Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Merged: Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags Alfven waves , Birkeland currents , hannes alfven , Kristian Birkeland

 7th March 2012, 05:45 PM #6681 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,055 Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection (vacuum reconnection) Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection - (Invited Review); Priest & Schrijver "A CD-ROM attached to this paper presents the results of a toy model of vacuum reconnection..." __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 7th March 2012, 05:49 PM #6682 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,055 The origins of electrical resistivity in magnetic reconnection (MR in vacuum) The origins of electrical resistivity in magnetic reconnection: Studies by 2D and 3D macro particle simulations "A gedanken experiment that illustrates the meaning of electrical resistivity for magnetic reconnection (a) in vacuum, and (b) in a plasma (dots represent plasma ions and electrons). The currents J1 and J2 flow in the flux bundles, while J3 in the plasma does not exist initially and is induced by the electric field Et during the reconnection process." __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 7th March 2012, 05:54 PM #6683 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,055 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina If there is CURRENT PRESENT it's got plasma RC. How ignorant. If there is CURRENT PRESENT it's got a CURRENT PRESENT MM. Your statement is as stupid as stating that "If there is CURRENT PRESENT it's got a wire" ! Originally Posted by Michael Mozina BS. He claimed CURRENT was present in that "vacuum". Wake up. Current *IS NON-NEUTRAL PLASMA*. BS. Somov stated that there were currents creating the magnetic fields. Notging to do with plasma. Maxwell also stated in his equations that there are currents creating magnetic fields. There is no plasma in Maxwell's equations . Wake up to your delusion that Current *IS NON-NEUTRAL PLASMA*. A current is a current. A NON-NEUTRAL PLASMA is a NON-NEUTRAL PLASMA. Somov's chapter has currents in it. The only mention of plasma is collisionless plasma at the end. Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI (etc.) Originally Posted by Michael Mozina BS. Been there, looked at them. BS. You are obviously lying about reading them: __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 7th March 2012, 06:02 PM #6684 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,055 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina The The term DISCHARGE doesn't go away just because RC says so. Once again you are lying. I did not say that the term electrical discharge went away. It has been in use for centuries and is still in use ! I stated that Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection. But this was in the 1960's and there is no evidence that Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection is used today. Thus it isoutdated and obsolete You are continuing with the insanity of citing Dungey and contradicting your own assertion: MM: Citing Dungey means that you are stating that the cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection ! 8th November 2011 (5 months and counting) __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 7th March 2012 at 06:04 PM.
 7th March 2012, 06:16 PM #6685 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,055 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You've never personally cited one of them. I never cited any of them because this is the first time that you have asked that specific question. I expected that PIC simulations of MR would not use MHD and they do not (however ny Google skills deserted me before): Geospace Environmental Modeling(GEM) Magnetic ReconnectionChallenge (PDF) and in case you cannot read a PDF Collisionless magnetic reconnectionin the presence of a guide field Quote: Both an implicit particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation method and a parallel explicit PIC code are used. (Google Scholar for "PIC magnetic reconnection simulation energy" has ~5,900 results) __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 7th March 2012, 06:25 PM #6686 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,055 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina That's trivial alright. That's not what happens in a flare. There's your equivocation fallacy in a nutshell. That's dumb alright: A flare is not a vacuum! Linking to a proton flux graph is dumb because if there are protons then it is not MR in a vacuum. There's your ignorance of basic reading skills in a nutshell. MR in a vacuum is descibed in Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov Quote: Quote: Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum. X-type points consist a topological peculiarity of a magnetic field. They are places where where redistribution of magnetic fluxes occurs, which changes the connectivity of field lines. Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17. The magnetic field of these currents forms three different fluxes in the plane (x,y). Two of them belong to the upper and the lower currents, respectively, and are situated inside the separatrix field line A, which forms the figure of the eight-like curve with zeroth X-point. The third flux belongs to both currents and is situated outside of the separatrix. If the currents are displaced in the direction of each other, then the following magnetic flux redistribution will take place. The currents proper fluxes will diminish by the quantity dA, while their common flux will increase by the same quantity. So the field line A2 will be the separatrix of the final state. This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line. Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since [equation 4.65] where A is the vector potential of magnetic field, [equation 4.66] In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65) [equation 4.67] the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2 Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as | the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or | particles in the vicinity of the neutral point. MR in a vacuum is mentioned in the scientific literature: MR in a vacuum is a simple derivation from Maxwell's equations: to W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 8th March 2012, 02:21 AM #6689 tusenfem Master Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,117 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Y BS. He claimed CURRENT was present in that "vacuum". Wake up. Current *IS NON-NEUTRAL PLASMA*. Oh Michael, how often do we have to go through this basic plasma physics or for I care basic MHD? Current is not a non-neutral plasma. Once more, but you finally should try to remember this, in plasma physics / MHD, neutrality is defined by the total charge density ρc being zero: $ rho_c = \Sigma_k n_k q_k = 0,$ where nk and qk are the number density and charge of particle species k and k runs over all species of ions and electrons. Now an electric current in a plasma is defined in the following way: $ {\bf j} = \Sigma_k n_k q_k {\bf v}_k$ where vk is the velocity of species k. Now, please explain why if there is a current j that the plasma needs be non-neutral? And to quote from your non-neutral link: Originally Posted by wiki Non-neutral plasma The strength and range of the electric force and the good conductivity of plasmas usually ensure that the densities of positive and negative charges in any sizeable region are equal ("quasineutrality"). A plasma with a significant excess of charge density, or, in the extreme case, is composed of a single species, is called a non-neutral plasma. In such a plasma, electric fields play a dominant role. Examples are charged particle beams, an electron cloud in a Penning trap and positron plasmas. Wow, this has absolutely nothing to do with a quasi-neutral plasma with a current. (ofcourse we remember that your definition of neutral is not the usual definition of neutral as given in the equation above, but that is yet another example of you using perfectly defined physics terms in a different way. Fluxing isn't it?) __________________ 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
 9th March 2012, 10:54 AM #6690 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem Oh Michael, how often do we have to go through this basic plasma physics or for I care basic MHD? Current is not a non-neutral plasma. Once more, but you finally should try to remember this, in plasma physics / MHD, neutrality is defined by the total charge density ρc being zero: Who cares? It's not WITHOUT PLASMA! You folks can't talk about particle species and particle velocity because CLINGER doesn't have particles in the first place! Somov's work does NOT support Clinger's outrageously FALSE claim. I have one of Somov's books on plasma physics. RC doesn't. He (and now you) are ignoring the fact that to have CURRENT you need CHARGED PARTICLES. Somov's vacuum contains PARTICLES. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th March 2012 at 10:55 AM.
 9th March 2012, 11:09 AM #6691 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Who cares? It's not WITHOUT PLASMA! You folks can't talk about particle species and particle velocity because CLINGER doesn't have particles in the first place! Somov's work does NOT support Clinger's outrageously FALSE claim. I have one of Somov's books on plasma physics. RC doesn't. He (and now you) are ignoring the fact that to have CURRENT you need CHARGED PARTICLES. Somov's vacuum contains PARTICLES. As usual, that isn't an argument. It's a complaint about failing to understand an argument. And as always, that strategy will never result in success.
 9th March 2012, 11:33 AM #6692 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack As usual, that isn't an argument. It's a complaint about failing to understand an argument. And as always, that strategy will never result in success. My big complaint is that you all blatantly FAIL to embrace PHYSICAL fact. Unlike Clinger's vacuum, Somov's 'vacuum' and maths (like every other reference you've cited) *INCLUDES PHYSICAL CURRENT, PARTICLES, and PHYSICAL PARTICLE MOVEMENT! No particles, no "reconnection/electrical discharge". The EU hater denial-go-round is never ending around here. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th March 2012 at 11:35 AM.
 9th March 2012, 11:36 AM #6693 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina My big complaint [...] is never ending around here. Fixed.
 9th March 2012, 12:22 PM #6695 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack Fixed. It's "fixed" in typical EU hater fashion alright. You simply took out the stuff you didn't want to hear. Haters are all alike. Topics change, but the behaviors are identical.
 9th March 2012, 12:44 PM #6696 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check I never cited any of them because this is the first time that you have asked that specific question. I expected that PIC simulations of MR would not use MHD and they do not (however ny Google skills deserted me before): Geospace Environmental Modeling(GEM) Magnetic ReconnectionChallenge (PDF) and in case you cannot read a PDF Collisionless magnetic reconnectionin the presence of a guide field (Google Scholar for "PIC magnetic reconnection simulation energy" has ~5,900 results) Let me highlight the relevant PHYSICS for you: Quote: The results of kinetic simulations of magnetic reconnection in Harris current sheets are analyzed. A range of guide fields is considered to study reconnection in plasmas characterized by different β values, β>me/mi. Both an implicit particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation method and a parallel explicit PIC code are used. Simulations with mass ratios up to the physical value are performed. What part of "current sheets" *IN PLASMAS* and MASS RATIOS don't you understand? Wow! I've never seen such a LAME attempt at supporting such a RIDICULOUS claim in my life. Folks, get REAL! Plasma is not "optional' in the 'reconnection" process. As Sweet *ELOQUENTLY* explained, you NEED a conductive environment to INDUCE current in that environment as a result of the field changes. The conductor and the physics isn't optional. The current doesn't flow without a conductor when the fields change. The fields just FLUX/MOVE/CHANGE and nothing happens. Wow! Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th March 2012 at 12:53 PM.
 9th March 2012, 12:54 PM #6697 phunk Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,645 Michael, the reason people are talking about reconnection in a vacuum is that YOU stated it couldn't happen in a vacuum. We're trying to get you to understand what reconnection is. The fact that it causes interesting effects in a plasma doesn't mean plasma is required for reconnection.
 9th March 2012, 01:13 PM #6698 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by phunk Michael, the reason people are talking about reconnection in a vacuum is that YOU stated it couldn't happen in a vacuum. We're trying to get you to understand what reconnection is. The fact that it causes interesting effects in a plasma doesn't mean plasma is required for reconnection. I own, have read, and I've pretty reasonably understood at least 5 books now on *PLASMA PHYSICS*. Many (all?) of them describe the "reconnection" process in plasma. In addition, I've read HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of RECONNECTION based upon MHD theory and MHD maths. What I have NEVER seen *PUBLISHED* is anything that REMOTELY supports your claim. Got it? Yes or no? I know what RECONNECTION is. You don't. Plasma isn't optional in the 'reconnection" process, and not one paper you've cited claims otherwise.
 9th March 2012, 01:24 PM #6699 phunk Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,645 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I own, have read, and I've pretty reasonably understood at least 5 books now on *PLASMA PHYSICS*. Many (all?) of them describe the "reconnection" process in plasma. In addition, I've read HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of RECONNECTION based upon MHD theory and MHD maths. What I have NEVER seen *PUBLISHED* is anything that REMOTELY supports your claim. That's like saying you've read lots of books on fish, and none of them claim gills are optional, so breathing outside of water is impossible. Quote: Got it? Yes or no? I know what RECONNECTION is. You don't. Plasma isn't optional in the 'reconnection" process, and not one paper you've cited claims otherwise. Clearly, you are the one who doesn't get it. Please, explain what happens with the magnetic field lines of two permanent magnets when their opposing poles are brought together. Without plasma.
 9th March 2012, 01:40 PM #6700 D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399 Originally Posted by phunk Please, explain what happens with the magnetic field lines of two permanent magnets when their opposing poles are brought together. Without plasma. OMG! They *FLUX*! (Sorry. Couldn't hold it in). __________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
 9th March 2012, 01:40 PM #6701 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by phunk Michael, the reason people are talking about reconnection in a vacuum is that YOU stated it couldn't happen in a vacuum. We're trying to get you to understand what reconnection is. Indeed. Magnetic reconnection occurs. It can be demonstrated with a few refrigerator magnets. It will occur in your living room and it will occur in space. If two refrigerator magnets are inside an evacuated bell jar and one refrigerator magnet is outside the bell jar, magnetic reconnection can occur between the vacuum and the non-vacuum regions. It's a grade school science experiment and it doesn't even require any understanding of math to observe the results. Math idiots could get it. Quote: The fact that it causes interesting effects in a plasma doesn't mean plasma is required for reconnection. Indeed again. Magnetic reconnection, as it applies to the atmosphere of the Sun which is the environment under discussion, necessarily entails plasma. And all the dishonest distraction and silly semantic nonsense isn't going to change that. Also, given that it is the responsibility of the against-the-mainstream advocates to support their own claims, what we're seeing is more dishonest deflection of the burden of proof, dishonest evasion, and another complete failure to objectively quantitatively support any electric/iron Sun conjecture.
 9th March 2012, 05:10 PM #6703 DeiRenDopa Master Poster   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,582 Originally Posted by tusenfem A claim like above Somov's vacuum contains particles is too idiotic to even discuss. Not really. Have you forgotten what MM had to say about the Casimir effect?
 9th March 2012, 06:14 PM #6704 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,852 Quote: However, I see that your answers are getting more and more devoid of any science, you won't even discuss physics and your misunderstandings about flux and current etc. The only things that are increasing again are CAPITALS and ***CAPITALS BRACKETED WITH STARS*** Yes. __________________ 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
 9th March 2012, 09:30 PM #6705 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by phunk Clearly, you are the one who doesn't get it. Please, explain what happens with the magnetic field lines of two permanent magnets when their opposing poles are brought together. Without plasma. Such statements, without clearly defining such things as reconnection rate, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole.
 9th March 2012, 11:12 PM #6706 phunk Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,645 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Such statements, without clearly defining such things as reconnection rate, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole. That wasn't a statement or hyperbole, it was a question. I want to know how he thinks magnetic fields merge without reconnection.
 9th March 2012, 11:54 PM #6707 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 ^ Ok. Well I guess this is more a case of how you define λ than an explicit fault with the system. Still, such things need to be clearly defined before productive discussion can continue on this subject.
 10th March 2012, 03:46 PM #6708 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo XI Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Originally Posted by phunk Please, explain what happens with the magnetic field lines of two permanent magnets when their opposing poles are brought together. Without plasma. Such statements, without clearly defining such things as reconnection rate, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole. I disagree. I think you are making things more complicated than they need to be. One need only look at either of the images provided by phunk (post 6553, 29 Feb 2012) or myself (Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo, 20 May 2011) and see that when the opposite polarity ends of a bar magnet face each other, then the magnetic field lines from either magnet are fully connected to those of the other, while in the case of same polarity ends the magnetic field lines of either magnet are fully disconnected from those of the other. Simply rotating one magnet with respect to the other creates a transition from a fully connected to a fully disconnected state, or vice-versa. That is all you need to see & know, to know that the field lines of the two magnets have to change their connectivity, or in other words, the field lines must reconnect. Now, if we want to talk about the process in some more detail, then all of the technical details you talk about must come into play. However, simply to establish the minimal condition that some form of reconnection takes place does not require anything beyond a visual inspection of the field line images. __________________ 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
 10th March 2012, 03:48 PM #6709 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,055 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Let me highlight the relevant PHYSICS for you: ...rant about MR in plasma requiring plasma - Duh ... Let me highlight the relevant ENGLISH for you. You asked: Quote: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I'm still waiting for a ligitimate PUBLISHED reference for 'reconnection' that generates any energy that isn't based upon MHD theory. I answered: Quote: Originally Posted by Reality Check I never cited any of them because this is the first time that you have asked that specific question. I expected that PIC simulations of MR would not use MHD and they do not (however ny Google skills deserted me before): Geospace Environmental Modeling(GEM) Magnetic Reconnection Challenge (PDF) and in case you cannot read a PDF Collisionless magnetic reconnectionin the presence of a guide field These are legitimate PUBLISHED references for MR that generates any energy that are not based upon MHD theory. Your rant though suggests that we are back to your delusions about MR in vacuum: MR in a vacuum is descibed in Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov MR in a vacuum is mentioned in the scientific literature: MR in a vacuum is a simple derivation from Maxwell's equations: W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 10th March 2012 at 04:06 PM.
 10th March 2012, 04:06 PM #6711 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,055 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Such statements, without clearly defining such things as reconnection rate, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole. Such statements, without actually understanding the post, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole . This is refering to the example of MR using fridge magnets.The "reconnection rate" is the rate at which you choose to turn the magnets around (not as they are "brought together" as in phunks post). Of course we have much better descriptions of MR in a vacuum - Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov and W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 10th March 2012 at 04:07 PM.
 10th March 2012, 04:16 PM #6712 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,055 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I have one of Somov's books on plasma physics. RC doesn't. That is irrelevant unless in the book by Somov that you have he states that MR in vacuum is impossible. Does he? It is totally irrelevant because the chapter of Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov is available in Google Books. I have quoted Somov explaining MR in vacuum. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina He (and now you) are ignoring the fact that to have CURRENT you need CHARGED PARTICLES. Somov's vacuum contains PARTICLES. Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI (etc.) You are ignoring the fact Somov's vacuum contains general CURRENTS without any physical mechanism specified. They could be currents in WIRES. You are ignoring the fact that Maxwell's equations contain CURRENTS. Do you think that they only apply to plasma? __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 10th March 2012 at 04:17 PM.
 11th March 2012, 12:46 PM #6715 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 21,055 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson The real photosphere sits under the plasma of the chromosphere, the transition region and the corona. The toy photosphere sits under a vacuum (that's why it's a "toy" model). So the magnetic field loops that look like real coronal magnetic field loops extend not into a plasma but into a vacuum, where reconnection takes place (that's why it's called "vacuum reconnection"). Perhaps this is something that we have not emphasized enough to Mozina (or that he has chosen to ignore): MR in a vacuum is "in a vacuum" because it happens at the null point which is in vacuum. So even if someone was ignorant enough to replace the idealized current flowing through a point in 2D with an infinitesimally thin, non-physical wire (or even plasma magically constrained to flow through a point!), the MR would still happen in a vacuum. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 13th March 2012, 08:46 AM #6716 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Hey, LMSAL is *FINALLY* starting to figure it out! Quote: LOCKHEED MARTIN SOLAR AND ASTROPHYSICS LABORATORY SEMINAR Date : Tuesday, 20 March 2012 Time : 3:00 PM Place: 2nd FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, Bldg. 252, 3176 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Speaker: Christoph Kuckein (Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias) Title: An active region filament studied simultaneously in the photosphere and chromosphere Abstract: We present new results regarding the magnetic structure, magnetic field strength and Doppler velocities found in a compact active region (AR) filament. The observed structure is best described as a flux rope that emerges from below the photosphere, where it is recognized as an orphan penumbral system,and makes its way up into the chromosphere. Spectropolarimetric data sets, which comprise the photospheric Si I 10827 AA line and the chromospheric He I 10830 AA triplet, were acquired with the Tenerife Infrared Polarimeter (TIP-II @ VTT, Tenerife, Spain) in 2005. Hence, the filament can be studied simultaneously in the photosphere and chromosphere. The four Stokes profiles were inverted with different inversion codes to retrieve the vector magnetic field and the line-of-sight (LOS) velocities. The velocities were calibrated on an absolute scale. To describe the evolution of this AR filament we also used SOHO/MDI, BBSO, and images of the Dutch Open Telescope (La Palma, Spain). A widening of the polarity inversion line (PIL), simil! ar to the 'sliding door' effect shown by Okamoto et al. 2008, was seen in our data. The inferred vector magnetic fields of the filament suggest a flux rope topology. However, the very low-lying filament seems to be divided in two parts: one that lies in the chromosphere while the other part is trapped in the photosphere and hence develop an orphan penumbral system. The filament region displays upward motions of the horizontal magnetic field lines in the photosphere. In the chromosphere, only localized upflow patches of the horizontal fields are seen above the orphan penumbrae. Photospheric supersonic downflows that last for tens of minutes are detected below the filament along the PIL. Emphasis mine. It's about TIME! They are FINALLY realizing that the coronal loops originate *UNDER* the photosphere and can be tracked up the SIDE of UMBRA! WOW! That's progress. Now if I can just get them to describe the relationships between the filters, and the fact the iron ion line can be seen traversing the surface of the photosphere, we can actually have a real conversation about solar satellite images. I wonder where they now place "solar moss" in relationship to the surface of the photosphere now that they FINALLY understand that magnetic rope/Bennett pinch begins UNDER the photosphere? That's is progress IMO. I may actually see if I can figure out a way to go to that particular meeting. It sounds positively FASCINATING. I'm curious to know how deeply into the photosphere they are able to see. Cool!
 13th March 2012, 08:53 AM #6717 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Such statements, without clearly defining such things as reconnection rate, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole. Clinger's maths are *WAY* too primitive to describe rates of reconnection, or anything of the sort. They are destined to NEVER see the light of publishing day. IMO DRD's conversation about the usefulness of published works is ironic, particularly when applied to this topic. The EU haters utterly ignore the fact that not one of them has produced a *PUBLISHED* work that supports their claim that plasma physical particles are 'optional', let alone anything that describes the rate of reconnection in the absence of plasma physics. The whole thing is an ironic sham, because their position on this topic is a pathetic house of cards. They could NEVER produce a published work to support their nonsense that describes the rate of reconnection in the absence of plasma and they know it. They don't really care about publishing or mathematics. When it comes right down to it, they cling to a NON PUBLISHED piece of nonsense on the internet and fail to produce ANYTHING PUBLISHED that even REMOTELY supports their claim. Irony overload.
 13th March 2012, 08:57 AM #6718 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Wow! The more I think about that presentation at LMSAL next week, the more I'm stoked and excited. It's about time that the mainstream finally acknowledges that the coronal loops TRAVERSE the surface of the photosphere and they are "lit up" and achieve million degree temperatures UNDER the surface of the photosphere. It's definitely progress IMO.
 13th March 2012, 09:00 AM #6719 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack Indeed. Magnetic reconnection occurs. It can be demonstrated with a few refrigerator magnets. BS. It's just "flux". You folks will NEVER produce a PUBLISHED work that makes that claim, let alone demonstrate that reconnection occurs in the ABSENCE of plasma. It's never going to happen. It can't physically happen in fact. No physical charged particles means no transfer of stored magnetic field energy can take place into particle kinetic energy. Therefore no discharge, and no 'reconnection'. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 13th March 2012 at 09:02 AM.
 13th March 2012, 09:11 AM #6720 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem Sorry to break it to you, but it is you who keeps on claiming that a current is a non-neutral plasma, not only this last time, but many a time in the years before in this thread and in other threads. You keep trying to tap dance around the point. Somov's "vacuum" contains *PLASMA*. Get a grip. Get RC to get a grip. IMO the mainstream keep ignoring the physics! It's not JUST about math, it's also about the PHYSICAL PARTICLES that do the work!

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit