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

 21st February 2012, 11:34 AM #6361 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Almo Use of the word "hater" does nothing for your credibility. There is no other way to describe the behaviors of someone who IGNORES THE MATH AND PHYSICS provided by someone like Alfven or by Mann and Onel, and yet thinks "reconnection" happens in the *ABSENCE* of any plasma! It's like chatting with creationists. The data is irrelevant.
 21st February 2012, 11:43 AM #6362 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Do you know ANYONE that professes to be able to explain the INTERNAL structure of the neutron to TIM'S PERSONAL SATISFACTION? I don't. Michael? Buddy? Stop pulling credentials on me. I'm a professional nuclear physicist, with particular expertise in stellar interiors, neutrinos, dark matter, and (you keep stumbling into my field) some experience with the structure of the proton and neutron. I haven't met Miller (just missed him recently) but I know five or six of the authors he cites. The quantity you're talking about (the positive shell and negative core) is the electromagnetic charge radius. It's determined primarily by observing the scattering of electron beams on deuterium and 3He targets, from which data you subtract the contribution from the protons (measured using hydrogen targets); that data gives you an electromagnetic form factor, as a function of momentum-transfer squared, whose Fourier transform gives you information about the charge. Why use electron beams? Why not proton or neutron beams? Because neutron-neutron interaction has virtually nothing to do with electromagnetism. Neutron-neutron forces are due to the strong interaction, Michael, and they don't give a hoot about the neutron's tiny residual charge distribution. All of your statements about neutrons repelling each other "because of" a shell of charge have been blisteringly ignorant of any actual facts about nucleons. (The other funny thing is, if you hypothesize a world in which nucleon-nucleon interactions were due to the shapes of charge form factors, this doesn't do what Michael thinks it does. The proton-neutron potential, in this world, would be weakly attractive down to r=0 with no hard core. The neutron-neutron potential would have a weak bound state with r=0.5fm. The proton-proton potential would be strictly and strongly repulsive, such that no multiproton nuclei are stable. And so on.)
 21st February 2012, 11:44 AM #6363 DeiRenDopa Master Poster   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,582 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Maxwell didn't ignore the relationship, just modern astronomers, and particularly EU haters. Everything in the media from astronomers, and in their papers is dumbed down to the B orientation. In fact, the mainstream's emotional attachment to the word "reconnection" and their irrational aversion to the term "electrical discharge" demonstrates this bias. Dungey himself made that connection himself when he coined the term 'reconnection', yet the haters can't handle the truth! Anytime I hear a mainstream solar physics interview, its' "magnetic yada yada yada". Never do you I hear the term "ELECTROMAGNETIC*, nor any reference to the ELECTRIC CURRENTS that are present in those "coronal loops". It's always dumbed down to B and ONLY B. That's why that paper by Mann and Onel is so NOTEWORTHY. It's the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Just as I (and everyone else here) thought. You have no clue* about the meaning of: $\nabla\times \mathbf E = -\dfrac{\partial \mathbf B}{\partial t}$ ... so, all your pretensions to the contrary, you are totally unqualified to have any opinions about solar physics. *Amazingly, even after Almo provided the meaning of the operators to make it easier for you. (bold added) B orientation? E orientation? Only marriages between an E and a B permitted? Basic civil rights are being trampled upon, I say! Let's start a movement to legalize EE and BB marriages (and trans-orientation ones too)! PS is right, though; if MM is so (obviously) profoundly ignorant of the basics of classical electromagnetism, there seems to be no possibility of meaningful dialog with him on this topic.
 21st February 2012, 12:46 PM #6364 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Just as I (and everyone else here) thought. You have no clue* about the meaning of: $\nabla\times \mathbf E = -\dfrac{\partial \mathbf B}{\partial t}$ ... so, all your pretensions to the contrary, you are totally unqualified to have any opinions about solar physics. *Amazingly, even after Almo provided the meaning of the operators to make it easier for you. Huh? What is it with you and your pet equations? First you threw one of Einstein's field equations at me and you evidently didn't like my response, and you went into a tizzy. This time you pull a Maxwell-Faraday's induction equation out of your back pocket and go ballistic? Huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations I'm not bitching about induction equations, I'm bitching about the fact that the mainstream insists on "dumbing down" an ELECTROMAGNETIC process in plasma to ONE orientation, in this case the B orientation. I also rejected ALFVEN'S "dumbing down" of the process to the E orientation as well! It's nothing PERSONAL. Stop making it PERSONAL. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 21st February 2012 at 12:47 PM.
 21st February 2012, 01:01 PM #6365 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem As a self-proclaimed expert on the "hundreds of papers on circuit theory by Alfvén" it seems strange that I will have to explain to you the how and what of circuit theory. I think you should try to understand chapter II of Alfvén's cosmic plasma a bit better where you will see that everything are large scale integrated properties, and no plasma physics comes in anymore. Similarly in the Önel & Mann paper. I was complaining because you said it's LARGER than the system. The "system" is a circuit, or a series of circuits in the case of the Onel and Mann paper. As they demonstrated, the circuit arrangement can be made more complex as needed. Quote: Naturally you can "break it down in smalle circuits" but that still will not give you the underlying plasma physical processes that are actually taking place. It does tell you what's taking place at the level of current and the flow of current. It does not adequately describe all the physical properties of the plasma however. That much I agree with. That's why I do not reject the B. Quote: It is not so difficult to understand this, in a circuit you e.g. just add together: ion-ion, ion-electron, ion-neutral, electron-electron, electron-neutral collisions, wave-particle interactions and call it resistivity R, take just a value for R and be done with it. Clearly, this cannot describe the detailed interactions that are happening in a plasma, but it CAN give an estimate of the overall effect. True. I agree that there are LIMITS with only looking at it from ONE perspective rather than both. Quote: Naturally, this is incorrect, as the field aligned currents in this Bennett pinch cannot generate the field that they are flowing along. This is created below the photosphere. When did I suggest otherwise? I'm confused. Quote: The field aligned currents do create the secondary toroidal magnetic fields that are creating the pinch. This is NOT taken into account in circuit theory at all. There the field lines that exit the photosphere are just the wires along which the current is flowing. My point is that what you're calling a "coronal loop" is nothing more than a Bennett pinch that is part of a "circuit" of current. That's why I have no problem calling it "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection" when the topology changes over time. Quote: Aside from that, a Bennett pinch cannot be described by a circuit approximation. No, but it's important to know that the filament is acting as part of a circuit. I'm really having a hard time finding our EXACTLY where we disagree and there's not point in responding to your inane insults, so I'll just stop here. My whole intent is to demonstrate that *BOTH* orientation are related and relevant. It's SILLY to claim only ONE ORIENTATION IS RIGHT, just at it was SILLY for Alfven to reject the B orientation of these same events JUST because he didn't like the name. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 21st February 2012 at 01:47 PM.
 21st February 2012, 01:02 PM #6366 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Huh? What is it with you and your pet equations? First you threw one of Einstein's field equations at me and you evidently didn't like my response, and you went into a tizzy. This time you pull a Maxwell-Faraday's induction equation out of your back pocket and go ballistic? Huh? ... Huh? I "threw one of Einstein's field equations at" you to confirm (for all to see) your lack of knowledge and skills in a discussion about the cosmological constant and dark energy. Now I have done something similar to demonstrate your lack of knowledge and skills (for all to see) about electromagnetism, which is critical to any discussion of solar physics. How simple! __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 21st February 2012, 01:06 PM #6367 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Huh? I "threw one of Einstein's field equations at" you to confirm (for all to see) your lack of knowledge and skills in a discussion about the cosmological constant and dark energy. Now I have done something similar to demonstrate your lack of knowledge and skills (for all to see) about electromagnetism, which is critical to any discussion of solar physics. How simple! Huh? How did you get that from my original response? What answer were you EXPECTING me to give you (assuming you were wrong about me)? I don't read minds you know.
 21st February 2012, 01:13 PM #6368 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Huh? How did you get that from my original response? What answer were you EXPECTING me to give you (assuming you were wrong about me)? I don't read minds you know. Yet another non sequitur. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 21st February 2012, 01:18 PM #6369 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina My whole intent is to demonstrate that *BOTH* orientation are related and relevant. It seems there has been a complete failure to achieve the intended result.
 21st February 2012, 01:21 PM #6370 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 When the mainstream starts using terms like "electrical discharge" in relationship to solar flares, and it talks about the ELECTROmagenetic effects in plasma, THEN and ONLY THEN can you claim there isn't a blind BIGOTRY toward the E orientation of events in space. This thread underscores that point PERFECTLY. Your side latched on to the term "reconnection", yet you have a blind aversion to the term ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE. Your side claims electrical discharges cannot occur in a conductor and you all let him slide! Hoy Vey.
 21st February 2012, 01:24 PM #6371 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack It seems there has been a complete failure to achieve the intended result. That is because there has been a complete failure to embrace reality on your side, including your denial of the fact that electrical discharge occur in conductors, plasmas and solar flare events. That's not MY failure anymore than it's my fault there are still creationists in the world that reject the theory of evolution.
 21st February 2012, 02:13 PM #6372 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 OK, one more try: As an E field hater, I am seeking redemption. Mozina, please help! Yes I do love the B side. In fact i sometimes fantasize about fondling immature B fields and I struggle to control my deviant passions. So that I can control these aberrant urges and embrace the E side, perhaps Mozina can help me. Let's forget B for a moment. Just describe for me the meaning of: $\nabla\times \mathbf E$ so that I can be liberated. Perhaps then we can discuss why this expression is equal to the negative of the partial differential of B with respect to time. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 21st February 2012, 03:40 PM #6373 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,236 First things first: I congratulate Michael Mozina on his 2549 posts within this thread (so far), which constitute just over 40% of all 6372 posts (so far) within this thread. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's nothing PERSONAL. Stop making it PERSONAL. If it's nothing personal, then why do so many of your posts say things like this: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by Almo Use of the word "hater" does nothing for your credibility. There is no other way to describe the behaviors of someone who IGNORES THE MATH AND PHYSICS provided by someone like Alfven or by Mann and Onel, and yet thinks "reconnection" happens in the *ABSENCE* of any plasma! It's like chatting with creationists. The data is irrelevant. The data are irrelevant to Michael Mozina. The rest of us know full well that magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations, and can be demonstrated under controlled laboratory conditions, within a vacuum, using magnetic fields that are generated by ordinary direct currents confined to wires that lie outside the vacuum chamber or region in which the magnetic reconnection occurs. No plasma is needed to demonstrate magnetic reconnection within a vacuum. Michael Mozina has been denying that fact of physics. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina What you consider "proof" is a mathematical demonstration that 0+0=0! You utterly ignored the need for PHYSICAL PLASMA to get an "electrical discharge/reconnection" process, not just MATH! Holy cow! None of those claims are supported by evidence. All of those claims are objectively false. The person who made those claims is known to be incompetent at both math and physics, and has provided ample evidence of his incompetence within his 2500+ posts to this thread. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Your concept of PROOF is highly SUBJECTIVE. If our concept of proof were subjective, then you would be able to name someone whounderstands the relevant math and physics, has taken the trouble to look at what has been written in this thread, and disagrees with us while agreeing with Michael Mozina. You cannot name any competent person who has examined this thread and disagrees with us. We, however, can name at least a dozen competent persons who have contributed to this thread and disagree with you. If anyone here is using a subjective concept of proof, it is you.
 21st February 2012, 03:50 PM #6374 Almo Masterblazer     Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,825 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina What you consider "proof" is a mathematical demonstration that 0+0=0! You utterly ignored the need for PHYSICAL PLASMA to get an "electrical discharge/reconnection" process, not just MATH! He started with Maxwell's equations, which are concise mathematical statements of basic physics. Then he deduced magnetic reconnection from these. That is how doing real physics works. Like the particle that was discovered by symmetry in a matrix. The guys looked at this matrix of particles, and said, "We haven't found one here. If there were one here, and it kept the matrix symmetric, it would look like this, and we would have to do this experiment to detect them." Guess what happened when the experiments were done? They found a new particle, right where the mathematics showed them it would. 1) Start with a mathematical statement of some basic physics. 2) Make a prediction. 3) Verify the prediction. This is how science works. Magnetic reconnection has gone through all of these steps, and is therefore accepted by those of us who understand physics and how it functions as an endeavor. Perhaps someone can remind me which particle it was that was found in the story above. ETA: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina The data is irrelevant. Apparently, the data are irrelevant. To you, not to us. We are on the side of the court where all of the data are. __________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia Last edited by Almo; 21st February 2012 at 03:54 PM.
 21st February 2012, 04:39 PM #6376 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,305 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina There is no other way to describe the behaviors of someone who IGNORES THE MATH AND PHYSICS provided by someone like Alfven or by Mann and Onel, and yet thinks "reconnection" happens in the *ABSENCE* of any plasma! That is totally hypocritical of you, Michael Mozina. By that logic you are a science hater because you have beenIGNORING THE MATH AND PHYSICS provided by anyone at all, like Alfven or Mann and Onel or any of the dozens (hundreds?) of papers and books cited in this thread. IGNORING the simple physicl fact that magnetic reconenction happens in the *ABSENCE* of any plasma. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 21st February 2012 at 05:27 PM.
 21st February 2012, 04:49 PM #6377 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,305 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Alfven wrote HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as applied to events in space, including coronal loops. This delusion yet again ! Where are Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma? First asked on 30th September 2011 and still no citations. 145 days and counting, Michael Mozina __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 21st February 2012, 05:03 PM #6378 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,305 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I'm simply noting that neutrons have *INTERNAL STRUCTURE* that allows them to have a negative charge on the OUTSIDE, the side they present to protons, other neutrons and the world around them. ...gibberish snipped.... Science simply notes that neutrons have *INTERNAL STRUCTURE* that allows them to have a negative charge on the OUTSIDE and a positive charge on the INSIDE. That means that neutrons are electrically neutral as is measured. Science simply notes that any electrostatic forces can be overcome by gravitational forces. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 21st February 2012, 05:12 PM #6379 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,305 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina What you consider "proof" is a mathematical demonstration that 0+0=0! You utterly ignored the need for PHYSICAL PLASMA to get an "electrical discharge/reconnection" process, not just MATH! Holy cow! Total gibberish from Michael Mozina. Holy cow who would have expected it ! MM: Explain your "0+0=0 and NOTHING begins there" statement First asked 5th December 2011 (81 days ago and counting) You totally ignored your delusions about Somov's book where he describes reconnection in a vacuum: Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section V Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section III Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section Also MM: 1000's of references for MR = field lines breaking and reconnecting II that includes REAL PUBLISHED REFERENCES to MR in vacuum (where field lines also break and reconnect): Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990 Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection - (Invited Review); Priest & Schrijver, Solar Physics 190(1/2): 1-24, December 1999 shich do support W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 21st February 2012, 05:20 PM #6380 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 Shorter Michael Mozina: "I'm tired of people disagreeing with me all the time. I want to construct some statement, really anything whatsoever, that (a) preserves my self-image as outsider-physics-promoter and (b) I can get people to actually agree with. But I don't know enough actual plasma physics to construct such a statement. How about "equality for E and B"? No? "Circuit orientation a better word for reconnection"? No? Why not? You're just haters!"
 21st February 2012, 05:23 PM #6381 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,305 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Huh?I'm not bitching about induction equations, I'm bitching about the fact that the mainstream insists on "dumbing down" an ELECTROMAGNETIC process in plasma to ONE orientation, in this case the B orientation. Once again you show your inability to understand the physics. There is no dumbing down. The fact is that the "E orientation" canot be used in plasma physics as explained by Tim Thompson.The reason is simple to state:The equivalence between the E & B orientation in Maxwell's equations is broken by the addition of Newton's laws in plasma physics. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 21st February 2012, 10:46 PM #6383 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Plasma Physics: "E orientation" or "B orientation"? IV Originally Posted by Reality Check Once again you show your inability to understand the physics. There is no dumbing down. The fact is that the "E orientation" canot be used in plasma physics as explained by Tim Thompson.The reason is simple to state:The equivalence between the E & B orientation in Maxwell's equations is broken by the addition of Newton's laws in plasma physics. Mozina's last response to me on these posts appears in post #6159 near the bottom of page 154. That is where I gave up. His responses on the "E" vs "B" topic are irrational, unreasonable and totally ignore all of the physics as if it did not exist at all. Indeed, in one of his responses we find this little gem: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's just hero worship Tim, nothing more. I got over my hero worship of Alfven. I suggest you take Parker off that soapbox before you hurt yourself. Mozina has little to offer but hero worship, and yet sees fit to accuse me of doing exactly what he does. It's not hero worship, it's simply physics, and I have given detail & reference to the real physics in the posts referenced here. Mozina ignores the physics and it is impossible to get him to admit that there is even any physics there ... Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No there isn't Tim. You simply made another of your many HANDWAVES about why you personally (or some authority figure you personally WORSHIP) thinks one orientation has merit over another IN SOME circumstances. So what? Well, there you have it. According to Mozina, appealing to the classical physics of Isaac Newton is "one of many HANDWAVES". It is not possible to engage Mozina in an intelligent conversation on the "E" vs "B" orientation. __________________ 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
 21st February 2012, 10:58 PM #6384 The Man Scourge, of the supernatural     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 12,058 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina My point is that what you're calling a "coronal loop" is nothing more than a Bennett pinch that is part of a "circuit" of current. That's why I have no problem calling it "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection" when the topology changes over time. Exactly what "topology changes over time"? Can you not even type it? The topology of the magnetic fields perchance? Indeed circuits do have a topology, though their circuitry is not inherent to that topology. One can just organize the components differently, a different 'circuit topology' and have the same circuit. Topology deals with fields much like a field of grass and the underlying topology. In these cases though, it is vectors not grass in the fields. A different topology changes where the vectors point. A concept I think you have yet to recognize Originally Posted by Tim Thompson That is where your logic fails. That is where you are self contradictory. The internal charge structure of the neutron is impossible in a classical interpretation of electromagnetism. But your claim that the charge distribution is probably responsible for the neutron's attraction to protons or repulsion from other neutrons requires a classical interpretation of electromagnetism. And you totally ignore the nuclear strong force, which cannot possibly be mistaken for electromagnetism, since it has an exponential Yukawa potential, which is the real and well known reason why neutrons are attracted to protons and to other neutrons. And you totally ignore the pressure from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which is the real reason that neutrons (or any other fermions) will repel each other under extreme pressure. And you totally ignore the fact that gravity always overwhelms all other forces under the appropriate extreme circumstances. That's the point. Yep, It seems Michael Mozina has taken a somewhat new tact. Claiming no preference for E or B configurations, but clearly demonstrating the former. To such extent where even apparently degeneracy pressure and quantum mechanical applications are even supplicant to electromagnetic fields. Futile and obvious is this new tactic to attempt to ascribe to others the opposite of the denial that is , at least here, only his. Guess we can give up on QCD and Quantum field theory as Electroweak (emphasis on electro) must somehow dominate. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 22nd February 2012, 09:46 AM #6385 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Almo He started with Maxwell's equations, which are concise mathematical statements of basic physics. No, it's just "math" until you add the PHYSICAL ITEMS it relates to, in this case CHARGED PARTICLES, AKA current, AKA plasma. Quote: Then he deduced magnetic reconnection from these. Unfortunately he started *WITHOUT* plasma and all he got was 0+0=0 and he demonstrated that particular point is NOT SPECIAL in that regard. Quote: That is how doing real physics works. No, he left *OUT* the physics. All you got was math devoid of any physics. Quote: Apparently, the data are irrelevant. To you, not to us. We are on the side of the court where all of the data are. Ya know.... I got to tell you that it's a wee discouraging to have gone all the trouble of "speaking your mathematical geek speak", by pointing out the *EXACT TWO FORMULAS* where your "High Priest of MR theory" turned particle kinetic energy, aka CURRENT into discrete magnetic UNITS at the point of "reconnection/electrical discharge" from the Z axis to the X,Y plane. Did it matter to any of you? No. You don't care that the PLASMA PHYSICAL PROCESS requires CURRENT or PARTICLES. It's all irrelevant from your perspective just because you saw a little math that amounted to 0+0=0, demonstrating conclusively that the POINT ITSELF is NOT SPECIAL in any way, shape or form. Hoy Vey. What's the point of pointing out the EXACT FORMULAS where the WATER CURRENT is turned into MAGNETIC WINE, if none you give a hoot about the PHYSICS that is REQUIRED to get an *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* to the X,Y axis, and thereby achieve "reconnection"?
 22nd February 2012, 09:53 AM #6386 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger The data are irrelevant to Michael Mozina. The rest of us know full well that magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations, and can be demonstrated under controlled laboratory conditions, within a vacuum, using magnetic fields that are generated by ordinary direct currents confined to wires that lie outside the vacuum chamber or region in which the magnetic reconnection occurs. No, you're all DELUDED into believing some sort of equivocation fallacy where it doesn't matter in your MATH ONLY world that you NEED PLASMA PHYSICS and physical things to get "reconnection". What is the point of me, of speaking your language, going through that paper by Priest, and showing you folks exactly WHERE IT TIED INTO YOUR WORK, and HOW IT REQUIRES CURRENT in the two equations I cited? You're all still simply ignoring reality altogether! Plasma PHYSICS and plasma physical processes like "reconnection" require PLASMA. Plasma *ISN'T OPTIONAL*. No Plasma, no DISCHARGE, no RECONNECTION, nothing in those two equations I cited from Priests paper. ZIP! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 22nd February 2012 at 09:55 AM.
 22nd February 2012, 09:56 AM #6387 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 FYI, it's going to be a busy day for me today. I'll try to post as I can, but I'll probably have to wait till after work to respond to most of you. Don't take it personally.
 22nd February 2012, 10:00 AM #6388 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by The Man Exactly what "topology changes over time"? Can you not even type it? The topology of the magnetic fields perchance? They are two TWISTERS of flowing CURRENT including magnetic field energy PINCHING the filament into that THREAD. It's a lot more than SIMPLE MAGNETIC LINE. That's the point IMO. It's like equating a couple of tornadoes to "magnetic lines" and then calling it "magnetic reconnection". Quote: Indeed circuits do have a topology, though their circuitry is not inherent to that topology. The current flows along the loop and that is the "topology" of the current. If two current channels "reconnect" and there's a topology change in the CURRENT, it's still "current reconnection" every bit as much as it is "magnetic reconnection". The total MAXIMUM amount of energy that can be released in that short circuit process is directly related to the TOTAL CIRCUIT ENERGY of BOTH CIRCUITS. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 22nd February 2012 at 10:03 AM.
 22nd February 2012, 10:24 AM #6389 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No, it's just "math" until you add the PHYSICAL ITEMS it relates to, in this case CHARGED PARTICLES, AKA current, AKA plasma. Math isn't just a bunch of hieroglyphics and chicken scratchin's as some against-the-mainstream advocates seem to perceive it. It's the language of physics. It's what makes objective, quantitative communication about physics possible. "Math" describes the PHYSICAL ITEMS it relates to, with or without the shouting and scare quotes. Quote: Unfortunately he started *WITHOUT* plasma and all he got was 0+0=0 and he demonstrated that particular point is NOT SPECIAL in that regard. Understanding physics requires being able to count higher than zero. Quote: No, he left *OUT* the physics. All you got was math devoid of any physics. No. He described the physics in the language of physics. People who don't understand the language may perceive the math as a bunch of squiggly lines or Chinese characters, but it really is physics. Quote: Ya know.... I got to tell you that it's a wee discouraging to have gone all the trouble of "speaking your mathematical geek speak", [...] I've been following this thread since before it began, and I haven't noticed any electric Sun advocates explaining the conjecture by "speaking your mathematical geek speak". Quote: [...] by pointing out the *EXACT TWO FORMULAS* where your "High Priest of MR theory" turned particle kinetic energy, aka CURRENT into discrete magnetic UNITS at the point of "reconnection/electrical discharge" from the Z axis to the X,Y plane. Did it matter to any of you? No. You don't care that the PLASMA PHYSICAL PROCESS requires CURRENT or PARTICLES. It's all irrelevant from your perspective just because you saw a little math that amounted to 0+0=0, demonstrating conclusively that the POINT ITSELF is NOT SPECIAL in any way, shape or form. Hoy Vey. That looks a lot more like a complaint than an argument. And it's certainly not a quantitative objective explanation of the alleged science that makes any electric Sun conjectures physically plausible. Quote: What's the point of pointing out the EXACT FORMULAS where the WATER CURRENT is turned into MAGNETIC WINE, if none you give a hoot about the PHYSICS that is REQUIRED to get an *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* to the X,Y axis, and thereby achieve "reconnection"? And that's just gibberish, a collection of what appears to be English words that sort of look a little sciency, with shouting, quote marks, and asterisks for effect, but totally meaningless in every way. Last edited by GeeMack; 22nd February 2012 at 10:44 AM. Reason: Spelling.
 22nd February 2012, 10:39 AM #6390 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack Math isn't just a bunch of hieroglyphics and chicken scratchin's as some against-the-mainstream advocates seem to perceive it. It's the language of physics. It might as well be chicken scratching to most of you since not one of you really cares about it. I took the time and made the effort to isolate the exact two mathematical formulas where Priest turned his current into discrete magnetic units (monopoles). It's not useful to point out the relevant math to you personally because you never acknowledge it or deal with it. "Discharges? What discharges?". You guys don't REALLY honor Dungey's work, just HALF OF IT, the HALF YOU LIKE! You don't care about the chicken scratching really, you just want to watch me do some chicken scratching personally so you can bitch about how *I* do it, as though *I* am even relevant. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 22nd February 2012 at 10:41 AM.
 22nd February 2012, 11:33 AM #6391 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It might as well be chicken scratching to most of you since not one of you really cares about it. I took the time and made the effort to isolate the exact two mathematical formulas where Priest turned his current into discrete magnetic units (monopoles). It's not useful to point out the relevant math to you personally because you never acknowledge it or deal with it. "Discharges? What discharges?". So far there has been a complete failure to point out any math, relevant or otherwise, that shows how a lightning-like electrical discharge can occur within the conducting medium of the solar atmosphere. As long as that's the "electrical discharge" under discussion, nobody who understands physics, or even the basics of how electricity works, is going to agree that solar flares and CMEs are or are caused by electrical discharges. Quote: You guys don't REALLY honor Dungey's work, just HALF OF IT, the HALF YOU LIKE! You don't care about the chicken scratching really, you just want to watch me do some chicken scratching personally so you can bitch about how *I* do it, as though *I* am even relevant. The reason anyone wants to see the electric Sun advocates present their own math is because all they have offered so far is irrelevant, grossly misunderstood, obsolete, or dishonestly cherry picked material from other people's work. There is no indication that they even understand the math they're claiming supports their conjectures. There has been an abject failure to describe the position in an understandable, even remotely linear way, quantitatively, so people knowledgeable in the field may independently assess the description and come to some objective agreement that the physics is even valid. Oh, and "as though"? I don't think there's any controversy at all on that point.
 22nd February 2012, 11:54 AM #6392 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack So far there has been a complete failure to point out any math, relevant or otherwise, that shows how a lightning-like electrical discharge can occur within the conducting medium of the solar atmosphere. PURE *UNADULTERATED* DENIAL OF FACT! Dungey *PERSONALLY* did that himself! It's a pity you didn't acknowledge it. Bruce did it. Birkeland did it too actually. Pure denial is such an ugly thing. Creationists have nothing on EU haters. The DENIAL factor with EU haters is simply off scale. "Electrical Discharges in plasma? What Discharges?". Without denial, you're stuck with embracing the reality of Dungey's REAL work. You can't accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma because it occurs *BY DEFINITION* in his definition. Round and round that denial-around goes, where it stops *NOBODY* knows. Lee made that very same connection to electrical discharges and iron ion wavelengths of light *EMPIRICALLY* by the way. Your wimpy MR theory scored 1 of 7 and NOTHING as it relates to the ionization states of iron! What utter denial. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 22nd February 2012 at 11:56 AM.
 22nd February 2012, 12:38 PM #6393 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,305 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina PURE *UNADULTERATED* DENIAL OF FACT! Dungey *PERSONALLY* did that himself! It's a pity you didn't acknowledge it. Bruce did it. Birkeland did it too actually. PURE *UNADULTERATED* DENIAL OF FACT! Dungey *PERSONALLY DID NOT* that himself! The crank Bruce did it. Birkeland did not do it too actually. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 22nd February 2012, 12:42 PM #6394 Almo Masterblazer     Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,825 Maxwell's equations have been verified to explain how the electric and magnetic fields behave under non-quantum-scale conditions. Once the experiements verify that the fields behave according to what the equations say, they become more than just mathematical equations. They now are known to describe the physics. They, in effect, have become the physics. There is no need for any ions or anything for these equations to describe how the fields behave. You just don't understand physics. Many of us have grad degrees in physics or are even employed to do physics every day and do understand. That you are unwilling to learn from us is your problem, not ours. __________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia
 22nd February 2012, 12:46 PM #6395 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,305 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Unfortunately he started *WITHOUT* plasma and all he got was 0+0=0 and he demonstrated that particular point is NOT SPECIAL in that regard. ...usual gibberish snipped... MM: Explain your "0+0=0 and NOTHING begins there" statement First asked 5th December 2011 (82 days ago and counting). What point? Why is that point NOT SPECIAL? Your position remains rather insane because W.D. Clinger showed that from Maxwell's equations you can get magnetic reconnection in a system of magnetic fields in a vacuum. We do not even have to trust W.D. Clinger math since MM: 1000's of references for MR = field lines breaking and reconnecting II includes REAL PUBLISHED REFERENCES to MR in vacuum (where field lines also break and reconnect): Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990 Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection - (Invited Review); Priest & Schrijver, Solar Physics 190(1/2): 1-24, December 1999 Somov's book describes reconnection in a vacuum but then you cannot understand even the English in it (forget about the science and math!) Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 22nd February 2012, 01:10 PM #6396 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,305 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No, you're all DELUDED into believing ...usual rant snipped... No you are the one DELUDED into believing that magnetic reconenction in a vaccuum cannot happen. Standard electromagnetism states that you are wrong: magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations. The plasma physics textbooks say that you are wrong:The published literature says that you are wrongMagnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990 Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection - (Invited Review); Priest & Schrijver, Solar Physics 190(1/2): 1-24, December 1999 __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 22nd February 2012, 03:37 PM #6398 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Hey, Mozina: Still waiting for you to explain the meaning of: $\nabla\times \mathbf E = -\dfrac{\partial \mathbf B}{\partial t}$ Or, since you love the "E side" so much, explain the meaning of: $\nabla\times \mathbf E$ __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 22nd February 2012, 06:09 PM #6400 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger You underestimate both your relevance and the relevance of your inability to scratch chickens. ... 0 + 0 = 0 ... You are relevant, Michael Mozina. No other contributor to this forum has done so much to discredit Electric Sun and Electric Universe pseudoscience. Keep up the good work. The above is an insightful observation. It is possible that some naive layman, exposed to some slick and facile introduction to EU theory, might be momentarily seduced by a more persuasive crackpot. Mozina has amply demonstrated the absurdity of EU theory by being a poster boy for its non-scientific bedlam. He indeed does not scratch chickens and bark math because of his profound ignorance, which he amply demonstrates for all laymen to see, thereby highlighting the comical madness of EU conjectures. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit