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 21st February 2012, 11:34 AM   #6361
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Almo View Post
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.
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 21st February 2012, 11:43 AM   #6362
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.)
ben m 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 21st February 2012, 11:44 AM   #6363
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
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.
DeiRenDopa 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 21st February 2012, 12:46 PM   #6364
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
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.
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 21st February 2012, 01:01 PM   #6365
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
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.
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 21st February 2012, 01:02 PM   #6366
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2012, 01:06 PM   #6367
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
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.
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 21st February 2012, 01:13 PM   #6368
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2012, 01:18 PM   #6369
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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 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.
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 21st February 2012, 01:24 PM   #6371
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
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.
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 21st February 2012, 02:13 PM   #6372
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2012, 03:40 PM   #6373
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,258
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 View Post
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 View Post
Originally Posted by Almo View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
Your concept of PROOF is highly SUBJECTIVE.

If our concept of proof were subjective, then you would be able to name someone who
  • understands 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.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2012, 03:50 PM   #6374
Almo
Masterblazer
 
Almo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 6,825
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
Almo 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 21st February 2012, 04:04 PM   #6375
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,058
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.

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.
No, I said larger than the largest spatial scale of the system which does not mean larger than the system, although I guess you can interprete it that way. But all processes of the system have a certain scale, and only things larger than the largest scale can be described by circuit theory.

And it does not matter if you can make it as complex as a Japanese locked box, you still will not get to the basic plasma physics. You think that one can describe everything with a circuit, but that is not the case, because as a certain small scale the circuit model breaks down.

A circuit will tell you what takes place on a current scale, again large scale. And indeed it does not describe microphysical properties of the plasma.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
True. I agree that there are LIMITS with only looking at it from ONE perspective rather than both.
So that's why you just keep on claiming that e.g. Önel & Mann totally explain solar flares etc. with their circuit model, and from what you keep on writing one really gets the impression that circuits are the alpha and omega of plasma physics. You do not look at both perspectives, you keep on hammering on circuits.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
When did I suggest otherwise? I'm confused.
You said that "Ya, and the B field is an average of the current flow through the coronal loop/Bennett Pinch too. So?" as a reply to my comment that in circuit theory "All quantities are put together in averaged/integrated large scale properties." Now I see here magnetic field of the coronal loop/Bennett Pinch, apart from the fact that these two things are not the same, and that the latter (BP) can happen in the former (CL), which leads me to conclude that you think that the currents through the coronal loop are generating the magnetic field of the coronal loop. You have claimed that before in some of the other threads, maybe even in this one.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
No a coronal loop is a coronal loop, if the current happens to become strong enough through e.g. footpoint shearing then a Bennett Pinch may happen. A coronal loop is a structure which is in balance with its surroundings and itself and there is no reason for it to form a Bennett Pinch unless the current gets cranked up through external processes.

So, it would be interesting to see how you are going to model a Bennett Pinch with a circuit. Please show us how to do this.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No, but it's important to know that the filament is acting as part of a circuit.
Yeah, the filament can be described as a circuit, but now show me how you model a Bennett Pinch with a circuit. (I won't hold my breath tho until you do) For someone claiming that "there are limits looking only at one perspective" you definitely seem to be hung up on circuits.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
But you don't use *BOTH* orientations, from all the comments you given above you claim you do, but in the end you want everything in a circuit and you cannot have it. And Alfvén never rejected the B orientation, but claimed, as some other well respected plasma physicist do, that the currents and electric fields should be looked at too. Tim Thompson already discussed this whole stuff with respect to the wonderful book of Eugene Parker, and there are various other peer-reviewed papers where a close look is made to what is driving what exactly in magnetospheric plasma physics (because in the Earth's magnetosphere we at least have bezillion observations for this kind of stuff). Are the currents driving the magnetic field or is the magnetic field driving the currents (Vitenis Vasiliunas comes to mind, one of the great space plasma physcis thinkers, and an excellent church organ player, the problem is can one understand his papers).
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st February 2012, 04:39 PM   #6376
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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 been
  • IGNORING 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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 21st February 2012 at 05:27 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 21st February 2012, 04:49 PM   #6377
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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
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 21st February 2012, 05:03 PM   #6378
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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 21st February 2012, 05:12 PM   #6379
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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): shich do support W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of 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 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!"
ben m 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 21st February 2012, 05:23 PM   #6381
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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 21st February 2012, 10:01 PM   #6382
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb On the Solar Neutron-Star Core II

Reference my post On the Solar Neutron-Star Core and Mozina's response Post #6343. Mozina's response indicates a rather extreme misunderstanding of my post.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Your entire post seems to be tilting at windmills of your own design, and you expect me to EXPLAIN the INNER STRUCTURE of the neutron to you before you'll accept that they are STABLE UNDER GRAVITATIONAL PRESSURE, even though the MEASUREMENTS we've made recently show that they ARE stable, even MORE STABLE that first imagined.

I have no clue where all of this comes from. I never suggested that you need to explain the internal structure of a neutron at all, neither to my satisfaction, or anyone else. And I certainly never even hinted at the suggestion that they are not stable under gravitational pressure. If they were not, then neutron stars would not exist at all, and you never saw me suggest they don't. None of this is relevant to anything I said, and seems to me nothing more than an attempt to deflect the reader's attention away from the main point.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
To begin with, this description of how neutrons avoid compression is not logically self consistent. After all, if you are going to argue that electrostatic repulsion of the negative outer layer is the explanation for neutron-neutron repulsion, then why don't you argue with equal force that the positive inner layer is electrostatically attracted to the negative core and negative outer layer, destroying the layered structure altogether?
I don't see how that's a logical argument frankly. 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.

I explained the logic of the argument already.

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Mozina's model of neutron-neutron repulsion relies on a classical interpretation of electromagnetism, the low-energy limit where Maxwell's equations rule.

The internal charge structure of a neutron is not physically possible in the context of classical electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations. Indeed, atoms are equally impossible under the same constraint, which was one of the original primary motivations behind the development of quantum mechanics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It's simply a "what's on the outside of the shell" in terms of the MOST RELEVANT charge that it presents to the outside world, in this case a relatively NEGATIVE charge. This probably explains why it's attracted to protons, and why it's capable of repulsing other neutrons so efficiently under pressure.

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.
__________________
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 21st February 2012, 10:46 PM   #6383
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Plasma Physics: "E orientation" or "B orientation"? IV

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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
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 21st February 2012, 10:58 PM   #6384
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,169
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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 View Post
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
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 22nd February 2012, 09:46 AM   #6385
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Almo View Post
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"?
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 22nd February 2012, 09:53 AM   #6386
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
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 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.
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 22nd February 2012, 10:00 AM   #6388
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
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.
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 22nd February 2012, 10:24 AM   #6389
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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 22nd February 2012, 10:39 AM   #6390
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
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.
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 22nd February 2012, 11:33 AM   #6391
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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 22nd February 2012, 11:54 AM   #6392
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
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.
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 22nd February 2012, 12:38 PM   #6393
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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 22nd February 2012, 12:42 PM   #6394
Almo
Masterblazer
 
Almo's Avatar
 
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
Almo 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 22nd February 2012, 12:46 PM   #6395
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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): 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
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 22nd February 2012, 01:10 PM   #6396
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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 wrong
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 22nd February 2012, 01:21 PM   #6397
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Exclamation MM repeats his delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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).
Repeating your delusions about the Priest paper does not make them correct.
You took the time and made the effort to demonstrate that you cannot understand the science, math or even the English in that paper .

At no point do they turn a current into monopoles.

Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper V


Quote:
The main problems with your understanding of the paper are
  1. A multipole expansion of an equation is a standard mathematical technique. It results in a series of equations each labeled by l=0,1,2,etc. The values of l are called monopole, dipole, quadrupole, etc terms.
  2. Demoulin & Priest are careful to call the sources of their l=0 (monopole) approximation 'magnetic charges' - including the quotes.
  3. They explicitly prove that there can be no isolated 'magnetic charges' for a linear force-free field, i.e. no actual monopoles.
Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper IV

Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper III, etc.


Quote:
The current is a consequence of the magnteic field in the paper because it is caused by the magnteic field (equation 15). Read section 3 and note that before section 3 no currents are mentioned:
  1. Starts with equation 15
  2. Applies Ampere's theorem to get equation 16 (the current)
  3. Applies Gauss' theorem to get equations 17 and 18 (the magnetic charge densities).
Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper!
Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper II
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 22nd February 2012, 03:37 PM   #6398
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 04:46 PM   #6399
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,258
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
You underestimate both your relevance and the relevance of your inability to scratch chickens.

Let's look at just one small example. With my highlighting:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Clingers MATHS amount to NOTHING. Literally! They literally amount to 0+0=0 in the absence of all plasma There's NOTHING that could BEGIN there. There's NOTHING that could end there. It's nothing more than an *ORDINARY NULL* and a NULL is absolutely, positively *NOT* the beginning of anything.
You posted that on 2 December 2011. I believe that was the start of your "0+0=0" meme.

You may have forgotten what you meant by "0+0=0", so I'll remind you. Your "0+0=0" is not a quotation. It is your own personal shorthand for your own personal incredulity that direct currents at some distance from the (arbitrary) origin of a Cartesian coordinate system could generate magnetic fields within a vacuum in the neighborhood of that origin. You think plasma is required.

Because your "0+0=0" argument is based on nothing more than your personal incredulity, your personal knowledge of the relevant physics became an essential foundation of your "0+0=0" argument. As is obvious from your ranting about the impossibility of magnetic fields sans plasma at some distance from any currents, you don't know what Ampère's law and the Kelvin-Stokes theorem mean.

Ampère's law and the Kelvin-Stokes theorem are essential parts of any decent freshman-level course on electromagnetism. Since you do not understand Ampère's law and the Kelvin-Stokes theorem, you do not understand freshman-level electromagnetism. Since freshman-level electromagnetism is prerequisite for plasma physics, and you do not understand freshman-level electromagnetism, you do not understand plasma physics, no matter how many books you claim to have read on that subject, and no matter how many times you claim to have understood those books.

Every time you repeat your "0+0=0" meme, you proclaim your near-total ignorance of basic electromagnetism (hence plasma physics).

You have reminded us often:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Been there, done that for a year now. 0+0=0 and NOTHING begins there.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Clinger's whole presentation is one giant "bait and switch" routine. He's SWAPPING out the physics of B fields and INSERTING in the physics related to E fields to play games with vector calculus that amounts to 0+0=0 in the absence of all plasma.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Clinger handwaves a little math that he personally seems to think is the "be all-end-all" of mathematics, when in fact it's BASIC STUFF. It amounts to exactly 0+0=0 in a vacuum. PERIOD. That CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATES THAT NOTHING could reconnect there. NOTHING could begin there. NOTHING could end there.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Yep, you argue JUST EXACTLY LIKE A CREATIONIST alright. Your wussy maths amount to 0+0=0 and your Origin the DUD is a false god.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Clinger has been handwaving nothing but mathematical NONSENSE at me based on a SERIES of freshman *THEORETICAL* mistakes about BASIC EM theory. Nothing could ever 'begin' at Origin the NOTHING. His fancy looking equations amount to 0+0=0 in the absence of plasma.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
All they will find there is KLUDGED NONSENSE and vector equations that amount to 0+0=0, proving conclusively that NOTHING could "begin" there or anywhere else.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Your simplistic vector calculus amounts to 0+0=0 in a vacuum, and you've KLUDGED EM theory since the moment you claimed B lines "begin" somewhere.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
His math amounts to 0+0=0 in a vacuum. Miraculously this revelation somehow in his mind translates to: "Look, it's the "beginning" of a B line." It's a non-sequitur fallacy. He might as well be claiming that same 0+0=0 math proves that the moon is made of green cheese!
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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!
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.

....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.

You have found nothing wrong with the math and physics you've been ranting about. You invented your own strawman, put it in quotes so you could pretend someone else had said it, and repeated it often. That's how you argue.

There's a reason you argue like that: You don't understand the math or the physics. Your inability to scratch chickens or "bark math" is relevant because it's the reason you can't put together a reasoned scientific argument.

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.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 06:09 PM   #6400
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
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 09:24 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.