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

 16th November 2011, 01:19 PM #5001 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack Since the burden of proof in this thread is the responsibility of the...... Clinger has been *HANDWAVING AWAY* for over a FULL YEAR now about his "vacuum" contraption that would demonstrate "magnetic reconnection". This is HIS CLAIM, not mine, and HIS BURDEN of proof, not mine. He's also the one claiming that B lines have a beginning and ending. His burden of proof, not mine. No monopoles, no beginnings or endings of B lines. Has he got a monopole up his sleeve or what? Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 01:20 PM.
 16th November 2011, 01:31 PM #5002 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Clinger has been *HANDWAVING AWAY* for over a FULL YEAR now about his "vacuum" contraption that would demonstrate "magnetic reconnection". This is HIS CLAIM, not mine, and HIS BURDEN of proof, not mine. W.D.Clinger has done a pretty good job so far of making his explanation simple and clear to those who have the ability to understand it. Complaining about not understanding it does not make the explanations any less correct or valid. Quote: He's also the one claiming that B lines have a beginning and ending. His burden of proof, not mine. No monopoles, no beginnings or endings of B lines. Has he got a monopole up his sleeve or what? Since this is the electric Sun thread, the burden of proof in this thread is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The correct and honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics supporting the contemporary consensus position.
 16th November 2011, 01:41 PM #5003 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack W.D.Clinger has done a pretty good job so far of making his explanation simple and clear to those who have the ability to understand it. Sure, and as long as you don't mind the fact that he's GROSSLY violating the laws of physics, praying to Origin the NULL, the beginning and ending of B lines, it's fine! When he, you, RC, and PS are ready to admit that a NULL point is *NOT* the beginning or the ending of any B line or collection of B lines, and B lines are continuous, without a beginning or an end, please let me know. Until then, IMO you're all clueless. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 01:44 PM.
 16th November 2011, 01:47 PM #5004 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Sure, and as long as you don't mind the fact that he's GROSSLY violating the laws of physics, it's fine! When he, you, RC, and PS are ready to admit that a NULL point is *NOT* the beginning or the ending of any B line or collection of B lines, and B lines are continuous, without a beginning or an end, please let me know. Until then, IMO you're all clueless. Not understanding W.D.Clinger's explanation is not a valid criticism of it. That would be an argument from ignorance. This is the electric Sun thread. The burden of proof here is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics of the contemporary consensus position.
 16th November 2011, 01:54 PM #5005 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack Not understanding W.D.Clinger's explanation is not a valid criticism of it. Oh, I understand (and have explained) the fact that his belief in Origin the beginor and endor of B lines violates the laws of physics, because a NULL is not a beginning or an ending of a B line. Any FRESHMAN can understand a FRESHMAN mistake. Not one of you four even UNDERSTANDS his mistake. How pitiful.
 16th November 2011, 02:09 PM #5006 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,479 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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! HONESTLY - given your ignorance of physics you have no way to tell if these mythical high school students *CORRECTLY* verbally explained this experiment. MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule) Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance! Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length"). HONESTLY any high school students that verbally explain this freshman-level experiment in a vacuum withut mentioning that the B field lines cannot exists at the neutral point are *INCORRECTLY* verbally explaining this experiment in a vacuum. This would not be surprising because they would not have the knowledge needed for this. They will have the intelligence to understand the explanation:The neutral point has B=0. Magnetic field lines have a density that is proportional to the magnetic field strength. If B=0 then the density of magnetic field lines is zero. Thus there are no magnetic field lines at the neutral point. Therefore any magnetic field line that crosses a neutral point must break, i.e. end before it and start after it. MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point HOLY MOTHER OF PHYSICS! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th November 2011, 02:29 PM #5007 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,479 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No, you are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end No, you remain deluded:MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point The Wikipedia article is wrong or at least not clearly stating its restriction to magnetic fields without a neutral point and field lines that cross that neutral point. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th November 2011, 02:36 PM #5008 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,479 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina OMG. ... OMG. I cannot believe that you are writing inane rants! And lying about me still: I am not an "EU hater". I am a pitier of the ignorance, inability/unwillingness to learn and delusions displayed by you. As for the electric universe - I also pity anyone ignorant enough to think that it is a valid scientific theory. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th November 2011, 03:25 PM #5009 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check OMG. I cannot believe that you are writing inane rants! And lying about me still: I am not an "EU hater". I am a pitier of the ignorance, inability/unwillingness to learn and delusions displayed by you. As for the electric universe - I also pity anyone ignorant enough to think that it is a valid scientific theory. It's absolutely amazing to me what you've learned about EU theory *WITHOUT* ever picking up, let alone reading a single book on the subject. (Sorry Belz, I just couldn't resist. ) Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 03:28 PM.
 16th November 2011, 03:49 PM #5010 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by GeeMack This is the electric Sun thread. The burden of proof here is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics of the contemporary consensus position. And the follow-up... Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Oh, I [...] Nope. Empty. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's [...] Nope, nothing here. Lots of words keep appearing but they barely even relate to an electric Sun conjecture much less actually provide any support for it. Apparently I was correct many, many pages ago when I noted that it's unsupportable.
 16th November 2011, 03:54 PM #5011 Almo Masterblazer     Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,825 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. He's demonstrated very clearly with his experiment in part 4 how this works. __________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia
 16th November 2011, 04:02 PM #5012 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,479 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's absolutely amazing to me what you've learned about EU theory *WITHOUT* ever picking up, let alone reading a single book on the subject. It's absolutely not amazing to me given your displayed ignorance of physics that you have not learned that EU theory does not have any validity ! It is off topic because your electric sun fantasy has little to do with EU theory but there are plenty of problems with the EU solar fantasy, e.g. that the currents they demand to happenare not detected and would make the Sun explode! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 16th November 2011, 04:25 PM #5013 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Almo He's demonstrated very clearly with his experiment in part 4 how this works. It evidently "works" by violating the laws of physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end Unless he has a monopole in his pocket, his "beginning and ending" B line claims are coming to an end very soon.
 16th November 2011, 04:31 PM #5014 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,214 MM explains his confusion, part 6 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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. To the best of my knowledge, I have never violated any fundamental laws of physics. If I have violated any laws of physics, then they shouldn't be laws of physics. It should be impossible to violate a law of physics. What Michael Mozina means, of course, is that he thinks the experiment I've been recommending to him since last December somehow violates the laws of physics, or that some part of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection involves calculations that are inconsistent with the laws of physics. Note well, however, that Michael Mozina has been unable to identify any law of physics that is inconsistent with my derivation. He has tried to suggest that my calculations are inconsistent with Gauss's law for magnetism, but it's absolutely trivial to prove that all of the magnetic fields I have described satisfy Gauss's law for magnetism. (Michael Mozina is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.) It is also easy to prove that all magnetic field lines of B4 that run along the diagonals begin or end at a neutral point. (Michael Mozina is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.) Since he doesn't bark math, Michael Mozina can only argue from the authority of Wikipedia and other sources that have dumbed down the science for an audience that doesn't bark math: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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. In this case, Wikipedia is wrong (but Wikipedia's more mathematical statement, in parentheses, is correct; there's an important lesson there). One of the good things that will come out of this discussion is that someone will eventually repair the multiple Wikipedia articles that repeat the almost-but-not-quite-true myth to which Michael Mozina is so desperately clinging. Another benefit of this discussion is that it has answered one of Michael Mozina's perennial questions: Why is his inability/refusal to bark math relevant? Answer: Because Michael Mozina doesn't bark math, he can't discuss the actual science. When his authorities' mistakes are identified and refuted, Michael Mozina can't answer (or even understand) the criticism. Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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.
 16th November 2011, 10:49 PM #5019 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Thank you. I have a lot of grading to do and an exam to finish this week, so the final part will probably have to wait until the weekend. Don't even bother or think about starting the plasma switcheroo part of your presentation until you've lost your religion in "Origin the Null, the great beginor and endor of every magnetic line in the B field vacuum universe." You're Kludging the vacuum part of your own experiment to the point of pure absurdity, starting with the fact that you believe that NULL point is a "beginning" and "ending" of a magnetic line, and monopoles are unrelated to the B field "beginning and ending" rule that you're KLUDGING TO HELL. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 10:51 PM.
 16th November 2011, 11:28 PM #5021 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Clinger, your ENTIRE argument is based upon a misconception you have about NULL points in lines being the "beginning" or the "ending" of the line. The NULL point is NOT a "beginning" of that line. It's just a NULL point in the CONTINUOUS line. No B lines "begin" nor end, not EVER. They are "created" in full continuum form by OBJECTS, specifically MOVING CHARGE PARTICLES. They exist only as a FULL CONTINUUM a complete *FIELD*, without beginning, without ending, and without discrete lines as you imagine them to be in your oversimplified little 2D viewpoint. If and when you ever get around to ACCEPTING Guass's law of magnetism, let me know. At the moment you're in pure denial of empirical physics. B lines do not begin or end at their null point Clinger. Give it up already! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 11:32 PM.
 17th November 2011, 12:17 AM #5022 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Will this help clear up your confusion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line Quote: For example, Gauss's law states that an electric field has sources at positive charges, sinks at negative charges, and neither elsewhere, so electric field lines start at positive charges and end at negative charges. (They can also potentially form closed loops, or extend to or from infinity). A gravitational field has no sources, it has sinks at masses, and it has neither elsewhere, gravitational field lines come from infinity and end at masses. A magnetic field has no sources or sinks (Gauss's law for magnetism), so its field lines have no start or end: they can only form closed loops, or extend to infinity in both directions. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th November 2011 at 12:21 AM.
 17th November 2011, 12:30 AM #5023 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,214 MM explains his confusion, part 7 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You are in fact violating basic physics, starting with Guass's law of magnetism because no monopoles exist. ...snip... Quote: What Michael Mozina means, of course, is that he thinks the experiment I've been recommending to him since last December somehow violates the laws of physics, It does. It absolutely, positively violates Guass's law of magnetism. You don't have any monopoles hiding in your pocket do you? Quote: Note well, however, that Michael Mozina has been unable to identify any law of physics that is inconsistent with my derivation. Bull. Quote: He has tried to suggest that my calculations are inconsistent with Gauss's law for magnetism, Yes, because you keep prattling on and on about how Origin is the beginning and the and ending of the EM universe! Quote: but it's absolutely trivial to prove that all of the magnetic fields I have described satisfy Gauss's law for magnetism. (Michael Mozina is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.) All your "math" demonstrates is that 0+0=0 and magnetic fields exist in a quadrapole experiment. Michael Mozina thinks B4 violates Gauss's law for magnetism. That's easy enough to check. Away from the rods themselves,  \begin{align*} \hbox{{\bf B}}_4 &= \hbox{{\bf B}}_E + \hbox{{\bf B}}_W + \hbox{{\bf B}}_N + \hbox{{\bf B}}_S \\ &= \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x-1)^2+(y-0)^2} \left( - (y-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \\ &+ \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x+1)^2+(y-0)^2} \left( - (y-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x+1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \\ &- \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x-0)^2+(y-1)^2} \left( - (y-1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \\ &- \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x-0)^2+(y+1)^2} \left( - (y+1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \end{align*}so \begin{align*} \hbox{{\bf B}}_4 &= \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{-y}{(x-1)^2 + y^2} + \frac{-y}{(x+1)^2 + y^2} + \frac{y-1}{x^2 + (y-1)^2} + \frac{y+1}{x^2 + (y+1)^2} \right) \hbox{{\bf e}}_x \\ &+ \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{x-1}{(x-1)^2 + y^2} + \frac{x+1}{(x+1)^2 + y^2} - \frac{x}{x^2 + (y-1)^2} - \frac{x}{x^2 + (y+1)^2} \right) \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \end{align*}so  \begin{align*} \hbox{{\bf div}} \; \hbox{{\bf B}}_4 &= \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{2(x-1)y}{((x-1)^2 + y^2)^2} + \frac{2(x+1)y}{((x+1)^2 + y^2)^2} + \frac{-2x(y-1)}{(x^2 + (y-1)^2)^2} + \frac{-2x(y+1)}{(x^2 + (y+1)^2)^2} \right) \\ &+ \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{-2(x-1)y}{((x-1)^2 + y^2)^2} + \frac{-2(x+1)y}{((x+1)^2 + y^2)^2} + \frac{2x(y-1)}{(x^2 + (y-1)^2)^2} + \frac{2x(y+1)}{(x^2 + (y+1)^2)^2} \right) \\ &= 0 \end{align*} so Gauss's law for magnetism holds. Michael Mozina's wrong again.
 17th November 2011, 12:34 AM #5024 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger so Gauss's law for magnetism holds. It only "holds" when you ACCEPT that B lines have no beginning or an ending. In the field line vernacular, it has no sources or sinks and it forms FULL CIRCLES, without a beginning and without an ending! You can't start them and stop them *WITHOUT A MONOPOLE!* Do you have one in your back pocket by any chance?
 17th November 2011, 12:36 AM #5025 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger so..... 0+0=0 and literally NOTHING began or ended or reconnected at X!
 17th November 2011, 12:37 AM #5026 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 You handwave around math formulas that you DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND!
 17th November 2011, 12:42 AM #5027 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Will this help clear up your confusion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line Quote: For example, Gauss's law states that an electric field has sources at positive charges, sinks at negative charges, and neither elsewhere, so electric field lines start at positive charges and end at negative charges. (They can also potentially form closed loops, or extend to or from infinity). A gravitational field has no sources, it has sinks at masses, and it has neither elsewhere, gravitational field lines come from infinity and end at masses. A magnetic field has no sources or sinks (Gauss's law for magnetism), so its field lines have no start or end: they can only form closed loops, or extend to infinity in both directions.
 17th November 2011, 01:04 AM #5028 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 You can't turn "Origin the NULL point in the vacuum" into a B SOURCE or a B SINK Clinger!
 17th November 2011, 03:47 AM #5029 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 62,150 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's absolutely amazing to me what you've learned about EU theory *WITHOUT* ever picking up, let alone reading a single book on the subject. (Sorry Belz, I just couldn't resist. ) You can never resist. You're an ironymeteroholic. __________________ "So let it be written. So let it be done."
 17th November 2011, 08:01 AM #5030 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Belz... You can never resist. You're an ironymeteroholic. Unfortunately, you may be right about that.
 17th November 2011, 08:25 AM #5031 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Belz... You can never resist. You're an ironymeteroholic. http://www.solarmonitor.org/full_dis...ter&indexnum=1 http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0131.mpg FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment. That region is just starting to rotate to a position that faces Earth. Some high energy discharges from that active region could end spewing mass in our direction. It's worth keeping an eye on that particular active region IMO. When the "magnetic flux tubes" release their energy, they can release the whole circuit energy of the magnetic flux tube all at once. That is the primary process that generates flares and CME's from the E orientation of plasma physics. The iron in each flux tube is already being heavily ionized by the powerful current running through the tube, even before the discharge process takes place. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th November 2011 at 08:26 AM.
 17th November 2011, 09:34 AM #5032 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Well Clinger, I'm running out of creative ideas on how I might reach you, and get you to abide by the laws of physics, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism. I've even tried speaking to you in your native mathematical tongue ("vector field geek speak") about sources and sinks and about your BLATANT misuse of vector field equations at X. I'm really running out of creative ideas now on how I can explain your error to you. There is NO NEED, nor any purpose in evoking B field line reconnection processes at X which would REQUIRE the existence of monopoles. This part of your vacuum experiment can *EASILY* be verbally explained in terms of magnetic flux changes in a vacuum. There's absolutely no need, nor any purpose in your violation of Gauss's law. The fact that your invisible friend Origin is a NULL is not a mathematical proof that Origin is a source or sink of B field lines. You're KLUDGING basic physics and *IGNORING* the laws of physics. As soon as you stop that ridiculous behavior, I'll be happy to let you move on to part five. As long as you remain in steadfast prayer to the mythical monopole creator, I have no way to even speak PHYSICS with you. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th November 2011 at 09:38 AM.
 17th November 2011, 10:00 AM #5033 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 62,150 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina http://www.solarmonitor.org/full_dis...ter&indexnum=1 http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0131.mpg FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment. That region is just starting to rotate to a position that faces Earth. Some high energy discharges from that active region could end spewing mass in our direction. It's worth keeping an eye on that particular active region IMO. When the "magnetic flux tubes" release their energy, they can release the whole circuit energy of the magnetic flux tube all at once. That is the primary process that generates flares and CME's from the E orientation of plasma physics. The iron in each flux tube is already being heavily ionized by the powerful current running through the tube, even before the discharge process takes place. What's the source of your obsession with me, I wonder ? __________________ "So let it be written. So let it be done."
 17th November 2011, 10:17 AM #5034 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Belz... What's the source of your obsession with me, I wonder ? I guess I just "assumed" that since you got involved in this particular thread, of all your choices of various threads on this board, that you expected to be 'educated' in electric sun theory. You've asked me for evidence as well. I was simply discussing the topic with you. If you don't want me to do that, let me know. I try to respond to EVERYONE that posts here, not just you Belz.
 17th November 2011, 11:59 AM #5035 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment. This is an unsupported assertion.
 17th November 2011, 12:02 PM #5036 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,479 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You can't turn "Origin the NULL point in the vacuum" into a B SOURCE or a B SINK Clinger! Usual giibberish and ignorance, Michael Mozina. The definition of field lines means any neutral point at any place in the universe (not only your obsession with the origin) breaks the field lines that cross it: MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point Is the definition of magnetic field lines yet another thing that you are ignorant of? It is idiotic to rely on an Wikipedia article while ignoring all of the scientific literature on magnetic reconnection which states that the field lines break. For example, from Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section Quote: Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov Quote: Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum. ... This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line. Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since [equation 4.65] where A is the vector potential of magnetic field, [equation 4.66] In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65) [equation 4.67] the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2 Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as | the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or | particles in the vicinity of the neutral point. (emphasis added) __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 17th November 2011, 12:06 PM #5037 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 19,479 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment. FYI Michael Mozina: You are remain deluded about thisMichael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma . There are some pretty powerful magnetic reconnections taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 17th November 2011, 12:15 PM #5038 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack This is an unsupported assertion. No, it's not. Dungey supported it. You can't grab hold of Dungey's work and then ignore his claims about ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES. I won't let you do that.
 17th November 2011, 12:18 PM #5039 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check Usual giibberish and ignorance, Michael Mozina. No, your statements are utter gibberish and based upon pure ignorance including a KLUDGED quote mine from a book and author you've never actually read. Whereas Clinger's actual math skills might end up being his personal salvation, I don't think you even know what a source or sink might be in terms of vector fields and vector calculus. You're WAY out of your league on every level. All you can do is spew hate and remain in pure denial of Dungey's explanation of an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE in a plasma. Round and round you go on that "hate-go-round".
 17th November 2011, 12:35 PM #5040 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Dungey's explanation of [...] ... the energy released in solar flares and the heating of the corona was a theory which he pioneered and aptly nicknamed "magnetic reconnection".

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit