharge. (and no that is not a "Clinton") Yes, it is a "Clinton".
 10th November 2011, 10:47 AM #4835 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Belz... Good. Evidence, please. Hmmm. Define "good evidence" for me. I have "lab evidence" that electrical discharges produce all of the key and important observations related to solar flares, including million degree plasmas, heavily ionized iron, neutron capture signatures, gamma rays, x-rays, etc. Now that you know that "magnetic reconnection" is a PROCESS IN PLASMA that involves the inducement of an E field in the plasma, followed by an electrical discharge in the plasma, I can happily provide you with any number of papers on MR theory. What kind of evidence do you want? Last edited by Michael Mozina; 10th November 2011 at 10:49 AM.
 10th November 2011, 11:07 AM #4836 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina That's actually a false dichotomy fallacy IMO. Technically all planets are embedded in cosmic plasma and that kind of 'electrical discharge' is just a SUBSET of the definition of all possible types of electrical discharges that occur in and inside of atmospheres of objects that are embedded in plasma. Why all the dodging and dancing? My question is quite simple: What do you mean when you say discharge in solar flares or plasmas? Is it the breakdown of a dielectric or is it a current surge? If we knew that, we would have a context for your mantra that discharges occur in plasmas. Why won't you answer that simple question? __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 10th November 2011, 11:16 AM #4837 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Why all the dodging and dancing? Honestly PS, Peratt's definition is exactly that I mean. I'm honestly not trying to dodge any questions. I'm not a plasma physicist by trade either. I simply selected *A* (an appropriate) definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma from a textbook on plasma physics. It defines and describes an electrical discharge *IN* cosmic plasma, and all objects that are embedded in that cosmic plasma. IMO it's a broad enough definition to be INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE, and it's exactly what I mean by the term. In fact it's where I got the term (in plasma). Last edited by Michael Mozina; 10th November 2011 at 11:17 AM.
 10th November 2011, 12:06 PM #4838 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Honestly PS, Peratt's definition is exactly that I mean. I'm honestly not trying to dodge any questions. I'm not a plasma physicist by trade either. I simply selected *A* (an appropriate) definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma from a textbook on plasma physics. It defines and describes an electrical discharge *IN* cosmic plasma, and all objects that are embedded in that cosmic plasma. IMO it's a broad enough definition to be INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE, and it's exactly what I mean by the term. In fact it's where I got the term (in plasma). In other words, you don't know! You have been arguing about discharges in plasmas for how long here? How many posts? And -- you do not know what you mean by discharge -- you don't know if you mean a breakdown of a dielectric or a surge in current? The question of whether there is a dielectric to break down in a plasma has been the crux of the issue of this question for all these months and you now say you do not know. Amazing! __________________ 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
 10th November 2011, 12:12 PM #4839 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student In other words, you don't know! You have been arguing about discharges in plasmas for how long here? How many posts? And -- you do not know what you mean by discharge -- you don't know if you mean a breakdown of a dielectric or a surge in current? The question of whether there is a dielectric to break down in a plasma has been the crux of the issue of this question for all these months and you now say you do not know. Amazing! No. You didn't hear me, and you didn't listen. That's not amazing, it's rather typical in my experience. I *HAVE* told you *EXACTLY* what *I* mean by that term. Dungey's work fit's PERFECTLY underneath of Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma. Peratt's definition also perfectly describes the "electrical discharges" of *OTHER* atmospheres (which happen to include gas), not just the SOLAR atmosphere. You just don't like the definition because the moment you agree to it, the hate-go-round finally comes to an end.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit