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 17th November 2011, 12:36 PM   #5041
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I guess I just "assumed" that since you got involved in this particular thread, of all your choices of various threads on this board
You think I can only participate in one thread at any time ?

Quote:
that you expected to be 'educated' in electric sun theory.
Apparently not by you, but it's no fault of mine.

Quote:
You've asked me for evidence as well. I was simply discussing the topic with you.
Yeah, rhetoric in place of evidence. That'll work.

Quote:
I try to respond to EVERYONE that posts here, not just you Belz.
And yet you keep addressing me while answering other people. I just found it odd.

Still waiting for that evidence for electrical discharges in plasma.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 17th November 2011, 12:38 PM   #5042
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
... the energy released in solar flares and the heating of the corona was a theory which he pioneered and aptly nicknamed "magnetic reconnection".
The term simply relates to an E induced, *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* process in plasma. Anywhere you see that term, it simply refers to an electrical discharge process in a plasma.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th November 2011 at 12:45 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 17th November 2011, 12:41 PM   #5043
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Apparently not by you, but it's no fault of mine.
It's certainly no fault of mine.

Quote:
Still waiting for that evidence for electrical discharges in plasma.
What did you think of Dungey's original paper that I handed you? Is that "evidence" in your opinion?
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 17th November 2011, 01:03 PM   #5044
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What did you think of Dungey's original paper that I handed you? Is that "evidence" in your opinion?
I suspect that Belz... (unlike you) can understand what he reads. Thus he will not be fooled into using an obsolete term for large high current density:
From Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
What remains is Dungey's obsolete usage
  1. Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
    13th January 2011 (10 months and counting)
  2. Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
    18th October 2011
  3. MM: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!
    8th November 2011
If you want to continue to documenting your obsession that electrical discharges cause solar flares then please do so and we will conintinue to point out that it is a delusion.


If you want to change that assertion to "electrical discharges happen solar flares" then all you are doing is documenting your ignorance by using an obsolete term (or an obsession with the term "electrical discharge").
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2011, 01:27 PM   #5045
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Unhappy MM: Try to get it right for once - I pity you, not hate you

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
All you can do is spew hate
You are wrong. I am not spewing hate. I am stating my pity for the state of your knowledge that your posts display. I pity you. I do not hate you.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I pity you for the state of ignorance of basic physics that you are demonstrating:
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length").

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

I pity you for your inability to understand the electrical discharges do not cause solar flares and your obsession with the obsolete use of the term 'electrical discharge' in magnetic reconnection: Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma

I pity you for your dependence on 'I see bunnies in the clouds' logic (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7753306#post7753306).
In another thread: the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy about the TRACE RD 171A movie!

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

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

I pity you for not being able to understand the magnetic reconnection is supported by observations:
Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003
and
Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0-521-48179-1, contents and sample chapter online
Plus:

I pity the fact that you have decided to ignore the scientific literature (textbooks and papers) that states that
  • Magnetic field lines can break and reconnection (magnetic reconnection).
  • Magnetic reconnection is the cause of solar flares.
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 17th November 2011, 01:30 PM   #5046
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
How stupid - I do not have to read the entire book to see that Somov states that magnetic Field lines reconnect.

In Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section, I have quoted a large part of section 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
I did not follow your practice of lying (quote mining) by extracting half of a definition from Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.

Since you have obssessed about titles before, I will follow your lead :
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
Quote:
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
...

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)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
and remain in pure denial of Dungey's explanation of an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE in a plasma.

And lying again: Dungey never explains an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE in a plasma. He explains a LARGE CURRENT DENSITY in magnetic reconnection.
  1. Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
    13th January 2011 (10 months and counting)
  2. Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
    18th October 2011
  3. MM: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!
    8th November 2011
Today, only someone truly ignorant would use this obsolete term for large current density in magnetic reconnection. A knowledgeable person would use the term that scientists today use - large current density.
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 17th November 2011, 01:42 PM   #5047
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
How stupid - I do not have to read the entire book to see that Somov states that magnetic Field lines reconnect.
How stupid you ignored the parts in YELLOW!

Quote:
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
...

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.
You can't INDUCE an E field in a PURE VACUUM that is utterly devoid of plasma particles. He's also talking about ACCELERATING charged particles. In that cause I don't know what he even means by the term "vacuum". It sounds like a "low density" plasma as best as I can tell, based on the inducement of E and the fact it's accelerating charged particles.

I saw how you KLUDGED the term 'electrical discharge in cosmic plasma' by Peratt. I've also read at least one other entire plasma physics book by Somov where he spends an entire chapter tying this all back to the E orientation, and he clearly explained "reconnection" as an E induced process in plasma.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th November 2011 at 01:46 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 17th November 2011, 01:49 PM   #5048
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5027

Honestly Clinger,

Your exceptional math skills may in fact be your saving grace if you ponder the problem from the standpoint of sources and sinks in vector calculus. You're literally *OVERTHINKING* the problem IMO and trying to do EVERYTHING related to 'reconnection' in a single step, in a vacuum. You'd literally need a monopole to pull off that trick.

I seriously doubt that any of the rest of the EU haters even comprehends what a source or sink might be in relationship to vector fields, but I have to believe that you do. Your math skills are very likely to be your saving grace here if you use them IMO. Either BOTH Wiki pages are incorrect, or you are incorrectly and improperly turning X into a source and sink. It's really that simple. That is probably the BEST shot I can take at reaching you at the level of mathematics.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th November 2011 at 01:59 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2011, 01:55 PM   #5049
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
How stupid you ignored the parts in YELLOW!
How stupid you ignored the parts in YELLOW, RED and BLUE!
Quote:
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
...

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.
In a vacuum an electric field is induced. This is basic physics because you have a changing magnetic field and so Maxwell's equations tell you that that an electric field is induced.

Now what happens if you have a charge particle or particles (i.e. you go from a vacuum to a non-vacuum)? Again basic physics - the induced electric field can accelerate them !

Somov introduces charged particles at the end of this section because his next section is "4.4.3. Reconnection 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 17th November 2011, 02:03 PM   #5050
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
How stupid you ignored the parts in YELLOW, RED and BLUE!
No, I'm not. Somov's "vacuum" evidently includes plasma particles because he also describes INDUCED E fields and the acceleration of PARTICLES. He has actual real PARTICLES in his vacuum apparently. It's not a "pure vacuum". Clinger is working in a PURE vacuum until he graduates to plasma physics.

Since Clinger's math skills are exceptional, there's definitely still hope for him. You don't even know what a source or a sink might be as it relates to vector calculus.
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 17th November 2011, 02:04 PM   #5051
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I seriously doubt that any of the rest of the EU haters even comprehends what a source or sink might be in relationship to vector fields,
You are wrong:
No one here (excecpt in your head) is an "EU hater". I for example pity EUers. Your fantasy has little to do with the EU fantasy. None of then that I have seen seems ignorant enough to claim actual electrical discharges in plasma.
MM: Try to get it right for once - I pity you, not hate you

I know what sources and sinks are in relation to vecorr fields. They are ... sources and sinks in the vector field !
I know that this has little to do with the fact that magnetic field lines that cross a neutral point have to break: 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 17th November 2011, 02:07 PM   #5052
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The term simply relates to an E induced, *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* process in plasma. Anywhere you see that term, it simply refers to an electrical discharge process in a plasma.

That is as dishonest as any argument yet offered in this thread. Magnetic reconnection does not translate to electrical discharge. Dungey wasn't the idiot the electric Sun proponents seem to believe he was. If he had meant to suggest magnetic reconnection was synonymous with electrical discharge, he would have said that. He didn't. Any claim to that effect is simply false.
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 17th November 2011, 02:12 PM   #5053
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
That is as dishonest as any argument yet offered in this thread. Magnetic reconnection does not translate to electrical discharge.
No, this is just the most dishonest statement yet offered by a hater. It's an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS IN PLASMA according Dungey. You and RC parrot a single term "magnetic reconnection" yet have no understanding whatsoever of the physics it represents. You're like a couple of parrots without a clue.
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 17th November 2011, 02:31 PM   #5054
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Clinger: The only thing that happens in your vacuum contraption as you change the current in the rods is the vacuum experiences changes in the magnetic flux density *OVER THE WHOLE FIELD*, not only at X. No induced fields will occur in the vacuum, and no particles will be accelerated in the vacuum. No electrical discharge will ensue in the vacuum.

When you get to part 5 and ADD PLASMA, I promise you that all of your maths will (eventually) make sense and Gauss's laws will not be violated in any way, shape or form. E fields will be induced, current will flow, electrons will fly and electrical discharges will ensue.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th November 2011 at 02:34 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 17th November 2011, 03:02 PM   #5055
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It's an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS IN PLASMA according Dungey.
Still wrong: Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma
  • It is not a PROCESS .
  • It is an obsolete use of the term ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE to describe large current density in magnetic reconnection.
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 17th November 2011, 03:25 PM   #5056
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Still wrong: Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma
  • It is not a PROCESS .
  • It is an obsolete use of the term ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE to describe large current density in magnetic reconnection.
Keep in mind Clinger that RC and GM do not give a damn about whether you're right or wrong in terms of physics, nor do they care what you look like at the end of this process. In terms of basic EM theory, neither one of them could help you (I know for sure because I quizzed them this weekend), and neither one of them has your math skills. You're pretty much swinging in the wind on your own now. Neither of them even understands the significance of the terms source and sink at it relates to vector calculus and our discussion. IMO it's better to bite the bullet now and be done and move on to part 5 than to let those two lead you down the primrose path any further. Your call.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th November 2011 at 03:35 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2011, 03:59 PM   #5057
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Keep in mind Clinger that RC and GM do not give a damn about whether you're right or wrong in terms of physics,...
Keep in mind Clinger that Michael Mozina is lying.
I care about the physics being right or wrong. I see no problems with the physics or math in your posts.
I can see a good educator providing a clear lesson on magnetic reconnection. The end of the process should be a nice undergraduate level lesson on the MR basics as covered in MR textbooks.

You should follow my previous advice and disregard MM's previous demands that you not go onto part 5.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th November 2011 at 04:03 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 17th November 2011, 09:37 PM   #5058
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Induced fields in a vacuum

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You can't INDUCE an E field in a PURE VACUUM that is utterly devoid of plasma particles.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No induced fields will occur in the vacuum, ...

You have made that particular claim now multiple times in this thread, and it's just plain wrong. Of course you will get induced fields in a vacuum. How could you possibly not get induced fields in a vacuum?

<br />
Faraday's Law of Induction:<br />
\nabla \times \hbox{{\bf E}} = \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf B}}}{\partial t}<br />
<br />
Ampere's Law:<br />
\nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}} = \mu_0 \hbox{{\bf J}} + \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf E}}}{\partial t}<br />

Faraday's law of induction works like gangbusters in a vacuum. Set the current density (J) in Ampere's Law to zero and we are back to the vacuum again. Change the electric field and you get an induced magnetic field. Of course in a vacuum there are no charged particles to accelerate, but there are still fields (which you can check by putting test charges into your vacuum and watching them bend to the will of the fields present). Yes, you certainly can induce B and E fields in a vacuum.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2011, 11:37 PM   #5059
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Priest & Monopoles & Magnetic Reconnection

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
My "introduction" to MR theory in debate started over at space.com. It's a pity they took down the boards, or I'd cite the conversation for you. The very first paper that I was handed to evaluate on the topic of MR theory just so happened to be a paper written by Priest that was ENTIRELY oriented around the B orientation of Maxwell's equations. From a mathematical orientation, it was actually pretty simple. There weren't very many equations to translate. I thought it might be interesting to see if I could personally translate the formulas to an E orientation. I got to a specific equation however and found out that the energy transfer mechanism Priest was using was a "monopole", something that literally violates the laws of physics, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism. I cried fowl over the whole notion of "magnetic flux transfer" using such a device. Everyone went ballistic and tried to defend the concept even though it clearly violated the laws of physics.

DISCLAIMER: In *FAIRNESS TO PRIEST*, it wasn't his best paper on this topic. I've read MUCH better materials from him since that date and time.

I was then handed a new paper to evaluate from an author called "Birn". It was a MUCH better paper in the sense that it clearly described the "current' that flowed along the magnetic line that created and sustained the "magnetic field" along that so called "line". That "line" however turns out not to be a simple "line", is a "field aligned current". The total "energy flux" through that line is directly related to the flow of current through that field aligned current "line".

I understand the difference on *PAPER* Clinger, but when I wrote that line you decided to build a federal case over, I was specifically thinking of that first paper by Priest that attempted to 'dumb down' an entire current carrying event to a "magnetic flux' event. That's all I meant by that particular sentence. If you can't accept that rather LENGTHY explanation, I really don't know what else to offer you. You go right ahead and harp on that one sentence all you like, but you'll need to come clean on one of my two issues as well.

This is an interesting story that invokes several questions.

Can you identify the paper by Priest that you falsified?
Can you show us the "monopole" equation you wound up with and its derivation?
Can you identify the paper by Birn?
Can you identify specific points, in the paper by birn, where you can demonstrate where his "magnetic field line" is in reality a "field aligned current"?

Mozina's original post was 20 October, back on page 101 and my query is 22 Oct and on page 103. A sufficient response showed up 13 November on page 123:

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

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

I have searched as thoroughly as I can and find no indication of any paper written by anyone which makes any assumption about the actual existence of magnetic monopoles being required for magnetic reconnection. However, I did find these:

Magnetic Null Points due to Multiple Sources of Solar Photospheric Flux
Inverarity & Priest; Solar Physics 186(1/2): 99-121 (May 1999)

Abstract: "How common are magnetic null points in the highly complex magnetic field of the solar atmosphere? In this work we seek to model the magnetic structure of quiet regions by placing magnetic sources and sinks on a hexagonal network of supergranule cells to represent the intense magnetic fields that occur at the boundaries of these cells. The resulting potential coronal magnetic field is then computed analytically and searched numerically for magnetic null points, which are classified according to their types and spine directions. Two relations from the theory of vector fields relate the numbers of null points to the numbers of sources and sinks and these are used to check the numerical results. Previous results relating these quantities for monopolar and dipolar magnetic fields are described and a new one for a particular class of quadrupolar fields arising in this study is derived. We model a three-cell configuration and study the effects of increasing the strength of a central sink and of moving the central sink. A twelve-cell configuration is studied in lesser detail."


The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field
Demoulin & Priest; Astronomy and Astrophysics 258(2): 535-541 (May 1992)

Abstract: "In a highly conducting plasma, the magnetic field topology determines where, for example, current sheets can form, which is of great importance as a potential coronal heating source. With the classical extrapolation of a continuous weak photospheric field, the determination of topology is in general a difficult challenge. Because of the concentration of the photospheric field at intense flux tubes in supergranulation boundaries a more realistic field representation may be a description in terms of magnetic singularities located just below the photosphere. In this paper we analyze in detail the generalization to linear force-free fields of the standard multipole expansion for singular potential fields. Solutions are presented in spherical coordinates with the constraint that all singularities are located in the half-space z is less than 0 below the solar photospheric plane (z = 0). A great variety of solutions is shown to exist depending on two continuous and one discrete parameter. The properties of monopole and dipole solutions in particular are discussed and it is shown that isolated magnetic charges exist only in the potential limit and not in a linear force-free field."

The 1992 paper introduces the idea of monopolar magnetic fields from multipole expansion. It pointedly includes a forma proof that there cannot be any real magnetic monopoles involved. The 1999 paper, which cites the 1992 paper, uses monopolar magnetic fields as "sources" and "sinks" to create magnetic dipoles that look like electric dipoles (where the charged particles are sources & sinks). Neither paper assumes the existence of actual monopoles, but rather seeks to use monopolar fields as a computational device.

Michael Mozina: Is it possible that one of these was that first paper by Priest that you refer to? I cannot find anything else in the literature that includes any monopolar fields in a discussion of magnetic reconnection.

In these papers, monopolar fields are used as a device to simplify calculation. This calculational device is not found in any of my books on plasma physics or magnetic reconnection, nor can I find any recent papers that do this. I can only surmise that the rapid increase in computational power has rendered this kind of computational simplification unnecessary.

Of course, with no more clues than this, I cannot reliably guess which of many papers by Birn might be the one that is relevant here.

I will also add a footnote comment that, while it is certainly true that magnetic monopoles are not consistent with Maxwell's Equations, it is not obviously true that magnetic monopoles violate the laws of physics. Dirac, 1931 proves that if magnetic monopoles exist, then all electric charge must be quantized. Since we now know that all electric charge is in fact quantized, then there is an implication (but no necessity) from Dirac's work that magnetic monopoles could exist. They are in fact predicted by various grand unified theories of particle physics. There are no unambiguous observations of magnetic monopoles on record, and they may indeed not exist. But one cannot assert with confidence that they cannot exist.

I can assert with confidence that magnetic monopoles are not at all involved in any formulation of magnetic reconnection that I have seen, and I cannot find any indication of magnetic monopoles in any papers by Priest other than what I have shown here.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2011, 11:38 PM   #5060
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,971
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
How stupid you ignored the parts in YELLOW!



You can't INDUCE an E field in a PURE VACUUM that is utterly devoid of plasma particles. He's also talking about ACCELERATING charged particles. In that cause I don't know what he even means by the term "vacuum". It sounds like a "low density" plasma as best as I can tell, based on the inducement of E and the fact it's accelerating charged particles.

I saw how you KLUDGED the term 'electrical discharge in cosmic plasma' by Peratt. I've also read at least one other entire plasma physics book by Somov where he spends an entire chapter tying this all back to the E orientation, and he clearly explained "reconnection" as an E induced process in plasma.

What??? "You can't INDUCE an E field in a PURE VACUUM" So charged particles need some "plasma particles" between them? You do understand that the vacuum has electrical properties as well as magnetic (otherwise EM waves could not travel) don't you? Isn't that the whole principle of the "EU" that electrical properties always dominate? It seems now you're saying that an E field requires some intervening plasma while the EM properties of the vacuum (and extermination) demonstrates that a magnetic field doesn't.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 18th November 2011, 03:43 AM   #5061
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It's certainly no fault of mine.
"You started it."
"No, you did !"
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 18th November 2011, 09:15 AM   #5062
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
You have made that particular claim now multiple times in this thread, and it's just plain wrong. Of course you will get induced fields in a vacuum. How could you possibly not get induced fields in a vacuum?

<br />
Faraday's Law of Induction:<br />
\nabla \times \hbox{{\bf E}} = \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf B}}}{\partial t}<br />
<br />
Ampere's Law:<br />
\nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}} = \mu_0 \hbox{{\bf J}} + \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf E}}}{\partial t}<br />

Faraday's law of induction works like gangbusters in a vacuum. Set the current density (J) in Ampere's Law to zero and we are back to the vacuum again. Change the electric field and you get an induced magnetic field. Of course in a vacuum there are no charged particles to accelerate, but there are still fields (which you can check by putting test charges into your vacuum and watching them bend to the will of the fields present). Yes, you certainly can induce B and E fields in a vacuum.
As you and The Man have surmised and correctly pointed out, that particular statement of mine is both sloppy and factually incorrect. I should have used (and been using) the term "electrical current", not "E field". My apologies, and thank you both for pointing it out. I amend my statements to read: "You can't INDUCE an electrical current in a PURE VACUUM that is utterly devoid of plasma particles. No induced current will occur in the vacuum.

FYI Tim, I'll spend some time this weekend to see if I can find the paper in question by Priest about monopoles.

In the meantime, since you and The Man have a proven track record now of pulling the splinters and twigs out of my eye over my errors in this discussion, how about spending some time with Clinger explaining to him that *IN A VACUUM* (not a plasma) B field lines have no source or sink, no beginning or ending and that a NULL is not a "beginning" nor an "ending" of any B line? That would really help move things along.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 18th November 2011 at 09:45 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 18th November 2011, 09:54 AM   #5063
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
FYI Tim, neither of those two papers is the monopole paper in question. The particular paper I'm thinking of was by Priest only (no other author that I recall), and it didn't discuss plasma physics to my recollection. It was pretty much a fully B oriented paper as I recall.
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 18th November 2011, 10:02 AM   #5064
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Holy Cow! Is Priest a paper writing machine or what? He makes Alfven look lazy! ADS has over 500 listings by Priest! This is a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack. I'll work on it Tim, but I have a real job to work today as well. I'll find it, but it will take me some time.
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 18th November 2011, 11:14 AM   #5065
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field
Demoulin & Priest; Astronomy and Astrophysics 258(2): 535-541 (May 1992)
Tim, check out section 3.1 between equations 16 and 17 where Priests mathematically turns moving charged particles (aka current) into "magnetic charges" (aka monopoles). Are you sure that you and I can't just agree on "current reconnection" and be done with it and move on to "magnetic flux tubes"? You of all people should be able to see how Priest is converting electrons into monopoles between equations 16 and 17.
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 18th November 2011, 12:14 PM   #5066
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
In these papers, monopolar fields are used as a device to simplify calculation.
You hit the nail on the head IMO, but that's the WHOLE PROBLEM. They're basically CONVERTING current into monopoles mathematically to "simplify" the equations for B Tim. It's still CURRENT at the level of physics, even if it's "magnetic charge" for the purposes of simplifying for a B orientation. I really don't understand why you and I cannot just agree on the term "current reconnection" and move on.

I DO NOT DOUBT is it's a useful tool for simplifying the math to call it "magnetic charge". I DO DOUBT that monopoles actually physically exist, and I do not doubt that it's actually CURRENT that does the 'reconnecting'.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 18th November 2011 at 12:18 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 18th November 2011, 01:09 PM   #5067
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Tim, think about how confusing that "device" as you call it, must be to poor Clinger about now. Holy smokes! IMO basic theory is hard enough, and plasma physics is CHALLENGING for anyone, but taking "poetic license" with physics is unacceptable IMO. I really do feel for sorry for any poor uninitiated soul trying to unravel all this "piss poor" naming nonsense. Even a really good mathematician like Clinger is bound to completely confuse the PROCESS as he's been doing now since day one. If a good mathematician gets confused, what hope is there for a struggling college student to grasp the "magnetic reconnection" process correctly? If you simply called it "current reconnection", it would make perfect sense to that graduating freshman.

Honestly, someone competent, BESIDES ME on basic theory and sources and sinks needs to set Clinger straight. I'm dying to find out if he's coming out of the closet in part five and this is just annoying at this point. Please Tim or The Man explain to Clinger that B field have no source, no sink, no beginning and no ending. Do so privately if you prefer. If and when anyone finds a REAL monopole rather than an an ELECTRON RENAMING DEVICE that allow mathematical equations to be simplified for B, then you can call it "magnetic reconnection" with my blessings. What poor Clinger has gone through over the past year however DEMONSTRATES CONCLUSIVELY that the name selected by Dungey to describe an electrical discharge in a plasma *STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN*. It's TOO DAMN CONFUSING!

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 18th November 2011 at 01:19 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 19th November 2011, 05:34 PM   #5068
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb "Current Reconnection" and Magnetic Monopoles

Why Not "Current Reconnection"?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I really don't understand why you and I cannot just agree on the term "current reconnection" and move on. { ... } I do not doubt that it's actually CURRENT that does the 'reconnecting'.

Because "current reconnection" is a very poor description of what actually, physically happens. Currents "reconnect", if that word is even applicable, only after the magnetic field topology has changed ("magnetic reconnection" is a change in the topology of the magnetic field). The energy that powers the "reconnection" of the currents is derived directly from the magnetic field, which has topologically transformed into a lower energy state. The energy source is the reconnection of the magnetic field and therefore "magnetic reconnection" is the correct and proper description of what physically happens. I do not doubt that it is actually the magnetic field that does the reconnecting. The physics is really obvious.

Magnetic Monopoles and Magnetic Reconnection

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
In these papers, monopolar fields are used as a device to simplify calculation.
You hit the nail on the head IMO, but that's the WHOLE PROBLEM. They're basically CONVERTING current into monopoles mathematically to "simplify" the equations for B Tim. It's still CURRENT at the level of physics, even if it's "magnetic charge" for the purposes of simplifying for a B orientation.

It is certainly physically correct that all magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electrically charged particles, and I have no problem calling those moving charged particles a "current", so long as we understand that electrically neutral currents are allowed (meaning that the number of negative charged particles is equal to the number of positive charged particles).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I DO NOT DOUBT is it's a useful tool for simplifying the math to call it "magnetic charge". I DO DOUBT that monopoles actually physically exist, and I do not doubt that it's actually CURRENT that does the 'reconnecting'.

Well, whether or not magnetic monopoles actually physically exist is irrelevant anyway. Their actual physical existence is not assumed in the paper, which in fact goes on to prove that magnetic monopoles cannot exist in a linear force-free field. So I don't see any problem.

You see, the magnetic field has a geometry, a shape. We know that the magnetic field is actually generated by electrical currents, but that same shape could be generated by an arbitrary collection of magnetic monopoles. So the authors replace the current by magnetic monopoles, which they can then use as sources and sinks to create a multipole expansion of the magnetic field. Like I said, and you apparently agree, this is "a device to simplify calculation", and it really is not supposed to have anything at all to do with the physics of what is going on, it's just a computational trick. And actually, it's not a very useful tool and I don't think it has been done again since then. If you look at the book "Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications" by Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000, you will not see any mention of magnetic monopoles or monopolar fields anywhere. I can find no other papers that use this trick either. It was a passing fad that has passed, and is in fact no longer relevant to any real discussion of magnetic reconnection.

I will address Clinger and the termination of field lines in another post.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th November 2011, 06:08 PM   #5069
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Magnetic field lines end at null points

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Honestly, someone competent, BESIDES ME on basic theory and sources and sinks needs to set Clinger straight.
I don't think Clinger needs to be set straight since I don't think he has done or said anything wrong. He never said there was a "source" or a "sink" for the magnetic field lines, he simply said that they can end at a null point, and on that hs is completely correct. It is certainly true that a magnetic field line cannot end in the "flapping in the breeze" sense and the reason is easy enough to understand. If the end of the field line were "flapping in the breeze" then it would be easy to obtain a non-zero divergence over a Gaussian surface element circumscribed around the end point, violating Gauss' Law. In the case of a null point, there is no such surface; every surface circumscribed around a null point will show a zero divergence and satisfy Gauss' Law. You are confusing the issue yourself by appealing to popular language and ignoring the physics. The one and only real physical principle involved is Gauss' Law, and any magnetic field configuration that does not violate Gauss' Law (or some other law) is allowed. "Field lines cannot end" is not a law of physics, but Gauss' Law is. Magnetic field lines cannot end at a "source" or a "sink", either of which would be a physical magnetic monopole. However, a field line certainly can terminate ("end") at a null point or neutral point, which, as one might guess from the name, is neither a source nor a sink, therefore respecting Gauss' Law.

Clinger is correct, Mozina is wrong.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th November 2011, 06:56 PM   #5070
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Clinger is correct, Mozina is wrong.
IMO, it's highly disappointing you chose "hate" over science Tim.

You certainly didn't do Clinger any favors. I can't believe that response even *AFTER* I took the time to SHOW YOU which EQUATION Priest used to convert electrons into monopoles (magnetic charges). The *SOURCE* is the ELECTRIC field, and the electrons in that paper Tim, not the magnetic NULL! GRR.

I'm taking the night off. I'll deal with your nonsense later.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 19th November 2011 at 07:00 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 19th November 2011, 09:50 PM   #5071
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
I don't think Clinger needs to be set straight since I don't think he has done or said anything wrong.
Ok Tim, what do YOU PERSONALLY expect to "reconnect" in part 4, in a vacuum, *WITHOUT* plasma?
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 19th November 2011, 10:23 PM   #5072
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb What "reconnects"?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Ok Tim, what do YOU PERSONALLY expect to "reconnect" in part 4, in a vacuum, *WITHOUT* plasma?
Physically: Nothing "reconnects", that's just a word we use to name the process. What physically happens is that the magnetic field changes from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, and the energy lost by the field escapes as electromagnetic photons. In the presence of a plasma, that energy will transfer to the plasma and manifest itself as an impulsive increase in plasma kinetic energy.

Mathematically: Field lines are the mathematical tool of choice to describe and analyze any field, ever since Maxwell. Mathematically, the lines of force representing the physical magnetic field literally reconnect, resulting in a change in the topology of the field. The name, "magnetic reconnection", comes from this mathematical reconnection of field lines.

That's what I, personally think.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th November 2011, 10:38 PM   #5073
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Physically: Nothing "reconnects", that's just a word we use to name the process.
You mean an electrical discharge process that requires an INDUCED E field followed by an electrical discharge? How can that POSSIBLY NOT involve "current reconnection"?

Quote:
What physically happens is that the magnetic field changes from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, and the energy lost by the field escapes as electromagnetic photons. In the presence of a plasma, that energy will transfer to the plasma and manifest itself as an impulsive increase in plasma kinetic energy.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3861

Quote:
I suggested that experiment to you because it would have helped you to understand that

Dungey is describing magnetic reconnection.
There is no "circuit reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
There is no "current reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can occur with a near-zero electric (E) field.
Which of these statements by Clinger is true and which is false Tim?
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 19th November 2011, 10:42 PM   #5074
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
The name, "magnetic reconnection", comes from this mathematical reconnection of field lines.

That's what I, personally think.
I personally think that unless you or Clinger has a monopole in your pocket, no B field lines have a source, a sink, a beginning or an ending Tim. You're playing with fire at this point IMO. I've even taken the time to show you WHICH equations were involved in Priests "magic" where he turns a E field source into a B field "source" by turning electrons into "magnetic charges"! Come on! What's it going to take?
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 19th November 2011, 11:34 PM   #5075
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb What "reconnects"? II

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You mean an electrical discharge process that requires an INDUCED E field followed by an electrical discharge? How can that POSSIBLY NOT involve "current reconnection"?
It certainly involves currents, but for the most part "reconnection" is a pretty lousy description of what the currents physically do. They accelerate. They energize. Say that the process involves "current acceleration" or "current energizing" and that's fine with me. But see your own statement: The E-field comes first, and then the currents accelerate. That's just what I have been saying all along. The electric field that accelerates the charged particles comes into existence as a result of the "reconnection" of the magnetic field. It's called "magnetic reconnection" because that reconfiguration of the magnetic field is the local energy source for everything else.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I suggested that experiment to you because it would have helped you to understand that
  • Dungey is describing magnetic reconnection.
  • There is no "circuit reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
  • There is no "current reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
  • The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.
  • The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can occur with a near-zero electric (E) field.
Which of these statements by Clinger is true and which is false Tim?

The first 4 are obviously true. The last one about a near-zero electric field probably is, at least in principle. But I would want to look at Dungey's paper again to make sure there is a specific compatibility with that specific paper. Some of these experiments are performed with external applied fields in addition to the fields generated in the experiment.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th November 2011, 11:47 PM   #5076
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Priest & Monopoles & Magnetic Reconnection II

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I personally think that unless you or Clinger has a monopole in your pocket, no B field lines have a source, a sink, a beginning or an ending Tim.

No sources & no sinks, I agree. But I already said that, you know, ...

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
It is certainly true that a magnetic field line cannot end in the "flapping in the breeze" sense and the reason is easy enough to understand. If the end of the field line were "flapping in the breeze" then it would be easy to obtain a non-zero divergence over a Gaussian surface element circumscribed around the end point, violating Gauss' Law. { ... } Magnetic field lines cannot end at a "source" or a "sink", either of which would be a physical magnetic monopole. However, a field line certainly can terminate ("end") at a null point or neutral point, which, as one might guess from the name, is neither a source nor a sink, therefore respecting Gauss' Law.

So why do you think it is still relevant? And what have you got against Gauss' law?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You're playing with fire at this point IMO. I've even taken the time to show you WHICH equations were involved in Priests "magic" where he turns a E field source into a B field "source" by turning electrons into "magnetic charges"! Come on! What's it going to take?

And I have taken the time (post 5059 & post 5068) to show you that it is all entirely irrelevant to any real discussion of magnetic reconnection. Come on! What's it going to take?
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th November 2011, 07:30 AM   #5077
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
It certainly involves currents, but for the most part "reconnection" is a pretty lousy description of what the currents physically do. They accelerate.
No, magnetic reconnection is a lousy description because no B field lines "reconnect". They simple change over time (flux).

Quote:
They energize. Say that the process involves "current acceleration" or "current energizing" and that's fine with me. But see your own statement: The E-field comes first, and then the currents accelerate. That's just what I have been saying all along. The electric field that accelerates the charged particles comes into existence as a result of the "reconnection" of the magnetic field. It's called "magnetic reconnection" because that reconfiguration of the magnetic field is the local energy source for everything else.
It's BASIC INDUCTION Tim! There's nothing "unique" about MR theory. It's a pure acceleration process of charged particles do to FLUX CHANGES, nothing more!

Quote:
The first 4 are obviously true. The last one about a near-zero electric field probably is, at least in principle. But I would want to look at Dungey's paper again to make sure there is a specific compatibility with that specific paper. Some of these experiments are performed with external applied fields in addition to the fields generated in the experiment.
That's just pure BS. Without plasma, Priest cannot do that manipulation with electrons at equation 17 Tim. Without "current", none of the "electrical discharge" processes work at all! No "acceleration". No "reconnection". All that occurs in the vacuum is FLUX CHANGES OVER TIME!

Honestly Tim, I have no idea why you stepped back into this mess. You're only going to make yourself look bad. Tell me how you expect to get an "electrical discharge" in step four with no plasma?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 20th November 2011 at 07:32 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 20th November 2011, 07:39 AM   #5078
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
No sources & no sinks, I agree. But I already said that, you know, ...
Then no "beginning or ending" either Tim. The CURRENT is being redirected. The CHARGE transfer occurs via a CHARGED PARTICLE, not the magnetic field. Equation 17 is a CONVERSION related to the CURRENT flow. The SOURCE in equation 16 is the E field and the SINK is the E field. The CURRENT simply transfers FLUX to a specific location which they then convert to "magnetic charge".

Quote:
So why do you think it is still relevant? And what have you got against Gauss' law?
The better question is what YOU have got against it? If X isn't s source or a sink for B field lines, then it's not the "beginning or the end" of them either! Man are you doing mental gymnastics to try to waltz around that issue.

Quote:
And I have taken the time (post 5059 & post 5068) to show you that it is all entirely irrelevant to any real discussion of magnetic reconnection. Come on! What's it going to take?
This is just pure denial now. I showed you CONCLUSIVELY that X is not a "source" of anything related to the MAGNETIC field. It's just a PASSING THROUGH point for CURRENT. That CURRENT is then being CONVERTED by Priest at equation 17 into "magnetic charge", AKA MONOPOLES!

This whole conversation is silly Tim. You NEVER should have gotten back into this conversation. You're only going to come out looking silly unless you have a monopole in your pocket. Unless you've got one, no B lines "reconnect". They don't "begin". They don't "end". They have no source and no sink! Any other mental gymnastics you try to do are only going to reinforce these FACTS!

You will NOT get an electrical discharge in vacuum and therefore the PROCESS of "reconnection" cannot be achieved in a vacuum. PERIOD! Get REAL!

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 20th November 2011 at 07:41 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 20th November 2011, 07:45 AM   #5079
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
The first 4 are obviously true.
Boloney. Only 1 is "true". The rest are pure BS. "Reconnection" is a PROCESS in PLASMA. It doesn't happen in a "vacuum". Without current flow, no electron/monopole conversion is possible between equations 16 and 17 Tim. You NEED plasma and CURRENT! They are not optional. If equation 16 is ZERO, equation 17 is zero too Tim.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 20th November 2011 at 07:46 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 20th November 2011, 08:27 AM   #5080
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Physically: Nothing "reconnects",
FYI, that is the whole point Tim. NOTHING physical ever could "reconnect" in a vacuum. No particle acceleration is possible. No discharge can occur.

Quote:
Mathematically: Field lines are the mathematical tool of choice to describe and analyze any field, ever since Maxwell. Mathematically, the lines of force representing the physical magnetic field literally reconnect, resulting in a change in the topology of the field. The name, "magnetic reconnection", comes from this mathematical reconnection of field lines.

That's what I, personally think.
Mathematically speaking, Priest specifically converts current into "magnetic charge" between equations 16 and 17. If you don't have CURRENT at that location Tim, you'll get no magnetic charge in equation 17. I'm going to keep harping on those two equations (16&17) from the source and sink paper by Priest until you admit that you NEED current and plasma to get "reconnection" Tim.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 20th November 2011 at 08:29 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
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 05:26 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.