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

[Michael Mozina]

Ok Clinger,

Do electrical discharges occur in plasmas and flares? Yes or no?

[Michael Mozina]

What is most amazing to me personally is that not a single one of you has yet accepted that Origin the big fat zero is NOT a source, not a sink, not the beginning, and not the ending of ANY magnetic B line. Not one of you touched equation 17 of that Source/Sink paper where Priest *CHEATS* and turns electrons into "magnetic charges", CONFIRMING that no B field lines begin or end. The KINETIC ENERGY from those electrons in equation 16 has an ELECTRIC source and sink, namely the E field, not ORIGIN the big fat magnetic NULL.

The only thing that MIGHT happen at Origin the NULL is *INDUCTION*, not B field line "reconnection".

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

(Giovanelli was still assuming that the large current density would be generated by induction, and was trying to figure out how induction could generate a large current density fast enough to be consistent with observation. It is my impression that modern researchers have pretty much given up on induction as the source of these particular large current densities, because induction processes can't go fast enough.)

I realize that you still don't "get it", but the *ELECTRONS* are the things that "go fast enough". They bring kinetic energy THROUGH the X in the Z axis. Priest "mathematically translates" that POWERFUL CURRENT into "magnetic charges" in equation 17 of the source/sink paper. The CURRENT is the 'fast' thing that brings energy into and through the NULL point. The Null from the standpoint of magnetic energy is a complete dud. It literally doesn't do anything in terms of kinetic energy. Whatever kinetic energy transfer occurs, occurs as a result of "current reconnection". That's why your vacuum contraption was a total dud in terms of kinetic energy release. Origin is a dud. He's a wimp. He's a vacuum god that isn't ANYTHING. It's not a source. It's not a sink. It's literally *NOTHING* without plasma and current.

[Michael Mozina]

I'm curious to know if it was RC or tusenfem who modified or twisted someone's arm into modifying the WIKI page on magnetic lines? That was CLASSIC! I've seen weird and pretty bizarre hater behaviors in my time, but WOW! I've never seen a "fundy" change a WIKI page in the hope of winning a debate before. That was a new low.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Honestly Tim, I have no idea why you stepped back into this mess. You're only going to make yourself look bad. Tell me how you expect to get an "electrical discharge" in step four with no plasma?

Tim! I think you did a great job explaining once more what Clinger and I and you yourself have explained at least a hundred times to MM already. It's a lost cause.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Tim! I think you did a great job explaining once more what Clinger and I and you yourself have explained at least a hundred times to MM already. It's a lost cause.

I think you and Tim have done a FANTASTIC job of running away from equation 17 in Priest's source/sink paper. You don't want to admit that CURRENTS reconnect, but it's right there in equations 16 and 17.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ya, nice work LYING through his teeth when he said he would duplicate Dungey's reconnection process IN A VACUUM! Nothing like bait and switch advertizing.

Not a SINGLE magnetic line "begins or ends" in his experiment, either in a vacuum or in plasma. ORIGIN is neither a sink, nor a source of B field lines. All the lines simply traverse ORIGIN at a zero energy strength. Whatever kinetic energy occurs occurs due to the ELECTRIC field, not due to Origin the big fat zero.

No plasma, no DISCHARGE. No plasma, no INDUCED current. No CURRENT, no "magnetic charges" in Priests paper at equation 17, and no "magnetic reconnection". After BSing his way through the entire presentation, KLUDGING basic theory to hell in terms of B line sources and sinks, and then FINALLY doing a bait and switch at the end, yes indeed, he CAN come up with an 'electrical discharge' *IN PLASMA*.

Oy Vey. His *ENTIRE* presentation was pure BS. He accomplished NOTHING in his VACUUM in terms of the release of kinetic energy and he *STILL* thinks induction didn't do it. Pathetic.

Well if that post was intended to exemplify your BS and you accomplishing nothing, then I congratulate you as well, you’ve succeeded stupendously in that endeavor.


However, this question still stands…

Originally Posted by The Man

please tell us what is the magnitude and direction of the magnetic force vector (what the field lines represent) at a null point (hint the answers to both questions is given in the named of the point)?

[Michael Mozina]

With or without plasma?

Let's do a little give and take? How about addressing equations 16 and 17 in Priest's source/sink paper and tell me how that is NOT an example of "current reconnection"? Is the E field the source and sink of electron kinetic energy into X?

[Michael Mozina]

I *REALLY* cannot understand how you can *ALL* let Clinger slide on his little bait and switch routine. I mean, how blatant can it get? First he *INSISTS* that he can demonstrate Dungey's brand of "reconnection" *WITHOUT* plasma:

Quote:

The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.

Then in step 5 he finally cops to the fact he *NEEDS* plasma to accomplish an "electrical discharge". Even then he's cowering from admitting that it's an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE. It's almost comical if it weren't so sad.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I *REALLY* cannot understand how you can *ALL* let Clinger slide on his little bait and switch routine. I mean, how blatant can it get? First he *INSISTS* that he can demonstrate Dungey's brand of "reconnection" *WITHOUT* plasma:

Then in step 5 he finally cops to the fact he *NEEDS* plasma to accomplish an "electrical discharge". Even then he's cowering from admitting that it's an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE. It's almost comical if it weren't so sad.

Magnetic reconnection is not an electrical discharge. Magnetic reconnection is a change in the topology of a magnetic field. It is not a flaw in an explanation of magnetic reconnection if it doesn't eventually work back around to being an electrical discharge.

[tusenfem]

So now electric fields cannot exist without a plasma?
Just like a neutral plasma cannot carry a current, one of those other endless discussions.

The X point with zero magnetic field strength where two field lines cross can indeed be assumed to be the end and the beginning of a field line and note that that comes together begin and end, so that in the end there is continuity.

But maybe, just maybe, the whole world is wrong, and MM has been captured by the ghost of Alfvén and is the only one correct, who knows? But better not give most of your money to investors, Michael, you know what happend to Alfvén.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Magnetic reconnection is not an electrical discharge.

False. It is a PHYSICAL PROCESS, *INSIDE PLASMA* which induces an E field resulting in an "electrical discharge" in plasma. Deal with it.

Quote:

Magnetic reconnection is a change in the topology of a magnetic field.

No, that is called a "magnetic flux change". Such a process can and will induce current in PLASMA.

Quote:

It is not a flaw in an explanation of magnetic reconnection if it doesn't eventually work back around to being an electrical discharge.

If you expect to explain SOLAR FLARE ENERGY, you're definitely going to need more than a NULL point in a vacuum. Get off the denial-go-round already.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Let's do a little give and take? How about addressing equations 16 and 17 in Priest's source/sink paper and tell me how that is NOT an example of "current reconnection"? Is the E field the source and sink of electron kinetic energy into X?

Wow what an easy question
Only an idiot would think that equations 16 and 17 in Priest's source/sink paper were an example of "current reconnection" because

1. "current reconnection" is your personal fantasy.
2. no currents join, connect or reconnect in the equations.
3. there is only one current (along the z-axis) as explicitly stated in the paper.
4. there is no E field in the 2 equations.
5. there is no X point in the 2 equations.
6. there is no electron kinetic energy in the 2 equations.

Do we have a list of the delusions that you have about The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field?
Or do you want to read the paper again and either

• Cite something that supports your fantasy or
• Admit that there is nothing in the paper to support your fantasy (really likely ).

The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field

Quote:

3. Study of the particular case l=0
3.1 Singularity along the negative z-Axis
Equation (15) gives a singular field only on the negative part of the z-axis. Here both currents and magnetic charges are present:
Ampere's theorem gives a current along the z-axis of magnitude
[equation 16]
Gauss' theorem applied to a core starting from the origin gives a density for magnetic charges along the z-axis of
[equation 17]
while Gauss' theorem applied to a sphere of radius r gives a total magnetic charge in the volume of radius r of
[equation 18]

P.S. Why are you ignoring equation 18?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

So now electric fields cannot exist without a plasma?

No, I already pulled that splinter out of my eye thank you.

Quote:

The X point with zero magnetic field strength where two field lines cross can indeed be assumed to be the end and the beginning of a field line and note that that comes together begin and end, so that in the end there is continuity.

It can be "assumed" only *INCORRECTLY*! Literally *NOTHING*, no single field line "begins" or "ends" at X. It simply "passes through" X with NOTHING in it's pocket. PERIOD. Whatever kinetic energy results in Dungey's "electrical discharge", it's not "Origin the Null the false source/sink god of the vacuum". Priest simply CONVERTS current into "magnetic charge" in equations 16 and 17. It's nothing more than CURRENT RECONNECTION in the final analysis because the E FIELD (not origin the vacuum god) is the true source and sink of kinetic energy through X in the Z axis.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

P.S. Why are you ignoring equation 18?

I'm ignoring them because any idiot can see that the "magic conversion" of current and charged particle kinetic energy into "magnetic charge" in Preist's paper occurs between equations 16 and 17. The equations before and after the "current/monopole switcheroo" process in 16 and 17 are irrelevant.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I'm curious to know if it was RC or tusenfem who modified or twisted someone's arm into modifying the WIKI page on magnetic lines?

I'm curious to know what kind of fantasy lead you to think that it was anyone on this forum that modified or twisted someone's arm into modifying the WIKI page on magnetic lines?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I've seen weird and pretty bizarre hater behaviors in my time, but WOW! I've never seen a "fundy" change a WIKI page in the hope of winning a debate before.

The page was changed by TStein who has been maintaining the page since 2008.
You have no evidence that this TStein is a member of this forum or even knows that this thread exists.

The fact is that he removed an incorrectly phrased section from the page.
Gauss's law for magnetism states that there are no sources or sinks of magnetic field. What this means is that there are no points in a magnetic field where all of the field lines begin or all of the field lines end. Contrast this to the electrical field where all of the field lines begin or end at a source or sink.

The definition of a field line means that there are none where the vector field is zero: MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point
Gauss's law for magnetism then tells us that for every field line that ends at the neutral point, there is another that starts at the neutral point. W.D. Clinger's posts make it clear that the field lines at a X-shaped neutral point do balance out and so do not violate Gauss's law for magnetism.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I'm curious to know what kind of fantasy lead you to think that it was anyone on this forum that modified or twisted someone's arm into modifying the WIKI page on magnetic lines?

Hmm. I wonder if this WIKI page will be the next one to be modified?

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.

We all know Preist's current had a real source and sink and it has nothing to do with Origin the Null, the false B line beginor and endor of the magnetic line universe.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

False. It is a PHYSICAL PROCESS, *INSIDE PLASMA* which induces an E field resulting in an "electrical discharge" in plasma. Deal with it.

No, that is called a "magnetic flux change". Such a process can and will induce current in PLASMA.

If you expect to explain SOLAR FLARE ENERGY, you're definitely going to need more than a NULL point in a vacuum.

The dishonest attempt to redefine perfectly good physics terminology is noted. The electric Sun conjecture will not be wished into reality by trying to change the meanings of words.

Quote:

Get off the denial-go-round already.

The continued irrelevant personal attacks are noted. That sort of juvenile and uncivil response clearly fails as a substitute for objective quantitative support for an electric Sun conjecture.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

The dishonest attempt to redefine perfectly good physics terminology is noted. The electric Sun conjecture will not be wished into reality by trying to change the meanings of words.

That was an irony overload from the guy who keeps trying to deny the fact that Dungey's electrical discharges occur in plasmas and flares, yet you hold him up as a mainstream hero. That denial-go-round is a riot! It's really entertaining watching the haters bend logic like a pretzel.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I'm ignoring them because any idiot can see that the "magic conversion" of current and charged particle kinetic energy into "magnetic charge" in Preist's paper occurs between equations 16 and 17. The equations before and after the "current/monopole switcheroo" process in 16 and 17 are irrelevant.

There is nothing magic about equations 16 and 17. They are the application of Gauss's law:
The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field

Quote:

3. Study of the particular case l=0
3.1 Singularity along the negative z-Axis
Equation (15) gives a singular field only on the negative part of the z-axis. Here both currents and magnetic charges are present:
Ampere's theorem gives a current along the z-axis of magnitude
[equation 16]
Gauss' theorem applied to a core starting from the origin gives a density for magnetic charges along the z-axis of
[equation 17]
while Gauss' theorem applied to a sphere of radius r gives a total magnetic charge in the volume of radius r of
[equation 18]

You ignored the highlighted question so I will take it that you will continue with your fantasies about the paper.

Michael Mozina thinks that the paper's monopoles are physical monopoles. He ignores that abstract and section 3.3 "Is a single magnetic charge possible in a linear force-free field" to which they answer no.

The magnetic charges in the paper are a computational aid. They take an equation and expand it in poles in section 2 "Multipole expansion of a linear force-free field" and the conclusion:

Quote:

In conclusion, the multipole expansion of a linear force free field can be used to study the topological properties of magnetic fields. Previous studies with potential fields have shown the relevance of this approach in order to understand solar flares. It will be the subject of another paper (Demoulin wt al. 1992).

(emphasis added)
For another example see the spherical harmonic expansion of the CMB which has a monopole compoonent!

Michael Mozina thinks that a fantasy called "current reconnection" is described by equation 16. It is obvious that he cannot read since equations 16 is a single current directed along the z-axis. This current does not join, connect or reconnect to any other current because there is no other current in the equations !
Nowhere in the paper is there anything that looks like the "current reconnection" fantasy.

Michael Mozina thinks that electron kinetic energy is in the paper somewhere. It is not.

Michael Mozina thinks that X points are in the paper. They are not - they are in other papers referenced in the conclusion.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Hmm. I wonder if this WIKI page will be the next one to be modified?

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

Hmm. I wonder if this WIKI page will ever be understood by you?
I guess not since you still have no idea what the definition of a field line is: MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

We all know Preist's current had a real source and sink and it has nothing to do with Origin the Null, the false B line beginor and endor of the magnetic line universe.

Gibberish.

We all know that you are deluded about the paper: Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper!
You cannot even tell the difference between a multipole expansion of an equation the results in l=0 (monopole) solutions, l=1 (dipole) solutions, l=2 (quadrapole) solutions, etc. and actual physical monopoles/dipoles/quadrapoles/etc.

You cannot even understand that the paper rules out actual physical monopoles.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That was an irony overload from the guy who keeps trying to deny the fact that Dungey's electrical discharges occur in plasmas and flares, yet you hold him up as a mainstream hero. That denial-go-round is a riot! It's really entertaining watching the haters bend logic like a pretzel.

The uncivil, juvenile personal attack, completely devoid of anything honest, objective, quantitative, or relevant to the discussion is noted.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
I suggested that experiment to you because it would have helped you to understand that

Dungey is describing magnetic reconnection.
There is no "circuit reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
There is no "current reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can occur with a near-zero electric (E) field.

Which of these statements do you still stand by?

I answered that question 11 days ago, on 9 November:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...25#post7745625

It's annoying to answer the same questions over and over. To make it easier to find previous answers to your questions, and because it's an entertaining chronicle of the Dunning-Kruger effect, I have gathered some of your recent questions and commentary onto a single web page:

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Epheme...R/mozina0.html

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

With or without plasma?

If this is intended as a redress to this question…

Originally Posted by The Man

please tell us what is the magnitude and direction of the magnetic force vector (what the field lines represent) at a null point (hint the answers to both questions is given in the named of the point)?

…then by all means, please, provide answers for both sets of conditions if you think it makes a difference and why you think it makes a difference. If you don’t think it makes a difference then it wouldn’t matter would it? Just a hint to help you the null point is still, well, null (if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be a null point).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Let's do a little give and take? How about addressing equations 16 and 17 in Priest's source/sink paper and tell me how that is NOT an example of "current reconnection"? Is the E field the source and sink of electron kinetic energy into X?

Quite frankly I just don’t know what you mean by "current reconnection" and have not read that paper. Which would probably explain why I have not been discussing that paper or your “current reconnection".

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

I answered that question 11 days ago, on 9 November:

Oh, I thought you actually learned something from your efforts. My bad. What you SHOULD have learned is that "magnetic reconnection" (the process) isn't "plasma optional".

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

The uncivil, juvenile personal attack, completely devoid of anything honest, objective, quantitative, or relevant to the discussion is noted.

You wouldn't know such a think if it hit you in face in the form of Dungey's ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE IN A PLASMA!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by The Man

If this is intended as a redress to this question…

I've already explained countless times that there is NOTHING in that NULL *until* you add "current" through the Z axis. That's the whole point that you all seem to want to waltz around. The CURRENT does the physical "reconnecting". Without the plasma it's just a NULL zone, NOTHING more.

[Michael Mozina]

Quote:

The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.

FYI, this specific statement is a bald faced lie no matter how you cut it. No plasma, no induced currents, no discharges, nothing but NULL and magnetic flux changes over time when you change B! Unless you have a monopole hiding in your pocket, you have no physical justification *WHATSOEVER* for this statement. You outright *CHEATED* in step five.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I've already explained countless times that there is NOTHING in that NULL *until* you add "current" through the Z axis.

You have already displayed countless times your ignorance about W.D. Clinger's posts.
There is NOTHING in that NULL point - including field lines: MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point.

Magnetic reconnection in a vacuum happens without any current along the z-axis despite Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section .

Then there is the idiocy of putting current in quotes !

[Michael Mozina]

IMO it totally and utterly stinks to high heaven that I went to all the trouble to read Priests paper on sources and sinks, point out the EXACT EQUATIONS where he turns *CURRENT* into 'magnetic charge' and none of you care one iota.

B field lines have no sources and no sinks. A NULL is just a NULL. A NULL with A CURRENT running down the Z axis is "current reconnection".

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You have already displayed countless times your ignorance about W.D. Clinger's posts.

You've demonstrated *COUNTLESS TIMES* your ignorance and rage towards all things related to EU theory and even BASIC EM theory. Who cares what you think? You're just a hater with an attitude, and haters are a dime a dozen on the internet.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.

FYI, this specific statement is a bald faced lie no matter how you cut it. No plasma, no induced currents, no discharges, nothing but NULL and magnetic flux changes over time when you change B! Unless you have a monopole hiding in your pocket, you have no physical justification *WHATSOEVER* for this statement. You outright *CHEATED* in step five.

The problem seems to be the erroneous insistence that magnetic reconnection is an electrical discharge. It's not. It has nothing to do with an electrical discharge. It's about magnetic reconnection. What W.D.Clinger said remains true...

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

The problem seems to be the erroneous insistence that magnetic reconnection is an electrical discharge. It's not. It has nothing to do with an electrical discharge. It's about magnetic reconnection. What W.D.Clinger said remains true...

Lies, lies, lies, ya.

Unless one of you produces a monopole, you're all full of it, every single hater. No plasma, no induced current, nothing in equation 17.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

FYI, this specific statement is a bald faced lie no matter how you cut it.

FYI, this specific post is a bald faced lie, a display of ignorance and delusion no matter how you cut it.

• Dungey's figures have been reproduced without plasma by W.D, Clinger.
• Magnetic reconnection in vacuum is described in MR textbooks.
• The physical justification for this experiment is that magnetic reconnection is observed to happen in experiments and explain solar flares.

It is insane to state that W.D. Clinger cheated unless you can cite where he cheated and provide supporting evidence.
Your fantasy that MR requires actual monopoles is not evidence.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

FYI, this specific post is a bald faced lie, a display of ignorance and delusion no matter how you cut it.
Dungey's figures have been reproduced without plasma by W.D, Clinger.

Yes, only AFTER he cheated and added plasma. Prior to that point, equation 17 was NOTHING.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Your fantasy that MR requires actual monopoles is not evidence.

I only claimed it requires *CURRENT*. It's your fantasy that you did SQUAT in a vacuum related to "magnetic reconnection".

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You've demonstrated *COUNTLESS TIMES* your ignorance and rage towards all things related to EU theory and even BASIC EM theory. Who cares what you think? You're just a hater with an attitude, and haters are a dime a dozen on the internet.

That is an inane rant.

I have demonstrated *COUNTLESS TIMES* your ignorance and delustions, e.g.

• You do not know what magnetic field lines are.
  MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point.
• You think that MR in a vacuum does not happen
  Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section.
• You think that a multipole expansion of an equation results in actual monopoles.
  Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper!
• You cannot read posts and see that W.D. Clinger has reproduced Dungey's disgrams. That should be as simple as just comparing two images but you remain incapable of doing this.
• There is the delusion that electrical discharges happen in plasma/ the obsession with using an obsolete term to prove your ignorance of modern physics.
  Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma

You continue to lie: I am not an "EU hater". I am a pitier of the ignorance, inability/unwillingness to learn and delusions displayed by you.

Physics cranks like EU cranks are a dime a dozen on the Internet.
But there are even more "crankier" and ignorant people on the Internet. For example there is one person who cannot even tell that one number (the temperature of the Sun) is higher than another number (the melting point of iron ) and has an entire web site recording this ignorance for the world to read. There is another who thinks that he can assign any units of measurement to equations that he likes (he makes the Lorentz factor into an acceleration!). There are probably more.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That is an inane rant.
I have demonstrated *COUNTLESS TIMES* your ignorance and delustions, e.g.

You do not know what magnetic field lines are.

The only thing you've demonstrated conclusively is that your rage is blind and your hatred is more important to you than physics. Without current running through the Z axis, no "reconnection" process is possible.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I only claimed it requires *CURRENT*. It's your fantasy that you did SQUAT in a vacuum related to "magnetic reconnection".

Gibberish. Try again.

It is not anyone's fantasy that MR in a vacuum is a real physical process. It is a scientific fact documented in MR textbooks:
From Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

Quote:

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.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Gibberish. Try again.

It is not anyone's fantasy that MR in a vacuum is a real physical process.

Quote mining again and ignoring that induced E field source and sink, and charged particles again are you?