[Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares) - Page 126

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Since the burden of proof in this thread is the responsibility of the......

Clinger has been *HANDWAVING AWAY* for over a FULL YEAR now about his "vacuum" contraption that would demonstrate "magnetic reconnection". This is HIS CLAIM, not mine, and HIS BURDEN of proof, not mine.

He's also the one claiming that B lines have a beginning and ending. His burden of proof, not mine. No monopoles, no beginnings or endings of B lines. Has he got a monopole up his sleeve or what?

GeeMack · 16th November 2011, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Clinger has been *HANDWAVING AWAY* for over a FULL YEAR now about his "vacuum" contraption that would demonstrate "magnetic reconnection". This is HIS CLAIM, not mine, and HIS BURDEN of proof, not mine.

W.D.Clinger has done a pretty good job so far of making his explanation simple and clear to those who have the ability to understand it. Complaining about not understanding it does not make the explanations any less correct or valid.

Quote:

He's also the one claiming that B lines have a beginning and ending. His burden of proof, not mine. No monopoles, no beginnings or endings of B lines. Has he got a monopole up his sleeve or what?

Since this is the electric Sun thread, the burden of proof in this thread is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The correct and honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics supporting the contemporary consensus position.

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

W.D.Clinger has done a pretty good job so far of making his explanation simple and clear to those who have the ability to understand it.

Sure, and as long as you don't mind the fact that he's GROSSLY violating the laws of physics, praying to Origin the NULL, the beginning and ending of B lines, it's fine! When he, you, RC, and PS are ready to admit that a NULL point is *NOT* the beginning or the ending of any B line or collection of B lines, and B lines are continuous, without a beginning or an end, please let me know. Until then, IMO you're all clueless.

GeeMack · 16th November 2011, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Sure, and as long as you don't mind the fact that he's GROSSLY violating the laws of physics, it's fine! When he, you, RC, and PS are ready to admit that a NULL point is *NOT* the beginning or the ending of any B line or collection of B lines, and B lines are continuous, without a beginning or an end, please let me know. Until then, IMO you're all clueless.

Not understanding W.D.Clinger's explanation is not a valid criticism of it. That would be an argument from ignorance.

This is the electric Sun thread. The burden of proof here is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics of the contemporary consensus position.

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Not understanding W.D.Clinger's explanation is not a valid criticism of it.

Oh, I understand (and have explained) the fact that his belief in Origin the beginor and endor of B lines violates the laws of physics, because a NULL is not a beginning or an ending of a B line. Any FRESHMAN can understand a FRESHMAN mistake. Not one of you four even UNDERSTANDS his mistake. How pitiful.

Reality Check · 16th November 2011, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I have HONESTLY seen high school students *CORRECTLY* verbally explain this experiment in a vacuum WITHOUT claiming that any B lines "begin" or "end" in the NULL. HOLY MOTHER OF PHYSICS!

HONESTLY - given your ignorance of physics you have no way to tell if these mythical high school students *CORRECTLY* verbally explained this experiment.
MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point
Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)
Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance!
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length").

HONESTLY any high school students that verbally explain this freshman-level experiment in a vacuum withut mentioning that the B field lines cannot exists at the neutral point are *INCORRECTLY* verbally explaining this experiment in a vacuum. This would not be surprising because they would not have the knowledge needed for this. They will have the intelligence to understand the explanation:

The neutral point has B=0.
Magnetic field lines have a density that is proportional to the magnetic field strength.
If B=0 then the density of magnetic field lines is zero.
Thus there are no magnetic field lines at the neutral point.
Therefore any magnetic field line that crosses a neutral point must break, i.e. end before it and start after it.

MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point

HOLY MOTHER OF PHYSICS!

Reality Check · 16th November 2011, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

No, you are wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end

No, you remain deluded:

MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point

The Wikipedia article is wrong or at least not clearly stating its restriction to magnetic fields without a neutral point and field lines that cross that neutral point.

Reality Check · 16th November 2011, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

OMG. ...

OMG.
I cannot believe that you are writing inane rants!
And lying about me still: I am not an "EU hater". I am a pitier of the ignorance, inability/unwillingness to learn and delusions displayed by you.

As for the electric universe - I also pity anyone ignorant enough to think that it is a valid scientific theory.

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

OMG.
I cannot believe that you are writing inane rants!
And lying about me still: I am not an "EU hater". I am a pitier of the ignorance, inability/unwillingness to learn and delusions displayed by you.

As for the electric universe - I also pity anyone ignorant enough to think that it is a valid scientific theory.

It's absolutely amazing to me what you've learned about EU theory *WITHOUT* ever picking up, let alone reading a single book on the subject.

(Sorry Belz, I just couldn't resist.

)

GeeMack · 16th November 2011, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

This is the electric Sun thread. The burden of proof here is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics of the contemporary consensus position.

And the follow-up...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Oh, I [...]

Nope. Empty.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's [...]

Nope, nothing here. Lots of words keep appearing but they barely even relate to an electric Sun conjecture much less actually provide any support for it. Apparently I was correct many, many pages ago when I noted that it's unsupportable.

Almo · 16th November 2011, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Look folks, it's very simple. Until Clinger gives up his "religion" in the beginning and ending of B lines *IN A VACUUM*, he's not moving on to part 5, it's that simple.

He's demonstrated very clearly with his experiment in part 4 how this works.

Reality Check · 16th November 2011, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's absolutely amazing to me what you've learned about EU theory *WITHOUT* ever picking up, let alone reading a single book on the subject.

It's absolutely not amazing to me given your displayed ignorance of physics that you have not learned that EU theory does not have any validity

!

It is off topic because your electric sun fantasy has little to do with EU theory but there are plenty of problems with the EU solar fantasy, e.g. that the currents they demand to happen

are not detected and
would make the Sun explode!

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Almo

He's demonstrated very clearly with his experiment in part 4 how this works.

It evidently "works" by violating the laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end

Unless he has a monopole in his pocket, his "beginning and ending" B line claims are coming to an end very soon.

W.D.Clinger · 16th November 2011, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Since I don't have a clue how to proceed now, I'll make it simple. The instant you give up your PURE BLIND FAITH that Origin the great NULL is the "beginning" or the "ending" of any B line, you may proceed to part 5, and not one second before then. You WILL NOT violate the basic laws of physics in part 4.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never violated any fundamental laws of physics.

If I have violated any laws of physics, then they shouldn't be laws of physics. It should be impossible to violate a law of physics.

What Michael Mozina means, of course, is that he thinks the experiment I've been recommending to him since last December somehow violates the laws of physics, or that some part of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection involves calculations that are inconsistent with the laws of physics.

Note well, however, that Michael Mozina has been unable to identify any law of physics that is inconsistent with my derivation. He has tried to suggest that my calculations are inconsistent with Gauss's law for magnetism, but it's absolutely trivial to prove that all of the magnetic fields I have described satisfy Gauss's law for magnetism. (Michael Mozina is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.)

It is also easy to prove that all magnetic field lines of B₄ that run along the diagonals begin or end at a neutral point. (Michael Mozina is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.)

Since he doesn't bark math, Michael Mozina can only argue from the authority of Wikipedia and other sources that have dumbed down the science for an audience that doesn't bark math:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Originally Posted by Reality Check

MM, you are wrong.

No, you are wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end

Quote:

B-field lines never end
Main article: Gauss's law for magnetism

Field lines are a useful way to represent any vector field and often reveal sophisticated properties of fields quite simply. One important property of the B-field revealed this way is that magnetic B field lines neither start nor end (mathematically, B is a solenoidal vector field); a field line either extends to infinity or wraps around to form a closed curve.[nb 8] To date no exception to this rule has been found. (See magnetic monopole below.)

Unless you pull a magic monopole out of a hat during this conversation, you're wrong.

In this case, Wikipedia is wrong (but Wikipedia's more mathematical statement, in parentheses, is correct; there's an important lesson there). One of the good things that will come out of this discussion is that someone will eventually repair the multiple Wikipedia articles that repeat the almost-but-not-quite-true myth to which Michael Mozina is so desperately clinging.

Another benefit of this discussion is that it has answered one of Michael Mozina's perennial questions: Why is his inability/refusal to bark math relevant?

Answer: Because Michael Mozina doesn't bark math, he can't discuss the actual science. When his authorities' mistakes are identified and refuted, Michael Mozina can't answer (or even understand) the criticism.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Repeatedly shouting his dumbed-down "physics for poets" over-simplifications of Gauss's law for magnetism will not improve anyone's understanding of magnetic reconnection, including his.

Reality Check · 16th November 2011, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

This is the electric Sun thread. The burden of proof here is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics of the contemporary consensus position.

Not quite right, GeeMack

.
When I see "electric Sun", I think about the electric universe fantasies about the Sun (e.g. the Sun is a giant lightbulb powered by interstellar electric currents). Those are obvious fantasies because the evidence is that the Sun is powered by internal fusion.

This thread is about Michael Mozina's solar fantasy, that electrical discharges cause solar flares. This is a fantasy because he has never been able to find any scientific literature on electrical discharges within plasma. He has been relying on Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma .

MM lately seems to have softened that assertion to electrical discharges happen in solar flares. We know that by definition this is wrong (no dielectric medium to breakdown as in Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge). If MM was honest about this then all we would have is his insistence on using an obsolete term for large current density in magnetic reconnection (e.g. Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection).

The strange thing is now MM wants to make his 'electric sun theory' even more of a fantasy by denying that magnetic reconnection exists (and so the obsolete usage of 'electrical discharge' is about something that does not exist!) despite the fact that the scientific literature states that he is wrong

!
Or maybe he is sticking to his other delusion that he can dictate scientific terminology to the world by arbitrarily renaming magnetic reconnection to something that has little to do with the major process that is happening (his 'current reconnection') or to a complete fantasy ('his 'circuit reconnection').

mimada · 16th November 2011, 07:54 PM

Mr. Mozina,
Thank you for the link to H. Önel and G. J. Mann paper. I had already downloaded it some time ago but had yet to thoroughly examine it. I am currently assimilating the paper but I am also reading several other books so it may take me some time. However, from my brief sampling, I can say that this is the type of work I was encouraging you to undertake or at least investigate.

Be it known though, that Önel and Mann are proposing an energy release mechanism that relegates reconnection as a ancillary process.

Originally Posted by Önel and Mann

The basic idea of this mechanism is to generate the flare energy by photospheric plasma motions in active regions. This is in contradiction to the reconnection model in which the magnetic field energy in the corona is taken for the flare.

So in effect, arguing for Dungey's model would be in conflict with this model to some degree.

In fact, it puzzles me that you are holding Dungey's paper as support for your contentions but I will assume that you have some esoteric reasons that I cannot yet fathom.

Regarding your objections to Dr. Clinger's presentation. I am having some difficulties parsing your argument. It appears to me that you are attacking it on two points; as a violation of the conservation of energy and because you think it breaks the continuity of the magnetic field. Please correct me if these are not your contentions.

Dr. Clinger,
Thank you for your most generous presentation. I very much appreciate the amount of work you have put into it. I eagerly await the final part. My only criticism so far would be your use of the term “freshman” mathematics in your posts. Perhaps “undergraduate” would be more appropriate. I do not think a freshman would be savvy to your conversion of the tensor of the magnetic field B(x,y,z,t) to its vector form B(t)(x,y,z) for example. Then again, I may just have been a slow undergraduate student. I suspect that your intent was to convey that firstly, it is a fundamental principle and secondly, to agitate Mr. Mozina.

W.D.Clinger · 16th November 2011, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by mimada

Dr. Clinger,
Thank you for your most generous presentation. I very much appreciate the amount of work you have put into it. I eagerly await the final part.

Thank you. I have a lot of grading to do and an exam to finish this week, so the final part will probably have to wait until the weekend.

Originally Posted by mimada

My only criticism so far would be your use of the term “freshman” mathematics in your posts. Perhaps “undergraduate” would be more appropriate. I do not think a freshman would be savvy to your conversion of the tensor of the magnetic field B(x,y,z,t) to its vector form B(t)(x,y,z) for example. Then again, I may just have been a slow undergraduate student. I suspect that your intent was to convey that firstly, it is a fundamental principle and secondly, to agitate Mr. Mozina.

Your criticisms are perceptive. I studied first-year physics at the University of Texas, where the Berkeley physics sections were limited to students majoring in physics or math, so I may not have a very good idea of what more typical freshman-level courses in electromagnetism would cover. I cannot pretend to have been an average student, and I understand the relevant math better today than when I was learning the basics of electromagnetism, so I may be over-estimating the mathematical sophistication of first-year physics majors.

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

To the best of my knowledge, I have never violated any fundamental laws of physics.

The operative phrase in your sentence is "to the best of my knowledge". You are in fact violating basic physics, starting with Gauss's law of magnetism because no monopoles exist. Your mythical "exception" in your math formula isn't an exception at all! It's a NULL POINT, not a "beginning" or an "ending" of any of the those B lines that you keep claiming ORIGIN THE NULL CREATED! OMG. I've never seen someone DO THE MATH but have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of what it actually MEANS until today!

The only way magnetic lines might "begin" or "end" would be if someone found a MONOPOLE, not a NULL POINT! Oy Vey.

Quote:

If I have violated any laws of physics, then they shouldn't be laws of physics. It should be impossible to violate a law of physics.

Yes, I can see that laws of physics don't mean a damn thing to you.

Quote:

What Michael Mozina means, of course, is that he thinks the experiment I've been recommending to him since last December somehow violates the laws of physics,

It does. It absolutely, positively violates Gauss's law of magnetism. You don't have any monopoles hiding in your pocket do you?

Quote:

Note well, however, that Michael Mozina has been unable to identify any law of physics that is inconsistent with my derivation.

Bull.

Quote:

[He has tried to suggest that my calculations are inconsistent with Gauss's law for magnetism,

Yes, because you keep prattling on and on about how Origin is the beginning and the and ending of the EM universe!

Quote:

but it's absolutely trivial to prove that all of the magnetic fields I have described satisfy Gauss's law for magnetism. (Michael Mozina is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.)

All your "math" demonstrates is that 0+0=0 and magnetic fields exist in a quadrapole experiment. What you have not done, and never could do without a monopole is demonstrate that magnetic fields "begin" or "end". You're *STILL* completely clueless to the fact that any NULL is not the "beginning" nor the "ending" of any line! OMG. This is like a twilight zone episode. You think a NULL is a monopole! What in your opinion *IS* a monopole good for anyway?

Congratulations Clinger. You just demonstrated that you can do the math, without actually UNDERSTANDING any of those formulas. You're confused to the point that you can't even properly explain those math formulas. Wow!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ypothetical.29

Quote:

A magnetic monopole is a hypothetical particle (or class of particles) that has, as its name suggests, only one magnetic pole (either a north pole or a south pole). In other words, it would possess a "magnetic charge" analogous to an electric charge. Magnetic field lines would start or end on magnetic monopoles, so if they exist, they would give exceptions to the rule that magnetic field lines neither start nor end.

Unless you have a monopole hiding in your pocket, you just violated Guass's law of magnetism, not to mention pure common sense. As I've been telling you, only PHYSICAL THINGS, like moving charged particles can even "create" (not begin or end) magnetic fields. Your Origin the vacuum god isn't capable of even "creating" fields, let alone "beginning or ending" them! Your explanation of your own math formulas was utterly and completely FUBAR!

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Thank you. I have a lot of grading to do and an exam to finish this week, so the final part will probably have to wait until the weekend.

Don't even bother or think about starting the plasma switcheroo part of your presentation until you've lost your religion in "Origin the Null, the great beginor and endor of every magnetic line in the B field vacuum universe." You're Kludging the vacuum part of your own experiment to the point of pure absurdity, starting with the fact that you believe that NULL point is a "beginning" and "ending" of a magnetic line, and monopoles are unrelated to the B field "beginning and ending" rule that you're KLUDGING TO HELL.

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by mimada

Mr. Mozina,
Thank you for the link to H. Önel and G. J. Mann paper. I had already downloaded it some time ago but had yet to thoroughly examine it. I am currently assimilating the paper but I am also reading several other books so it may take me some time. However, from my brief sampling, I can say that this is the type of work I was encouraging you to undertake or at least investigate.

Oh, I've been investigating.

Quote:

Be it known though, that Önel and Mann are proposing an energy release mechanism that relegates reconnection as a ancillary process.

Not necessarily. I'm just suggesting as Alfven did that that it's an INDUCED E field oriented process in plasma that involves massive releases of energy in a double layer. It's still an "electrical discharge" process in plasma. It still involves INDUCED E fields and large current flows. IMO Alfven's double layer paper and Dungey's reconnection paper describe the same process with different "names" to describe the process. Alfven is clear that it's an induced E field process, whereas Dungey was sloppy in terms of terminology IMO, but he got the physics right.

Quote:

So in effect, arguing for Dungey's model would be in conflict with this model to some degree.

Not really. They actually mention "magnetic reconnection/discharges" as a possible source of energy in that paper. It's actually the closest thing to working the process from both ways that I have seen, up until that paper by the UCLA group that explained their experiments using ordinary circuit theory. Still, the Mann and Onel paper includes solar observations which is why I really like it.

Quote:

In fact, it puzzles me that you are holding Dungey's paper as support for your contentions but I will assume that you have some esoteric reasons that I cannot yet fathom.

I'm still trying to teach Clinger the difference between magnetic flux changes in a vacuum, and an electrical discharge process in a plasma.

Quote:

Regarding your objections to Dr. Clinger's presentation. I am having some difficulties parsing your argument. It appears to me that you are attacking it on two points; as a violation of the conservation of energy and because you think it breaks the continuity of the magnetic field. Please correct me if these are not your contentions.

I'm irked and upset because he keeps calling a NULL point of a B line a "beginning and ending" point of that very same line. The only way that magnetic fields could exchange energy directly, or begin or end, would be if monopoles existed. His B line reconnection "animation" relates to mythical "monopoles" not to ordinary B line behaviors at "NULL POINTS"!

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 10:28 PM

Clinger, your ENTIRE argument is based upon a misconception you have about NULL points in lines being the "beginning" or the "ending" of the line. The NULL point is NOT a "beginning" of that line. It's just a NULL point in the CONTINUOUS line. No B lines "begin" nor end, not EVER. They are "created" in full continuum form by OBJECTS, specifically MOVING CHARGE PARTICLES. They exist only as a FULL CONTINUUM a complete *FIELD*, without beginning, without ending, and without discrete lines as you imagine them to be in your oversimplified little 2D viewpoint.

If and when you ever get around to ACCEPTING Guass's law of magnetism, let me know. At the moment you're in pure denial of empirical physics. B lines do not begin or end at their null point Clinger. Give it up already!

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 11:17 PM

Will this help clear up your confusion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line

Quote:

For example, Gauss's law states that an electric field has sources at positive charges, sinks at negative charges, and neither elsewhere, so electric field lines start at positive charges and end at negative charges. (They can also potentially form closed loops, or extend to or from infinity). A gravitational field has no sources, it has sinks at masses, and it has neither elsewhere, gravitational field lines come from infinity and end at masses. A magnetic field has no sources or sinks (Gauss's law for magnetism), so its field lines have no start or end: they can only form closed loops, or extend to infinity in both directions.

W.D.Clinger · 16th November 2011, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You are in fact violating basic physics, starting with Guass's law of magnetism because no monopoles exist.

...snip...

Quote:

What Michael Mozina means, of course, is that he thinks the experiment I've been recommending to him since last December somehow violates the laws of physics,

It does. It absolutely, positively violates Guass's law of magnetism. You don't have any monopoles hiding in your pocket do you?

Quote:

Note well, however, that Michael Mozina has been unable to identify any law of physics that is inconsistent with my derivation.

Bull.

Quote:

He has tried to suggest that my calculations are inconsistent with Gauss's law for magnetism,

Yes, because you keep prattling on and on about how Origin is the beginning and the and ending of the EM universe!

Quote:

but it's absolutely trivial to prove that all of the magnetic fields I have described satisfy Gauss's law for magnetism. (Michael Mozina is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.)

All your "math" demonstrates is that 0+0=0 and magnetic fields exist in a quadrapole experiment.

Michael Mozina thinks B₄ violates Gauss's law for magnetism.

That's easy enough to check. Away from the rods themselves,

$ \[ \begin{align*} \hbox{{\bf B}}_4 &= \hbox{{\bf B}}_E + \hbox{{\bf B}}_W + \hbox{{\bf B}}_N + \hbox{{\bf B}}_S \\ &= \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x-1)^2+(y-0)^2} \left( - (y-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \\ &+ \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x+1)^2+(y-0)^2} \left( - (y-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x+1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \\ &- \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x-0)^2+(y-1)^2} \left( - (y-1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \\ &- \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x-0)^2+(y+1)^2} \left( - (y+1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \end{align*} \] $

so

$ \[ \begin{align*} \hbox{{\bf B}}_4 &= \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{-y}{(x-1)^2 + y^2} + \frac{-y}{(x+1)^2 + y^2} + \frac{y-1}{x^2 + (y-1)^2} + \frac{y+1}{x^2 + (y+1)^2} \right) \hbox{{\bf e}}_x \\ &+ \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{x-1}{(x-1)^2 + y^2} + \frac{x+1}{(x+1)^2 + y^2} - \frac{x}{x^2 + (y-1)^2} - \frac{x}{x^2 + (y+1)^2} \right) \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \end{align*} \] $

so
$ \[ \begin{align*} \hbox{{\bf div}} \; \hbox{{\bf B}}_4 &= \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{2(x-1)y}{((x-1)^2 + y^2)^2} + \frac{2(x+1)y}{((x+1)^2 + y^2)^2} + \frac{-2x(y-1)}{(x^2 + (y-1)^2)^2} + \frac{-2x(y+1)}{(x^2 + (y+1)^2)^2} \right) \\ &+ \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{-2(x-1)y}{((x-1)^2 + y^2)^2} + \frac{-2(x+1)y}{((x+1)^2 + y^2)^2} + \frac{2x(y-1)}{(x^2 + (y-1)^2)^2} + \frac{2x(y+1)}{(x^2 + (y+1)^2)^2} \right) \\ &= 0 \end{align*} \] $

so Gauss's law for magnetism holds.

Michael Mozina's wrong again.

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

so Gauss's law for magnetism holds.

It only "holds" when you ACCEPT that B lines have no beginning or an ending. In the field line vernacular, it has no sources or sinks and it forms FULL CIRCLES, without a beginning and without an ending! You can't start them and stop them *WITHOUT A MONOPOLE!* Do you have one in your back pocket by any chance?

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

so.....

0+0=0 and literally NOTHING began or ended or reconnected at X!

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 11:37 PM

You handwave around math formulas that you DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND!

Michael Mozina · 16th November 2011, 11:42 PM

Will this help clear up your confusion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line

Quote:

For example, Gauss's law states that an electric field has sources at positive charges, sinks at negative charges, and neither elsewhere, so electric field lines start at positive charges and end at negative charges. (They can also potentially form closed loops, or extend to or from infinity). A gravitational field has no sources, it has sinks at masses, and it has neither elsewhere, gravitational field lines come from infinity and end at masses. A magnetic field has no sources or sinks (Gauss's law for magnetism), so its field lines have no start or end: they can only form closed loops, or extend to infinity in both directions.

Michael Mozina · 17th November 2011, 12:04 AM

You can't turn "Origin the NULL point in the vacuum" into a B SOURCE or a B SINK Clinger!

Belz... · 17th November 2011, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's absolutely amazing to me what you've learned about EU theory *WITHOUT* ever picking up, let alone reading a single book on the subject.

(Sorry Belz, I just couldn't resist.

)

You can never resist. You're an ironymeteroholic.

Michael Mozina · 17th November 2011, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

You can never resist. You're an ironymeteroholic.

Unfortunately, you may be right about that.

Michael Mozina · 17th November 2011, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

You can never resist. You're an ironymeteroholic.

http://www.solarmonitor.org/full_dis...ter&indexnum=1

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0131.mpg

FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment. That region is just starting to rotate to a position that faces Earth. Some high energy discharges from that active region could end spewing mass in our direction. It's worth keeping an eye on that particular active region IMO.

When the "magnetic flux tubes" release their energy, they can release the whole circuit energy of the magnetic flux tube all at once. That is the primary process that generates flares and CME's from the E orientation of plasma physics. The iron in each flux tube is already being heavily ionized by the powerful current running through the tube, even before the discharge process takes place.

Michael Mozina · 17th November 2011, 08:34 AM

Well Clinger,

I'm running out of creative ideas on how I might reach you, and get you to abide by the laws of physics, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism. I've even tried speaking to you in your native mathematical tongue ("vector field geek speak") about sources and sinks and about your BLATANT misuse of vector field equations at X. I'm really running out of creative ideas now on how I can explain your error to you.

There is NO NEED, nor any purpose in evoking B field line reconnection processes at X which would REQUIRE the existence of monopoles. This part of your vacuum experiment can *EASILY* be verbally explained in terms of magnetic flux changes in a vacuum. There's absolutely no need, nor any purpose in your violation of Gauss's law. The fact that your invisible friend Origin is a NULL is not a mathematical proof that Origin is a source or sink of B field lines. You're KLUDGING basic physics and *IGNORING* the laws of physics. As soon as you stop that ridiculous behavior, I'll be happy to let you move on to part five. As long as you remain in steadfast prayer to the mythical monopole creator, I have no way to even speak PHYSICS with you.

Belz... · 17th November 2011, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://www.solarmonitor.org/full_dis...ter&indexnum=1

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0131.mpg

FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment. That region is just starting to rotate to a position that faces Earth. Some high energy discharges from that active region could end spewing mass in our direction. It's worth keeping an eye on that particular active region IMO.

When the "magnetic flux tubes" release their energy, they can release the whole circuit energy of the magnetic flux tube all at once. That is the primary process that generates flares and CME's from the E orientation of plasma physics. The iron in each flux tube is already being heavily ionized by the powerful current running through the tube, even before the discharge process takes place.

What's the source of your obsession with me, I wonder ?

Michael Mozina · 17th November 2011, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

What's the source of your obsession with me, I wonder ?

I guess I just "assumed" that since you got involved in this particular thread, of all your choices of various threads on this board, that you expected to be 'educated' in electric sun theory. You've asked me for evidence as well. I was simply discussing the topic with you. If you don't want me to do that, let me know. I try to respond to EVERYONE that posts here, not just you Belz.

GeeMack · 17th November 2011, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment.

This is an unsupported assertion.

Reality Check · 17th November 2011, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You can't turn "Origin the NULL point in the vacuum" into a B SOURCE or a B SINK Clinger!

Usual giibberish and ignorance, Michael Mozina.
The definition of field lines means any neutral point at any place in the universe (not only your obsession with the origin) breaks the field lines that cross it: MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point

Is the definition of magnetic field lines yet another thing that you are ignorant of?

It is idiotic to rely on an Wikipedia article while ignoring all of the scientific literature on magnetic reconnection which states that the field lines break.
For example, from Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

Quote:

Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov

Quote:

Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
...
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.

(emphasis added)

Reality Check · 17th November 2011, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment.

FYI Michael Mozina: You are remain deluded about this

Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma .

There are some pretty powerful magnetic reconnections taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment.

Michael Mozina · 17th November 2011, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

This is an unsupported assertion.

No, it's not. Dungey supported it. You can't grab hold of Dungey's work and then ignore his claims about ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES. I won't let you do that.

Michael Mozina · 17th November 2011, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Usual giibberish and ignorance, Michael Mozina.

No, your statements are utter gibberish and based upon pure ignorance including a KLUDGED quote mine from a book and author you've never actually read. Whereas Clinger's actual math skills might end up being his personal salvation, I don't think you even know what a source or sink might be in terms of vector fields and vector calculus. You're WAY out of your league on every level. All you can do is spew hate and remain in pure denial of Dungey's explanation of an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE in a plasma. Round and round you go on that "hate-go-round".

GeeMack · 17th November 2011, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Dungey's explanation of [...]

... the energy released in solar flares and the heating of the corona was a theory which he pioneered and aptly nicknamed "magnetic reconnection".

16th November 2011, 12:19 PM	#5001
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by GeeMack Since the burden of proof in this thread is the responsibility of the...... Clinger has been HANDWAVING AWAY for over a FULL YEAR now about his "vacuum" contraption that would demonstrate "magnetic reconnection". This is HIS CLAIM, not mine, and HIS BURDEN of proof, not mine. He's also the one claiming that B lines have a beginning and ending. His burden of proof, not mine. No monopoles, no beginnings or endings of B lines. Has he got a monopole up his sleeve or what?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 12:20 PM.

16th November 2011, 12:41 PM	#5003
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by GeeMack W.D.Clinger has done a pretty good job so far of making his explanation simple and clear to those who have the ability to understand it. Sure, and as long as you don't mind the fact that he's GROSSLY violating the laws of physics, praying to Origin the NULL, the beginning and ending of B lines, it's fine! When he, you, RC, and PS are ready to admit that a NULL point is NOT the beginning or the ending of any B line or collection of B lines, and B lines are continuous, without a beginning or an end, please let me know. Until then, IMO you're all clueless.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 12:44 PM.

16th November 2011, 12:54 PM	#5005
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by GeeMack Not understanding W.D.Clinger's explanation is not a valid criticism of it. Oh, I understand (and have explained) the fact that his belief in Origin the beginor and endor of B lines violates the laws of physics, because a NULL is not a beginning or an ending of a B line. Any FRESHMAN can understand a FRESHMAN mistake. Not one of you four even UNDERSTANDS his mistake. How pitiful.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

16th November 2011, 01:09 PM	#5006
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I have HONESTLY seen high school students CORRECTLY verbally explain this experiment in a vacuum WITHOUT claiming that any B lines "begin" or "end" in the NULL. HOLY MOTHER OF PHYSICS! HONESTLY - given your ignorance of physics you have no way to tell if these mythical high school students CORRECTLY verbally explained this experiment. MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule) Michael Mozina's delusion that permeability is inductance! Michael Mozina's delusion about "RECONNECTIONS per unit length"). HONESTLY any high school students that verbally explain this freshman-level experiment in a vacuum withut mentioning that the B field lines cannot exists at the neutral point are INCORRECTLY verbally explaining this experiment in a vacuum. This would not be surprising because they would not have the knowledge needed for this. They will have the intelligence to understand the explanation: The neutral point has B=0. Magnetic field lines have a density that is proportional to the magnetic field strength. If B=0 then the density of magnetic field lines is zero. Thus there are no magnetic field lines at the neutral point. Therefore any magnetic field line that crosses a neutral point must break, i.e. end before it and start after it. MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point HOLY MOTHER OF PHYSICS!
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th November 2011, 01:29 PM	#5007
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No, you are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end No, you remain deluded: MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point The Wikipedia article is wrong or at least not clearly stating its restriction to magnetic fields without a neutral point and field lines that cross that neutral point.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th November 2011, 12:31 PM	#5002
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,168	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Clinger has been HANDWAVING AWAY for over a FULL YEAR now about his "vacuum" contraption that would demonstrate "magnetic reconnection". This is HIS CLAIM, not mine, and HIS BURDEN of proof, not mine. W.D.Clinger has done a pretty good job so far of making his explanation simple and clear to those who have the ability to understand it. Complaining about not understanding it does not make the explanations any less correct or valid. Quote: He's also the one claiming that B lines have a beginning and ending. His burden of proof, not mine. No monopoles, no beginnings or endings of B lines. Has he got a monopole up his sleeve or what? Since this is the electric Sun thread, the burden of proof in this thread is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The correct and honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics supporting the contemporary consensus position.

16th November 2011, 12:47 PM	#5004
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,168	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Sure, and as long as you don't mind the fact that he's GROSSLY violating the laws of physics, it's fine! When he, you, RC, and PS are ready to admit that a NULL point is NOT the beginning or the ending of any B line or collection of B lines, and B lines are continuous, without a beginning or an end, please let me know. Until then, IMO you're all clueless. Not understanding W.D.Clinger's explanation is not a valid criticism of it. That would be an argument from ignorance. This is the electric Sun thread. The burden of proof here is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics of the contemporary consensus position.

16th November 2011, 01:36 PM	#5008
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina OMG. ... OMG. I cannot believe that you are writing inane rants! And lying about me still: I am not an "EU hater". I am a pitier of the ignorance, inability/unwillingness to learn and delusions displayed by you. As for the electric universe - I also pity anyone ignorant enough to think that it is a valid scientific theory.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th November 2011, 02:25 PM	#5009
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Reality Check OMG. I cannot believe that you are writing inane rants! And lying about me still: I am not an "EU hater". I am a pitier of the ignorance, inability/unwillingness to learn and delusions displayed by you. As for the electric universe - I also pity anyone ignorant enough to think that it is a valid scientific theory. It's absolutely amazing to me what you've learned about EU theory WITHOUT ever picking up, let alone reading a single book on the subject. (Sorry Belz, I just couldn't resist. )
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 02:28 PM.

16th November 2011, 02:49 PM	#5010
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,168	Originally Posted by GeeMack This is the electric Sun thread. The burden of proof here is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics of the contemporary consensus position. And the follow-up... Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Oh, I [...] Nope. Empty. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's [...] Nope, nothing here. Lots of words keep appearing but they barely even relate to an electric Sun conjecture much less actually provide any support for it. Apparently I was correct many, many pages ago when I noted that it's unsupportable.

16th November 2011, 02:54 PM	#5011
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,404	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Look folks, it's very simple. Until Clinger gives up his "religion" in the beginning and ending of B lines IN A VACUUM, he's not moving on to part 5, it's that simple. He's demonstrated very clearly with his experiment in part 4 how this works.
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

16th November 2011, 03:02 PM	#5012
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's absolutely amazing to me what you've learned about EU theory WITHOUT ever picking up, let alone reading a single book on the subject. It's absolutely not amazing to me given your displayed ignorance of physics that you have not learned that EU theory does not have any validity ! It is off topic because your electric sun fantasy has little to do with EU theory but there are plenty of problems with the EU solar fantasy, e.g. that the currents they demand to happen are not detected and would make the Sun explode!
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th November 2011, 03:25 PM	#5013
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Almo He's demonstrated very clearly with his experiment in part 4 how this works. It evidently "works" by violating the laws of physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end Unless he has a monopole in his pocket, his "beginning and ending" B line claims are coming to an end very soon.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

16th November 2011, 03:31 PM	#5014
W.D.Clinger Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,439	MM explains his confusion, part 6 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Since I don't have a clue how to proceed now, I'll make it simple. The instant you give up your PURE BLIND FAITH that Origin the great NULL is the "beginning" or the "ending" of any B line, you may proceed to part 5, and not one second before then. You WILL NOT violate the basic laws of physics in part 4. To the best of my knowledge, I have never violated any fundamental laws of physics. If I have violated any laws of physics, then they shouldn't be laws of physics. It should be impossible to violate a law of physics. What Michael Mozina means, of course, is that he thinks the experiment I've been recommending to him since last December somehow violates the laws of physics, or that some part of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection involves calculations that are inconsistent with the laws of physics. Note well, however, that Michael Mozina has been unable to identify any law of physics that is inconsistent with my derivation. He has tried to suggest that my calculations are inconsistent with Gauss's law for magnetism, but it's absolutely trivial to prove that all of the magnetic fields I have described satisfy Gauss's law for magnetism. (Michael Mozina* is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.)* It is also easy to prove that all magnetic field lines of B₄ that run along the diagonals begin or end at a neutral point. (Michael Mozina* is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.)* Since he doesn't bark math, Michael Mozina can only argue from the authority of Wikipedia and other sources that have dumbed down the science for an audience that doesn't bark math: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by Reality Check MM, you are wrong. No, you are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end Quote: B-field lines never end Main article: Gauss's law for magnetism Field lines are a useful way to represent any vector field and often reveal sophisticated properties of fields quite simply. One important property of the B-field revealed this way is that magnetic B field lines neither start nor end (mathematically, B is a solenoidal vector field); a field line either extends to infinity or wraps around to form a closed curve.[nb 8] To date no exception to this rule has been found. (See magnetic monopole below.) Unless you pull a magic monopole out of a hat during this conversation, you're wrong. In this case, Wikipedia is wrong (but Wikipedia's more mathematical statement, in parentheses, is correct; there's an important lesson there). One of the good things that will come out of this discussion is that someone will eventually repair the multiple Wikipedia articles that repeat the almost-but-not-quite-true myth to which Michael Mozina is so desperately clinging. Another benefit of this discussion is that it has answered one of Michael Mozina's perennial questions: Why is his inability/refusal to bark math relevant? Answer: Because Michael Mozina doesn't bark math, he can't discuss the actual science. When his authorities' mistakes are identified and refuted, Michael Mozina can't answer (or even understand) the criticism. Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Repeatedly shouting his dumbed-down "physics for poets" over-simplifications of Gauss's law for magnetism will not improve anyone's understanding of magnetic reconnection, including his.

16th November 2011, 03:32 PM	#5015
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by GeeMack This is the electric Sun thread. The burden of proof here is the responsibility of the electric Sun proponents. The honest way to proceed is to support that conjecture rather than demanding that other people explain the physics of the contemporary consensus position. Not quite right, GeeMack . When I see "electric Sun", I think about the electric universe fantasies about the Sun (e.g. the Sun is a giant lightbulb powered by interstellar electric currents). Those are obvious fantasies because the evidence is that the Sun is powered by internal fusion. This thread is about Michael Mozina's solar fantasy, that electrical discharges cause solar flares. This is a fantasy because he has never been able to find any scientific literature on electrical discharges within plasma. He has been relying on Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma . MM lately seems to have softened that assertion to electrical discharges happen in solar flares. We know that by definition this is wrong (no dielectric medium to breakdown as in Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge). If MM was honest about this then all we would have is his insistence on using an obsolete term for large current density in magnetic reconnection (e.g. Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection). The strange thing is now MM wants to make his 'electric sun theory' even more of a fantasy by denying that magnetic reconnection exists (and so the obsolete usage of 'electrical discharge' is about something that does not exist!) despite the fact that the scientific literature states that he is wrong ! Or maybe he is sticking to his other delusion that he can dictate scientific terminology to the world by arbitrarily renaming magnetic reconnection to something that has little to do with the major process that is happening (his 'current reconnection') or to a complete fantasy ('his 'circuit reconnection').
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th November 2011, 07:54 PM	#5016
mimada Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 26	Mr. Mozina, Thank you for the link to H. Önel and G. J. Mann paper. I had already downloaded it some time ago but had yet to thoroughly examine it. I am currently assimilating the paper but I am also reading several other books so it may take me some time. However, from my brief sampling, I can say that this is the type of work I was encouraging you to undertake or at least investigate. Be it known though, that Önel and Mann are proposing an energy release mechanism that relegates reconnection as a ancillary process. Originally Posted by Önel and Mann The basic idea of this mechanism is to generate the flare energy by photospheric plasma motions in active regions. This is in contradiction to the reconnection model in which the magnetic field energy in the corona is taken for the flare. So in effect, arguing for Dungey's model would be in conflict with this model to some degree. In fact, it puzzles me that you are holding Dungey's paper as support for your contentions but I will assume that you have some esoteric reasons that I cannot yet fathom. Regarding your objections to Dr. Clinger's presentation. I am having some difficulties parsing your argument. It appears to me that you are attacking it on two points; as a violation of the conservation of energy and because you think it breaks the continuity of the magnetic field. Please correct me if these are not your contentions. Dr. Clinger, Thank you for your most generous presentation. I very much appreciate the amount of work you have put into it. I eagerly await the final part. My only criticism so far would be your use of the term “freshman” mathematics in your posts. Perhaps “undergraduate” would be more appropriate. I do not think a freshman would be savvy to your conversion of the tensor of the magnetic field B(x,y,z,t) to its vector form B(t)(x,y,z) for example. Then again, I may just have been a slow undergraduate student. I suspect that your intent was to convey that firstly, it is a fundamental principle and secondly, to agitate Mr. Mozina.
mimada Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 26

16th November 2011, 09:05 PM	#5017
W.D.Clinger Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,439	Originally Posted by mimada Dr. Clinger, Thank you for your most generous presentation. I very much appreciate the amount of work you have put into it. I eagerly await the final part. Thank you. I have a lot of grading to do and an exam to finish this week, so the final part will probably have to wait until the weekend. Originally Posted by mimada My only criticism so far would be your use of the term “freshman” mathematics in your posts. Perhaps “undergraduate” would be more appropriate. I do not think a freshman would be savvy to your conversion of the tensor of the magnetic field B(x,y,z,t) to its vector form B(t)(x,y,z) for example. Then again, I may just have been a slow undergraduate student. I suspect that your intent was to convey that firstly, it is a fundamental principle and secondly, to agitate Mr. Mozina. Your criticisms are perceptive. I studied first-year physics at the University of Texas, where the Berkeley physics sections were limited to students majoring in physics or math, so I may not have a very good idea of what more typical freshman-level courses in electromagnetism would cover. I cannot pretend to have been an average student, and I understand the relevant math better today than when I was learning the basics of electromagnetism, so I may be over-estimating the mathematical sophistication of first-year physics majors.

16th November 2011, 09:44 PM	#5018
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger To the best of my knowledge, I have never violated any fundamental laws of physics. The operative phrase in your sentence is "to the best of my knowledge". You are in fact violating basic physics, starting with Gauss's law of magnetism because no monopoles exist. Your mythical "exception" in your math formula isn't an exception at all! It's a NULL POINT, not a "beginning" or an "ending" of any of the those B lines that you keep claiming ORIGIN THE NULL CREATED! OMG. I've never seen someone DO THE MATH but have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of what it actually MEANS until today! The only way magnetic lines might "begin" or "end" would be if someone found a MONOPOLE, not a NULL POINT! Oy Vey. Quote: If I have violated any laws of physics, then they shouldn't be laws of physics. It should be impossible to violate a law of physics. Yes, I can see that laws of physics don't mean a damn thing to you. Quote: What Michael Mozina means, of course, is that he thinks the experiment I've been recommending to him since last December somehow violates the laws of physics, It does. It absolutely, positively violates Gauss's law of magnetism. You don't have any monopoles hiding in your pocket do you? Quote: Note well, however, that Michael Mozina has been unable to identify any law of physics that is inconsistent with my derivation. Bull. Quote: [He has tried to suggest that my calculations are inconsistent with Gauss's law for magnetism, Yes, because you keep prattling on and on about how Origin is the beginning and the and ending of the EM universe! Quote: but it's absolutely trivial to prove that all of the magnetic fields I have described satisfy Gauss's law for magnetism. (Michael Mozina* is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.)* All your "math" demonstrates is that 0+0=0 and magnetic fields exist in a quadrapole experiment. What you have not done, and never could do without a monopole is demonstrate that magnetic fields "begin" or "end". You're STILL completely clueless to the fact that any NULL is not the "beginning" nor the "ending" of any line! OMG. This is like a twilight zone episode. You think a NULL is a monopole! What in your opinion IS a monopole good for anyway? Congratulations Clinger. You just demonstrated that you can do the math, without actually UNDERSTANDING any of those formulas. You're confused to the point that you can't even properly explain those math formulas. Wow! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ypothetical.29 Quote: A magnetic monopole is a hypothetical particle (or class of particles) that has, as its name suggests, only one magnetic pole (either a north pole or a south pole). In other words, it would possess a "magnetic charge" analogous to an electric charge. Magnetic field lines would start or end on magnetic monopoles, so if they exist, they would give exceptions to the rule that magnetic field lines neither start nor end. Unless you have a monopole hiding in your pocket, you just violated Guass's law of magnetism, not to mention pure common sense. As I've been telling you, only PHYSICAL THINGS, like moving charged particles can even "create" (not begin or end) magnetic fields. Your Origin the vacuum god isn't capable of even "creating" fields, let alone "beginning or ending" them! Your explanation of your own math formulas was utterly and completely FUBAR!
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 11:30 PM.

16th November 2011, 09:49 PM	#5019
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Thank you. I have a lot of grading to do and an exam to finish this week, so the final part will probably have to wait until the weekend. Don't even bother or think about starting the plasma switcheroo part of your presentation until you've lost your religion in "Origin the Null, the great beginor and endor of every magnetic line in the B field vacuum universe." You're Kludging the vacuum part of your own experiment to the point of pure absurdity, starting with the fact that you believe that NULL point is a "beginning" and "ending" of a magnetic line, and monopoles are unrelated to the B field "beginning and ending" rule that you're KLUDGING TO HELL.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 09:51 PM.

16th November 2011, 10:04 PM	#5020
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by mimada Mr. Mozina, Thank you for the link to H. Önel and G. J. Mann paper. I had already downloaded it some time ago but had yet to thoroughly examine it. I am currently assimilating the paper but I am also reading several other books so it may take me some time. However, from my brief sampling, I can say that this is the type of work I was encouraging you to undertake or at least investigate. Oh, I've been investigating. Quote: Be it known though, that Önel and Mann are proposing an energy release mechanism that relegates reconnection as a ancillary process. Not necessarily. I'm just suggesting as Alfven did that that it's an INDUCED E field oriented process in plasma that involves massive releases of energy in a double layer. It's still an "electrical discharge" process in plasma. It still involves INDUCED E fields and large current flows. IMO Alfven's double layer paper and Dungey's reconnection paper describe the same process with different "names" to describe the process. Alfven is clear that it's an induced E field process, whereas Dungey was sloppy in terms of terminology IMO, but he got the physics right. Quote: So in effect, arguing for Dungey's model would be in conflict with this model to some degree. Not really. They actually mention "magnetic reconnection/discharges" as a possible source of energy in that paper. It's actually the closest thing to working the process from both ways that I have seen, up until that paper by the UCLA group that explained their experiments using ordinary circuit theory. Still, the Mann and Onel paper includes solar observations which is why I really like it. Quote: In fact, it puzzles me that you are holding Dungey's paper as support for your contentions but I will assume that you have some esoteric reasons that I cannot yet fathom. I'm still trying to teach Clinger the difference between magnetic flux changes in a vacuum, and an electrical discharge process in a plasma. Quote: Regarding your objections to Dr. Clinger's presentation. I am having some difficulties parsing your argument. It appears to me that you are attacking it on two points; as a violation of the conservation of energy and because you think it breaks the continuity of the magnetic field. Please correct me if these are not your contentions. I'm irked and upset because he keeps calling a NULL point of a B line a "beginning and ending" point of that very same line. The only way that magnetic fields could exchange energy directly, or begin or end, would be if monopoles existed. His B line reconnection "animation" relates to mythical "monopoles" not to ordinary B line behaviors at "NULL POINTS"!
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 10:34 PM.

16th November 2011, 10:28 PM	#5021
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Clinger, your ENTIRE argument is based upon a misconception you have about NULL points in lines being the "beginning" or the "ending" of the line. The NULL point is NOT a "beginning" of that line. It's just a NULL point in the CONTINUOUS line. No B lines "begin" nor end, not EVER. They are "created" in full continuum form by OBJECTS, specifically MOVING CHARGE PARTICLES. They exist only as a FULL CONTINUUM a complete FIELD, without beginning, without ending, and without discrete lines as you imagine them to be in your oversimplified little 2D viewpoint. If and when you ever get around to ACCEPTING Guass's law of magnetism, let me know. At the moment you're in pure denial of empirical physics. B lines do not begin or end at their null point Clinger. Give it up already!
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 10:32 PM.

16th November 2011, 11:17 PM	#5022
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Will this help clear up your confusion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line Quote: For example, Gauss's law states that an electric field has sources at positive charges, sinks at negative charges, and neither elsewhere, so electric field lines start at positive charges and end at negative charges. (They can also potentially form closed loops, or extend to or from infinity). A gravitational field has no sources, it has sinks at masses, and it has neither elsewhere, gravitational field lines come from infinity and end at masses. A magnetic field has no sources or sinks (Gauss's law for magnetism), so its field lines have no start or end: they can only form closed loops, or extend to infinity in both directions.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 16th November 2011 at 11:21 PM.

16th November 2011, 11:30 PM	#5023
W.D.Clinger Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,439	MM explains his confusion, part 7 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You are in fact violating basic physics, starting with Guass's law of magnetism because no monopoles exist. ...snip... Quote: What Michael Mozina means, of course, is that he thinks the experiment I've been recommending to him since last December somehow violates the laws of physics, It does. It absolutely, positively violates Guass's law of magnetism. You don't have any monopoles hiding in your pocket do you? Quote: Note well, however, that Michael Mozina has been unable to identify any law of physics that is inconsistent with my derivation. Bull. Quote: He has tried to suggest that my calculations are inconsistent with Gauss's law for magnetism, Yes, because you keep prattling on and on about how Origin is the beginning and the and ending of the EM universe! Quote: but it's absolutely trivial to prove that all of the magnetic fields I have described satisfy Gauss's law for magnetism. (Michael Mozina* is unable to confirm that fact for himself, because he doesn't bark math.)* All your "math" demonstrates is that 0+0=0 and magnetic fields exist in a quadrapole experiment. Michael Mozina thinks B₄ violates Gauss's law for magnetism. That's easy enough to check. Away from the rods themselves, $<br /> \[<br /> \begin{align}<br /> \hbox{{\bf B}}_4 &=<br /> \hbox{{\bf B}}_E + \hbox{{\bf B}}_W + \hbox{{\bf B}}_N + \hbox{{\bf B}}_S \\<br /> &=<br /> \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x-1)^2+(y-0)^2}<br /> \left( - (y-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \\<br /> &+<br /> \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x+1)^2+(y-0)^2}<br /> \left( - (y-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x+1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \\<br /> &-<br /> \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x-0)^2+(y-1)^2}<br /> \left( - (y-1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right) \\<br /> &-<br /> \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{(x-0)^2+(y+1)^2}<br /> \left( - (y+1) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_x + (x-0) \, \hbox{{\bf e}}_y \right)<br /> \end{align}<br /> \]<br />$ so $<br /> \[<br /> \begin{align}<br /> \hbox{{\bf B}}_4 &=<br /> \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi}<br /> \left(<br /> \frac{-y}{(x-1)^2 + y^2} +<br /> \frac{-y}{(x+1)^2 + y^2} +<br /> \frac{y-1}{x^2 + (y-1)^2} +<br /> \frac{y+1}{x^2 + (y+1)^2}<br /> \right)<br /> \hbox{{\bf e}}_x \\<br /> &+<br /> \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi}<br /> \left(<br /> \frac{x-1}{(x-1)^2 + y^2} +<br /> \frac{x+1}{(x+1)^2 + y^2} -<br /> \frac{x}{x^2 + (y-1)^2} -<br /> \frac{x}{x^2 + (y+1)^2}<br /> \right)<br /> \hbox{{\bf e}}_y<br /> \end{align}<br /> \]<br />$ so $<br /> \[<br /> \begin{align}<br /> \hbox{{\bf div}} \; \hbox{{\bf B}}_4 &=<br /> \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi}<br /> \left(<br /> \frac{2(x-1)y}{((x-1)^2 + y^2)^2} +<br /> \frac{2(x+1)y}{((x+1)^2 + y^2)^2} +<br /> \frac{-2x(y-1)}{(x^2 + (y-1)^2)^2} +<br /> \frac{-2x(y+1)}{(x^2 + (y+1)^2)^2}<br /> \right) \\<br /> &+<br /> \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi}<br /> \left(<br /> \frac{-2(x-1)y}{((x-1)^2 + y^2)^2} +<br /> \frac{-2(x+1)y}{((x+1)^2 + y^2)^2} +<br /> \frac{2x(y-1)}{(x^2 + (y-1)^2)^2} +<br /> \frac{2x(y+1)}{(x^2 + (y+1)^2)^2}<br /> \right) \\<br /> &= 0<br /> \end{align}<br /> \]<br />$ so Gauss's law for magnetism holds. Michael Mozina's wrong again.

16th November 2011, 11:34 PM	#5024
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger so Gauss's law for magnetism holds. It only "holds" when you ACCEPT that B lines have no beginning or an ending. In the field line vernacular, it has no sources or sinks and it forms FULL CIRCLES, without a beginning and without an ending! You can't start them and stop them WITHOUT A MONOPOLE! Do you have one in your back pocket by any chance?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

16th November 2011, 11:36 PM	#5025
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger so..... 0+0=0 and literally NOTHING began or ended or reconnected at X!
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

16th November 2011, 11:37 PM	#5026
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	You handwave around math formulas that you DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND!
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

16th November 2011, 11:42 PM	#5027
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Will this help clear up your confusion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line Quote: For example, Gauss's law states that an electric field has sources at positive charges, sinks at negative charges, and neither elsewhere, so electric field lines start at positive charges and end at negative charges. (They can also potentially form closed loops, or extend to or from infinity). A gravitational field has no sources, it has sinks at masses, and it has neither elsewhere, gravitational field lines come from infinity and end at masses. A magnetic field has no sources or sinks (Gauss's law for magnetism), so its field lines have no start or end: they can only form closed loops, or extend to infinity in both directions.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

17th November 2011, 12:04 AM	#5028
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	You can't turn "Origin the NULL point in the vacuum" into a B SOURCE or a B SINK Clinger!
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

17th November 2011, 02:47 AM	#5029
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,434	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's absolutely amazing to me what you've learned about EU theory WITHOUT ever picking up, let alone reading a single book on the subject. (Sorry Belz, I just couldn't resist. ) You can never resist. You're an ironymeteroholic.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

17th November 2011, 07:01 AM	#5030
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Belz... You can never resist. You're an ironymeteroholic. Unfortunately, you may be right about that.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

17th November 2011, 07:25 AM	#5031
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Belz... You can never resist. You're an ironymeteroholic. http://www.solarmonitor.org/full_dis...ter&indexnum=1 http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0131.mpg FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment. That region is just starting to rotate to a position that faces Earth. Some high energy discharges from that active region could end spewing mass in our direction. It's worth keeping an eye on that particular active region IMO. When the "magnetic flux tubes" release their energy, they can release the whole circuit energy of the magnetic flux tube all at once. That is the primary process that generates flares and CME's from the E orientation of plasma physics. The iron in each flux tube is already being heavily ionized by the powerful current running through the tube, even before the discharge process takes place.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th November 2011 at 07:26 AM.

17th November 2011, 08:34 AM	#5032
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Well Clinger, I'm running out of creative ideas on how I might reach you, and get you to abide by the laws of physics, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism. I've even tried speaking to you in your native mathematical tongue ("vector field geek speak") about sources and sinks and about your BLATANT misuse of vector field equations at X. I'm really running out of creative ideas now on how I can explain your error to you. There is NO NEED, nor any purpose in evoking B field line reconnection processes at X which would REQUIRE the existence of monopoles. This part of your vacuum experiment can EASILY be verbally explained in terms of magnetic flux changes in a vacuum. There's absolutely no need, nor any purpose in your violation of Gauss's law. The fact that your invisible friend Origin is a NULL is not a mathematical proof that Origin is a source or sink of B field lines. You're KLUDGING basic physics and IGNORING the laws of physics. As soon as you stop that ridiculous behavior, I'll be happy to let you move on to part five. As long as you remain in steadfast prayer to the mythical monopole creator, I have no way to even speak PHYSICS with you.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 17th November 2011 at 08:38 AM.

17th November 2011, 09:00 AM	#5033
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,434	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina http://www.solarmonitor.org/full_dis...ter&indexnum=1 http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0131.mpg FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment. That region is just starting to rotate to a position that faces Earth. Some high energy discharges from that active region could end spewing mass in our direction. It's worth keeping an eye on that particular active region IMO. When the "magnetic flux tubes" release their energy, they can release the whole circuit energy of the magnetic flux tube all at once. That is the primary process that generates flares and CME's from the E orientation of plasma physics. The iron in each flux tube is already being heavily ionized by the powerful current running through the tube, even before the discharge process takes place. What's the source of your obsession with me, I wonder ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

17th November 2011, 09:17 AM	#5034
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362	Originally Posted by Belz... What's the source of your obsession with me, I wonder ? I guess I just "assumed" that since you got involved in this particular thread, of all your choices of various threads on this board, that you expected to be 'educated' in electric sun theory. You've asked me for evidence as well. I was simply discussing the topic with you. If you don't want me to do that, let me know. I try to respond to EVERYONE that posts here, not just you Belz.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362

17th November 2011, 10:59 AM	#5035
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,168	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina FYI Belz, there are some pretty powerful electrical discharges taking place in the southern hemisphere near the active region 11351 at the moment. This is an unsupported assertion.