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

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

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

FYI, your website is an outright lie. I never claimed "reconnection' didn't occur, I claimed it didn't occur in a vacuum and I claimed it requires CURRENT. You're not only a liar, you're a first class fraud. I never DENIED the process was real, I DENIED you demonstrated it in a VACUUM *WITHOUT* plasma as you promised. Liar.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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

You reeally need to learn to read W.D. Clinger's posts:
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 5 of 5

Quote:

Review of parts 1 through 4
...
Starting from Maxwell's equations, we derived the magnetic field that's generated by four conducting rods at the corners of a square. When all four rods carry the same current, with the current running in the same direction for rods that are on the same diagonal of the square but in the opposite direction for rods on the other diagonal, we get a magnetic field B4 that approximates Dungey's figure 1.
...
Reducing the current through the rods in one diagonal to zero while maintaining a constant current through the other rods gives us a much more dramatic example of magnetic reconnection. When current flows through only two parallel rods, and flows in the same direction through each rod, we get a "figure 8" field B2 that reproduces Dungey's figure 2.
...
Historical context
(onto a fuller analysis of Dungey's paper, e.g. that the 'discharge' term he uses seems peculiar to him and Cowling)

Dungey's figures were reproduced before part 5.

There is no equation 17 in part 5.

W.D. Clinger does not strictly introduce plasma (there are no MHD equations in his post). He introduces a plasma current, i.e. a current that should be produced in plasma.

The posts are also contained in his web page - Magnetic Reconnection

Quote:

Magnetic reconnection refers to the merging and separation of magnetic field lines that can occur at neutral points of magnetic fields as those fields change over time. Alternatively, magnetic reconnection refers to changes over time in the topology of magnetic field lines.
Although magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence ofMaxwell's equations, it is usually discussed in connection with plasma physics. Magnetic reconnection has been observed in space plasma and in laboratory experiments. Magnetic reconnection is now known to be responsible forrapid movements and bursts of light in the aurora borealis, and is believed to be responsible for similar phenomena seen in solar flares. Magnetic reconnection may also play some role in heating the solar corona.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

FYI, your website is an outright lie. I never claimed "reconnection' didn't occur, I claimed it didn't occur in a vacuum and I claimed it requires CURRENT. You're not only a liar, you're a first class fraud.

FYI: Your claim that MR does not happen in a vacuum is wrong to say the least (Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section).

And then there is the hypocrisy of claiming that MR happens in plasma when the definition of MR is breaking and reconnecting magnetic field lines and you claim that cannot happen !

Most of Deniers of Magnetic Reconnection is a list of the ignorance that you have displayed in the past and that still seem to retain:

• the confusion between electromagnetic induction and permeability;
• that magnetic fields contain kinetic energy;
• the insistance that because you cannot understand the math that is posted (eventhouh other rposters can) that these posts are "handwaving";
• denial of all of the published references and experimental results;
• does not know what magnetic flux is;
• cites books full of reconnecting magnetic field lines;
• ignorance of the shapes of basic magnteci fields (those around wires);
• the inability to tell EM theory (magnetic fields, field lines, and separatrices) from plasma theory;
• your inability to 'bark math' and yet all these posts containing math are wrong because you say they are wrong (can you spell Dunning-Kruger effect ?);

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You reeally need to learn to read W.D. Clinger's posts:

I already read all the lies he posted about me on his website. There are no extremes that haters will not go to in an effort to misrepresent EU theory. I never DENIED "reconnection" is a real process. That's another of his MANY lies, including his LIE about being able to demonstrate "magnetic reconnection" *WITHOUT* plasma. Lies, lies, and more damn lies.

[Michael Mozina]

It is a BLATANT LIE that I "deny" the reconnection PROCESS is real. If you two won't be honest about me and my opinions on this topic, and you'll go to an OUTRAGEOUS EXTREME of putting those lies on a website, there's pretty much nothing you won't do to get a hate fix.

[Tim Thompson]

Mozina disproved in one easy lesson

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Originally Posted by tusenfem

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.

This explanation of Mozina's is of course quite impossible, As I have already proven.

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Just in case Maxwell is not good enough, here is another, more recent definition for a field line:

"If we join end-to-end infinitesimal vectors representing E, we get a curve in space - called a line of force - that is everywhere normal to the equipotential surfaces. The vector E is everywhere tangent to a line of forces"

From Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, Lorrain & Corson, W.H. Freeman & Co., 1970 (2nd edition), page 46 [this was my undergrad textbook]. This definition for an electric field line works just fine for a magnetic field, just replace E with B and you have the definition for a magnetic field line; the definition is general, so just substitute your favorite letter for your favorite field and you've got it.

By now it should be obvious that the field line cannot exist unless the vector that defines the field line exists. This is a crucial point as we shall see.

I repeat: The field line cannot exist unless the vector that defines the field line exists. The field vector does not exist at the null point. Since the vector does not exist, the line defined by the presence of the vector also does not exist. Ergo, Mozina disproved.

[Michael Mozina]

Er, no. You simply demonstrated that NOTHING exists at X in a vacuum and you NEED current through the Z axis to get the "reconnection" process you're looking for. No current, no "magnetic charge" in equation 17.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I already read all the lies he posted about me on his website.

You are lying abut his lies .

They are observations about your displays of ignorance and arhuments from that ignorance suggesting the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I never DENIED "reconnection" is a real process.

Yes you have. The definition of MR is a process in which magnetic field lines break and reconnection (commonly in a plasma but there is also the trivial case of a vacuum). Denying the definition of MR is denying that MR exists.

But maybe you have altered your position:

Do you now agree with the scientific literature, that MR is the changing in the topology of a magnetic field in such a way the magnetic field lines break and reconnect (thus its name)?

This is a real process (see Somov) in vacuum.
This is a real process in plasma since it is seen in experiments and is the most probable cause of solar flares (Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003 and Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0-521-48179-1, contents and sample chapter online ).

I hope that that we will not see another demand from you to change MRs name to sonething nonsensical.

[Michael Mozina]

I guess the only sure things in life are death, taxes and the outright lies of haters.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Er, no. You simply demonstrated that NOTHING exists at X in a vacuum and you NEED current through the Z axis to get the "reconnection" process you're looking for. No current, no "magnetic charge" in equation 17.

Er insanely nothing to do with his post which has

• No X point,
• No z-axis.
• No current.
• No equation 17.
• No 'magnetic charge'.

The last is probably Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper! which includes that the paper has real monopoles in it.
The paper actually proves that there can be no real monopoles in a lineaf force-free field!

Tim simply stated what the definition of a magnetic field line means - no field = no lines.
MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I guess the only sure things in life are death, taxes and the outright lies of haters.

I guess the only sure things in life are death, taxes and the outright lies of people who have decided to stay so ignorant that they have become deluded.
MM: Try to get it right for once - I pity you, not hate you.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I guess the only sure things in life are death, taxes and the outright lies of people who have decided to stay so ignorant that they have become deluded.
MM: Try to get it right for once - I pity you, not hate you.

If you pitied me, you'd just leave me alone. Your hatred drives you to attack me personally, lie about my position, and remain on your denial/hate-go-round, regardless of the physics. No current through the Z axis, no "reconnection". It's just that simple.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

If you pitied me, you'd just leave me alone.

It is because I pity your ignorance that I keep trying to educate you. I know from your history that this is virtually impossible. But I live in hope.

ETA: It also forms a record for other posters. They will get to know your debating style that is largely lacking actual science, with plenty of whining at people to make things simple enough for you to understand (which you never do).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

No current through the Z axis, no "reconnection". It's just that simple.

No current through the z-axis and magnetic reconnection:
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section.

Lets try one simple question MM: What is the definition of a field line?

I will make it really easy: Field Line

Quote:

Precise definition
A vector field defines a direction at all points in space; a field line for that vector field may be constructed by tracing a topographic path in the direction of the vector field. More precisely, the tangent line to the path at each point is required to be parallel to the vector field at that point.
A complete description of the geometry of all the field lines of a vector field is sufficient to completely specify the direction of the vector field everywhere. In order to also depict the magnitude, a selection of field lines is drawn such that the density of field lines (number of field lines per unit perpendicular area) at any location is proportional to the magnitude of the vector field at that point.

The definition has 2 consequences:

• If there is no vector at a point that there can be no field line at the point.
• If you also draw the lines to depict the magnitude then the density of lines where there is no vector field is zero, i.e. no lines there.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

It is because I pity your ignorance that I keep trying to educate you.

You can't educate me RC. You've never read the books you cherry pick from. You've never read a single related textbook on plasma physics. You aren't arguing from a place of KNOWLEDGE, you're arguing from a place of pure blind ignorance, and an irrational hatred of all EU oriented ideas. Even FLARE activity has to be a "knock down, drag out" with you because you can't accept an E orientation of the universe. It's pure hatred, nothing more. You can't educate me to hatred. I've seen plenty of it in my lifetime.

You can't educate me in a topic you've never read!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I will make it really easy: Field Line

Speaking of cherry picking....

Did you miss this quote from that same website RC?

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.

Oh wait, maybe you're hoping that WIKI page gets miraculously edited during our conversation too?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You can't educate me RC.

I think that everyone in the thread agrees that you cannot be educated.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I think that everyone in the thread agrees that you cannot be educated.

Unlike you, I require BOOKS to be educated. I can't learn anything without reading the material like you clairvoyant types.

I don't suppose you've actually READ a book on plasma physics yet?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Speaking of cherry picking....

Did you miss this quote from that same website RC?

For the third time: No.
This interpretation is wrong because it contradicts the definition (no field = no field lines so field lines that cross a point where there is no field have to end and begin there).

Speaking of cherry picking.... Field Line

Quote:

Precise definition
A vector field defines a direction at all points in space; a field line for that vector field may be constructed by tracing a topographic path in the direction of the vector field. More precisely, the tangent line to the path at each point is required to be parallel to the vector field at that point.
A complete description of the geometry of all the field lines of a vector field is sufficient to completely specify the direction of the vector field everywhere. In order to also depict the magnitude, a selection of field lines is drawn such that the density of field lines (number of field lines per unit perpendicular area) at any location is proportional to the magnitude of the vector field at that point.

Did you miss this quote from that same website MM?

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

And the answer to MM: What is the definition of a field line?is that you cannot understand the Wikipedia definition.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

For the third time: No.

Have you read any books on plasma physics yet?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I don't suppose you've actually READ a book on plasma physics yet?

I do not need to. My knowledge of science makes it clear that magnetic field can break and reconnect. All a person need is the ability to read and they will see that The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point.

You ignoring what MR books state about MR just emphasizes that you are unable to understand them. If you cannot understand the literature on MR then there is no way that you can understand the books you have read.

For example look at the delusions that you have displayed about the trivial case of MR in a vacuum: Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section.
This is a section on MR in a vacuum. It states that it is a real physical process.
And yet you still deny that MR in a vacuum is a real physical process !

An idea: Buy the book, read it and then of course MR in a vacuum will magically become a real physical process just because you own the book and have looked at the words in it.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I do not need to.

Haters are all alike. The topics may change, but the IGNORANCE BY CHOICE and the "knowledge by clairvoyance" is exactly the same.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but you do.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I do not need to.

FYI, I've heard creationists use that exact same line after claiming that humans didn't evolve from "monkeys/apes", and I asked them if they'd ever read a book on the topic of evolutionary theory.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

...hater rant...
Um, I hate to break it to you, but you do.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but you are still lying
MM: Try to get it right for once - I pity you, not hate you.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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

Showing your ignorance yet again, MM?

I state that textbooks state that reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process. I then cite my post Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section where Somov states that:

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.

That is giving evidence for the assertion, not quote mining.
What Somov is saying is

1. Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process:
2. Magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point, break and connect again ('reconnect') in it.
   This is nothing surprising since it is undergraduate EM and stated thoughout the scientific literature.
   This is also not surprising because it is the definition of MR!
3. Other interesting things happen
   • Basic EM - a changing magnetic field induces an E field.
   • This induced E filed can accelerate charged particles near the neutral point. Of course you have to have them there first and so you are no longer talking about the trivial case of MR in a vacuum. Oddly enough the next section is MR in a plasma!

You are lying: I am not ignoring the induced E field or the charged particles. Read Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

[tusenfem]

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? 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.

Oh it was probably me, the evil tusenfem, hater of EU, misunderstander of Alfvén, false doctor of plasmaastrophysics, sneakily asking someone else to "do the dirty work for me" whilst remaining behind the scenes myself like the elders of Zion that are ruling the world.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

Tim and I could probably explain the subtleties to you in Priest's paper, but it would be lost on you anyway. So why bother, I will just continue asking my shady bud to change some more wiki pages.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

FYI, I've heard creationists use that exact same line after claiming that humans didn't evolve from "monkeys/apes", and I asked them if they'd ever read a book on the topic of evolutionary theory.

FYI: You are deluded if you think that I use the "same line".

The point that I am making is that my existing education enables me to read and understand sources such as the extracts from textbooks, e.g. Somov. I am not fooled into stating delusions about what he states (Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section).

I do not have to read an entire textbook on plasma physics to see that the undergraduate physics and math in W.D. Clinger's posts and web site (Magnetic Reconnection) are correct.

I have had 7 years of university education in physics (and chemistry, mathematics and a bit of other stuff). I have read many textbooks. I have been trained to do research and evaluate the results of that research.
Thus I can recall the definition of field lines from the textbooks. I can read the Wikipedia article and see that it confirms my memory. I can read Tim Thompson's post and see that his cited definition is also applicable.
I can thus see what you are blind to: MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point.
The Wikipedia interpretation that no sources or sinks means all magnetic field lines do not end is wrong. What it means is that if a magnetic field line ends at a point, there must be another line that begins at that point.

Thus magnetic field lines that cross a neutral point have to end there and start again after the neutral point. Scientists call this magnetic reconnection. This is a trival process in vacuum. It gets really intereating in plasma and there are many textbooks (that you are ignoring) and papers (that you are ignoring) on the topic.

I can read the introduction to Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0-521-48179-1, contents and sample chapter online

Quote:

Reconnection provides an elegant, and so far the only, explanation for the motion of chromospheric ribbons and flare loops during solar flares. At the same time, it also accounts for the enormous energy release in solar flares. The ejection of magnetic flux from the Sun during coronal mass ejections and prominence eruptions necessarily requires reconnection; otherwise, the magnetic flux in interplanetary space would build up indefinitely. Reconnection has also been proposed as a mechanism for the heating of solar and stellar coronae to extremely high temperatures

(emphasis added)
and see that magnetic reconneciton is the probable cause of solar flares.
Can you?

I can read Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003 and see that there is good evidence for MR causing solar flares.
Can you?

I can read a definition of electrical charges and see that it is all about normal electrical discharges like lightning. You cannot: Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!

I can read an 60 year old paper and see that it uses a term for large charge density that I do not see in modern literature. That makes it obsolete. You persist in displaying your ignorance of modern physics by using this outdated term: Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Have you read any books on plasma physics yet?

Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?

Hardly the same thing. They guy has spent YEARS professing to be some sort of expert on this topic, yet he's never read a single textbook on the subject.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Oh it was probably me, the evil tusenfem, hater of EU, misunderstander of Alfvén, false doctor of plasmaastrophysics, sneakily asking someone else to "do the dirty work for me" whilst remaining behind the scenes myself like the elders of Zion that are ruling the world.

I knew it!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Tim and I could probably explain the subtleties to you in Priest's paper, but it would be lost on you anyway. So why bother, I will just continue asking my shady bud to change some more wiki pages.

I'm sure you could explain it, but then you'd have to cop to the fact that "reconnection" is dependent upon current in equations 16&17, so no current, no "magnetic charge". That wouldn't play out well for Clinger who's been claiming that he can create "reconnection" WITHOUT plasma.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Um, I hate to break it to you, but you are still lying
MM: Try to get it right for once - I pity you, not hate you.

In case you haven't figured it out, it doesn't matter how many times you call me a liar. Your opinions are meaningless to me. It's clear from our conversations and your repeated statements over the years about your lack of any kind of effort in this topic, that you simply do not know what you're talking about.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That is giving evidence for the assertion, not quote mining.
What Somov is saying is
[*]Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process:[*]Magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point, break and connect again ('reconnect') in it.

BZZT. He doesn't say anything about B *LINE* reconnection. In fact he specifically mentions that the E field is induced and it's the source of the acceleration of PARTICLES. So much for a PERFECT vacuum, and so much for your parrot routine. All you "understand" is the term "reconnection", but you have no idea what it means. You're simply parroting the term without a clue what it actually means. No current, no "magnetic charge" in equation 17.

[The Man]

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. 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.

" NOTHING in that NULL"? So would that include field lines as well? In that case you are claiming there are no field lines at the null point. As already explained to you, you can demonstrate magnetic reconnection yourself with a couple of refrigerator magnets and with no current at the null points. Though you simply tried to assert that as what you called "magnet reconnection" as if magnets were not, well, magnetic. Oh and what is the magnitude and direction of the magnetic force vectors at any point along the central axis of a straight current carrying wire (hint that axis is a collection of null points or a null line)? Seems you just need to explain this to yourself.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by The Man

" NOTHING in that NULL"? So would that include field lines as well? In that case you are claiming there are no field lines at the null point.

Let's put it this way: If I drop a charged particle, positive or negative, at the X in the NULL, it's not necessarily going to accelerate in any particular direction with respect to X or Y as long as all the pole strengths remain constant. On the other hand, I can drop that test particle anywhere else and watch it accelerate in some direction. That movement and acceleration of a charged particle is a form of "current". That current coming up through the X in Priest's source/sink paper is turned into "magnetic charge" at equation 17. Without current up the Z axis at X, no 'reconnection' process is possible.

Quote:

As already explained to you, you can demonstrate magnetic reconnection yourself with a couple of refrigerator magnets and with no current at the null points. Though you simply tried to assert that as what you called "magnet reconnection" as if magnets were not, well, magnetic.

Hmmm. No, that's not quite what I meant. When the magnets are apart, they simply "attract", or "repulse", or create "magnetic flux changes over time" due to movement over time. There was a point in PS's animation where the magnetic are rotating and creating a magnetic flux change as a result. Any of those kinds of processes will INDUCE CURRENT in plasma.

At the level of 'physical things' the magnets themselves can physically "reconnect" and the H lines *INSIDE* the magnets will reconnect accordingly. Likewise, in plasma, the particles themselves can 'reconnect' and the "currents' can "reconnect", but the magnetic lines themselves cannot "reconnect" because no monopoles exist in nature.

Is that any better of any explanation of my position?

You really might want to checkout that magnetic reconnection source/sink paper by Priest and checkout equations 16 and 17. At that point, Priest simply "converts" current running through the Z axis into "magnetic charge" that attaches itself to "lines" along the X,Y axis. What's really going on at the level of physics is that currents are being INDUCED into various X,Y lines, and currents are being "redirected" from the Z axis into different directions. They start coming OUT of the Z axis and flowing into the X,Y axis.

The real 'source' of kinetic energy is the E field, not the NULL. The NULL simply becomes the focal point of current running up through the Z axis. That CURRENT can get redirected into the X,Y axis. Changes in the flow of current might also create magnetic flux changes that induce CURRENT in the various lines flowing from the NULL. What CANNOT happen is any sort of B LINE reconnection without a monopole.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I'm sure you could explain it, but then you'd have to cop to the fact that "reconnection" is dependent upon current in equations 16&17, so no current, no "magnetic charge". That wouldn't play out well for Clinger who's been claiming that he can create "reconnection" WITHOUT plasma.

I guess that it goes right over your head that things can happen in vacuum (MRx, field lines reconnect, there is an induced electric field, there are no particles to get accelerated, there are no currents in the MRx region), and then the same thing can happen in a plasma, but then it becomes more complicated, and currents can flow, and plasma is accelerated perpendicular to the magnetic field in the direction of the curvature radius of the field lines, Hall currents will flow where the ions uncouple from the magnetic field, etc. etc.

But hey, you still don't think that a quasi-neutral plasma can carry a current, so I am not surprised that the subtleties of real plasma physics and MRx are out of your league.

[Tim Thompson]

See W.D.Clinger's webpage Deniers of Magnetic Reconnection. Here we find ...
"One of those deniers has responded to my demonstration of magnetic reconnection by (surprise!) repeatedly denying magnetic reconnection."

Mozina responds ...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

FYI, your website is an outright lie. I never claimed "reconnection' didn't occur, I claimed it didn't occur in a vacuum and I claimed it requires CURRENT.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It is a BLATANT LIE that I "deny" the reconnection PROCESS is real.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I never DENIED "reconnection" is a real process.

Notice the not too clever attempt at "bait & switch"? Clinger is explicit about "denying magnetic reconnection". But in his denials of denying, notice that Mozina uses the word "reconnection" without the modifier "magnetic". Of course, as he has written it, Mozina is quite correct. He has never denied the reality of "reconnection", always insisting on "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection". But has Mozina ever denied the reality of magnetic reconnection?

It's fact check time.

Fact #1:
This is what Clinger actually says at the top of his page:
"One of those deniers has responded to my demonstration of magnetic reconnection by (surprise!) repeatedly denying magnetic reconnection."

Fact #2a: Clinger's definition of "magnetic reconnection":
See Clinger's webpage Magnetic Reconnection.
"Magnetic reconnection refers to the merging and separation of magnetic field lines that can occur at neutral points of magnetic fields as those fields change over time. Alternatively, magnetic reconnection refers to changes over time in the topology of magnetic field lines."

Fact #2b: My own definition of "magnetic reconnection":

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Physically: Nothing "reconnects", that's just a word we use to name the process. What physically happens is that the magnetic field changes from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, and the energy lost by the field escapes as electromagnetic photons. In the presence of a plasma, that energy will transfer to the plasma and manifest itself as an impulsive increase in plasma kinetic energy.

Mathematically: Field lines are the mathematical tool of choice to describe and analyze any field, ever since Maxwell. Mathematically, the lines of force representing the physical magnetic field literally reconnect, resulting in a change in the topology of the field. The name, "magnetic reconnection", comes from this mathematical reconnection of field lines.

It is not difficult to see that my definition given here and Clinger's from his webpage are equivalent to each other. So, what does Mozina think about magnetic reconnection, as defined in this discussion?

From 12 Feb 2009:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Magnetic lines lack physical substance, they form as a full and complete continuum, and they are physically *incapable* of "reconnecting". Did any of you folks take a class in basic electronics?

From 15 Feb 2009:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The magnetic lines lack physical substance, and they are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic field line. These are simply "particle/circuit reconnection" events, not "magnetic reconnection" events. It simply "current sheet acceleration", nothing more.

From 4 Jan 2010:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

They clearly do "rule out" your pseudoscientific magnetic reconnection model in these two flares!

From 29 Jan 2010:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The "highly idiosyncratic" understanding/verbiage comes from the "mainstream" because Alfven himself called Parkers "magnetic reconnection" a form of "pseudoscience". Alfven was an electrical engineer by trade and he knew damn well that magnetic lines do not "disconnect' or 'reconnect' to any other magnetic line. The "reconnection" is between two "circuits", not simply two magnetic lines.

From 31 Jan 2010:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What part of "pseudoscience" is still "pseudoscience" don't your understand Tim? Alfven saw Parker's description of "magnetic reconnection' Tim. He knew MHD theory from *BOTH* the B *AND* E orientations. He was an electrical engineer by trade, and no such individual would ever make the mistake of calling a "current flow change" a "magnetic reconnection" event! It's still pseudoscience Tim, and time will not ever change that fact.

Throughout this list of sample quotes from Mozina he presents a consistent opinion. He consistently refers to magnetic reconnection as "pseudoscience". He consistently denies that magnetic field lines can "reconnect", appealing to the fact that they are mathematical rather than physical entities. While their mathematical nature is true enough, it is simply a handy excuse to avoid the physics implied by the mathematics. Physically, the magnetic field changes from a higher to a lower energy state, losing energy. Mathematically, the topology of the magnetic field changes, which logically & necessarily requires an explicit reconnection of the mathematical magnetic field lines.

Therefore, if one adopts the Mozina position that field lines cannot reconnect, it is a logically necessary consequence of that position that the topology of the magnetic field cannot change. But a change in the topology of the magnetic field, and the "reconnection" of the magnetic field lines are in fact the heart of the definition of "magnetic reconnection".

Mozina calls Clinger's website "an outright lie". As we can see above, in Mozina's own words, he definitely does deny the reality of magnetic reconnection as it is defined by mainstream science, and that is the claim that Clinger in fact makes. I submit these facts as objective evidence, using Mozina's own words, that Mozina lies about Clinger lying, by falsely claiming that Clinger makes claims that he does not make. Clinger is explicit about Mozina denying magnetic reconnection, and Mozina in his own words is equally explicit in denying the reality of magnetic reconnection.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

See W.D.Clinger's webpage Deniers of Magnetic Reconnection. Here we find ...

...complete lies and nothing but lies.

I've lost count now how many times I've asked you to meet me in the middle and call the PHYSICAL PROCESS 'current reconnection'. Priest demonstrated *CONCLUSIVELY* that CURRENT gets turned into "magnetic charge" between equations 16&17 in his source/sink paper. The whole 'reconnection' process requires current, otherwise equation 17 nets to ZIP/0/NADDA/NOTHING, and NOTHING reconnects.

Dance around the issue all you like but unless one of you folks has a monopole in your pocket, there is no "B LINE" reconnection going on in a vacuum. I do not deny that the *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* process is a REAL physical process, it simply REQUIRES plasma, and REQUIRES currents. No current, equation 17 nets to zero and you've got NOTHING in terms of 'reconnection'.

Magnetic fields have no source or sink. They are not and never could be the source of kinetic energy. The source and sink for the current in equations 16 is the *ELECTRIC FIELD*, not a MAGNETIC NULL. The Z axis to X,Y axis "reconnection" process requires the flow of current through the NULL.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Throughout this list of sample quotes from Mozina he presents a consistent opinion. He consistently refers to magnetic reconnection as "pseudoscience".

This use of "pseudoscience" is just an example of Michael Mozina's inability to understand what Alfvén was actually talking about in his speech at the 1986 workshop on double layers.
Alfvén strongly stresses the danger of using the frozen-in concept (not MR)

Quote:

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen-in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics.

The context implies that the 'pseudo-science' that Alfvén is using is not 'pseudoscience'!
It is any science that uses 'pseudo-plasma', i.e. plasma with frozen-in magnetic fields.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

I guess that it goes right over your head that things can happen in vacuum (MRx, field lines reconnect, there is an induced electric field, there are no particles to get accelerated, there are no currents in the MRx region),

By "MRx" you're simply talking about "magnetic flux changes" evidently, and potently topology changes due to changes in B at one or more of the poles. Unless you have a monopole in your pocket, there is nothing PHYSICAL to "reconnect" at a NULL (or anywhere else) in a vacuum.

Sure, when we add plasma, currents are induced, E fields become the source and sink of PARTICLE kinetic energy in the form of CHARGED particles, and Priest can then work his magic at equation 17 and get some "reconnection" happening. No current at equation 16 and equation 17, and 'magnetic charge', and the rate of 'reconnection' is ZERO!