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 12th November 2011, 08:58 AM   #4881
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361


While you're taking a gander at that paper by Lee, let's start by relating Dungey's electrical discharge processes in flares back to some satellite imagery. I started with this TRACE white light image of a solar flare over a sunspot because it's what we would actually observe of a flare with the naked eye.

That wonderful paper by Lee allows us to understand and discuss all the Yohkoh, SOHO, GOES, TRACE, Hinode, STEREO, SDO, many other satellites I can't recall off the top of my head, and pretty much all future satellite images. It's important that you read through it and understand it if you want to understand the higher energy wavelengths we observe in solar flare images. If you have any questions while I'm working on rounding up links to relevant images, let me know. I'll try not to bombard you with too much math all at once. Instead I'll work on trying to bring in a little visual appeal to the thread. Let me go check out the sun right now and maybe I'll just start with current events.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 12th November 2011 at 09:01 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 12th November 2011, 09:29 AM   #4882
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0131.mpg

FYI Belz, I'm not sure about your bandwidth and/or hardware limitations (or lack thereof), so let me know if you're having any trouble with any of the visual links I provide you with.

Once you get comfortable with Lee's presentation you can begin to understand the "iron ion wavelength" (and high energy wavelengths) that are observed in SDO and many other images. We might as well begin with SDO since it is the newest solar gear on the job, it's got high resolution capabilities and very high cadence capabilities.

That link at the top will provide you with a high energy view of the the sun as it appears "right now" (as of the time you click it). It gets updated on a regular basis, so anything you see right now, won't necessarily look exactly the same if you click that same link tomorrow.

The other word that you should start to become comfortable with as we progress is the term "magnetic flux loop". Don't let the term fool you, it's a highly energized, *CURRENT CARRYING* filament. It's shaped like a tightly wound tornado filament near the area where it touches the Earth. It looks pretty much like the filaments you might observe in an ordinary plasma ball from the store. That current carrying plasma filament is something that Alfven called a "circuit" or a "Bennett Pinch" in plasma.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 12th November 2011 at 09:33 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 10:54 AM   #4883
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by mimada View Post
Thank you for the welcome. I am not a prolific poster so please excuse me if I don't reply right away. Thank you for the link to Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and a Theory of Solar Flares. It's actually an interesting read especially from a historical perspective. I am still reading it and studying the implications. To be honest, I'm actually a bit more intrigued with Severny's paper that mapped magnetic fields on the sun. Unfortunately, the only source I've found so far is behind a paywall. I may research it at my local library though.

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, do you keep a personal science journal?
I have a few eJournals (more like collections of files including word documents) related to several solar physics projects I'm working on, but I can't say that I've actually kept any journals of my overall learning process per se. Why do you ask?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 12th November 2011 at 11:01 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 12th November 2011, 10:56 AM   #4884
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Finally -- an answer!
So, when a surge of electrical current occurs in plasmas, which are necessarily conducting mediums, you call that a discharge -- no dielectric break down is necessarily involved. So that's it; all this discussion has been about you insisting on an idiosyncratic semantic hang-up.

OK, I now fully agree that discharges* can occur in plasmas and solar flares. I suspect others may not prefer this definition but will agree that surges in electrical current (discharges, in your preferred usage) can occur in plasmas.
See, now you can move on to the real physics of solar flares, which I'm sure you will readily admit, are not like lightning on earth, which do involve the breakdown of a dielectric, namely the atmosphere.

*(Mozina usage) Discharge = surge in electrical current, with or without the breakdown of a dielectric.
Hey cool! We're getting close to being able to finally communicate. If I can just get you to remove the asterisk, or swap Peratt's name with mine, or just put "EU/PC physicists" if you like, I'd be a happy camper.
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 12th November 2011, 12:03 PM   #4885
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Hey cool! We're getting close to being able to finally communicate. If I can just get you to remove the asterisk, or swap Peratt's name with mine, or just put "EU/PC physicists" if you like, I'd be a happy camper.

Then we can dispense with that nonsense about an impossible electrical discharge akin to lightning on Earth happening in the conductive plasma of the solar atmosphere.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 12:29 PM   #4886
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Then we can dispense with that nonsense about an impossible electrical discharge akin to lightning on Earth happening in the conductive plasma of the solar atmosphere.
At last!
__________________
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 12th November 2011, 01:01 PM   #4887
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Neither one of you gets it yet evidently.
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 12th November 2011, 02:57 PM   #4888
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
PS...

The more FUNDAMENTAL KIND of an "electrical discharge" is the one that occurs in plasma because the universe is fundamentally (mostly) made of plasma. The electrical discharge process described in Peratt's definition makes it clear that an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere is LIKE (akin to) the electrical discharges that occur in flares and in cosmic plasmas in general, but the storage and release mechanisms are somewhat different. It's still a GIANT CURRENT that continues until the DISCHARGE process is completed.

Your strong emotional desire to consider them entirely different (not akin) is apparent. Embrace the E side. It's inevitable since Maxwell's equations solve in either direction.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 12th November 2011 at 03:08 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 12th November 2011, 03:29 PM   #4889
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
PS...

The more FUNDAMENTAL KIND of an "electrical discharge" is the one that occurs in plasma because the universe is fundamentally (mostly) made of plasma. The electrical discharge process described in Peratt's definition makes it clear that an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere is LIKE (akin to) the electrical discharges that occur in flares and in cosmic plasmas in general, but the storage and release mechanisms are somewhat different. It's still a GIANT CURRENT that continues until the DISCHARGE process is completed.

Your strong emotional desire to consider them entirely different (not akin) is apparent. Embrace the E side. It's inevitable since Maxwell's equations solve in either direction.
Trying to crawl out of that hole?
__________________
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 12th November 2011, 03:52 PM   #4890
mimada
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I have a few eJournals (more like collections of files including word documents) related to several solar physics projects I'm working on, but I can't say that I've actually kept any journals of my overall learning process per se. Why do you ask?
If you don't keep a physical journal, I highly recommend it as a good practice. Because of the prevalence of online resources, I too, have OpenDoc files for reference notes. However, I find it's much easier and less time consuming to write and perform mathematics and draw doodles (relevant to science or not ) in a physical journal.

Most, if not all, of the professional scientists I know keep physical journals as well. The contents of such are really not a matter for open discussion as the journals often contain private and sometimes potentially embarrassing musings (i.e., my early volumes contain copious tyro mistakes). And, although I cannot speak for others, as a student, I used to tote my journal around obsessively like a child's teddy bear.

I mention this because a student I spoke to recently was lamenting the fact that his computer files had gone MIA after a hard drive failure and I was surprised that he did not keep a physical journal. I suppose this is a sign of the times.

BTW, I caution you to not enter anything too intimate in your journal. If you ever become famous, it may wind up in a museum someday.
mimada 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 12th November 2011, 03:53 PM   #4891
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Trying to crawl out of that hole?
No. You evidently just don't get the whole EU concept yet. The "electrical discharge" in plasma that is described by Peratt is the primary brand of electrical discharge. Objects embedded in that Cosmic Plasma also experience "electrical discharges" due to the fact they are embedded in an electric universe. The whole ionization requirement is ARBITRARY in cosmic plasma electrical discharge processes.
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 12th November 2011, 04:02 PM   #4892
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Trying to crawl out of that hole?
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No. You evidently just don't get the whole EU concept yet. The "electrical discharge" in plasma that is described by Peratt is the primary brand of electrical discharge. Objects embedded in that Cosmic Plasma also experience "electrical discharges" due to the fact they are embedded in an electric universe. The whole ionization requirement is ARBITRARY in cosmic plasma electrical discharge processes.
__________________
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 12th November 2011, 04:10 PM   #4893
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
You're just hell bent on staying on the hate-go-round are ya?
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 12th November 2011, 06:16 PM   #4894
mimada
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 26
I have recently acquired a book through my local library entitled The Sun from Space (2nd Edition) by Kenneth Lang. It is an excellent overview of the Standard Solar Models and I highly recommend it to the participants and lurkers in this thread. I feel that the text is not overly technical so it is accessible to laypersons, yet it provides a concise and clear presentation of mainstream concepts so as to provide a good base reference for those who are more of that mind.

Mr. Mozina, this book may be of special interest to you as it provides the mainstream interpretations of the data sets provided by Yohkoh, Ulysses, Wind, SOHO, ACE, TRACE,RHESSI, Hinode, and STEREO. Be sure to pick up the 2nd edition as the previous edition was published prior to the availability of information from the newer probes. There is also some discussion of the weakness' of the SSM which may be of some interest.

Last edited by mimada; 12th November 2011 at 07:39 PM.
mimada 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 12th November 2011, 11:39 PM   #4895
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Dungey & Magnetic Reconnection II

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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?

So what is your objection to affording others the luxury of the same condition that you claim for yourself? Consider this:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
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"?
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.

You will not afford to me the condition you claim for yourself, namely using Dungey's actual terms, unless I agree to further conditions regarding currents and filaments. Is this not a double standard, you demanding the easy way out for yourself, but holding everyone else to a different standard than your own? Beside, this is not a political negotiation, where deals need to be cut and quid pro quo achieved. It's supposed to be a discussion of scientific facts, which exist on their own, quite independently from opinions & negotiations.

Dungey said what Dungey said, and either you agree and accept that Dungey is correct, or you disagree and think that Dungey is wrong. Dungey said "reconnect". Dungey said "lines of force"; those are not my words, they are Dungey's words. I fail to see why your opinion of Dungey & Dungey's words should depend in any way on my opinion of you and your words. So, for the record if I may, are you now telling us that you decline to give an opinion on Dungey and/or Dungey's words, in this specific case?


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
All Clinger's graph shows is a NULL region where NOTHING exists in terms of kinetic energy/magnetic field energy to 'disconnect' or to 'reconnect' to anything else. 0+0=0.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It's literally NOTHING in terms of kinetic energy.

Look again at the quotes from Dungey I provide above. The title of his paper is "Neutral Point Discharge Theory". Dungey goes on to say: "Certain other features of flares may be accounted for by the bulk motion resulting from a discharge at a neutral point." and "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 thinks that the kinetic energy comes from the neutral point, and he is quite clear & explicit about that. You, however, tell us "It's literally NOTHING in terms of kinetic energy." How do you account for the apparent difference of opinion between you and Dungey, as to the ability of the neutral point to provide kinetic energy?
__________________
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 13th November 2011, 12:09 AM   #4896
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Gekelman, Collette & Vincena: Magnetic Reconnection II

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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?

I agree that we should stick to the words the authors actually use. So consider this:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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?

Does it really matter how many times the authors use the word "line"? If the point is to describe a physical process, or assign a physical process as an energy source, it seems to me that once and once only is quite a sufficient number of times to get the point across.

But see, when it comes to Dungey, you insist on the words "electric discharge" because those are the words Dungey used. But those are clearly words that you like. On the other hand, from Gekelman, Collette & Vincena we find the words "magnetic field line reconnection". Those are words that you don't like, and suddenly your own criterion is no longer such a good idea. You are no longer willing to settle for the words the authors use, their own words, but consider substituting your own words in their place. Is this not a double standard; when they give you what you want, only the authors own precise words will do, but when they fail to yield the desired conclusion, suddenly the authors' own words are to be abandoned for something you think is better?

Aside from the appearance of another double standard, what about our opinions about the general intelligence of the authors of this paper? Do you think they don't know the difference between "magnetic field line" (their own words) and "field aligned current" (your substitute words)? I submit that the two physical concepts are so radically different from each other that one can hardly imagine rising to the level of repeatedly funded, independent research scientists without being starkly aware of the difference between a magnetic field line and a field aligned current. How anyone could even suspect for a moment that the authors would say one, but actually mean the other, is quite mysterious to me.

Why not apply your own claimed standard and accept the words the authors use as if they were the words the authors intended to use (seems a reasonable assumption to me)? "Magnetic field-line reconnection" looks like a pretty explicit and straight forward collection of words to me.

Regarding this paper, you have already said ...

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.

Can you continue to assess this paper as "excellent" if we allow ourselves the luxury of assuming that all of the words actually used by the authors are the words they actually intended to use?
__________________
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 13th November 2011, 09:33 AM   #4897
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Dungey said what Dungey said, and either you agree and accept that Dungey is correct, or you disagree and think that Dungey is wrong. Dungey said "reconnect". Dungey said "lines of force"; those are not my words, they are Dungey's words. I fail to see why your opinion of Dungey & Dungey's words should depend in any way on my opinion of you and your words. So, for the record if I may, are you now telling us that you decline to give an opinion on Dungey and/or Dungey's words, in this specific case?
Bear with me Tim while I get some feelings off my chest and explain myself clearly.

I want to start by telling you that of all the scientists that I've met in cyberspace, there's no one else that I've appreciated more, or learned more from than you. I actually look up to you on many levels. I can't begin to explain how much you've taught me over the past seven or eight years Tim. You've provided me with a TREASURE TROVE of information. If you think I haven't appreciated your efforts, or I've ignored the materials you've put before me, you're dead wrong. In a way I've tried to earn your respect over the years, and it truly saddens me that you and I cannot see eye to eye on this issue.

I'm also sorry that Space.com took down their board because I personally did not save the very first paper on "magnetic reconnection" that I was asked to read through on a public forum. I'd like to find that paper so you can fully appreciate where I'm coming from.

The paper was by Priest. In retrospect it taught me something very important, and Priest did me a great favor. That *particular* paper (I'm sure he's written many others because I've personally read many others) just so happened to be a "speculation" paper, a "what if" sort of paper. He was speculating mathematically about "B field line reconnection" *IF* monopoles actually existed in nature. It's important in my learning process in retrospect that I started there actually because I could "in theory" understand what an actual "B field line reconnection" might look like if B field lines *DID* have a "beginning and ending", if they could be taken apart into discrete units. I could CLEARLY understand what he was trying to convey, but I DISMISSED the paper because monopoles do not exist in nature and they violate Gauss's law of magnetism.

It just so happens that the very next paper by Birn was put before me. It was different from the previous paper because it clearly described the process in terms of current running along the "line" and it it was and induced E field oriented paper. That made me realize very quickly that the E induced field was a "critical step" in the process, not just a "minor issue".

I think it's VERY unfortunate that Dungey didn't fully consider the ramifications of the name he gave to an electrical discharge process in plasma. If one is an "expert" like Dungey, they can understand the PROCESS from either the B or the E orientation of Maxwell's equations. From his perspective (an expert perspective) it was "six of one, half a dozen of the other". I think however that he underestimated the power of ignorance and the confusion factor that term introduces.

This whole thread to this point in time is a testament to the confusion it introduces IMO. To the poor uninitiated joe, it's highly easy to confuse an actual B field line reconnection as Priest was trying to describe, and an E induced DISCHARGE process in plasma. They may actually start to believe that B field lines do have a beginning and and ending. They don't.

You and I should be able to look each other in the eye Tim and you should be able to accept the term "current reconnection". The magnetic reconnection PROCESS cannot and is not complete without "current flow". The transfer of magnetic field energy is an INDUCED E field, followed by an "electrical discharge".

Why can't we just let our differences go on this ONE ISSUE and start talking about "magnetic flux tubes" and the plasma structures that actually "reconnect"?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 13th November 2011 at 10:59 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 13th November 2011, 09:53 AM   #4898
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I think it's VERY unfortunate that Dungey didn't fully consider the ramifications of the name he gave to an electrical discharge process in plasma.

Nonsense. Leaving aside the arguments from ignorance and demands that all of physics modify appropriate terminology because the against-the-mainstreamers just don't like it, Dungey called the process of magnetic reconnection by a very suitable name, "magnetic reconnection".
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2011, 09:58 AM   #4899
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Why can't we just let our differences go on this ONE ISSUE and start talking about "magnetic flux tubes" and the plasma structures that actually "reconnect"?

Answered here...

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
[...] this is not a political negotiation, where deals need to be cut and quid pro quo achieved. It's supposed to be a discussion of scientific facts, which exist on their own, quite independently from opinions & negotiations.

Yeah, sure. Let's meet half way where legitimate scientists who actually understand the material under discussion allow the made up nonsense and unsupported claims of the electric Sun contingent to carry equal weight with reality.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2011, 04:14 PM   #4900
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Exclamation Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
OMG are you confused. He won't get an "electrical discharge" *WITHOUT* a plasma! No electrons, no protons, no discharge. Get it?
OMG are you deluded. There is no such thing as a "electrical discharge" *WITHIN* a plasma until you state the defintion of an "electrical discharge" *WITHIN* a plasma.

W.D. Clinger will never get to electrical discharges in plasma because no one would be idiotic enough to think that they happen in plasma. He may get to current densities in plasma (see below).

Your delusion starts with the inability to understand that various authors in various contexts have different definitions for electrical discharge. Thus the term "electrical discharges in plasma" is meaningless without specifying at one and only definition that you are using.

There is the usual definition of electrical discharge which makes the term "electrical discharge in plasma" physically impossible (no dielectric to break down).

The next problem is your lie (quote mining) about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge . The inability to understand that there is no discussion of "electrical discharges in cosmic plasma" in his book (or any other textbook) lead to


Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!What remains is Dungey's obsolete usage
  1. Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
    13th January 2011 (10 months and counting)
  2. Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
    18th October 2011
  3. MM: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!
    8th November 2011
If you want to continue to documenting your obsession that electrical discharges cause solar flares then please do so and we will conintinue to point out that it is a delusion.

If you want to change that assertion to "electrical discharges happen solar flares" then all you are doing is documenting your ignorance by using an obsolete term (or an obsession with the term "electrical discharge").
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2011, 04:39 PM   #4901
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
This is what slide 7 from Priest's slides from his 2004 Bozeman lecture states.
Slide 11 emphasises that this is the 2D case.
Slide 28 mentions that reconnection can also happen at non null points (see slide 31).

What amazes me is that Michael Mozina cannot even understand a description of the process, i.e. that magnetic field lines do not exist where B = 0 so any lines entering an area where B = 0 have to end there, any lines leaving an area where B = 0 have to start there.
An alternative way to look at it is to note that magnetic field lines do not split or merge. But at an X-shaped neutral point there is no way to tell which of the 2 outward lines an inward line joins to. Thus the connection to the outward part of the field line has been broken.
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 13th November 2011, 04:42 PM   #4902
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Sure, just as soon as everyone agrees that electrical discharges occur in plasma and in flares.
Sure you remain wrong: everyone agrees that electrical discharges never occur in plasma and in flares.
Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma!
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 13th November 2011, 04:57 PM   #4903
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Keep in mind that I am not denying that the PROCESS is correct, I'm simply arguing that it has a TERRIBLE name. I would simply prefer "current reconnection' or "circuit reconnection' to keep it consistent with other branches of physics.
Wrong: You are arguing your personal opinion that it has a terrible name without giving any physically pertinent reasons to change it.

The physics tells everyone else that magnetic reconnection is has the name that describes the process best. This is especially true in solar falres where
  • The energy that is released starts as stored in the magnetic field.
  • It is the change in magnetic field that releases the energy.
  • This release of energy causes the acceleration of currents. The currents actually absorb energy !
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 13th November 2011, 05:06 PM   #4904
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Michael, do you ever feel like your wasting your life here?

I really would just swallow your pride and run from the argument.

Or do you actually enjoy this type of seemingly never ending argument?
Zeuzzz, can you tell us the definition of 'electrical discharge' that Michael asserts causes solar flares? Because he cannot !
Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge is the standard definition for which Peratt gives the example of lightning.
Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection (and is obsolete).

Michael
I really would just swallow your continued display of ignorancce and run from the science.

Or do you actually enjoy your seemingly never ending cycle of pure denial of physics (or an obsession with semantics)?
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 13th November 2011, 05:16 PM   #4905
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
My only intent in getting him to move the Null point away from the origin is so he realizes his mistake.
That is rather insane.
W.D. Clinger is following the practice of centuries of science by putting a potentially interesting feature at the origin of his image. That is not a mistake - every scientist since at least Newton has done the same. This includes Dungey. I would expect that the books that you claim to have read and understood also have images with interesting stuff at the origin.
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 13th November 2011, 05:34 PM   #4906
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00467.000.html

This paper by Lee is an excellent place to begin because it relates those electrical discharge processes back to SDO (and many other) solar satellite images, specifically all the iron ion wavelengths.
Note that Michael Mozina lies when he states 'electrical discharge processes'.
Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena by Lee, 1974 is about plasma discharge experiments. See Figure 1 for a schematic diagramn of the experiment.
It never metions 'electrical discharge processes'.
It does specifically mention the role of an electric breakdown which starts the plasma discharge.
This is just another MM fantasy.

The 'specifically all the iron ion wavelengths' is rather irrelevant. The fact is that the emission from the highly ionized Fe in the corona is used to image solar flares. The experiment has a laser used to add anode material to the plasma discharge. "The anode material for this particular experiment is iron".
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 13th November 2011, 05:39 PM   #4907
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The "electrical discharge" in plasma that is described by Peratt ...
You are lying. Peratt never describes any "electrical discharge" in plasma.
From Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010
Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
First asked 3rd February 2011
and for that matter:
Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?
26th September 2011 (over a month and counting!)
Michael Mozina: Google Books list for electrical discharges within plasma?
28th October 2011
Michael Mozina: Google Scholar articles on electrical discharges within plasma?
28th October 2011
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 13th November 2011, 05:44 PM   #4908
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That is rather insane.
W.D. Clinger is following the practice of centuries of science by putting a potentially interesting feature at the origin of his image. That is not a mistake - every scientist since at least Newton has done the same. This includes Dungey. I would expect that the books that you claim to have read and understood also have images with interesting stuff at the origin.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4757

Speaking of that "potentially interesting feature": Five days ago I asked you to give Clinger a hand completing what you called the "trivial" part of his freshman homework assignment. Are you two done yet? Tick...Tick.....Tick....

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 13th November 2011 at 05:48 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2011, 05:49 PM   #4909
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Tick...Tick.....Tick...Boom!
You really are unable to read: proof that magnetic field lines can begin/end at a neutral point

And nothing to do with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
That is rather insane.
W.D. Clinger is following the practice of centuries of science by putting a potentially interesting feature at the origin of his image. That is not a mistake - every scientist since at least Newton has done the same. This includes Dungey. I would expect that the books that you claim to have read and understood also have images with interesting stuff at the origin.
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 13th November 2011, 06:30 PM   #4910
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Well Clinger, now I don't even know where to tell you to go to get help from any of the "true haters" (You, PS, GM and RC) in this thread in CORRECTLY explaining part 4 when you move that potentially interesting feature away from the origin of the graph, expand the view, and you don't use the term origin.

You might try PS. He's the only one you four with some background in basic EM theory (hint: you do need help with the "theory", not with the math) that "might" actually be able to help you. The rest of the haters are probably useless to you, proving once and for all that their math skills are useless as it relates to this topic. Honestly Clinger, I think PS is the only hater that might have a clue how to explain that potentially interesting feature once you expand that view and move the NULL from the origin of the graph. Go ask PS for help. If anyone of the hard core EU haters might work some magic for you, and help you pull a rabbit out of that hat, it's PS.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 13th November 2011 at 06:48 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2011, 06:45 PM   #4911
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Well Clinger, now I don't even know where to tell you to get help from any of the "true haters" (You, PS, GM and RC) in this thread in CORRECTLY explaining part 4 when you move that potentially interesting feature away from the origin of the graph, expand the view, and you don't use the term origin.
Multiple silliness here:
  • the 'true haters' bit.
    No one here hates anyone.
    We may be disturbed by the lack of knowledge combined by the unwillingness to learn exhibited by some people in this thread.
    Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma!
  • your inability to understand that putting interesting things at the orgin is done because they are interesting things!
  • the total ignorance that moving the neutral point away from the origin will not change the physics.
  • the insanity that you can command anyone to stop using a valid word.
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 13th November 2011, 08:10 PM   #4912
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Well Clinger, now I don't even know where to tell you to go to get help from any of the "true haters" (You, PS, GM and RC) in this thread in CORRECTLY explaining part 4 when you move that potentially interesting feature away from the origin of the graph, expand the view, and you don't use the term origin.

The term "origin" simply refers to a location on the graph. Substitute "the origin" with "(0,0)" in W.D.Clinger's explanation (use a regular expression something like "s/the origin/\(0\,0\)/ig"), and it will be exactly the same without using the word "origin". It's pretty much rank beginner's stuff for anyone capable of writing database and spreadsheet forumulas, scripts, and programs.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2011, 10:03 PM   #4913
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Multiple silliness here:
  • the 'true haters' bit.
    No one here hates anyone.
    We may be disturbed by the lack of knowledge combined by the unwillingness to learn exhibited by some people in this thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4556

It's hard to buy your claim about the "true haters" bit while you're calling me a liar and PS is calling me a "fraud" no less. Holy Cow! I haven't even seen part 4 yet, let alone the bait and switch installment yet, and already you're calling me a fraud!

I'm already on to Clinger's magic trick. I know he has electromagnets under that table (off the edge of his graph) and his "beginningandendingofBlinesgod" is a fraud. I don't know what games you, GM and PS are playing yet, but it's time for everyone to put their cards on the table, and put up or shut up.

It's time for you four haters, you, Clinger, GM and PS to help Clinger finish part 4 of his *FRESHMAN PHYSICS* homework assignment and demonstrate once and for all, for all the world to see, that I am indeed a fraud and a liar as you have all claimed, or to publicly retract those claims, right now, in this thread. Which is it going to be?

Don't any of the four of you even THINK about playing the disappearing skeptic trick. You've all called me a fraud. I want physical and mathematical proof of that claim or a public apology. Which is it going to be?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 13th November 2011 at 11:05 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 13th November 2011, 11:25 PM   #4914
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Hater of EU? Me? Not even close!
However, I will admit that, for narcissistic people who embrace pseudoscience and display willful ignorance and arrogance, I have nothing but utter contempt.
__________________
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 14th November 2011, 12:04 AM   #4915
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
For my part, I hope to learn some physics from mimada.
Since the official EU hater crew seems to be utterly incapable or completely unwilling to help you Clinger, I sure hope for your sake that mimada can and does take pity on you and lend you a hand. It seems a little early to be asking a "newbie" to the thread like mimada for help, but it's entirely possible that mimada may be able to do what your friends cannot. Evidently the rest of your fellow EU hater crew cannot or will offer you any help at all. I guess they all fed you to the sharks eh?

FYI, I'm personally highly skeptical that you'll ever get to the plasma switcheroo part 5 of your presentation mind you, but I'm just dying to find out if you intend to come out of the closet in that chapter and finally admit that electrical discharges occur in solar flares and plasmas? Care to drop any hints?

I sure hope you eventually get through part four.


Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 12:30 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2011, 12:28 AM   #4916
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Hater of EU? Me? Not even close!
However, I will admit that, for narcissistic people who embrace pseudoscience and display willful ignorance and arrogance, I have nothing but utter contempt.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4556

I've spent weeks and months trying to teach you something about "magnetic reconnection", an *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS* in PLASMA, and for my efforts you called me a fraud? You aren't real big on scientific integrity I take 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 14th November 2011, 12:32 AM   #4917
mimada
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 26
Electric discharge in plasma

I really did not want to get into this argument, much less contradict Reality Check who is usually correct in his assessments.

An electric discharge occurs when a current that is somehow blocked overcomes its impedance and begins to flow. Typically, this occurs across a potential (or between a charged object and ground). For example, a short across a capacitor would instantiate an electric discharge. Electric sparks and electric arcs are particular types of discharges that occur between potentials separated by a dielectric gas. When the potential exceeds a critical level, the gas in between becomes ionized. The ionization produces a path for the current to flow.

Arc discharges can occur in plasma if dielectric gas is present. The experiment described in the paper Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and a Theory of Solar Flares mentions an arc discharge flowing between a cathode and anode through low density mercury plasma.

The properties of plasma that are demonstrated by the experiment:
- Plasma has impedance
- The impedance of plasma is a function of its density
- When the density of the plasma is reduced, impedance can rise to the point whereupon the plasma acts as an insulator
- High potentials can be sustained by low density plasma
- There is a limit to the amount of current plasma can accommodate, thus a potential can develop between plasma even if current is flowing.

I am not an authority on plasma so I do not know if highly ionized plasma (as in the sun) can filament and produce the characteristics of an electric arc but the description of the aforementioned experiment explicitly states the existence of an arc discharge within the low density mercury plasma.

Source: H. Alfvén and P. Carlqvist, Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and a Theory of Solar Flares, pg. 222 beginning with 5. Maximum Current Through a Plasma

There are citations to other experiments in the paper that allude to similar findings as well but I have not investigated them.

Regarding magnetic reconnection: Mr. Mozina, please concede your assertions about this. The literature does not support your electric field orientation contention. If you wish, you may try to derive the process via the electric field through Maxwell's equations. I suppose you could start with a current emanating from the neutral point but I don't see this as being a fruitful or worthy pursuit.

Dismiss the point as trivial or as a misunderstanding if you must. You have a stronger argument touting the Alfvén-Carlqvist model for solar flares (albeit not much stronger in light of the more recent data sets). It would be a much worthier pursuit to update or reconcile the Alfvén-Carlqvist model with more recent data if that's possible.
mimada 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 14th November 2011, 09:19 AM   #4918
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 4

I have created a web page that summarizes the derivation so far, with links to parts 1, 2, and 3.

To review:
  1. Part 1 and its erratum used one of Maxwell's equations to derive the magnetic field B around a current-carrying rod.
  2. Part 2 expressed that magnetic field in both cylindrical and Cartesian coordinates.
  3. Part 3 demonstrated that the magnetic field around four current-carrying rods reproduces
  4. Part 3 also showed that magnetic lines can begin or end at a neutral point, which I later proved in more detail.
In this part 4, I will use the experiment I've been suggesting to Michael Mozina to illustrate magnetic reconnection and to prove that the topology of the magnetic field changes during a variation of that experiment. As Yamada et al explain in their appendix, that change in the topology of the magnetic field is what we mean by magnetic reconnection.


The experimental setup

In a well-shielded laboratory, we assemble four long conducting rods parallel to the vertical (z) axis of a Cartesian coordinate system whose y axis points north and whose x axis points roughly east. We place each rod exactly 1 meter east, west, north, or south of the coordinate origin, and run 1000 amperes of current through each rod. That current runs upward (positive z) in the east and west rods, but downward (negative z) in the north and south rods. By Maxwell's equations (as was shown in parts 1 through 3), the magnetic field for the 4x4 meter square centered on the origin looks like this:



As before, the colors in that graph show the magnitude of the magnetic field, ranging from white (most intense) to black (least intense). The gray lines are the magnetic field lines that run through points of the form <±1,y,0> or <x,±1,0> for x,y∈{±1.0, ±0.9, ±0.8, ±0.7, ±0.6, ±0.5, ±0.4, ±0.3}.

The four rods' individual magnetic fields cancel each other out at the origin, so the magnetic field is zero there. Within the xy plane at z=0, the origin is the only neutral point of this particular magnetic field B4.


Magnetic reconnection at the neutral point

Without changing the 1000 ampere current within the east and west rods, let's vary the current within the north and south rods between 999.9 and 1000.1 amperes. That tiny variation in current causes magnetic reconnection at the neutral point:

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Epheme...s/MR/mr100.gif

When that animated GIF is running, you'll see two arrows flash briefly when the current within the north/south rods returns to its original value of exactly 1000 amperes. At that infinitesimal instant, the two magnetic field lines that are almost touching divide into four field lines that begin or end at the neutral point. That division and subsequent merger of magnetic field lines can only occur at a neutral point.

The next animation starts with the original magnetic field (B4), slowly reduces the north/south rods' current to zero, and then increases that current back to the original 1000 amperes:

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Epheme...ss/MR/mr00.gif

Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection shows essentially the same phenomenon, but is rigged to run forever without any change in the magnetic field. My animation above shows what magnetic reconnection actually looks like in a theoretically simple magnetic field that's easy to reproduce experimentally.


Mathematical proof of topological changes

Reducing the north/south rods' current to zero yields a magnetic field for which
  1. Every field line either begins at the neutral point, ends at the neutral point, or loops back on itself.
  2. Given any 3 magnetic field lines that loop back on themselves, at least one of the 3 field lines lies within the loop formed by another of the 3 field lines.
Those are topological properties of the magnetic field lines, which means those properties are preserved by any homeomorphism of the magnetic field lines.

The original magnetic field has the first of those two topological properties, but does not have the second property. For the original magnetic field, you can have 4 magnetic field lines that loop back on themselves without any of the 4 loops being contained within any of the other loops (in that set of 4).

That implies that the topology of the magnetic field lines must change as the current within the north/south rods is increased from zero to 1000 amperes.

For reasons that should be clear from the links above, that change in the topology of the magnetic field lines is called magnetic reconnection [Yamada et al 2010].


Conclusion to part 4

We have now completed a mathematical proof that magnetic reconnection is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations. For the most part, that proof used nothing beyond freshman-level vector calculus and electromagnetism. At the very end of the proof, when we proved that the topology changes, we needed a few additional facts about topology: the definition of homeomorphism and topological properties, and the fact that one of the properties listed is a topological property.

We have proved that magnetic reconnection can occur in vacuo, at a neutral point spatially separated from all currents, and with a negligible E field.

In part 5, I will explain the two main points of [Dungey 1958] by adding a little plasma to the magnetic field B4. It is not really possible to understand Dungey's paper without first understanding the neutral point and magnetic field lines of B4 or similar fields in a vacuum.


References

[Dungey 1958] 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.

[Yamada et al 2010] Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud, and Hantao Ji. Magnetic reconnection. Reviews of Modern Physics volume 82, January-March 2010, pages 603-664.
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 14th November 2011, 09:29 AM   #4919
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
[*]Part 3 also showed that magnetic lines can begin or end at a neutral point, which I later proved in more detail.
Just to set the record straight, in part three you alleged (didn't "prove" at all) that "Origin" was the great "beginor and endor" of all B field lines in the B field line universe (in your experiment anyway). Care to retract the claim that B field lines have beginnings and endings first and just make this short and relatively painless?

Quote:
In this part 4, I will use the experiment I've been suggesting to Michael Mozina to illustrate magnetic reconnection and to prove that the topology of the magnetic field changes during a variation of that experiment.
Wow! Bait and switch in part four too? Cool! This is going to be fun, fun, fun. I don't have any problem with magnetic field topology changes Clinger. That's not the claim that got you burned.

Quote:
As Yamada et al explain in their appendix, that change in the topology of the magnetic field is what we mean by magnetic reconnection.
Until we get to the plasma bait and switch part of your presentation, I absolutely insist you stop name dropping individuals, institutions you've been involved with, and authors of books you're read. This is YOUR PERSONAL claim, not theirs. You aren't doing any of them any favors by dragging their names through the mud with you Clinger, trust me on this.

Let me go grab a cup of coffee and I'll take a look at the rest of this goofy presentation.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 09:32 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 14th November 2011, 09:33 AM   #4920
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4556

I've spent weeks and months trying to teach you something about "magnetic reconnection", an *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS* in PLASMA, and for my efforts you called me a fraud? You aren't real big on scientific integrity I take it?
Well , let's take a look at what I said:

Quote:
This is the kind of adolescent debating that makes you so infamous as a nuisance and a fraud. You made no effort to address the substance of my comment while taking my use of an illustration out of context. Do you have any genuine interest in this subject or are you just here to gain pleasure from your obfuscating? My patience is running thin. Do you have any serious response to my comment (repeated below) or are you admitting magnetic reconnection is a real process?
I showed you an animation to clarify my question (which you dodged and danced around -- as usual) and you accused me of claiming the animation was proof! As a debating tactic it was indeed fraudulent!
__________________
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
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 05:46 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.