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 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.
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, 01:10 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.
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, 01:16 PM   #4963
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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, 01:19 PM   #4964
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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!
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, 01:22 PM   #4965
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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
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, 01:23 PM   #4966
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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 15th November 2011, 01:25 PM   #4967
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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, 01:25 PM   #4968
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
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.
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, 01:30 PM   #4969
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2011 at 01:32 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 15th November 2011, 01:32 PM   #4970
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
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, 01:39 PM   #4971
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
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, 02:09 PM   #4972
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
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.
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 15th November 2011, 02:10 PM   #4973
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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 is
  • a 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
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 16th November 2011, 12:02 AM   #4974
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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
tusenfem 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 16th November 2011, 12:57 AM   #4975
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
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.
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 16th November 2011, 01:20 AM   #4976
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
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.
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 16th November 2011, 01:28 AM   #4977
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
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"!
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 16th November 2011, 09:10 AM   #4978
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
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
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 16th November 2011, 09:23 AM   #4979
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
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.
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 16th November 2011, 09:29 AM   #4980
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
<br />
\[<br />
\begin{align*}<br />
\hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} &= \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} (x, y, z, t) = \hbox{{\bf B}}^{(p)} (t) (x, y, z) \\<br />
&= \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I^{(p)}(t)}{(x-x_0)^2+(y-y_0)^2}<br />
\left( - (y-y_0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-x_0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right)<br />
\end{align*}<br />
\]<br />
(which is the equation for the magnetic field generated by a conducting rod orthogonal to the xy plane at <x0, y0>) and

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
<br />
\[<br />
\hbox{{B}}_4 = \hbox{{B}}_E + \hbox{{B}}_W + \hbox{{B}}_N + \hbox{{B}}_S<br />
\]<br />
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 View Post
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:
<br />
\[<br />
\begin{align*}<br />
\frac{\partial c}{\partial \gamma} &= \hbox{{\bf B}}(c(\gamma))<br />
\end{align*}<br />
\]<br />
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 View Post
How would ANY of this explain any B lines "beginning and ending" at X as Clinger claimed?
See above.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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
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 16th November 2011, 09:54 AM   #4981
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 16th November 2011, 10:16 AM   #4984
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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 16th November 2011, 11:03 AM   #4985
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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 16th November 2011, 11:07 AM   #4986
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
MM explains his confusion, part 5

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
Nope. So far as we know, magnetic monopoles don't exist. In fact, their nonexistence is implied by Gauss's law for magnetism.

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, including the obvious proof from linear superposition, Michael Mozina's accusation above was extremely foolish.

(I started to write "extraordinarily foolish", but finding extreme foolishness in Michael Mozina's posts is of course ordinary.)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
From the start, I have acknowledged that changes in the magnetic field would induce E fields. I have also pointed out that the resulting E fields can be made arbitrarily small, hence negligible, by changing the magnetic field slowly:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
By conducting the experiment in a vacuum and changing the magnetic field slowly, we can make Maxwell's correction as small as desired. (Changing the magnetic field more slowly makes magnetic reconnection happen more slowly, so you might be afraid this demonstration will be like watching grass grow. Never fear: We can compensate by using time-lapse animation to view the reconnection.) We can simplify our math by making Maxwell's correction negligible and dropping it from the equation to obtain Ampère's original law:
That simplification allowed me to stay within the domain of freshman-level magnetostatics, which made my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection accessible to a wider audience.

Even with that and other simplifications, Michael Mozina has apparently been unable to understand the derivation. Why am I not surprised?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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!
False.

The magnetic field B4 satisfies Gauss's law for magnetism, so there are no magnetic monopoles within that field. Nonetheless, as I have proved several times (most recently just a few posts above), the xy plane at z=0 contains two magnetic field lines that begin at the neutral point and two other magnetic field lines that end at the neutral point.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Magnetic flux CHANGES are NOT "magnetic reconnection"
Most changes in magnetic flux do not result in magnetic reconnection, but some changes in magnetic flux do result in magnetic reconnection. It all depends on details of the specific magnetic field and the specific changes.

To tell whether magnetic reconnection happens, you have to do the math or look at the results of physical observations or experiments. Michael Mozina has refused to do the math, has ignored the many published papers that report on observations of magnetic reconnection in space or in experimental laboratories, and has refused to perform the simple experiment I've been recommending to him since last December.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
"Magnetic reconnection" is an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS IN PLASMA, not a magnetic flux CHANGE in a VACUUM.
Shouting doesn't make it so.

Michael Mozina has neither the right nor the power to force real scientists to adopt his crackpot definitions.

All competent authorities agree that magnetic reconnection consists of changes in magnetic field line topology as magnetic lines merge or separate at neutral points. As my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection has demonstrated, magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations and can occur in a vacuum, with no nearby currents or electrical discharges, and with arbitrarily small (hence negligible) electric field.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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 have already done that. As can be seen in this animation of what happens when the current running through the north and south rods is reduced to zero and then increased back to its original 1000 amperes, Michael Mozina is right about changes occurring throughout the field:

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

(You'll have to click on that link, because the animated GIF is almost 750 kilobytes, and I don't want this JREF Forum web page to load slower just because Michael Mozina hasn't been paying attention.)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I also guarantee you it won't look like your animation image of a 'reconnection' process.
Hilarious.

Not only does that animation look like my "animation image of a 'reconnection' process", it is one of my animated images of a reconnection process.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That animation is only possible *IF* monopoles did exist and B field lines did have beginning and endings. The EXCEPTION would be a monopole, not a NULL POINT!
The highlighted statements are false.

As I have proved several times, most recently just a few posts above, the magnetic field B4 contains magnetic field lines that begin or end at neutral points, but I have also proved that B4 satisfies Gauss's law for magnetism, so there are no monopoles.

All of my images and animations of magnetic fields and magnetic field lines show numbers calculated using formulas that are straightforward consequences of Maxwell's equations. I have published those formulas at my web site as well as within my previous posts here at the JREF Forum.

If Michael Mozina believes any of those formulas to be incorrect, then it is his responsibility to identify the formulas and to explain why he believes those formulas are incorrect. Repeatedly shouting his dumbed-down "physics for poets" over-simplifications of Gauss's law for magnetism will not improve anyone's understanding of magnetic reconnection, including his.
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 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.
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 16th November 2011, 11:20 AM   #4988
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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 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.
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 16th November 2011, 12:07 PM   #4990
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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 16th November 2011, 12:09 PM   #4991
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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 16th November 2011, 12:09 PM   #4992
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
...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
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 16th November 2011, 12:10 PM   #4993
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Making unsupported assertions is not the same thing as explaining, therefore the above comment is untrue.
What "unsupported assertion" are you talking about?
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 16th November 2011, 12:18 PM   #4994
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
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 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.
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 16th November 2011, 12:38 PM   #4996
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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 View Post
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.
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 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.
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 16th November 2011, 12:41 PM   #4998
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
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.
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 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.
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 16th November 2011, 12:59 PM   #5000
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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
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 05:49 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.