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.
Reply
Old 29th March 2011, 12:04 PM   #161
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
No, MHD is valid and useful.
What Alfvén complained about was people using the frozen in concept on face value, without checking whether it was appropriate to use.
Modern cosmology is not based on MDH.
He would *STILL* complain about it since you're talking about *CURRENT CARRYING* plasma, and in such situations he *ALWAYS* rejected MR theory and ALWAYS preferred a "circuit/particle" orientation to a "magnetic/field" orientation.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:06 PM   #162
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
And the thing he got wrong is what modern cosmology is predicated on.
No it isn't. Not in the slightest. Modern cosmology is based around general relativity.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:08 PM   #163
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Michael M, what are your views on Michael S's claim that "MHD theory is a load of junk science"?
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:08 PM   #164
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
He explicitly predicted the existence of those double layers before they were confirmed by satellites.
Methinks, you are mixing up Alfvén with Birkeland.
Not double layers were predicted, but field aligned currents.
Double layers were already studied in some form by Langmuir.
The real study in the lab was started by Schoenhuber in the late 50s.
Alfvén did propose that they might exist above the auroral regions.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:09 PM   #165
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,416
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
And clearly you have not understood a word of what I have written. I have not mentioned MDH, I have just described what happens in Stenzel & Gekelman's experiment. I have explained about the direction of the double layer.

Care to actually put some effort in reading what I write instead of glancing over and then come back with nonsense plattitudes?

Maybe you should start to explain why the centre of a current sheet cannot be modeled by MHD.
I understand your argument, and I also understand why it doesn't hold up as refuting the circuit theory cause of reconnection. You are arguing that the DL can't accelerate particles in the direction of observed reconnection. The paper I just linked demonstrates that this is not true.

You can model the center of a current sheet just fine using MHD.

However, you will not be able to actually give reasons for anything that is observed there without using circuit theory to explain the causative agents behind the instabilities.

And you also can't use MHD to describe what results from those instabilities, such as the formation of double layers.
michaelsuede is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:09 PM   #166
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,506
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
They gain energy by ramping across a DL and the plasma gets it kinetic energy from the particles impinging on the anode and cathode side of the DL.
No this is not the source of energy increase in magnetic reconnection. Double layers and magnetic reconnection are two separate phenomena. They generally occur separately.

There are situations in which evidence for both have been observed. e.g. some solar flares (caused by magnetic reconnection) emit beams of electrons that are thought to be accelerated by DL.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th March 2011 at 12:33 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:15 PM   #167
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Michael M, what are your views on Michael S's claim that "MHD theory is a load of junk science"?
I think I felt the same way that Alfven felt and that Michael S still feels about it until I read Birn's paper. It became incredibly clear from those debates (at space.com) that it was "circuits" and "particles" doing the actual "reconnection' inside of a "double layer". Whereas Alfven literally "rejected" the whole B orientation under such conditions, I couldn't personally bring myself to do that. The B's however can be converted to E's and the whole thing becomes a PARTICLE/CIRCUIT problem. I too prefer the particle/circuit orientation in current carrying plasma so I call it "circuit reconnection". It's not actually any magnetic lines that do any "reconnecting", it's the circuits and the particles that "reconnect" (literally slam into one another) at the point of intersection inside of a double layer. Any time Alfven found a double layer, he claimed it put another nail in the coffin of MR theory. MR theory will always be 'pseudoscience" because it's only every going to be "pseudo-correct". It's not however the magnetic lines that "reconnect", so it will never be "100% correct" as long as it has such a stupid name.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:16 PM   #168
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Alfven made it quite clear you could model it in terms of circuits as did Mann and Onel too. So what? You guys only do the B orientation and act like the E orientation isn't equally viable. It's stupid of course to do that of course since Maxwell's equations allow them to be interchanged, but that is in fact exactly what you do. Go figure.
No, neither of those do what you say.
Alfvén used a double layer to unwind a magnetic loop on the sun.
Alfvén used an exploding double layer and said it was what happens in a flare, but arguments have been made that it will not come so far, for various reasons (see your own thread).
Onel and Mann describe large e fields and use circuits. That has been discussed and has nothing to do with reconnection.

Please give me the E orientation of magnetic reconnection (or should that be electric reconnection then ???). I asked that before and got a nonsense answer. But one can hope.

michael2 should get something together.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:17 PM   #169
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I think I felt the same way that Alfven felt and that Michael S still feels about it until I read Birn's paper. It became incredibly clear from those debates (at space.com) that it was "circuits" and "particles" doing the actual "reconnection' inside of a "double layer". Whereas Alfven literally "rejected" the whole B orientation under such conditions, I couldn't personally bring myself to do that. The B's however can be converted to E's and the whole thing becomes a PARTICLE/CIRCUIT problem. I too prefer the particle/circuit orientation in current carrying plasma so I call it "circuit reconnection". It's not actually any magnetic lines that do any "reconnecting", it's the circuits and the particles that "reconnect" (literally slam into one another) at the point of intersection inside of a double layer. Any time Alfven found a double layer, he claimed it put another nail in the coffin of MR theory. MR theory will always be 'pseudoscience" because it's only every going to be "pseudo-correct". It's not however the magnetic lines that "reconnect", so it will never be "100% correct" as long as it has such a stupid name.
I asked what you thought about MS's opinions on MHD, not on MR.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:18 PM   #170
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,416
[quote=Reality Check;7027611]
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
They gain energy by ramping across a DL and the plasma gets it kinetic energy from the particles impinging on the anode and cathode side of the DL.
[/quote[
No this is not the source of energy increase in magnetic reconnection. Double layers and magnetic reconnection are two separate phenomena. They generally occur separately.

There are situations in which evidence for both have been observed. e.g. some solar flares (caused by magnetic reconnection) emit beams of electrons that are thought to be accelerated by DL.
In the lab, they do not occur separately.

From what we know to be true about the laboratory proven physics of "reconnection" - the DL plays a role as a causative agent involved in the transfer of energy.

Neglecting the existence of DLs by modeling reconnection events entirely in MHD frameworks does not mean they do not exist in real life.

MHD theory is incapable of accounting for them, which is why they never pop up in discussions of reconnection.

Given that we know localized instabilities will generate regions of varying voltage / potential, we know that there will be DLs formed.
michaelsuede is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:21 PM   #171
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
He would *STILL* complain about it since you're talking about *CURRENT CARRYING* plasma, and in such situations he *ALWAYS* rejected MR theory and ALWAYS preferred a "circuit/particle" orientation to a "magnetic/field" orientation.
That is just idiotic, MM.
Why on earth or in space or on the sun, would a current carrying plasma not be able to have magnetic reconnection? It is a frakking requirement of MHD or Maxwell's equations that if you have two regions with oppositely directed magnetic field that there is a current flowing, which facilitates the changing direction and magnitude of the magnetic field.

So, when are you going to present us your circuit model of reconnection? I made a start for you in the other thread, but when you found that you actually had to do some real work, you suddenly gave up.

Guess you can only write misconceptions about plasma physics, go figure.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:23 PM   #172
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
That is just idiotic, MM.
Why on earth or in space or on the sun, would a current carrying plasma not be able to have magnetic reconnection? It is a frakking requirement of MHD or Maxwell's equations that if you have two regions with oppositely directed magnetic field that there is a current flowing, which facilitates the changing direction and magnitude of the magnetic field.

So, when are you going to present us your circuit model of reconnection? I made a start for you in the other thread, but when you found that you actually had to do some real work, you suddenly gave up.

Guess you can only write misconceptions about plasma physics, go figure.
The math is beyond him. Beyond MM too.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:36 PM   #173
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,416
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
No, neither of those do what you say.
Alfvén used a double layer to unwind a magnetic loop on the sun.
Alfvén used an exploding double layer and said it was what happens in a flare, but arguments have been made that it will not come so far, for various reasons (see your own thread).
Onel and Mann describe large e fields and use circuits. That has been discussed and has nothing to do with reconnection.

Please give me the E orientation of magnetic reconnection (or should that be electric reconnection then ???). I asked that before and got a nonsense answer. But one can hope.

michael2 should get something together.
The plasma expands primarily in the direction of ion flow:
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/web%2...rom%20Lab..pdf

Toward the cathode.
michaelsuede is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:38 PM   #174
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
The plasma expands primarily in the direction of ion flow:
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/web%2...rom%20Lab..pdf

Toward the cathode.
What kind of comment is that supposed to be?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:41 PM   #175
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,506
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
In the lab, they do not occur separately.
...snipped unsupported assertions...
In the lab they do occur separately. There are many magnetic reconnection experiments.
In some experiments DLs are also detected, e.g. these 1982 and 1983 experiments

Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment
N.B. AFAIK current sheet disruption happens after the magnetic reconnection event.

Magnetic Field Line Reconnection Experiments, 5. Current Disruptions and Double Layers
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:51 PM   #176
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,506
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
What kind of comment is that supposed to be?
It is certainly a strange reply. The paper turns out to be
Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986

So he cites people who say that magnetic reconnection exists and worked with it a lot in the 1980s !

ETA: There is that double layers can be caused by current disruption.
ETA2: And the paper that he cites proves that the current disruption and so the DL happens after the magnetic reconnection!

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th March 2011 at 02:32 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:52 PM   #177
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,416
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
In the lab they do occur separately. There are many magnetic reconnection experiments.
In some experiments DLs are also detected, e.g. these 1982 and 1983 experiments

Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment
N.B. AFAIK current sheet disruption happens after the magnetic reconnection event.

Magnetic Field Line Reconnection Experiments, 5. Current Disruptions and Double Layers
The DLs are the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles.

As I stated earlier, what causes the instabilities in the current sheet is external to the sheet and a property of the circuit. You can have all sorts of instabilities without them resulting in the formation of a double layer.

However, it is the formation of a double layer that drives 'reconnection'. An explosive release of energy can not occur without the onset of a DL.
michaelsuede is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:53 PM   #178
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,416
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It is certainly a strange reply. The paper turns out to be
Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986

So he cites people who say that magnetic reconnection exists and worked with it a lot in the 1980s !
I'll agree to magnetic reconnection if you agree to that paper's theory about what causes it.
michaelsuede is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 02:17 PM   #179
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,506
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I'll agree to magnetic reconnection if you agree to that paper's theory about what causes it.
That 1986 (see below about why I have this in bold) paper says nothing about what causes magnetic reconnection.
It states that magnetic reconnection exists and presumably the authors are capable of reading basic textbooks on electromagnetism and seeing that the cause is the reconfiguration of magnetic fields as allowed by Maxwell's laws.

It says that after the magnetic reconnection there is current sheet disruption. That current sheet disruption can cause DLs.

So I guess that you "agree to magnetic reconnection" .

The point of the paper is that there is a regime in which the usual MHD concepts (e.g. Alfven waves and frozen-in magnetic fields) are violated and have to be replaced with other concepts such as Whistler waves.

That is basically what Alfven said, i.e. the frozen-in magnetic field approximation was being applied to inappropriate regimes.
That is why modern (2011) plasma physicists are careful to not apply the frozen-in magnetic field approximation inappropriately. In these regimes they use resistive MHD rather than ideal MHD. When the plasma is collisionless, they add in the Hall effect.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 02:30 PM   #180
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,506
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
The DLs are the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles.
...
Repeating a wrong assertion does not make it true.
When there is just magnetic reconnection, magnetic reconnection is the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles.
When there is magnetic reconnnetion + DLs then both mechanisms impart kinetic energy to the particles.
The formation of the DLs happens after the magnetic reconnection.
See Figure 9 in Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 !

Can you read it, michaelsuede?
Can you see the disruption happening after the reconnection, michaelsuede?
Can you understand the abstract where it stated that the double layers happen after the disruption, michaelsuede?

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th March 2011 at 02:31 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 02:37 PM   #181
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,506
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
However, it is the formation of a double layer that drives 'reconnection'. An explosive release of energy can not occur without the onset of a DL.
I will emphasis this one more time in case it is not clear to you, michaelsuede.

You cited Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
That paper proves that the order of events in their magnetic reconenction experiment was
  1. Magnetic reconnection.
  2. Current sheet disruption.
  3. Double layer formation.
Thus you are wrong in stating that DL formation comes magnetic reconnection.

That is as easy as 1, 2, 3 michaelsuede .
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 03:03 PM   #182
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
That is just idiotic, MM.
Then you're actually calling Alfven an idiot, not me. Cosmic Plasma:

Quote:
113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES

What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention.
Where is interstellar space does no electric current cross the surface and/or the perpendicular component of the the curl is zero at every point on the surface tusenfem?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 29th March 2011 at 03:06 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 03:13 PM   #183
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Aaaaaaaand we're off!

Does anyone participating in this thread have ANY reason to expect something different from http://www.internationalskeptics.com...120782&page=23 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com...193096&page=76 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com...107792&page=34 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com...147374&page=29 ? Or http://www.internationalskeptics.com...=113586&page=4 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums /showthread.php?t=147365&page=4 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com...=138610&page=4 ?

It's exactly, precisely the same thing again:

a) The Alfvenites post the claim "reconnection doesn't work! Alfven said so. The explanation is double-layers and/or electric circuits."

b) The other usual suspects point out that this is nonsense, and cite 40 years of mainstream plasma research in which reconnection makes perfect sense.

c) The Alfvenites don't accept any of (b) as relevant or convincing, so they restate (a).

Please don't do it again. There is no way it is going to end. There is no possible science statement, none whatsoever, that MM could understand well enough to interpret as contradicting his reconnection-is-wrong-somehow dogma. You could post a complete, analytic form for B(r,t), E(r,t), j(r,t), p(r,t), etc., that includes reconnection, show that it follows from Maxwell, and that wouldn't work either.

Please, please, please, let this and all other "reconnection" threads die.

The "I'm not trying to convince Michael, I'm doing it for other readers" argument doesn't work any more, not when we're on the 10th thread rehashing the same thing. Anyone who's still interested in reading can go read the old thread.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 03:32 PM   #184
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,243
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Then you're actually calling Alfven an idiot, not me.
Actually, it was your fellow denier, michaelsuede, who implied Alfvén was an idiot in posts #144, #150, and #155.

Tubbythin asked for your views on michaelsuede's claims:
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Michael M, what are your views on Michael S's claim that "MHD theory is a load of junk science"?
You avoided Tubbythin's question by pretending he had asked about MR, not MHD. Don't think your tactic went unnoticed.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Where is interstellar space does no electric current cross the surface and/or the perpendicular component of the the curl is zero at every point on the surface tusenfem?
Maybe michaelsuede can help you with that curl.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
It's exactly, precisely the same thing again:

a) The Alfvenites post the claim "reconnection doesn't work! Alfven said so. The explanation is double-layers and/or electric circuits."

b) The other usual suspects point out that this is nonsense, and cite 40 years of mainstream plasma research in which reconnection makes perfect sense.

c) The Alfvenites don't accept any of (b) as relevant or convincing, so they restate (a).

Please don't do it again. There is no way it is going to end. There is no possible science statement, none whatsoever, that MM could understand well enough to interpret as contradicting his reconnection-is-wrong-somehow dogma. You could post a complete, analytic form for B(r,t), E(r,t), j(r,t), p(r,t), etc., that includes reconnection, show that it follows from Maxwell, and that wouldn't work either.

Please, please, please, let this and all other "reconnection" threads die.

The "I'm not trying to convince Michael, I'm doing it for other readers" argument doesn't work any more, not when we're on the 10th thread rehashing the same thing. Anyone who's still interested in reading can go read the old thread.
The primary novelty of this thread is that our two deniers, michaelsuede and Michael Mozina, have gripped their argumentative swords with both hands and proceeded to hack off each other's legs.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 03:35 PM   #185
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,506
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Then you're actually calling Alfven an idiot, not me. Cosmic Plasma:
Wrong MM. Read the quote
Quote:
113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES
What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention.

He never states that there is no physical situation where no electric current crosses the surface.


He is saying that all of the MR theories in the 1980's were valid for when the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface (frozen-in magnetic field approximation?) and should not be used for other situations.
Of course these is a little thing called science. Science progresses. MR theories improve. They are now valid for a wider regime.

That is the danger, Michael Mozina, of relying on old textbooks - you get fooled by outdated science.
As people have suggested several times - update your science library to at least get into the 21st century !
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 05:22 PM   #186
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
The primary novelty of this thread is that our two deniers, michaelsuede and Michael Mozina, have gripped their argumentative swords with both hands and proceeded to hack off each other's legs.
So what? The list of objections that bounce of MM is already pretty long. And it already includes "you're contradicting yourself", "you're contradicting Maxwell", "you're contradicting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics", and "you're contradicting actual lab experiments". So now we can add "you're contradicting a fellow anti-reconnection crackpot" to the list?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 06:01 PM   #187
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,243
Bertrand Russell explains...

Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell
A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet, in our own age as in every other.

Bertrand Russell. An outline of intellectual rubbish: a hilarious catalogue of organized and individual stupidity. Haldeman-Julius Publications, Kansas, 1943; reprinted in Unpopular Essays, Allen & Unwin (London), Simon & Schuster (New York), 1950; reprinted in The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, edited by Robert E Egner and Lester E Denonn, Simon & Schuster, 1961. Final sentence.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 29th March 2011 at 06:58 PM. Reason: typo
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 12:45 PM   #188
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Actually, it was your fellow denier, michaelsuede, who implied Alfvén was an idiot in posts #144, #150, and #155.

Tubbythin asked for your views on michaelsuede's claims:

You avoided Tubbythin's question by pretending he had asked about MR, not MHD. Don't think your tactic went unnoticed.
I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't a 'tactic', I simply misread his question.

I would tend to 'disagree' with the claim that MHD theory is 'junk science' (assuming anyone actually said that).

Quote:
Maybe michaelsuede can help you with that curl.
I want to see you help me with that curl. Where in interplanetary space are Alfven's conditions met?

Quote:
The primary novelty of this thread is that our two deniers, michaelsuede and Michael Mozina, have gripped their argumentative swords with both hands and proceeded to hack off each other's legs.
That may or may not be true, I'm sure that both of us are equally committed to empirical physics. What's clear from the empirical physical 'experiments' done on MR theory is that they "short circuit' two CURRENT CARRYING FILAMENTS and call it "magnetic reconnection". That's just baloney.

From a mathematical perspective, yes you can approach it *EITHER* from a B or an E orientation, but it's actual the particles and circuits that 'reconnect', not the magnetic lines. Those 'lines' are produced by "current flow' and the "current flow" sustains both filaments and 'rate of flow' (of particles) across the double layer determines the rate of "reconnection"!

They other obvious thing about all the so called "experiments' done to date is that NONE OF THEM actually tried to falsify the claim. They never explain what is physically unique and different from the kinetic energy particle transfers that Alfven describes in his double layer paper, or the transfer of photon kinetic energy to charged particles, *PROPERLY CALLED INDUCTION*. Instead they *ASSUME* things like the E field remained stable even while the thread size shrinks! The whole this is goofy. The particle reconnect. The current flows change direction. It's no mystery and no magnetic lines ever actually 'reconnect'. They just exist as a result of the current and their topology is directly related to the flow of that current as it changes over time.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 12:52 PM   #189
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Aaaaaaaand we're off!

Does anyone participating in this thread have ANY reason to expect something different from http://www.internationalskeptics.com...120782&page=23 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com...193096&page=76 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com...107792&page=34 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com...147374&page=29 ? Or http://www.internationalskeptics.com...=113586&page=4 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums /showthread.php?t=147365&page=4 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com...=138610&page=4 ?

It's exactly, precisely the same thing again:

a) The Alfvenites post the claim "reconnection doesn't work! Alfven said so. The explanation is double-layers and/or electric circuits."
Did I say reconnection didn't work or didn't happen?

Quote:
b) The other usual suspects point out that this is nonsense, and cite 40 years of mainstream plasma research in which reconnection makes perfect sense.
All those experiments demonstrate that PARTICLE reconnection and CIRCUIT reconnection makes sense, but which one of them actually demonstrates that MAGNETIC LINES do any 'disconnecting' or 'reconnecting'?

Quote:
c) The Alfvenites don't accept any of (b) as relevant or convincing, so they restate (a).
I must not be an Alfvenite then because I never stated A) in the first place, and B is simply not true.

Quote:
Please don't do it again. There is no way it is going to end. There is no possible science statement, none whatsoever, that MM could understand well enough to interpret as contradicting his reconnection-is-wrong-somehow dogma. You could post a complete, analytic form for B(r,t), E(r,t), j(r,t), p(r,t), etc., that includes reconnection, show that it follows from Maxwell, and that wouldn't work either.
Why? What would be the point? I'm more than happy to admit that mathematically speaking a completely B orientation works ok on paper, but I also admit (and you seem to refuse to admit) that it can also looked at from the E orientation. I also admit that in the REAL WORLD, real PARTICLES do the kinetic energy transfer, specifically protons, electrons and photons. The kinetic energy transfer between particles is not "magnetic reconnection", it's PARTICLE RECONNECTION. The transfer of photon kinetic energy from the magnetic field into charged particles already has a proper scientific name, it's called *INDUCTION*. Induction has nothing to do with magnetic field lines "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to other magnetic lines. At the level of pure empirical physics you can't even explain what is unique and different in "magnetic reconnection" that isn't better explained by Alfven's double layer approach, using particle collisions and induction. His approach requires NOTHING NEW. From an Occum's razor perspective, MR theory is toast.

Quote:
Please, please, please, let this and all other "reconnection" threads die.

The "I'm not trying to convince Michael, I'm doing it for other readers" argument doesn't work any more, not when we're on the 10th thread rehashing the same thing. Anyone who's still interested in reading can go read the old thread.
I've let a lot of the threads die a natural death, but you know me. I have to discuss something.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 31st March 2011 at 12:56 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 01:13 PM   #190
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't a 'tactic', I simply misread his question.

I would tend to 'disagree' with the claim that MHD theory is 'junk science' (assuming anyone actually said that).



I want to see you help me with that curl. Where in interplanetary space are Alfven's conditions met?



That may or may not be true, I'm sure that both of us are equally committed to empirical physics. What's clear from the empirical physical 'experiments' done on MR theory is that they "short circuit' two CURRENT CARRYING FILAMENTS and call it "magnetic reconnection". That's just baloney.

From a mathematical perspective, yes you can approach it *EITHER* from a B or an E orientation, but it's actual the particles and circuits that 'reconnect', not the magnetic lines. Those 'lines' are produced by "current flow' and the "current flow" sustains both filaments and 'rate of flow' (of particles) across the double layer determines the rate of "reconnection"!

They other obvious thing about all the so called "experiments' done to date is that NONE OF THEM actually tried to falsify the claim. They never explain what is physically unique and different from the kinetic energy particle transfers that Alfven describes in his double layer paper, or the transfer of photon kinetic energy to charged particles, *PROPERLY CALLED INDUCTION*. Instead they *ASSUME* things like the E field remained stable even while the thread size shrinks! The whole this is goofy. The particle reconnect. The current flows change direction. It's no mystery and no magnetic lines ever actually 'reconnect'. They just exist as a result of the current and their topology is directly related to the flow of that current as it changes over time.
Then show it MM, show how it is induction, or circuits slamming together, or whatever, but in detail, explain it to us.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 01:27 PM   #191
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Repeating a wrong assertion does not make it true.
Ditto. Care to demonstrate Alfven was wrong?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 01:33 PM   #192
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
When there is just magnetic reconnection, magnetic reconnection is the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles.
How? I want to hear you *OR ANYONE ELSE* explain *EXACTLY* what makes "magnetic reconnection" a "new" and unique form of energy exchange. The transfer of particle kinetic energy to other particles of mass is not "magnetic reconnection", it's "particle collision/reconnection". The transfer of magnetic field energy to charged particles already has a proper scientific name, it's called *INDUCTION*. How did you or anyone else eliminate ordinary double layer processes like particle collision and induction from consideration before *LEAPING TO THE CONCLUSION* that "magnetic reconnection did it"? How did they eliminate ordinary induction and particle collisions as the real "cause/culprit' of particle acceleration?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 01:37 PM   #193
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Then show it MM, show how it is induction, or circuits slamming together, or whatever, but in detail, explain it to us.

Quantitatively and objectively, please, like a real scientist might do.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 01:44 PM   #194
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
So what? The list of objections that bounce of MM is already pretty long. And it already includes "you're contradicting yourself", "you're contradicting Maxwell", "you're contradicting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics", and "you're contradicting actual lab experiments". So now we can add "you're contradicting a fellow anti-reconnection crackpot" to the list?
Ya but don't forget that Alfven was an anti-reconnection crackpot too and *I'm* the one going at on a limb in terms of the merits of MR theory. Alfven simply rejected MR theory outright, calling it "pseudoscience" more than a dozen times in 1986 in front of a room for of plasma physicists. That's a pretty strong stance actually. I'm willing to concede that the B orientation is mathematically "ok", but why won't you cop to the fact that Alfven's method is also "acceptable"?

If I'm *FORCED TO CHOOSE* between Alfven's view and MR theory, forget MR theory. It's the most ridiculously named "theory" of all time and I thought the term "black hole" was misleading.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 01:47 PM   #195
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Quantitatively and objectively, please, like a real scientist might do.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

What are you waiting for, a engraved invitation to comment on Onel and Mann's work?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 02:00 PM   #196
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

What are you waiting for, a engraved invitation to comment on Onel and Mann's work?

The question was regarding this discussion in this thread about this topic...

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Then show it MM, show how it is induction, or circuits slamming together, or whatever, but in detail, explain it to us.

And make your explanation quantitative and objective, please. Provide this induction and/or circuits explanation in a way that other people can understand, thoroughly, show the relevant math, and include proper citations to works, pages, and paragraphs.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 03:22 PM   #197
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Laboratory Magnetic Reconnection & Induction

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
As I have pointed out before, magnetic reconnection is observed directly to happen in laboratory plasmas.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No, DISCHARGES are directly observed in laboratory plasmas. PARTICLES AND CIRCUITS do the "reconnecting", not *JUST* the magnetic field topology! That's the whole problem with your claim. You can't even produce the process without *CURRENT* and "circuits".

Rubbish. Lest we forget, from 13 February 2009 ...

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection).

So, Mr. Mozina, have you ever read any of the papers I cited here? No, you have not.
Have you ever read any papers describing laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not.
Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not.
Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not.
So, how the hell do you know what is really going on?

"Particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are buzzwords of your own invention which have no basis in physical reality. You have been asked to physically describe what they are supposed to mean on too many occasions to count, and have failed to do so every time. So I still have no idea what you think you are talking about. But I do know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it is the "reconnection" of the magnetic field and not the "reconnection" of anything else, especially the currents & particles, which is the source of energy. I know this because I know that the topology of the magnetic field changes first (we call that "cause") and the accelerated currents flow afterwards (we call that "effect"). Since cause precedes effect rather more often than effect precedes cause, magnetic reconnection is the obvious answer. This is why people do things called "experiments". I realize you have much disdain for such menial tasks and prefer to live a life of academic seclusion, but the rest of us have faith in the ability of the real world to actually show us what is really happening, if we just bother to look. You should bother someday yourself, you might actually learn something (perish the thought!).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What's clear from the empirical physical 'experiments' done on MR theory is that they "short circuit' two CURRENT CARRYING FILAMENTS and call it "magnetic reconnection". That's just baloney.

Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not.
Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not.
So, how the hell do you know what is really going on?

No, as a matter of fact, it is not only not clear, it's not even possible because the like charges of the currents would repel each other, or are you now going to war against Coulomb too? And what about the magnetic fields generated by the currents in the filaments, which will surround the filaments in solenoidal shape? By what process do you suppose they might conveniently get out of the way and allow the bare naked currents to "reconnect"?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
They other obvious thing about all the so called "experiments' done to date is that NONE OF THEM actually tried to falsify the claim. They never explain what is physically unique and different from the kinetic energy particle transfers that Alfven describes in his double layer paper, or the transfer of photon kinetic energy to charged particles, *PROPERLY CALLED INDUCTION*. Instead they *ASSUME* things like the E field remained stable even while the thread size shrinks! The whole this is goofy. The particle reconnect. The current flows change direction. It's no mystery and no magnetic lines ever actually 'reconnect'. They just exist as a result of the current and their topology is directly related to the flow of that current as it changes over time.

Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not.
Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not.
So, how the hell do you know what is really going on?

Sorry to but into this reverie with shocking facts, but there are these things called "measuring devices" in laboratories. They are used to measure things. Amongst the many things that can be measured are electric currents, electric fields and magnetic fields. So no, they do not assume that the electric field is constant, they measure the electric field, which cannot be constant and is not constant, because of Faraday's Law (or maybe now you are going to war against both Coulomb & Faraday?). They also measure the magnetic field and the electric currents. Funny thing is the magnetic field changes first (we call that "cause") and the electric currents change afterwards (we call that "effect"). How dare Mother Nature disagree with Mozina! Who does she thing she is, anyway?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
They never explain what is physically unique and different from the kinetic energy particle transfers that Alfven describes in his double layer paper, or the transfer of photon kinetic energy to charged particles, *PROPERLY CALLED INDUCTION*.

Of course they do. In fact, they always do. But since you can't read, you are hardly likely to realize this. however, for those who can read, and for the umpteenth time already since December 2009 ...

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction. Here is the induction equation in a plasma as given in Priest & Forbes, page 5:

(1)  $ \partial \boldsymbol B / \partial t = \nabla \times (\boldsymbol v \times \boldsymbol B) - \nabla \times (\eta \nabla \times \boldsymbol B) $

Here \eta is the magnetic diffusivity. If \eta is uniform then the induction equation reduces to ...

(2)  $ \partial \boldsymbol B / \partial t = \nabla \times (\boldsymbol v \times \boldsymbol B) + \eta \nabla^2 \boldsymbol B $

[ .... ]

The conversion of magnetic energy into a current always operates on a time-scale characteristic of the system, and that time scale is controlled by the ability of the magnetic field to move through the conductor, in order to create a dB/dt term from which the current is generated. That time-scale in a plasma is rather different than it is for a fixed conductor. Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes:

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 105 km is of the order of 106 yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6
All of this occurs in the first few pages of the book, but evidently Mozina has not even bothered to look at it.

[ ... ]

This entire thread is just one constant repetition of the same tired old arguments: real physics vs. the pure prejudice of Mozina. It will never change because Mozina will never learn. So get used to zillions of pages to come with no change & no progress & no real physics ever from Mozina. That you can count on.

Considering the "current" state of affairs, I must say I am impressed with the predictive power of the statement I made in those last few sentences from two years ago. And I boldly predict that, two years hence, the "current" state of affairs will remain unchanged.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 04:15 PM   #198
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,506
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Ditto. Care to demonstrate Alfven was wrong?
Nothing to do with Alfven.
That was michaelsuede's assertion that all magnetic reconnection is DLs.
That is wrong beacuse:
When there is just magnetic reconnection, magnetic reconnection is the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles.
When there is magnetic reconnnetion + DLs then both mechanisms impart kinetic energy to the particles.
The formation of the DLs happens after the magnetic reconnection.
See Figure 9 in Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 !

Where do you think Alfven states that all magnetic reconnection is DLs?
(Hint: it is not his 30 year old pseudoscience remark - that is about he inappropriate application of the frozen-in field approximation)
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 04:23 PM   #199
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,506
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
How?
How is Maxwell's equations.

The ignorance continues (and the crackpot quoting and uppercasing !)
Magnetic reconnection is not a new or unique form of energy exchange. Changes in magnetic field configurations impart energy to particles all of the time. Ask any particle physicist!

The stupidity of calling magnetic reconnection has been pointed out many times before. The time scales make it impossible for induction to transfer the energy,

And one more time for the simple minded (and I do mean you MM - you are obviously too simple minded to read or understand the many posts that have explained this to you. ):
Induction was eliminated as a cause of particle acceleration because it takes too long, e.g. in solar flares it would take a million years to do it.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 10:34 PM   #200
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

What are you waiting for, a engraved invitation to comment on Onel and Mann's work?
Onel & Mann use a circuit model of structures on the sun, and then come up with the various values for the R and the U and everything else. Then they find the power in photospheric motion in Eq. 9 and show that in the circuit there is a total energy that is comparable with what is released in solar flares. One would be surprised if they had found something else.

Then they use runaway electrons that are accelerated at a coronal electric field, that lose energy through coulomb collisions Eqs. 11/12/13 and find a value for the Dreicer field, above which electrons are basically collisionless.

Then basically, what they want to explain is the X-ray emission from flares, and find that the bremsstrahlung by accelerated electrons is the main cause and that electric fields, as described in their model, can explain the acceleration of the electrons.

Fine, it is a nice paper (which I have said already some time ago), however, has nothing to do with magnetic reconnection. Nothing about how the magnetic field changes etc.

Nice try, but no cigar.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 04:10 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.