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 14th November 2011, 09:40 AM   #4921
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Quote:
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.
BZZZT! Epic fail part two begins.....

Honestly Clinger, you really do not comprehend even BASIC EM theory. Let me TRY AGAIN to straighten you out, just in case you are in fact interested in EDUCATING yourself.

Literally *NOTHING* begins or ends at the "neutral point" as you're calling it. The term "neutral point" relates to the plasma physics aspect.

In your experiment however (part four without plasma), it's nothing more than a NULL POINT, a region of spacetime where NOTHING HAPPENS. The B field lines (whole fields) "originate" in the four poles of your new graph, not the origin of your first image. See the problem yet? Nothing BEGINS at X. It's just "passing through" X without a penny it's pocket. At the "infinitesimal instant" as you call it, the continuous lines without a beginning or ending all simply "cross", they don't 'begin or end' at the X! There are four complete fields interacting at X (not actual lines), but nothing BEGINS, or ENDS at X. Do you understand this, yes or no?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 09:52 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, 10:19 AM   #4922
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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).
Just to set the record straight: I have never alleged that "Origin" was the great "beginor and endor" of all B field lines. In fact, I said quite clearly that the set of B4's field lines that begin or end at the origin form a set of measure zero.

Since Michael Mozina cannot provide a link to any message in which I wrote the second third ("beginor and endor") quoted phrase, I assume he's just telling lies.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.


Dropping names (Alfvén, Peratt, Birkeland, etc) and claiming to have read books (Cosmic Plasma etc) are the most convincing parts of Michael Mozina's arguments.

Here's what happens when Michael Mozina tries to make a real technical argument:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
BZZZT! Epic fail part two begins.....

Honestly Clinger, you really do not comprehend even BASIC EM theory. Let me TRY AGAIN to straighten you out, just in case you are in fact interested in EDUCATING yourself.

Literally *NOTHING* begins or ends at the "neutral point" as you're calling it. The term "neutral point" relates to the plasma physics aspect.

In your experiment however (part four without plasma), it's nothing more than a NULL POINT, a region of spacetime where NOTHING HAPPENS. The B field lines (whole fields) "originate" in the four poles of your new graph, not the origin of your first image. See the problem yet? Nothing BEGINS at X. It's just "passing through" X without a penny it's pocket. At the "infinitesimal instant" as you call it, the continuous lines without a beginning or ending all simply "cross", they don't 'begin or end' at the X! There are four complete fields interacting at X (not actual lines), but nothing BEGINS, or ENDS at X. Do you understand this, yes or no?
All of the highlighted statements are false.

It's certainly interesting that Michael Mozina thinks magnetic field lines can cross, but that's about what we should expect from a guy who's never been able to describe the magnetic field of a current-carrying rod.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 14th November 2011 at 10:28 AM. Reason: see strikeout
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, 10:21 AM   #4923
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Well , let's take a look at what I said:



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!
Go back and reread the whole dialog between us PS. I correctly told you that your image was an example of "solid magnet reconnection" right off the bat. I honestly TRIED and TRIED to go through your animation frame by frame trying to "see" what you seemed to see, specifically 'reconnection' of any lines. I could not see that. All I could "see" from my perspective were topology changes in the field lines related to magnetic flux changes. I literally had no clue what you were even 'seeing' in the image. All I could guess at is that you THOUGHT you saw a 'reconnection' of a couple of lines in that animation BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL FRAMES of that animation!

Had you properly read the website in the first place, or even cited the text or math from that website in the first place that you felt was related to 'magnetic reconnection' it would have been really helpful. You even avoided my direct questions while I was trying to figure out your confusion! By the time I handed you that cartoon PS, I was completely exasperated. I had no idea what kind of "evidence" you expected me to respond to at that point.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 10:23 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2011, 10:28 AM   #4924
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
All of the highlighted statements are false.
Not a single one of those highlighted statements is false Clinger. You've essentially confused a NULL point in a line or a collection of lines as the "beginning and ending" of the line(s). You really don't have the first clue about basic EM theory. The fact that you're STILL trying to defend this nonsense says VOLUMES Clinger. You're only burying yourself deeper and deeper.

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, 10:50 AM   #4925
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
FYI Clinger, only PHYSICAL THINGS "create" (not begin or end) magnetic fields, things like solid magnets and THINGS like moving charged particles, physical things like your the poles of your experiment. These PHYSICAL THINGS create magnetic fields. Vacuums and null points are physically incapable of CREATING, let alone "beginning or ending" magnetic fields. The field strength (line strength in your vernacular) simply fades to zero at that NULL point, the lines don't "begin" at the NULL or "end" at the null. No single line or collection of lines begins or ends at it's NULL point! Holy Cow!

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 11:15 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2011, 12:14 PM   #4926
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
As long as I'm helping you out....

In part 4 (without plasma) that would be called magnetic flux and that would create changes in the magnetic flux density in that region and everywhere in the field. The field topology will change. Without plasma however, nothing PHYSICAL is going to "reconnect" anywhere near that X. There's nothing TO reconnect yet. No E field will be induced without a plasma, and no electrical discharges are going to take place yet because you don't have a single electron to your name yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_flux

Again however, every single B "line" (it's actually a full field, not a real line) remains intact and continuous. Not one of them originates or terminates at the x.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 12:23 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 14th November 2011, 12:28 PM   #4927
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Well Clinger...

As much as I'd love to see you 'graduate' from basic EM theory and move on to plasma physics, mostly so I can find out if you ever come out of the closet and admit that electrical discharges occur in plasmas and flares, I can't pass you in good conscience. Sorry. You're welcome to try again, but you may not proceed to part 5 yet.
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, 01:17 PM   #4928
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
MM: I have called you a liar becuase you have lied as documented in this post

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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 have (and will continue to) call you a liar while you continue to lie by quote mining (Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!).

I have (and will continue to) call you a liar while you continue to lie about my attitude to you. I do not hate you.

I pity you for the state of ignorance of basic physics that you are demonstrating:
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length").

I pity you for your inability to learn physics, e.g. as in W.D. Clinger's very clear posts on magnetic reconnection in vacuum:
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 4




Quote:
  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 both of the figures in J W Dungey's 1958 paper, figure 3a in the survey paper by Yamada et al, and the still figure in Wikipedia's current article on magnetic reconnection.
  4. Part 3 also showed that magnetic lines can begin or end at a neutral point, which I later proved in more detail.
I pity you for your inability to understand the electrical discharges do not cause solar flares and your obsession with the obsolete use of the term 'electrical discharge' in magnetic reconnection: Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma

ETA
I pity you for your dependence on 'I see bunnies in the clouds' logic (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...06#post7753306).
In another thread: the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy about the TRACE RD 171A movie!

I pity you for the arrogance of thinking that you know more about specific solar images than a scientist studying them:
the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy about the Kosovichev movie! (debunked by Dr. Kosovichev)
I applaud your honesty in quoting Dr. Kosovichev.

I pity you for not understanding that you are misrepresenting (to be charitable) Birkeland's work: Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work (citing his work on brass balls in support of an iron sun idea is especially amusing. And MM: Citations for Birkeland and solar energy sources.

I pity you for not being able to understand the magnetic reconnection is supported by observations:
Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003
and
Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0-521-48179-1, contents and sample chapter online
Quote:
Reconnection provides an elegant, and so far the only, explanation for the motion of chromospheric ribbons and flare loops during solar flares. At the same time, it also accounts for the enormous energy release in solar flares. The ejection of magnetic flux from the Sun during coronal mass ejections and prominence eruptions necessarily requires reconnection; otherwise, the magnetic flux in interplanetary space would build up indefinitely. Reconnection has also been proposed as a mechanism for the heating of solar and stellar coronae to extremely high temperatures
(my emphasis added)

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th November 2011 at 02:41 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2011, 01:31 PM   #4929
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
As much as I'd love to see you 'graduate' from basic EM theory and move on to plasma physics, mostly so I can find out if you ever come out of the closet and admit that electrical discharges occur in plasmas and flares, I can't pass you in good conscience. Sorry. You're welcome to try again, but you may not proceed to part 5 yet.
And once again we get your your obsession with the obsolete use of the term 'electrical discharge' in magnetic reconnection: Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma

When W.D. Clinger gets to magnetic reconnection in plasma (a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 4 states in the next part), he will use the modern terminology that you are displaying an ignorance of. So there will be large current densities. There will never be a 'admission' of electrical discharges in plasma because he is not dumb enough to use Dungey's obsolete term.

And the last sentence is just stupid - in order to look at the large current densities in plasma, W.D. Clinger has to go onto magnetic reconnection in plasma !
There is no current density in magnetic reconnection in vacuum. The only currents are the ones in the rods that are applied in the experiment (constant at 1000 amperes in parts 1-3, varied in part 4).
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 14th November 2011, 01:32 PM   #4930
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I have (and will continue to) call you a liar......
Yes, I know. Haters always continue to attack the individual. That's why they are called "haters" in the first place RC.
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, 01:57 PM   #4931
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
And once again we get your your obsession with the obsolete use of the term 'electrical discharge'
That has to be the single most pathetic rationalization I've ever heard and that's saying something. I've talked to a LOT of creationists in my day. Exactly how was an electrical discharge in 1958 different from an electrical discharge in 2011?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 02:08 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 14th November 2011, 02:06 PM   #4932
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Question MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Yes, I know. Haters always continue to attack the individual. That's why they are called "haters" in the first place RC.
No, you are deluded. I call you a liar because you lie.
I pity you for you many displays of ignorance, the commitment to not learn and your delusions.

I am not attacking you - I am pointing out the things that you, yourself have displayed in this forum. It would be very easy for you to fix this - stop displaying them! For example, demonstrate that you can learn.

Here's an easy thing to learn, MM
What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field is zero?
I will even spoon feed you the path to the answer: First look up a definition of magnetic field lines. Then see how their areal density varies with magnetic field intensity. Now put B=0.
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 14th November 2011, 02:15 PM   #4933
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That has to be the single most pathetic rationalization I've every heard and that's saying something. I've talked to a LOT of creationists in my day. Exactly how was an electrical discharge in 1958 different from an electrical discharge in 2011?
has to be the single most pathetic bit of ignorance I've every heard and that's saying something. I've talked to a LOT of physics cranks in my day.
The stupidity of thinking that I said that the process was different in 1958 that today is obvious - it is still magnetic reconnection.

It is that I am trying (obviously in vain) to stop you displaying your ignorance of physics by using an obsolete term (Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma).
This is as ignorant as someone calling an electron an cathode ray or a corpuscle (From Thompson's Corpusles to the Electron).
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 14th November 2011, 02:16 PM   #4934
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No, you are deluded. I call you a liar..
You call me a liar because you're a hater and that's about all you do know how to do. You certainly don't know squat about physics. You couldn't spot Clinger's BUSH-LEAGUE mistakes. You couldn't and didn't help him in any way. Your sole purpose in this thread is to spew hatred. That's your game.
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, 02:42 PM   #4935
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You call me a liar because you're a hater and that's about all you do know how to do. ..snipped rant...
MM: I have called you a liar becuase you have lied as documented in this post
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 14th November 2011, 02:53 PM   #4936
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No RC. You don't even know enough to know what is a lie and what is the truth. You don't take the time or make the effort to find out either. Haters are all alike. The topic changes, but the hater behaviors are exactly the same.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 02:57 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 14th November 2011, 02:59 PM   #4937
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No RC. You don't even know enough to know what is a lie and what is the truth. You don't take the time to find out either. Haters are all alike. The topic changes, but the hater behaviors are exactly the same.
Yes I do: MM: I have called you a liar becuase you have lied as documented in this post
  • Quote mining is a lie.
  • Claiming to know what I think when I have explicitly told you that I do not think that is a lie.
  • Calling me a hater is a lie.You need to call me a pitier of Michael Mozina.
Maybe you will understand this if I put it in your dialect:

No MM. You don't even know enough to know what is a fantasy and what is the science. You don't take the time to find out either. Physics cranks are all alike. The topic changes, but the physics crank behaviors are exactly the same.
  • Displays of ignorance of science
  • A determination not to learn science.
  • Fantasies about science
  • Going off on rants when their fantasies are challenged with actual science.
  • Obsessions with semantics rather then looking at the science.
  • A refusal to even look at questions which might teach them about science.
MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0
I do not expect you answer this given your record of ignorance about science in this thread alone and the dozens of questions that you have ignored in other threads over the years.

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th November 2011 at 03:10 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2011, 03:19 PM   #4938
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That only makes you a liar RC. Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge takes place *IN* plasma. You're latching on to ONE EXAMPLE of *ONE KIND* of AN electrical discharge that takes place in the cosmos according to Peratt and using that to try to deny the fact that Dungey's electrical discharge in a flare ever happened.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 03:36 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 14th November 2011, 03:30 PM   #4939
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Question MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge takes place *IN* plasma.
You are really determined to record your inability to read.
Peratt gives no definition or examples of an electrical discharge *IN* plasma. Section 1.5 is about the generation of plasma using electrical discharges, e.g. in lightning.

Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge! P.S.
MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0
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 14th November 2011, 03:47 PM   #4940
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Unhappy MM: Plese do not lie about me denying Dungey's 'electrical discharge'

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You're latching on to ONE EXAMPLE of *ONE KIND* of AN electrical discharge that takes place in the cosmos and using to that try to deny the fact that Dungey's electrical discharge in a flare ever happened.
Oh dear - almost 2 lies in one post !

The implied lie: Peratt does give examples of ordinary electrical discharges that are impossible in plasma because they need the breakdown of a dielectric medium. But Peratt never gives any EXAMPLE of ANY electrical discharge that takes place in cosmic plasma. Section 1.5 does not have even have any non-terrestrial EXAMPLES.
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011
Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
First asked 3rd February 2011
The lie: I have never denied that fact that Dungey's 'electrical discharge' in a flare ever happened. I have read his paper and mentioned his obsolete usage of the term many times before:
  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
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 14th November 2011, 03:48 PM   #4941
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You are really determined to record your inability to read.
Peratt gives no definition or examples of an electrical discharge *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 prαesses 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 microωανes . 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, vi α a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static 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.

The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere .
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, 03:59 PM   #4942
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Let's try this Clinger:

Since I'm personally dying to find out if you come out of the closet in part 5, let's try this plan: When you can personally explain that same VACUUM process *WITHOUT* using the term "reconnection", or claiming any B lines start or end at X, or relying upon any PROCESS involving plasma physics, like any other freshman physics student, I'll let you move on to part 5.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 04:09 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 14th November 2011, 03:59 PM   #4943
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Just stumbled upon this from the 11th
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Wow. I can't believe you folks removed my recent post to Clinger where I gave him a grade on his experiment. It's evidently fine for you folks to call me a fraud, and lie about my physics skills on a daily basis, but God forbid I should point out that Clinger KLUDGED a simple quadrapole magnetic field experiment.
Do you have the idea that the rest of the posters are moderators with the power to remove posts?

If a post was moved by the moderators it would be because it violated the Membership Agreement. This suggests that you did more than "give a grade". Looking at the probable post in AAH does suggest a reason for it being moved - attacking the person, not the argument.

BTW: A grade is missing. You would need to go through W.D. Clinger's posts on the experiment and show where he went wrong (using science and mathematics rather than your personal opinion) in order to give a grade, e.g. X equations presented, Y wrong thus a grade of Y/X.

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th November 2011 at 04:02 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2011, 04:03 PM   #4944
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Question MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post



Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge! Thanks for reminding me that I missed out:
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011
from
Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!

P.S.


MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th November 2011 at 04:04 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2011, 04:17 PM   #4945
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Exclamation Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge

The Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge! post midded out Michael Mozina's inability to understand the difference between a title and a definition.
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011

Of course the title is not a definition. It is a description of the contents of the section.
The definition never mentions plasma.
The section never mentions electrical discharges in plasma (cosmic or otherwise!).

The full text of the section (all 4 paragrapghs!) is quoted in Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
And you have to ask the question: Why is the magical property of the 'cosmic plasma' in the title "Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" been ignored by the scientific literature?
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 14th November 2011, 04:25 PM   #4946
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Let's try this Clinger:

Since I'm personally dying to find out if you come out of the closet in part 5, let's try this plan: When you can personally explain that same VACUUM process *WITHOUT* using the term "reconnection", or claiming any B lines start or end at X, or relying upon any PROCESS involving plasma physics, like any other freshman physics student, I'll let you move on to part 5.
Let's try you forcing W.D. Clinger into following your lead and ignoring the actual science!
  • The VACUUM process is called magnetic reconnection (in a VACUUM) as stated in the scientific literature.
  • The B field lines do end at X as is obvious from his posts and the scientific literature.
  • Plasma physics is not taught at freshman level.
  • W.D. Clinger's posts so fare use freshman EM theory and calculus.
  • W.D. Clinger's next post will introduce some plasma.
Abandon any fantasy that you can stop W.D. Clinger from moving onto part 5. His post 5 will not be delayed because you are unable to understand any of the preceding posts.

P.S.

MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th November 2011 at 04:28 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2011, 04:32 PM   #4947
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Let's try you forcing W.D. Clinger into following your lead and ignoring the actual science!
I didn't ask Clinger to handwave away about some sort of vacuum contraption that would produce magnetic reconnection, he did. I'm just trying to find a logical way to let him move forward because my curiosity is killing me about part 5 and whether or not he comes out of the closet.

As Clinger explained to us earlier, his freshman physics textbook doesn't even mention the term 'reconnection', but I'm sure it includes the information necessary to explain that process WITHOUT the term "reconnection". When he can do that, like any other freshman student, *WITHOUT* the term "reconnection" and without beginning and ending B field lines, I'll be happy. Until then he hasn't even grasped BASIC EM theory! He doesn't even NEED the term "reconnection" to explain that experiment in a vacuum.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 04:50 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2011, 04:50 PM   #4948
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I didn't ask Clinger ...
...insanity about about magnetic reconection without the term 'reconnection'.. snipped
Duh - we know that you did not ask him.
We can read that W.D. Clinger has presented a freshman level description of an experiment that demonstrates magnetic reconnection.
What you are still unable to understand tis that this is freshman EM theory and calculus.
This is not MR theory which is usually a graduate course. It is thus idiotic to complain about MR theory not appearing in freshman EM textbooks.

The insanity in the rest of your post s that you ignore that the scientific term to "explain that experiment in a vacuum" is magnetic reconnection.

P.S.
MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th November 2011 at 04:54 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2011, 04:57 PM   #4949
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
What a bunch of BS.

We *ALL* know that Clinger's "vacuum contraption" has to *EVENTUALLY* be swapped out for a PLASMA contraption. A plasma contraption actually might experience induced E fields and might (depending on how fast he changes B) actually work as described to produce an electrical discharge in a plasma. I'm curious what he expects me to say about his blatant bait and switch routine when he gets to Part 5, but I'm much more curious if he finally embraces electrical discharges in flares and plasma in part 5. Hell, I'll even postpone the reaming he's going to get for the blatant bait and switch routine until AFTER I hear the whole story. Inquiring minds want to know.

What he will understand at the end is the difference between a PLASMA DISCHARGE PROCESS in a plasma contraption and an ordinary quadrapole magnetic field in a vacuum contraption.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 14th November 2011 at 04:59 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 14th November 2011, 05:13 PM   #4950
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What a bunch of BS.
What a bunch of BS.

We *ALL* know that Clinger's "vacuum contraption" has to *IN PART 5* have some plasma added because that is what W.D. Clinger has said that he will do !

There will be no 'bait and switch' because he will just do what he stated he will do (and knows that posters can read and will see any switch).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What he will understand at the end is the difference between a PLASMA DISCHARGE PROCESS in a plasma contraption and an ordinary quadrapole magnetic field in a vacuum contraption.
This gibberish because it has nothing to do with part 5.
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 4
Quote:
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.
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 14th November 2011, 06:03 PM   #4951
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by mimada View Post
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.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
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, 06:13 PM   #4952
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0304.mpg
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0171.mpg

FYI the sun is experiencing one of the "weirdest" dark filament eruptions/dissipation processes I've seen thus far in SDO this cycle. It's a very long filament oriented toward the 11:00 position. Part of it (near the limb) more or less "erupted/dissipated/dissolved", while some of it did not. That's cool IMO!
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, 06:19 PM   #4953
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0304.mpg
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0171.mpg

FYI the sun is experiencing one of the "weirdest" dark filament eruptions/dissipation processes I've seen thus far in SDO this cycle. It's a very long filament oriented toward the 11:00 position. Part of it (near the limb) more or less "erupted/dissipated/dissolved", while some of it did not. That's cool IMO!
FYI: Really cool pictures but nothing to do with this thread.
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 14th November 2011, 08:29 PM   #4954
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
I have (and will continue to) call you a liar......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Yes I do: MM: I have called you a liar becuase you have lied as documented in this post
Quote mining is a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
And once again we get your your obsession with the obsolete use of the term 'electrical discharge'
The exchange I had with Mozina some days ago about moving magnets is classic. On this any many other threads Mozina dances, dodges, obfuscates and, of course, LIES! No matter what you and Clinger and others say and demonstrate, his delusions will persist. I have come to believe that, in addition to his inability to understand mathematics, he has trouble following the logic of these discussions and resorts to these tactics to mask his intellectual deficiencies and ignorance. These problems and the religious zeal associated with EU cult thinking makes any discussion with him hopeless!
As you said:
Quote:
No MM. You don't even know enough to know what is a fantasy and what is the science. You don't take the time to find out either. Physics cranks are all alike. The topic changes, but the physics crank behaviors are exactly the same.
•Displays of ignorance of science
•A determination not to learn science.
•Fantasies about science
•Going off on rants when their fantasies are challenged with actual science.
•Obsessions with semantics rather then looking at the science.
•A refusal to even look at questions which might teach them about science.
Isn't this what we are seeing demonstrated again and again?
__________________
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 15th November 2011, 01:17 AM   #4955
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Just to set the record straight: I have never alleged that "Origin" was the great "beginor and endor" of all B field lines. In fact, I said quite clearly that the set of B4's field lines that begin or end at the origin form a set of measure zero.
Never mind, Clinger, this is just envy and hatred speaking from MM, because you "show off" your mathematical prowess, which MM lacks (and probably would love to have).

As a side note, like I said before, the separatrices are special cases. Now, what MM does not seem to understand is that there is still continuity, because the two lines come in, two lines go out. However, the field is zero, by necessity, because otherwise the field would have four directions at that specific point.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2011, 01:53 AM   #4956
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Never mind, Clinger, this is just envy and hatred speaking from MM, because you "show off" your mathematical prowess, which MM lacks (and probably would love to have).
What? OMG. While I admit to being envious of sol's basic prowess in physics and Tim's knowledge in general, Clinger and rest of the hater crew don't even have a CLUE about basic theory. In fact the four of them *COMBINED* can't even *CORRECTLY* explain a standard quadrapole magnetic field in a vacuum! Holy Cow! I'd be EMBARRASSED AS HELL to have posted the nonsense to this thread that Clinger has posted!

Quote:
As a side note, like I said before, the separatrices are special cases. Now, what MM does not seem to understand is that there is still continuity, because the two lines come in, two lines go out. However, the field is zero, by necessity, because otherwise the field would have four directions at that specific point.
Quit confusing him with plasma physics. He doesn't even understand BASIC theory or he would be able to explain his vacuum contraption *WITHOUT* the term "reconnection" and without ERRONEOUSLY claiming that B lines begin and end at the X!. When he can do that LITTLE, then he can think about gloating over his math skills. Until then, those math skills seem pretty damn useless to me, as well as the math skills of all the rest of haters. They couldn't even help him find his BUSH-LEAGUE mistakes as a GROUP! Evidently every single one of them thinks that magnetic B field lines begin and end at a null point in a vacuum of an ordinary quadrapole magnetic field experiment. Sheesh.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 15th November 2011 at 02:02 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 15th November 2011, 01:56 AM   #4957
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
The exchange I had with Mozina some days ago about moving magnets is classic.
Yep, it was absolutely "classic" hater dialog. Instead of providing a real published paper to support your claim, you misread a website, and utterly abused and misused one of their images as a "scientific argument" by itself.

Even though I *CORRECTLY* explained that process to you, you *STILL* do not understand it. Instead of admitting YOUR mistake, you attack the individual. Yep, "classic" hater behavior alright.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 15th November 2011 at 02:01 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 15th November 2011, 11:44 AM   #4958
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0
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 15th November 2011, 12:31 PM   #4959
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Quit confusing him with plasma physics.
What plasma physics?
Talking about epic fail, sheesh, you just read the words and then fill in what you want to read.
I said:

Originally Posted by me
As a side note, like I said before, the separatrices are special cases. Now, what MM does not seem to understand is that there is still continuity, because the two lines come in, two lines go out. However, the field is zero, by necessity, because otherwise the field would have four directions at that specific point.
What exactly is here plasma phyiscs, I am just talking about magnetic fields, field lines and separatrices. I have not talked about plasma physics.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2011, 12:33 PM   #4960
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
What plasma physics?
Talking about epic fail, sheesh, you just read the words and then fill in what you want to read.
I said:



What exactly is here plasma phyiscs, I am just talking about magnetic fields, field lines and separatrices. I have not talked about plasma physics.
Do the B field lines begin (and end) at X *IN A VACUUM* (no particles whatsoever), not even a "monopole"?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 15th November 2011 at 12:35 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
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 05:23 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.