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

 17th November 2011, 12:36 PM #5041 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 66,185 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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. __________________
 17th November 2011, 12:38 PM #5042 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack ... 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.
 17th November 2011, 12:41 PM #5043 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Belz... 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?
 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 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 What remains is Dungey's obsolete usageDungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different. 13th January 2011 (10 months and counting) Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection 18th October 2011 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"). __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 17th November 2011, 01:42 PM #5047 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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.
 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.
 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 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". __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 17th November 2011, 02:03 PM #5050 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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.
 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 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 __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 17th November 2011, 02:07 PM #5052 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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.
 17th November 2011, 02:12 PM #5053 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack 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.
 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.
 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 It's an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PROCESS IN PLASMA according Dungey. Still wrong: Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasmaIt is not a PROCESS . It is an obsolete use of the term ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE to describe large current density in magnetic reconnection. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 17th November 2011, 03:25 PM #5056 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check Still wrong: Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasmaIt 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.
 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 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 17th November 2011 at 04:03 PM.
 17th November 2011, 09:37 PM #5058 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Induced fields in a vacuum Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You can't INDUCE an E field in a PURE VACUUM that is utterly devoid of plasma particles. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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? $ Faraday's Law of Induction: \nabla \times \hbox{{\bf E}} = \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf B}}}{\partial t} Ampere's Law: \nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}} = \mu_0 \hbox{{\bf J}} + \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf E}}}{\partial t}$ 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
 17th November 2011, 11:38 PM #5060 The Man Scourge, of the supernatural     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 11,971 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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
 18th November 2011, 03:43 AM #5061 Argumemnon World Maker     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 66,185 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's certainly no fault of mine. "You started it." "No, you did !" __________________
 18th November 2011, 09:15 AM #5062 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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? $ Faraday's Law of Induction: \nabla \times \hbox{{\bf E}} = \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf B}}}{\partial t} Ampere's Law: \nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}} = \mu_0 \hbox{{\bf J}} + \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf E}}}{\partial t}$ 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.
 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.
 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.
 18th November 2011, 11:14 AM #5065 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.
 18th November 2011, 12:14 PM #5066 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.
 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.
 19th November 2011, 05:34 PM #5068 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 "Current Reconnection" and Magnetic Monopoles Why Not "Current Reconnection"? Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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 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
 19th November 2011, 06:08 PM #5069 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Magnetic field lines end at null points Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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
 19th November 2011, 06:56 PM #5070 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.
 19th November 2011, 09:50 PM #5071 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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?
 19th November 2011, 10:23 PM #5072 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 What "reconnects"? Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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
 19th November 2011, 10:38 PM #5073 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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?
 19th November 2011, 10:42 PM #5074 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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?
 19th November 2011, 11:34 PM #5075 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 What "reconnects"? II Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger I suggested that experiment to you because it would have helped you to understand thatDungey 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
 19th November 2011, 11:47 PM #5076 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Priest & Monopoles & Magnetic Reconnection II Originally Posted by Michael Mozina 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 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 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
 20th November 2011, 07:30 AM #5077 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.
 20th November 2011, 07:39 AM #5078 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.
 20th November 2011, 07:45 AM #5079 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.
 20th November 2011, 08:27 AM #5080 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson 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.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit