JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF 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

Reply
Old 10th November 2011, 12:09 PM   #4841
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by mimada View Post
Mr. Mozina,
In regards to magnetic reconnection. Your primary criticisms appear to be based on works and statements by Hannes Alfvén. However, Alfvén acknowledged the reconnection phenomenon

In this excerpt from Cosmic Plasma, he lays out the specific conditions for magnetic reconnection to be valid.



From Double Layers in Astrophysics (pg. 8).



He did not dispute the existence of the magnetic reconnection process, rather, he did not believe mainstream assertion that reconnection was the energy transfer mechanism in solar and magnetospheric phenomena.

I believe it would be in your best interest to proceed along this line since there is some direct support of this criticism. I would direct you to the works of Syun-Ichi Akasofu and Walter J. Heikkila. Both men were colleagues of Alfven and have largely adopted his views on reconnection. Akasofu had written a criticism of the subject in his book Exploring the Secrets of the Aurora. Please take note of section 5.6 Magnetic Reconnection on page 162. I recommend you obtain the book from your local library as it is a relatively expensive purchase.

Furthermore, you may wish to peruse these abstracts:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2n3151r56j623gr/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w21k14840j44g000/

I would like to add as a disclaimer, that I support the mainstream view of magnetic reconnection. IMO the evidence for it is quite strong and it would take a considerable effort to oust it as the preferred theory. I only present this information as an (possibly vain) attempt to move this discussion forwards.
Thank you for those references. You will need to be patient with me. I still have about 1/5th of another paper to finish for Humanzee and Tim before I take on more papers at the moment, but I will check them out as I get time. I appreciate it.

Keep in mind that I am not denying that the PROCESS is correct, I'm simply arguing that it has a TERRIBLE name. I would simply prefer "current reconnection' or "circuit reconnection' to keep it consistent with other branches of physics.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 10th November 2011 at 12:11 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 10th November 2011, 12:25 PM   #4842
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No. You didn't hear me, and you didn't listen. That's not amazing, it's rather typical in my experience. I *HAVE* told you *EXACTLY* what *I* mean by that term. Dungey's work fit's PERFECTLY underneath of Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma. Peratt's definition also perfectly describes the "electrical discharges" of *OTHER* atmospheres (which happen to include gas), not just the SOLAR atmosphere. You just don't like the definition because the moment you agree to it, the hate-go-round finally comes to an end.
Why can't you simply state if you believe a dielectric is involved in discharges in plasma?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2011, 12:42 PM   #4843
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by mimada View Post
I would like to add as a disclaimer, that I support the mainstream view of magnetic reconnection. IMO the evidence for it is quite strong and it would take a considerable effort to oust it as the preferred theory. I only present this information as an (possibly vain) attempt to move this discussion forwards.

Here's your answer, mimada...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Keep in mind that I am not denying that the PROCESS is correct, I'm simply arguing that it has a TERRIBLE name. I would simply prefer "current reconnection' or "circuit reconnection' to keep it consistent with other branches of physics.

So the process of magnetic reconnection exists. It reasonably explains the energy release of solar flares and the heating of the corona. And even though magnetic reconnection amounts to magnetic fields reconnecting, James Dungey gave it a crummy name. This entire discussion from the beginning has been about the term "magnetic reconnection" and the complaint that it is an inappropriate way to describe magnetic reconnection. And all that nonsense because...

The electric Sun conjecture is unsupportable. The claim that solar flares are some kind of massive sparks like lightning on Earth cannot be demonstrated, pretty much because it is not physically possible. The claim that the Sun acts like some kind of giant cathode has not been demonstrated, probably mostly because it cannot be. But if all the scientists on Earth can be persuaded to call magnetic reconnection an "electrical discharge", the electric Sun proponents can dishonestly claim that they have demonstrated their nonsensical conjecture to be true. (Note how much traction that strategy has gotten in this nearly 5000 post thread. )

As for moving the discussion forward, the burden of proof is on the electric Sun proponents. They abandoned that responsibility way back at the beginning. But in continuing to demand that everyone else teach them physics (which, you will also note, hasn't gained any ground), there is much interesting conversation about solar and plasma physics. So stick around. You'll probably learn a few things about physics and about critical thinking.
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 10th November 2011, 01:17 PM   #4844
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Why can't you simply state if you believe a dielectric is involved in discharges in plasma?
I can't answer your question because it's technically OPTIONAL in Peratt's definition and it's optional in EU theory, it's not one or the other.

You're going to have to think on COSMIC scales here for a second PS and wrap your head around the whole EU idea, even if you don't accept it. You need to at least UNDERSTAND it from my perspective, even if you disagree.

PC/EU theory needs and requires a "Cosmic scale" definition of an electrical discharge process in a plasma. Why? Because it occurs CONSTANTLY in EU/PC theory and most of the universe is plasma. Peratt's definition is a "cosmic scale" definition that works for a universe that is almost entirely composed of plasma. Even in Birkeland's model on my website, the solids would compose a small fraction of the total mass.

Peratt's definition isn't "necessarily" state specific in terms of the environments in which it might be applied. It "could" apply to electrical discharges in planetary atmospheres or in solar atmospheres. The "triggering/storage" mechanisms would necessarily need to be RADICALLY different in a gas than the circuits that store energy and reconnect in plasma, but it's still the same fast release of stored EM energy in the form of current, even in a gas.

Cosmic plasma cosmology theories require cosmic scale definitions that can be applied to the whole plasma of spacetime, and to things EMBEDDED INSIDE OF that plasma. It has to be a BROAD definition PS.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 10th November 2011 at 01:30 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 10th November 2011, 01:40 PM   #4845
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
FYI, that is why the term "Cosmic" appears in the title of Peratt's definition.
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 10th November 2011, 02:18 PM   #4846
mimada
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
So stick around. You'll probably learn a few things about physics and about critical thinking.
Actually, I've been lurking for quite some time. I've also read most of the posts that I've found interesting. The factor that has compelled me to participate in this thread is Dr. Clinger's derivation of magnetic reconnection through Maxwell's equations. I appreciate his presentation and I hope he continues.

On another note, I have only briefly flipped through the book Cosmic Plasma. My understanding is that Alfvén proposed plasma double layers as the energy transfer mechanism that accelerates the solar wind and heats the corona (as opposed to reconnection). However, I am not clear as to the mechanism that initiates the formation of these layers. Does anyone here know of this offhand? I get the impression that the layers form spontaneously from perturbations in the plasma but how do these perturbations transfer the sun's internal energy and what initiates them? If magnetic flux tubes are involved, then this isn't much different than reconnection is it?
mimada is online now   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 10th November 2011, 02:23 PM   #4847
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by mimada View Post
On another note, I have only briefly flipped through the book Cosmic Plasma. My understanding is that Alfvén proposed plasma double layers as the energy transfer mechanism that accelerates the solar wind and heats the corona (as opposed to reconnection). However, I am not clear as to the mechanism that initiates the formation of these layers. Does anyone here know of this offhand? I get the impression that the layers form spontaneously from perturbations in the plasma but how do these perturbations transfer the sun's internal energy and what initiates them? If magnetic flux tubes are involved, then this isn't much different than reconnection is it?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Al...r%20Flares.pdf
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 10th November 2011, 02:25 PM   #4848
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
It's not actually necessarily any "different from", it's just the E orientation of the same process IMO. One does however have to accept that it is the electric horse that does the actual work, not the magnetic cart that contains the current in filaments.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 10th November 2011 at 02:28 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 10th November 2011, 02:27 PM   #4849
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
It's essentially the twirling motion of the photosphere in the areas around sunspots according to Alfven that induces an E field at different points on the photosphere. Keep in mind that we're talking up to a billion volts.
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 10th November 2011, 02:39 PM   #4850
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by mimada View Post
Actually, I've been lurking for quite some time. I've also read most of the posts that I've found interesting.
In terms of posting, welcome to the board and to the discussion by the way.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 10th November 2011 at 02:43 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 10th November 2011, 05:36 PM   #4851
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,668
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
You'll probably learn a few things about physics and about critical thinking.
For my part, I hope to learn some physics from mimada.

Originally Posted by mimada View Post
The factor that has compelled me to participate in this thread is Dr. Clinger's derivation of magnetic reconnection through Maxwell's equations. I appreciate his presentation and I hope he continues.
Thanks. I'm not quite done with producing the animations and cleaning up the graphs, but I should be able to post part 4 this weekend and part 5 next week.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
If this were a freshman basic EM physics class, you just earned a GIANT *F*. That was an EPIC FAIL!
I feel so lucky you weren't teaching the Berkeley section of PHY 316 that semester.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I now know from a year of your nasty lies that you can't tell the difference between "solid magnet reconnection" and an "electrical discharge process in plasma". You don't know the difference between magnetic flux density changes and "magnetic reconnection". I now know that you are clueless about those lines "beginning and ending" in the X as you have claimed. I now know that you don't even understand BASIC theory because if you did, you'd know that B fields have no beginning or ending! You don't grasp the fact that permeability is measured in INDUCTANCE per unit length, not "reconnections" per unit length. You don't understand that FUTZING with the units make no damn difference in terms of the actual PHYSICS! (FYI, you unfairly SCREWED Tim over that lie. You owe Tim a public apology IMO).
Tim Thompson, I apologize.

(If you know why I'm apologizing to you, please let me in on the secret.)
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 10th November 2011, 06:34 PM   #4852
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,241
Michael, do you ever feel like your wasting your life here?

I really would just swallow your pride and run from the argument.

Or do you actually enjoy this type of seemingly never ending argument?
Zeuzzz 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 10th November 2011, 06:43 PM   #4853
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Michael, do you ever feel like your wasting your life here?

I really would just swallow your pride and run from the argument.

Or do you actually enjoy this type of seemingly never ending argument?
Call me an optimist, but they can't *ALL* be lost causes IMO.
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 10th November 2011, 06:59 PM   #4854
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,668
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Thanks. I'm not quite done with producing the animations and cleaning up the graphs, but I should be able to post part 4 this weekend and part 5 next week.
Part 4 damn well better include a BRAND NEW GRAPH contained STRICTLY in the POSITIVE quadrant of the X,Y grid, showing all four magnetic fields IN FULL, and the NULL region better be nowhere close to the "origin" of the graph!
As much as I appreciate your invaluable advice, I'll continue to decide the content of my own posts.

But I tell you what: If you'll give me a mathematically precise, closed-form equation for the magnetic field B you're asking me to graph (such as the equation I gave in part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection), and tell me exactly which rectangular region of which planar slice of B you'd like to see, then I'll post that graph for you.

(I'm not going to try to guess what you think you mean by "all four magnetic fields" or "IN FULL".)
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 10th November 2011, 07:45 PM   #4855
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
As much as I appreciate your invaluable advice, I'll continue to decide the content of my own posts.
You WON'T keep trying to pass off the origin of the graph for the origin of the B fields however. Once was enough.

Quote:
But I tell you what: If you'll give me a mathematically precise, closed-form equation for the magnetic field B you're asking me to graph (such as the equation I gave in part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection), and tell me exactly which rectangular region of which planar slice of B you'd like to see, then I'll post that graph for you.

(I'm not going to try to guess what you think you mean by "all four magnetic fields" or "IN FULL".)
This is YOUR handwavy claim, not mine. I'm not going to help you in any way shape or form, other than to understand exactly what I mean and expect of you this time.



I want you to position an image like this in the POSITIVE X,Y QUADRANT of whatever image you post, making sure to show all four the electromagnets and a number of lines/field strengths around all sides of the magnet. If you simply put the left bottom corner of this image at 0,0 of your graph, I'll be fine with anything you come up with. What you WON'T do this time is put that NULL region anywhere near an origin of the graph and confuse the origin of the graph with the origin of B fields.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 10th November 2011 at 07:50 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 10th November 2011, 08:24 PM   #4856
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Deep in the rain
Posts: 20,536
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What you WON'T do this time is put that NULL region anywhere near an origin of the graph and confuse the origin of the graph with the origin of B fields.
You are aware that translation of position axes does not change the result of a calculation based on relative position, are you not?
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj 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 10th November 2011, 08:27 PM   #4857
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by jj View Post
You are aware that translation of position axes does not change the result of a calculation based on relative position, are you not?
He can make the bottom left of the image 0,0 if he likes. What he won't keep doing is keep referring to the null region as an "origin".
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 10th November 2011, 08:28 PM   #4858
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,668
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You WON'T keep trying to pass off the origin of the graph for the origin of the B fields however. Once was enough.
I don't know what you mean by the highlighted phrase.

When I have used the word "origin", it has always meant the origin of the coordinate system. I have never tried to pass it off as anything else.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Quote:
But I tell you what: If you'll give me a mathematically precise, closed-form equation for the magnetic field B you're asking me to graph (such as the equation I gave in part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection), and tell me exactly which rectangular region of which planar slice of B you'd like to see, then I'll post that graph for you.

(I'm not going to try to guess what you think you mean by "all four magnetic fields" or "IN FULL".)
This is YOUR handwavy claim, not mine. I'm not going to help you in any way shape or form, other than to understand exactly what I mean and expect of you this time.
I don't know what you mean by the highlighted phrase.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...le_coils_1.svg

I want you to position an image like this in the POSITIVE X,Y QUADRANT of whatever image you post, making sure to show all four the electromagnets and a number of lines/field strengths around all sides of the magnet.
I'm not sure what you mean by electromagnets or magnets.

The magnetic field B4 that I graphed is generated by the current running within four rods. As I stated quite carefully in part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, those rods are perpendicular to the z axis at the four points pE, pW, pN, and pS. The following graph shows a 2x2 meter square centered on the origin:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Epheme...MR/figure1.png

I'm not sure whether you want me to show only the 1x1 meter square of the NE quadrant (which would be equivalent to eliminating the other three quadrants from the picture), or to translate all of the rods into the NE quadrant (in which case a graph with the four rods at the centers of its four edges would be identical to the one above), or to zoom out so you can see what the field looks like outside the rods, or to graph a different magnetic field entirely, or to do some combination of the above.

Knowing you, it's entirely possible that what you want me to do is so bizarre that it hasn't even occurred to me. That's why I'm not even going to try to guess at what you want me to do.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
If you simply put the left bottom corner of this image at 0,0 of your graph, I'll be fine with anything you come up with. What you WON'T do this time is put that NULL region anywhere near an origin of the graph and confuse the origin of the graph with the origin of B fields.
With the magnetic field B4 as defined in part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, the neutral point is at the origin. There's nothing you or I can do about that, short of changing the coordinate system or the magnetic field.

Once again, I don't know what you mean by the highlighted phrase. Might you be a little confused about the distinction between magnetic fields and magnetic field lines?
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 10th November 2011, 08:35 PM   #4859
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I have never tried to pass it off as anything else.
Based on your previous posts I believe that it is entirely possible that you don't realize it (yet), but you did, and you probably confused yourself in the process. Try again, but you may not use the term "origin".

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 10th November 2011 at 08:47 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2011, 08:56 PM   #4860
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,668
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
When I have used the word "origin", it has always meant the origin of the coordinate system. I have never tried to pass it off as anything else.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Based on your previous posts I believe that is it is entirely possible that you don't realize it (yet), but you did, and you probably confused yourself in the process. Try again, but you may not use the term "origin".
You're wrong.

I did not use the word "origin" in part 1 or its erratum. I used the word "origin" once in part 2 and 7 times in part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection. Every one of those 1+7=8 uses referred to the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system.

I am not going to guess which of those 8 uses you are wrong about. If you can't quote the sentence in which you believe I misused the word "origin", then I will assume you are once again engaging in an activity that's hard to describe without violating the Membership Agreement.

I'm going to give you one last chance. If your next post doesn't explain what you're pretending to say, then I will respond to you only by highlighting your unique posture.
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 10th November 2011, 09:06 PM   #4861
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
You're wrong.

I did not use the word "origin" in part 1 or its erratum. I used the word "origin" once in part 2 and 7 times in part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection. Every one of those 1+7=8 uses referred to the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system.
I'll tell you what. Let's make this easy and simple. SIMPLY DO NOT USE THE TERM ORIGIN ANY LONGER and I'll be fine, as long as you explain what the hell you mean by B lines "beginning and ending" at the X. I literally had to find an interpreter to even get a clue what to think about that claim. He says you're wrong and even chastised me for asking him about it. Whom shall I believe, the plasma physicist or some guy I met on the internet that thinks B lines have a beginning and an ending in a magic magnetic NULL point in a vacuum? As far as I can tell you completely confused yourself by moving the null point to the origin and now you think it's the center of the EM field line universe.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 10th November 2011 at 09:14 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 10th November 2011, 10:03 PM   #4862
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,080
Quote:
Michael Mozina
I can't answer your question because it's technically OPTIONAL in Peratt's definition and it's optional in EU theory, it's not one or the other.

... but it's still the same fast release of stored EM energy in the form of current, even in a gas.
Finally -- an answer!
So, when a surge of electrical current occurs in plasmas, which are necessarily conducting mediums, you call that a discharge -- no dielectric break down is necessarily involved. So that's it; all this discussion has been about you insisting on an idiosyncratic semantic hang-up.

OK, I now fully agree that discharges* can occur in plasmas and solar flares. I suspect others may not prefer this definition but will agree that surges in electrical current (discharges, in your preferred usage) can occur in plasmas.
See, now you can move on to the real physics of solar flares, which I'm sure you will readily admit, are not like lightning on earth, which do involve the breakdown of a dielectric, namely the atmosphere.

*(Mozina usage) Discharge = surge in electrical current, with or without the breakdown of a dielectric.
__________________
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

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 10th November 2011 at 10:56 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 02:55 AM   #4863
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 34,838
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Hmmm. Define "good evidence" for me. I have "lab evidence" that electrical discharges produce all of the key and important observations related to solar flares, including million degree plasmas, heavily ionized iron, neutron capture signatures, gamma rays, x-rays, etc.

Now that you know that "magnetic reconnection" is a PROCESS IN PLASMA that involves the inducement of an E field in the plasma, followed by an electrical discharge in the plasma, I can happily provide you with any number of papers on MR theory. What kind of evidence do you want?
I didn't ask for "good evidence, please." I said "Good. Evidence, please." It would be nice if you took the time to read properly.

I'm still waiting for evidence.
__________________
The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.

"Scientists have a poor understanding of science." - Justintime
Belz... 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 11th November 2011, 02:55 AM   #4864
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
He can make the bottom left of the image 0,0 if he likes. What he won't keep doing is keep referring to the null region as an "origin".
Oh for goodness sake, the fact that you don't understand that "origin" is a well defined word in graphs is just typical for all discussions with you. I guess you now want to rename the term "origin" for graphs as zerozero(zero) point or whatever your mind can come up with.

The fact that Clinger puts the origin (THAT IS THE GRAPH POINT (ZERO, ZERO)) where he does,, is quite clear to anyone who has done some actual calculations of electromagnetic fields, but apparently you have never done something like that. It has to do with the simplification of the equations that you have to use, but hey, equations is not really your forte now, is it.

Okay peeps, let's get ready for several pages of discussion about the term origin and where it should be put in a graph in order not to confuse the only person on the world who might be confused by this: Michale Mozina.
__________________
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)
Semi-regular space physics blog @ "1005 thoughts"
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 11th November 2011, 05:57 AM   #4865
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Oh for goodness sake, the fact that you don't understand that "origin" is a well defined word in graphs is just typical for all discussions with you.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=4801

Nah. I think he just confused HIMSELF when he used that term. What the heck is he talking about when he says the B lines have a beginning and ending in the NULL region? I am pretty sure that he just confused himself when he moved the null region to the origin. I believe that the origin of his graph suddenly became the center of the B field universe in his mind the moment he linked it to a graph and put the null region in the middle. I can't think of any other logical reason for him to be talking about the beginning and ending of B lines at the null point.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 11th November 2011 at 06:01 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 06:03 AM   #4866
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Wow. I can't believe you folks removed my recent post to Clinger where I gave him a grade on his experiment. It's evidently fine for you folks to call me a fraud, and lie about my physics skills on a daily basis, but God forbid I should point out that Clinger KLUDGED a simple quadrapole magnetic field experiment.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 11th November 2011 at 06:08 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 07:17 AM   #4867
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=4801

Nah. I think he just confused HIMSELF when he used that term. What the heck is he talking about when he says the B lines have a beginning and ending in the NULL region? I am pretty sure that he just confused himself when he moved the null region to the origin. I believe that the origin of his graph suddenly became the center of the B field universe in his mind the moment he linked it to a graph and put the null region in the middle. I can't think of any other logical reason for him to be talking about the beginning and ending of B lines at the null point.
That link goes to a post of yours, that does not include "origin", nor does the link to the post by Clinger include the word "origin" except in "originally posted by", so ....

At the null-point or X-point the magentic field is zero, in this model. The separatrices, the big X in the figure, are actually degenerate field lines, in the way that they separate one kind of lines from another kind of lines (with respect at to how they are bent). It is two field lines that touch and in this case this can only happen (because of the extreme different directions at X location) when the field is 0, otherwise the field would have different directions at the X point, which naturally it cannot. This way one could say that the field lines along the big X "start" and "end" at the X, as the definition of a field line loses its meaning when there is no field.

Whether or not Clinger puts the origin of the map exactly at the X point, is only a question of doing the math more easily. When you put the X point there, it means that you don't have to worry about the different |x-a| in the denominator, because a will be at the same location in the four differen quadrants. That makes it much much easier to calculate then when, like you want, you put all four currents in the first quadrant and then you have to work with a, b, c and d.

The origin of the graph never ever became the centre of the magnetic universe for Clinger, that you may have read it that way, would not really surprise me.
__________________
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)
Semi-regular space physics blog @ "1005 thoughts"
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 11th November 2011, 07:23 AM   #4868
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
The origin of the graph never ever became the centre of the magnetic universe for Clinger, that you may have read it that way, would not really surprise me.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=4747

Quote:
Although I have shown computer-generated graphs of the B field and some of its magnetic field lines, including the four magnetic field lines that begin or end at the neutral point of the X-shaped field in Dungey's figure 1, it is true that I have not shown every single step of the calculations that prove those lines begin or end at the X point.

I need to hear Clinger explain *IN HIS OWN WORDS* what he means by claiming that magnetic lines have a beginning and ending at the X. Keep in mind, that until he gets to part 5 (evidently the plasma switcheroo installment of his presentation), he doesn't have a single atom, proton or electron to his name, just a vacuum. If and when he ever gets to part 5, we'll talk, but any beginning and endings of any B lines have to be explained in step 4, and he may NOT use the term origin in step 4, and it may not include plasma. I do not care what else he does, but I need an explanation from his lips about B lines beginning and ending in the null region in a vacuum and it can't include the term "origin".

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 11th November 2011 at 07:36 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 07:42 AM   #4869
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
I'm not asking for much. All Clinger has to do is put a variable name at the X and use positive x,y coordinates at that location. That's it. I have simplified my request to one small change. It's a reasonable request.
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 11th November 2011, 08:19 AM   #4870
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I need to hear Clinger explain *IN HIS OWN WORDS* what he means by claiming that magnetic lines have a beginning and ending at the X.

Here.

Quote:
Keep in mind, that until he gets to part 5 (evidently the plasma switcheroo installment of his presentation), he doesn't have a single atom, proton or electron to his name, just a vacuum. If and when he ever gets to part 5, we'll talk, but any beginning and endings of any B lines have to be explained in step 4, and he may NOT use the term origin in step 4, and it may not include plasma. I do not care what else he does, but I need an explanation from his lips about B lines beginning and ending in the null region in a vacuum and it can't include the term "origin".

The term "origin" refers to a location on the graph. It looks like if we substitute "the origin" with "(0,0)" in W.D.Clinger's explanation (something like "s/the origin/\(0\,0\)/ig" should work in a script) it will be exactly the same without using the word "origin".
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 11th November 2011, 08:26 AM   #4871
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Here.




The term "origin" refers to a location on the graph. It looks like if we substitute "the origin" with "(0,0)" in W.D.Clinger's explanation (something like "s/the origin/\(0\,0\)/ig" should work in a script) it will be exactly the same without using the word "origin".
That so called "explanation" defies the laws of physics. Physical *THINGS* like magnets and CURRENT (moving charged particles) can produce B fields, but no B field lines begin anywhere, or end anywhere. They are all continuous lines, even at their zero points, actually they are whole continuous FIELDS, not even discrete lines! All Clinger's graph shows is a NULL region where NOTHING exists in terms of kinetic energy/magnetic field energy to 'disconnect' or to 'reconnect' to anything else. 0+0=0. His explanation thus far amounts to a freshman bush-league mistake about the fact the the ZERO point of *ANY* magnetic line or lines is *NOT* the "beginning", nor the "ending" of the line(s). It's just another point along it's path! That NULL region isn't even A CREATION POINT of any of those ZERO strength lines, let alone the "beginning" or the "ending" of any of them! Holy cow.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 11th November 2011 at 08:29 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 08:33 AM   #4872
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I'm not asking for much. All Clinger has to do is put a variable name at the X and use positive x,y coordinates at that location. That's it. I have simplified my request to one small change. It's a reasonable request.
put a variable name at the X???????????????????????

It a stupid request, as I explained above, of which you only seem to be interested in showing where you don't understand Clinger, and anything else I may have said it just lost.

It's always this semantics, isn't it Michael. YOU always want mainstream science to use other words than that they use, not magnetic reconnection but circuit/current/flux reconnection or induction, not origin but "that point at which the axes cross at a value of zero" and so on and so forth. Don't you think it is time that YOU adjust your vocabulary, as any book that you will read will use the mainstream definitions of reconnection, induction, origin, etc. The world does not turn around MM, that's the moziverse.
__________________
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)
Semi-regular space physics blog @ "1005 thoughts"
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 11th November 2011, 08:37 AM   #4873
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That so called "explanation" defies the laws of physics. Physical *THINGS* like magnets and CURRENT (moving charged particles) can produce B fields, but no B field lines begin anywhere, or end anywhere. They are all continuous lines, even at their zero points, actually they are whole continuous FIELDS, not even discrete lines! All Clinger's graph shows is a NULL region where NOTHING exists in terms of kinetic energy/magnetic field energy to 'disconnect' or to 'reconnect' to anything else. 0+0=0. His explanation thus far amounts to a freshman bush-league mistake about the fact the the ZERO point of *ANY* magnetic line or lines is *NOT* the "beginning", nor the "ending" of the line(s). It's just another point along it's path! That NULL region isn't even A CREATION POINT of any of those ZERO strength lines, let alone the "beginning" or the "ending" of any of them! Holy cow.
Jebus, have you actually read what I have written about the separatrices?
Do you know that magnetic field lines are not physical entities?
Do you know that magnetic fields generated by a current in a wire do not need a plasma to exist, but also expand into vacuum?
Did you ever go back to Petschek and Sweet-Parker reconnection to actually try to understand what is happening in the most simple case?

Answer: NO
__________________
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)
Semi-regular space physics blog @ "1005 thoughts"
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 11th November 2011, 08:39 AM   #4874
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
It's always this semantics, isn't it Michael.
No, absolutely not. It's about physics with me. I came to you to get a "plasma physics" translation of what he was trying to describe, but that doesn't happen till step 5. A degenerate field as you put it is just another polite way of saying that none of those lines have a pennies worth of magnetic energy to their name at that location. It is simply a collection of NON ENDING B lines, with no energy, at that location, nothing more, nothing less. It's literally NOTHING in terms of kinetic energy. That does not justify him claiming that's it's a "beginning" or an "ending" of any of those lines!

My only intent in getting him to move the Null point away from the origin is so he realizes his mistake. Why in the world are you trying to "cover up" his mistake and/or rationalize it away?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 11th November 2011 at 08:42 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 08:41 AM   #4875
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Jebus, have you actually read what I have written about the separatrices?
Are you claiming that those B field lines all begin at X *IN A VACUUM*? Yes or no?
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 11th November 2011, 09:23 AM   #4876
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
According to Wikipedia's current article on magnetic fields:

As I'll prove below, that isn't quite true. (To be fair, I've taken that excerpt a little out of context. In the Wikipedia article, those words are immediately qualified by a parenthetical statement that states the complete truth in a mathematically correct way.)

Magnetic B field lines can begin or end at the same neutral points where magnetic reconnection can occur. In what follows, I'll provide a mathematically rigorous proof of that fact, using a simple counterexample to Wikipedia's informal statement above. That counterexample involves the same X-shaped magnetic field that's often used to illustrate magnetic reconnection. First, however, we need a mathematically precise definition of magnetic field lines.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=4813

Notice here that Clinger's intent seems to be to show us that there is a mathematical exception to the "no beginning, no ending" rule? His *ENTIRE INTENT* was to demonstrate that the NULL POINT was the "beginning and the ending" of every single line. This wasn't a "minor" mistake folks.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 11th November 2011 at 09:29 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 09:26 AM   #4877
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Like I said before Clinger, EPIC *FAIL*.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 11th November 2011 at 09:28 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 01:44 PM   #4878
mimada
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
In terms of posting, welcome to the board and to the discussion by the way.
Thank you for the welcome. I am not a prolific poster so please excuse me if I don't reply right away. Thank you for the link to Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and a Theory of Solar Flares. It's actually an interesting read especially from a historical perspective. I am still reading it and studying the implications. To be honest, I'm actually a bit more intrigued with Severny's paper that mapped magnetic fields on the sun. Unfortunately, the only source I've found so far is behind a paywall. I may research it at my local library though.

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, do you keep a personal science journal?
mimada is online now   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 12th November 2011, 05:17 AM   #4879
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 34,838
Still waiting, Mike.
__________________
The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.

"Scientists have a poor understanding of science." - Justintime
Belz... 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 12th November 2011, 07:38 AM   #4880
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Still waiting, Mike.
I'm terribly sorry Belz. It was a busy week at work last week and Clinger had me distracted trying to figure out his mistake. While he figures out his confusion over the origin of the graph and the origin of B fields, let's see if you and I can bring this horrifically derailed thread back on track, shall we?

Let's start by relating this information to some absolutely beautiful satellite images.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=193096&page=84

FYI, before we get started, that link above is a link to a number of related papers that you are welcome to delve into as you get more time.

Now that Dungey has provided us with a "key" to understanding high energy plasma events that are related to electrical discharges in plasma, and to solar flares, let's start by empirically relating (in the lab) those electrical discharge processes to solar flares and solar satellite imagery.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00467.000.html

This paper by Lee is an excellent place to begin because it relates those electrical discharge processes back to SDO (and many other) solar satellite images, specifically all the iron ion wavelengths.

It's early here my time. Let me grab a cup of coffee and I'll post a bit more and round up a few solar satellite images we should look at.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 12th November 2011 at 08:04 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.