Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags Alfven waves , Birkeland currents , hannes alfven , Kristian Birkeland

 15th November 2011, 12:42 PM #4961 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Look folks, it's very simple. Until Clinger gives up his "religion" in the beginning and ending of B lines *IN A VACUUM*, he's not moving on to part 5, it's that simple. Clinger himself explained to us that his freshman physics textbook (evidently still in his personal possession) never once mentioned the term "reconnection". Clinger then should be able to explain that quadrapolar magnetic field experiment *IN A VACUUM* without once mentioning "reconnection", and he should do so based upon "the party line dogma of physics" that monopoles do not exist, and magnetic lines have no beginning, nor any ending. He needs to provide NO MORE MATH, nor ANYMORE GRAPHS. All I want is a clear VERBAL EXPLANATION of an ordinary quadrapolar magnetic field in a vacuum WITHOUT the term "reconnection" and WITHOUT claiming that B lines begin and end. Every single freshman has to be able to explain it to move on. Clinger has to do that too. I'm not asking for much. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 15th November 2011 at 12:55 PM.
 15th November 2011, 01:10 PM #4962 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 By the way... Any of you that would like to help Clinger out *PRIVATELY*, are free to do so. I've already provided all the help he needs, but I doubt he will listen to me. Maybe some of you might set him straight so his next presentation passes muster? I'm personally itching to know if he comes out of the closet in part 5. The suspense is killing me.
 15th November 2011, 01:16 PM #4963 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,356 MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Do the B field lines begin (and end) at X *IN A VACUUM* (no particles whatsoever), not even a "monopole"? The answer is so obvious, MM: Yes. This is what all of the textbooks on magnetic reconnection state. No one's opinion (tusenfem, mine, W.D. Clinger or even yours) will change this physical fact. So it is ridiculous to basically do a poll on a forum thread that you will probably ignore (given your record of ignoring the science so far). Read the textbooks, MM. This is also what the definition of magnetic fields lines states. Which is why I asked:MM: What is the areal density of magnetic field lines where the magnetic field = 0 Since you want to be spoon-fed the answer, here it is The precise definition of a field line is Quote: Precise definition A vector field defines a direction at all points in space; a field line for that vector field may be constructed by tracing a topographic path in the direction of the vector field. More precisely, the tangent line to the path at each point is required to be parallel to the vector field at that point. A complete description of the geometry of all the field lines of a vector field is sufficient to completely specify the direction of the vector field everywhere. In order to also depict the magnitude, a selection of field lines is drawn such that the density of field lines (number of field lines per unit perpendicular area) at any location is proportional to the magnitude of the vector field at that point. The magnitude of the vector field (the magnetic field) at a neutral point is zero. Thus the density of field lines at the neutral point is zero. A density of zero means that no field line passes though the neutral point. In magnetic reconnection in a vacuum, the magnetic field lines form an X that crosses at the neutral point. By definition these field lines cannot go through the neutral point. They have to end and begin at the neutral point. This is what scientists have been stating for over 60 years now. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 15th November 2011, 01:19 PM #4964 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check The answer is so obvious, MM: Yes. BZZT! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field Quote: B-field lines never end Main article: Gauss's law for magnetism Field lines are a useful way to represent any vector field and often reveal sophisticated properties of fields quite simply. One important property of the B-field revealed this way is that magnetic B field lines neither start nor end (mathematically, B is a solenoidal vector field); a field line either extends to infinity or wraps around to form a closed curve.[nb 8] To date no exception to this rule has been found. (See magnetic monopole below.) Unless you've got a monopole hiding in that magic hat of yours, FOREGETABOUTIT! Epic WRONG ANSWER!
 15th November 2011, 01:22 PM #4965 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,356 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Look folks, it's very simple. Until Clinger gives up his "religion" in the beginning and ending of B lines *IN A VACUUM*, he's not moving on to part 5, it's that simple. ...snipped embarrassing display of ignorance...\ Look, MM, it's very simple. Your ignorance of the physics will not stop W.D. Clinger from going onto part 5. The insanity of thinking that you can force anyone to stop posting in an Internet forum is obvious . W.D. Clinger is stating the science that B lines *IN A VACUUM* begin and end at a neutral point when they cross it, he's moving on to part 5, it's that simple. Maybe this is something else you cannot understand: MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 15th November 2011, 01:23 PM #4966 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina He needs to provide NO MORE MATH, nor ANYMORE GRAPHS. All I want is a clear VERBAL EXPLANATION of an ordinary quadrapolar magnetic field in a vacuum WITHOUT the term "reconnection" and WITHOUT claiming that B lines begin and end. Every single freshman has to be able to explain it to move on. Clinger has to do that too. I'm not asking for much. Do physics without math! No, that isn't asking for much. Demanding, uncivilly and impolitely as it is, that other people should somehow demonstrate the validity of the electric Sun conjecture is shifting the burden of proof. It's a dishonest logical fallacy, and as an argument, it's intellectually bankrupt.
 15th November 2011, 01:25 PM #4967 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,356 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina BZZT! Try reading what you quote and looking at the footnotes. Try reading W.D. Clinger's posts about the limitation of the Wikipedia article. Try reading any of the many MR textbooks that state that magnetic field lines do end and begin at a neutral point. Try reading any of the many sceintific papers state that magnetic field lines do end and begin at a neutral point. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 15th November 2011, 01:25 PM #4968 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack Do physics without math! No, that isn't asking for much. It's not his math or his graph that is FUBAR, it's his UNDERSTANDING of WHAT THAT MATH MEANS that is FUBAR. When he UNDERSTANDS what he wrote, I'll be a happy camper.
 15th November 2011, 01:30 PM #4969 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,356 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina By the way... Any of you that would like to help Clinger out *PRIVATELY*, are free to do so. I've already provided all the help he needs, but I doubt he will listen to me. By the way .... You are wrong if you think that you have been trying to help W.D. Clinger. Helping him would involve you showing that you understand his posts and pointing pout the math or physics errors that he has made. All you have been doing is whining about his posts from a stance of ignorance. That whining and ignorance is why he may not be listening to you. W.D. Clinger has been doing a great job *PUBLICALLY*. He does have an advantage over you (and me!) in that he has the relevant textbooks to work from. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2011 at 01:32 PM.
 15th November 2011, 01:32 PM #4970 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check Helping him would involve you showing that you understand his posts and pointing pout the math or physics errors that he has made. Been there, done that twice now. I made him fix the graph the first time, hoping he would stop confusing the origin of the graph with the origin of the magnetic lines. He didn't take that hint. I then FULLY explained his errors, which he then HIGHLIGHTED in full. I don't know what more I can now do for him. His graph is fine, his math is fine, his understanding of that math and WHAT that graph actually means stinks to high heaven. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 15th November 2011 at 01:34 PM.
 15th November 2011, 01:39 PM #4971 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check Try reading any of the many sceintific papers state that magnetic field lines do end and begin at a neutral point. Try finding one *IN A VACUUM*. Hint: The "exception" to the no beginning, no ending rule would be a MONOPOLE RC, not a NULL point in the line! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 15th November 2011 at 01:41 PM.
 15th November 2011, 02:09 PM #4972 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by GeeMack Do physics without math! No, that isn't asking for much. It's not his math or his graph that is FUBAR, it's his UNDERSTANDING of WHAT THAT MATH MEANS that is FUBAR. When he UNDERSTANDS what he wrote, I'll be a happy camper. So the math is correct, and the graph is correct. And the math shows no magnetic field lines pass through the neutral point indicated by the origin on the graph. So there doesn't seem to be a problem. Of course demanding that other people need to demonstrate the validity of the electric Sun conjecture is shifting the burden of proof, a dishonest logical fallacy, and an intellectually bankrupt argument.
 15th November 2011, 02:10 PM #4973 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,356 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Try finding one *IN A VACUUM*. Hint: The "exception" to the no beginning, no ending rule would be a MONOPOLE RC, not a NULL point in the line! How stupid: The X point that you have been talking about in W.D. Clinger's posts is a neutral point *IN A VACUUM*. You have even called it that! It isa neutral point and *IN A VACUUM*. Hint: There is no "no beginning, no ending rule". There is a statement in many places that B lines do not end or start for magnetic fields from a single current or a magnet. This is true. Some sources say that Gauss's law means that B lines do not end or start. This is true for the stated situations but not in general. Counterexample: Look at the field at a neutral point. Draw any surface around it and integral of the field at the surface is zero (any B.dA is matched by an opposite B.dA so the sum is zero). Gauss's law is obeyed. But at the neutral point there can be no magnetic field lines by definition ! MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th November 2011, 12:02 AM #4974 tusenfem Master Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,165 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Do the B field lines begin (and end) at X *IN A VACUUM* (no particles whatsoever), not even a "monopole"? A fact that you seem to be keep on missing is that magnetic fields (as generated e.g. by the current rods of Clinger) does not need a plasma or anything to exist. It is a field, which is generated by the currents, and has a very simple vacuum solution. So there is no need for any plasma. Now on to the X point (or line, if you extend the figure that Clinger provided out of the page). There are various kinds of field lines and you can split them up into groups: the U in the "north" region the < in the "east" the > in the "west" the ⋂ in the "south" Now, there is a place (line) in space which separates these regions, that is called the separatrix, and in the figure that is the big X that goes from top-left corner to bottom-right corner and from top-right corner to bottom-left corner. These separatrices are actual field lines of the vector field (which is a continuum as you so like to impress on us), and a field line does no more than show how the vector field is shaped, and the direction of the field is given by the tangent to the field line and the field strength is given by the density of the field lines. Now, of course there is a "problem" with the separatrices, because ... they cross eachother! Field lines cannot cross eachother, or can they? If they cross that would mean that the field as two different directions at that point, which is physically impossible, unless ... the field is zero at that point where the field lines cross. Let us now look at the figure by Clinger, lo and behold the separatrices cross eachother exactly in the middle of the figure, where oh-my-gawd the field is zero. What does this have for philosophical consequences? We can follow a certain field line in the vector field (which is a continuum) which is just next to the separatrix, say in the north. It will move along the separatrix towards the origin of the figure (which is well chosen to be in the middle of the figure), but when it gets very close to (0,0) it starts to veer off (in a very low magnetic field strength) and makes a curve and moves up again along the other separatrix. The separatrix itself cannot escape the crossing point (otherwise it would not be a separatrix) so it must continue on its course towards (0,0) in the figure, where the field is also zero. And here comes the philosophical question, when a field line reaches a location where the field is zero and thus there is no direction to the magnetic vector field? One thing you can say is that the field line ends there, because it has nowhere to go at that point. However, we must take into account that there are four parts to the separatrices that make the X. Note how two of them point away from the X and two of them point towards the X. Then we have the situation that can be interpreted in the following way: there are two field lines that are going towards the X and end there and there are two field lines that are goina away from the X and start there. So, the one's end is the other's beginning. There is still continuity, but the crossing of the field lines implicitely means that the field has to be zero at that point. There is no need for plasma, there is no need for monopoles. There is however need for reconnection of the field lines when the current in two diagonally opposite current rods is changed, because the separatrices will change their location. In that square box the X will not be at right angles anymore but will be at a sharp(blunt) angle, depending on which wind direction you look, and thus new connections will have to be made. __________________ 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
 16th November 2011, 12:57 AM #4975 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem A fact that you seem to be keep on missing is that magnetic fields (as generated e.g. by the current rods of Clinger) does not need a plasma or anything to exist. It is a field, which is generated by the currents, and has a very simple vacuum solution. So there is no need for any plasma. Nobody disputed that the field exists without plasma in the first place. Wow did you do a 180 degree turn there or what? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4798 Quote: Why on Earth would they "begin at the X" that makes no sense at all! Again, read up on the first chapters of a book on reconnection, that you actually understand the basics of Petschek and Sweet-Parker. Talk about back peddling on a dime tusenfem. The moment you discovered it was Clinger that made the claim, not me, now you're doing everything in your power to sweep his bush-league mistake under the carpet? Really? My full response may have to wait until the morning, but you're absolutely wrong in terms of any magnetic lines BEGINNING and ENDING at X. Magnetic flux changes might take place when he futzes with the power, but that's it. No monopoles, no begining or ending of magnetic lines. When are you even claiming this "beginning" of a B line at X happens? When it's just "on", or when someone changes the field of the poles and MAGNETIC FLUX DENSITY CHANGES OCCUR? Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 01:12 AM.
 16th November 2011, 01:20 AM #4976 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem What does this have for philosophical consequences? Philosophical consequences? I thought we were talking physics? Quote: We can follow a certain field line in the vector field (which is a continuum) which is just next to the separatrix, say in the north. It will move along the separatrix towards the origin of the figure (which is well chosen to be in the middle of the figure), but when it gets very close to (0,0) it starts to veer off (in a very low magnetic field strength) and makes a curve and moves up again along the other separatrix. I guess this your "low field strength of the gaps" argument? In term of kinetic energy, what is *IT* that starts to "veer off", and why in the world would it "veer off"? You do realize that magnetic fields aren't really LINES at all, right, they are whole fields? The whole FIELD is suddenly veering off for no reason, or one MONOPOLE jumps from one field to the other? How would ANY of this explain any B lines "beginning and ending" at X as Clinger claimed? Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 01:36 AM.
 16th November 2011, 01:28 AM #4977 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem There is no need for plasma, there is no need for monopoles. Boloney. No plasma, no induced E field, no electrical discharge. No monopole, no BEGINNING or ENDING of any magnetic lines. Those are the physical facts. Quote: There is however need for reconnection of the field lines when the current in two diagonally opposite current rods is changed, because the separatrices will change their location. The only thing that will happen is the WHOLE FIELD (not one line) is going to change, and magnetic flux densities with shift along with magnetic field topologies. Since there is no plasma, there will be no inducement of an E, and no electrical discharge. No lines/fields have to "reconnect". All that has to happen is MAGNET FLUX CHANGES. IMO you're evoking a "small veering of the gaps" argument where none is warranted or required. Basic theory can explain the changes in the field strengths *WITHOUT* the term "reconnection"!
 16th November 2011, 09:10 AM #4978 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,852 Quote: Cranks and crackpots The cranks and crackpots examine unconventional ideas, but become strongly attached to them. Any error in their analysis, even basic errors that can be easily demonstrated, are not acknowledged. In the rare case where they do provide a reasonably testable scientific model, the one successful prediction it might make, in their minds, outweighs the dozens of predictions where it fails. The cranks rarely use good scientific methodologies, instead claiming 'logic', or the 'obvious' interpretation of some data-driven image or movie is the basis for their knowledge. They make extreme claims about how their theories explain every observation, yet it is difficult to impossible to get these theories into a form that others can do calculations which can be compared to actual measurements. The theories of cranks and crackpots flunk the important scientific test of reproducibility. Their theories are often only supported by a tiny set of cherry-picked, anecdotal, events extracted from a much larger body of contrary evidence. LINK __________________ 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
 16th November 2011, 09:23 AM #4979 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Link Haters are all alike. The topics change, but the behaviors are identical. When you don't want to embrace the fact that E induced fields and electrical discharges can *ONLY* occur in a plasma, not his vacuum contraption, you just keep attacking the individual. How sad that that you can't get yourself off the hate-go-round. The fact all four of you haters *STILL* believe that Origin is the great beginor and endor of magnetic B lines from a VACUUM, is a RIOT! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 09:32 AM.
 16th November 2011, 09:29 AM #4980 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,300 Originally Posted by tusenfem Then we have the situation that can be interpreted in the following way: there are two field lines that are going towards the X and end there and there are two field lines that are going away from the X and start there. So, the one's end is the other's beginning. There is still continuity, but the crossing of the field lines implicitly means that the field has to be zero at that point. There is no need for plasma, there is no need for monopoles. There is however need for reconnection of the field lines when the current in two diagonally opposite current rods is changed, because the separatrices will change their location. In that square box the X will not be at right angles anymore but will be at a sharp(blunt) angle, depending on which wind direction you look, and thus new connections will have to be made. Like this: That animation shows the spatial region immediately surrounding the neutral point of B4 (see below). It shows how the magnetic field lines will change when the current running through the north and south rods is varied between 999.9 and 1000.1 amperes. That animation was generated from equations that are themselves straightforward consequences of Maxwell's equations. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina When are you even claiming this "beginning" of a B line at X happens? When it's just "on", or when someone changes the field of the poles and MAGNETIC FLUX DENSITY CHANGES OCCUR? As explained previously, exactly four magnetic field lines begin or end at the neutral point in every xy plane of the static magnetic field B4 defined by Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger  \begin{align*} \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} &= \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} (x, y, z, t) = \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} (t) (x, y, z) \\ &= \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I^{(p)}(t)}{(x-x_0)^2+(y-y_0)^2} \left( - (y-y_0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-x_0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \end{align*} (which is the equation for the magnetic field generated by a conducting rod orthogonal to the xy plane at ) and Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger $ $\hbox{{B}}_4 = \hbox{{B}}_E + \hbox{{B}}_W + \hbox{{B}}_N + \hbox{{B}}_S$$ where BE, BW, BN, BS are the magnetic fields generated by steady 1000-ampere currents running through four conducting rods positioned on the x and y axes exactly 1 meter from the origin, with the currents running in the positive z direction for the east and west rods but in the negative z direction for the north and south rods. For a false-color graph of B4, click on this link: http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Epheme...re1zoomout.png As was proved in a previous post, no magnetic field lines of B4 go through that neutral point at the origin: Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger The magnetic field lines of a magnetic field B are the curves that run parallel to B. By a curve in three-dimensional space, we mean a one-parameter function c(γ) that maps values of its real parameter γ to points in 3-space. By parallel to B, we mean that the derivative of c(γ) with respect to γ is B(c(γ)) at every point on the curve (in other words, for every real number γ). Formally:  \begin{align*} \frac{\partial c}{\partial \gamma} &= \hbox{{\bf B}}(c(\gamma)) \end{align*}In other words, a magnetic field line is a curve that satisfies that differential equation. B4=0 at the origin, so no magnetic field line can enter or leave the origin. The magnetic field lines on the x=y diagonals point directly toward the origin and are making progress toward the origin at all nonzero values of x=y (because B4 points toward the origin for all nonzero values of x=y), so those two magnetic field lines end at the origin. The magnetic field lines on the x=-y diagonals point directly away from the origin and are making progress away from the origin at all nonzero values of x=-y (because B4 points away from the origin for all nonzero values of x=-y), so those two magnetic field lines begin at the origin. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina How would ANY of this explain any B lines "beginning and ending" at X as Clinger claimed? See above. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No plasma, no induced E field, no electrical discharge. No monopole, no BEGINNING or ENDING of any magnetic lines. Those are the physical facts. As shown above, the highlighted statement is false. The other statements are true: Magnetic reconnection is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations, and can occur without plasma, with an arbitrarily small induced E field, with no electrical discharges, and with no currents at all within a region that extends quite some distance beyond the neutral point where reconnection occurs. Do the math. Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 16th November 2011 at 09:45 AM. Reason: corrected formatting of two subscripts
 16th November 2011, 09:54 AM #4981 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Like this: To this very day and moment, you are *STILL* confusing *MAGNETIC FLUX CHANGES* in a vacuum, which take place over the *ENTIRE* field, not a single line, or just in the middle region, with mythical monopoles. The ENTIRE FIELD will experience "flux changes" that would (not in your experiment in a vacuum) induce E fields in a plasma, not JUST at the X. Grrr. When oh WHEN will you understand that B field lines have no beginning and no ending? The only way that could EVER occur is if someone pulls a monopole out of their hat! Magnetic flux CHANGES are NOT "magnetic reconnection" "Magnetic reconnection" is an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS IN PLASMA, not a magnetic flux CHANGE in a VACUUM. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 09:57 AM.
 16th November 2011, 09:59 AM #4982 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Tell you what Clinger: How about running your graph routine for us, AFTER you CHANGE the current in one of those poles for us and post what you come up with? I guarantee you that you won't see changes *ONLY* at the X. I also guarantee you it won't look like your animation image of a 'reconnection' process. That animation is only possible *IF* monopoles did exist and B field lines did have beginning and endings. The EXCEPTION to field lines never beginning and ending would be a monopole, not a NULL POINT! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 10:06 AM.
 16th November 2011, 10:12 AM #4983 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 One more time: Only *PHYSICAL THINGS* like magnets and moving charged particles can "create" magnetic CONTINUOUS FIELDS, not actual lines. They cannot begin or end in a vacuum. That is a physical impossibility Clinger. Your B lines do not "begin or end" at the X, even in your animation. All the lines exist PRIOR to meeting in the middle. None of them "begin" there. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 10:13 AM.
 16th November 2011, 10:16 AM #4984 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger The other statements are true: Magnetic reconnection is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations, and can occur without plasma, with an arbitrarily small induced E field, Induced E field in WHAT? You don't have a plasma particle to your name yet! Since when was a VACUUM a "conductor"? Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 10:27 AM.
 16th November 2011, 11:03 AM #4985 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger As explained previously, exactly four magnetic field lines begin or end at the neutral point in every xy plane of the static magnetic field Do you even realize that your "explanation' defies the laws of physics? If the magnetic fields are all "static" and the same, the NULL is empty and devoid of kinetic energy. NOTHING is there that could "disconnect" or reconnect", let alone "begin" or "end". The mathematical "equivalent" that you are ABUSING like hell *ASSUMES* that you already UNDERSTAND that the NULL in the line or any collection of lines is NOT the beginning or the ending of the line(s), it's just a NULL! It's the magnetic FLUX CHANGES that induce the E field, but only in a plasma, not a vacuum. The NULL doesn't do anything when the fields are static because it's just a NULL point in the fields. You'll need to change B *QUICKLY*, not slowly if you expect to induce E fields and get electrical discharges in Part 5. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 11:11 AM.
 16th November 2011, 11:15 AM #4987 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Origin(X) is absolutely, positively NOT the beginning or ending any ANY magnetic lines. When you FINALLY get that, let me know.
 16th November 2011, 11:20 AM #4988 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Nope. So far as we know, magnetic monopoles don't exist. In fact, their nonexistence is implied by Gauss's law for magnetism. Then B lines CANNOT and do not have "beginning and endings"! GAH! Quote: Since all of the magnetic fields I have posted satisfy Gauss's law for magnetism, and I have actually presented several simple proofs of that fact, The only thing you've provided thus far is a kludge explanation of a quadrapole magnetic field in a vacuum and math that equates to 0+0=0. So what? That is not a proof that B lines "begin" at X or 'end" and X, or that "Origen the NULL" CREATED anything, let alone any B lines! Quote: From the start, I have acknowledged that changes in the magnetic field would induce E fields. From the start you claimed that B lines BEGIN AND END AND X TOO! From the beginning you've ignored the fact that Dungey's coattails CANNOT be ridden IN A VACUUM! Quote: I have also pointed out that the resulting E fields can be made arbitrarily small, hence negligible, by changing the magnetic field slowly: You've also ignored that it wont happen at ALL because you don't have a CONDUCTOR, just a VACUUM! Man are YOU confused. I need some coffee. I'll pick up where I left off in a minute.
 16th November 2011, 11:59 AM #4989 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Clinger, I'm completely mystified at the moment as to how I might get you to let go of your 'religion', your BLIND FAITH in "Origin", the beginor and endor of B lines in a vacuum. I'm stumped. I've provided you with Wiki web links explaining your error about B lines having no beginning or ending. I've explained to you that only PHYSICAL THINGS like moving charged particles can even 'create' B fields, but even they do not 'begin or end' B lines. I've even taken the time to explain to you how it actually works! Even you know that monopoles do not exist in nature! This is a completely surreal conversation IMO. Evidently you think that every NULL point is the beginning and ending of every line! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 12:04 PM.
 16th November 2011, 12:07 PM #4990 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I've explained to you that only PHYSICAL THINGS like moving charged particles can even 'create' B fields, but even they do not 'begin or end' B lines. I've even taken the time to explain to you how it actually works! Making unsupported assertions is not the same thing as explaining, therefore the above comment is untrue.
 16th November 2011, 12:09 PM #4991 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger All competent authorities agree that magnetic reconnection consists of changes in magnetic field line topology as magnetic lines merge or separate at neutral points. Those same competent authorities also all agree that B lines do not begin or end Clinger. That topology change you are describing is properly called MAGNETIC FLUX CHANGES in a vacuum. Those flux changes will induce E fields *IN PLASMA*/any conductor, but not a vacuum.
 16th November 2011, 12:09 PM #4992 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,356 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina ...rant... "Magnetic reconnection" is an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS IN PLASMA, not a magnetic flux CHANGE in a VACUUM. MM, you are wrong. Magnetic reconnection is the breaking and joining of magnetic field lines. The trivial case is it happening it a vacuum. The interesting cases are it happening in plasma, e.g solar fares. You are still deluded about electrical discharges: Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th November 2011, 12:10 PM #4993 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack Making unsupported assertions is not the same thing as explaining, therefore the above comment is untrue. What "unsupported assertion" are you talking about?
 16th November 2011, 12:18 PM #4994 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check MM, you are wrong. No, you are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end Quote: B-field lines never end Main article: Gauss's law for magnetism Field lines are a useful way to represent any vector field and often reveal sophisticated properties of fields quite simply. One important property of the B-field revealed this way is that magnetic B field lines neither start nor end (mathematically, B is a solenoidal vector field); a field line either extends to infinity or wraps around to form a closed curve.[nb 8] To date no exception to this rule has been found. (See magnetic monopole below.) Unless you pull a magic monopole out of a hat during this conversation, you're wrong.
 16th November 2011, 12:23 PM #4995 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 OMG. I honestly cannot believe that all four of the hardcore EU haters are *STILL* intent on violating the laws of physics, just so you can all "have faith" in "Origin the great Null", the beginor and endor of all B field lines in the universe! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 12:30 PM.
 16th November 2011, 12:38 PM #4996 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina What "unsupported assertion" are you talking about? This thread is almost 5000 posts long. There isn't the time or space to list all the unsupported assertions I'm talking about. These comments... Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I've explained to you that only PHYSICAL THINGS like moving charged particles can even 'create' B fields, but even they do not 'begin or end' B lines. I've even taken the time to explain to you how it actually works! ... are falsehoods, made up, works of fiction, fabricated. They are not true. Making declarations is not the same thing as explaining.
 16th November 2011, 12:38 PM #4997 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Since I don't have a clue how to proceed now, I'll make it simple. The instant you give up your PURE BLIND FAITH that Origin the great NULL is the "beginning" or the "ending" of any B line, you may proceed to part 5, and not one second before then. You WILL NOT violate the basic laws of physics in part 4. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 12:44 PM.
 16th November 2011, 12:41 PM #4998 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack This thread is almost 5000 posts long. There isn't the time or space to list all the unsupported assertions I'm talking about. These comments... ... are falsehoods, made up, works of fiction, fabricated. They are not true. Making declarations is not the same thing as explaining. I have explained the ENTIRE process now, SEVERAL TIMES. Pure denial is a tough nut to crack, and all four of you EU haters are in pure, hardcore denial of the laws of physics as we know them. You four *COMBINED* evidently can't tell the difference between an ordinary NULL in a continuous B line from a "beginning/ending" of that same exact B line! It's all the same to you four. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 12:43 PM.
 16th November 2011, 12:50 PM #4999 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 I have HONESTLY seen high school students *CORRECTLY* verbally explain this experiment in a vacuum WITHOUT claiming that any B lines "begin" or "end" in the NULL. HOLY MOTHER OF PHYSICS! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 12:52 PM.
 16th November 2011, 12:59 PM #5000 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Since I don't have a clue how to proceed now, [...] Since the burden of proof in this thread is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents, maybe the correct and honest way to proceed is to begin supporting that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics supporting the contemporary consensus position.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit