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

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's a *REQUIREMENT*, otherwise equations 16 and 17 are ZERO.

It is a CONSEQUENCE because it is caused by the field (equation 15). Read the section 3 and note that before section 3 no currents are mentioned:

1. Starts with equation 15
2. Applies Ampere's theorm to get equation 16
3. This gives a current.

Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper II
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]

(emphasizing that the current is a consequence of the field)

[Michael Mozina]

Somov's "reconnection" process isn't "current optional", it's got current in it.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

(emphasizing that the current is a consequence of the field)

It's then *CONVERTED* to "magnetic charge* in equation 17, meaning that *WITHOUT CURRENT* through the Z axis, you have no magnetic charge, and no "reconnection"! Its a 'requirement' for "reconnection". Plasma and CURRENT aren't optional.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Congratulations on confirming that Somov's "vacuum" isn't a pure vacuum.

Congradulations on not being able to read:

• The section title: Reconnection in a Vacuum.
• What the example is: Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17.
• That Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process.

Instead of ignoring most of the section and obsessing on the obvious (induced E fields can accelerate charged particles), try to comprehend what Somov wrote:

Quote:

Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
X-type points consist a topological peculiarity of a magnetic field. They are places where where redistribution of magnetic fluxes occurs, which changes the connectivity of field lines. Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17. The magnetic field of these currents forms three different fluxes in the plane (x,y). Two of them belong to the upper and the lower currents, respectively, and are situated inside the separatrix field line A, which forms the figure of the eight-like curve with zeroth X-point. The third flux belongs to both currents and is situated outside of the separatrix.

If the currents are displaced in the direction of each other, then the following magnetic flux redistribution will take place. The currents proper fluxes will diminish by the quantity dA, while their common flux will increase by the same quantity. So the field line A2 will be the separatrix of the final state.

This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.

Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since
[equation 4.65]
where A is the vector potential of magnetic field,
[equation 4.66]
In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65)
[equation 4.67]
the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.
...

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Congradulations on not being able to read:

• The section title: Reconnection in a Vacuum.
• What the example is: Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17.
• That Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process.

Instead of ignoring most of the section and obsessing on the obvious (induced E fields can accelerate charged particles), try to comprehend what Somov wrote:

I do comprehend what he wrote. He said the example contains parallel currents. It's not a "pure vacuum" anymore. It's more akin to the "vacuum" of space.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's then *CONVERTED* to "magnetic charge* in equation 17, meaning that *WITHOUT CURRENT* through the Z axis, you have no magnetic charge, and no "reconnection"! Its a 'requirement' for "reconnection". Plasma and CURRENT aren't optional.

Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper II
New mistake/delusion from you: There is no magnetic reconnection in the paper.
The 'magnetic charges' are not real as stated in the paper and have nothing to do with MR. They are computational aids.

Wrong: The current is then *NOT CONVERTED* to "magnetic charge DENSITY*.

Gauss' theorem (Gauss's law for magnetism) applies to the magnetic field. It is used to *CONVERT* equation 15 to equations 17 and 18.




The current is a CONSEQUENCE in the paper because it is caused by the field (equation 15). Read the section 3 and note that before section 3 no currents are mentioned:

1. Starts with equation 15
2. Applies Ampere's therm to get equation 16 (the current)
3. Applies Gauss' theorem to get equations 17 and 18 (the magnetic charge densities).

P.S. I was wrong before about step 3!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Somov's "reconnection" process isn't "current optional", it's got current in it.

A total display of ignorance there, MM: No current in Somov's 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum section for the simple reason that there are no charged particles in a vacuum!

There can be accelerated charged particles as he notes at the end.

Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I do comprehend what he wrote. He said the example contains parallel currents. It's not a "pure vacuum" anymore. It's more akin to the "vacuum" of space.

I see your problems now - you think that the MR happens at the currents that are mentioned !
And that the currents are actual particles or maybe wires . This is the Reconnection in a Vacuum section. The currents are more theoretical. They are just a quantity I that flows along 2 parallel lines (no width, no resistivity, no particles, no conductor, just the current).
This is related to W.D. Clinger's series of posts a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 5 of 5. Also explained in his web page - Magnetic Reconnection.

If you did comprehend what Somov wrote then you would know that the MR happens in vacuum (away from the current lines).
The section title ("Reconnection in a Vacuum") should be a clue.You should be at least be able to see Figure 4.17 and see that the reconneciton happens at the X-type neutral point which is in vacuum.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

P.S. I was wrong before about step 3!

Ya, and pretty much everything else too.

[jond]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ya, and pretty much everything else too.

What's it going to take for you to acknowledge that YOU are wrong?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ya, and pretty much everything else too.

At least I do not have the delusion that there are real monopoles described in a paper that proves that there are no real monopoles described by their paper!
Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper II

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

At least I do not have the delusion that there are real monopoles described in a paper that proves that there are no real monopoles described by their paper!

Nor do I. Priest simply demonstrates that CURRENT isn't optional.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by jond

What's it going to take for you to acknowledge that YOU are wrong?

Wrong about what? Current and plasma are NOT OPTIONAL in the reconnection process. There is no B field line reconnection without monopoles and monopoles do not exist. A NULL is just a NULL. It's not a source or sink of anything.

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by jond

What's it going to take for you to acknowledge that YOU are wrong?

Mozina lacks the mathematical skills and is far too ignorant of physics to understand that he is wrong! It's like asking a parrot to acknowledge that it's a bird.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

Originally Posted by jond

What's it going to take for you to acknowledge that YOU are wrong?

Mozina lacks the mathematical skills and is far too ignorant of physics to understand that he is wrong! It's like asking a parrot to acknowledge that it's a bird.

No, parrots are more educable. You can teach a parrot to acknowledge that it's a bird.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

No, parrots are more educable. You can teach a parrot to acknowledge that it's a bird.

Like I said Clinger, your bait and switch routine was an *EPIC FAIL*. Your vacuum contraption was a total dud. In the world of commerce, that kind of plasma switcheroo routine in part 5 lands you in jail. You lied when you said you could demonstrate Dungey's reconnection *WITHOUT* a plasma.

No plasma, no current, no "reconnection". There is no such thing as "B line reconnection" in that vacuum contraption (or the plasma contraption for that matter) because none of you has a monopole in your pocket and equation 17 depends on the amount of CURRENT coming through the Z axis not monopoles.

It's really sad that you folks won't pick up a plasma physics book and actually study the subject INTELLIGENTLY. I guess that's why all you can do is engage in personal attacks. Haters behaviors are all alike. The subject is irrelevant.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Like I said Clinger, your bait and switch routine was an *EPIC FAIL*.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Your vacuum contraption was a total dud.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

In the world of commerce, that kind of plasma switcheroo routine in part 5 lands you in jail.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it so. (There was no "plasma switcheroo" in part 5. I delivered exactly what I had promised.)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You lied when you said you could demonstrate Dungey's reconnection *WITHOUT* a plasma.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it so. (Part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection did indeed reproduce both of Dungey's figures, and part 4 demonstrated the magnetic reconnection that Dungey was talking about without assuming the plasma that I introduced only in part 5.)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

No plasma, no current, no "reconnection".

Repeating a lie doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

There is no such thing as "B line reconnection" in that vacuum contraption (or the plasma contraption for that matter)

Repeating a lie doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

because none of you has a monopole in your pocket

True!

I have given several proofs that Gauss's law for magnetism holds for all of the magnetic fields that I mentioned in my 5-part derivation of magnetic reconnection. Since Gauss's law for magnetism holds for all of those fields, there are no magnetic monopoles anywhere within my 5-part derivation of magnetic reconnection.

It is of course possible that someone who cannot bark math and is abjectly ignorant of electromagnetism might not have been able to understand those mathematical proofs, but uninformed opinions don't really matter.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

and equation 17 depends on the amount of CURRENT coming through the Z axis not monopoles.

My 5-part derivation of magnetic reconnection does not mention any equation 17. By referring repeatedly to that irrelevant equation 17, Michael Mozina is attempting a Gish gallop.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's really sad that you folks won't pick up a plasma physics book and actually study the subject INTELLIGENTLY.

Intelligent study of plasma physics would begin by mastering the rudiments of

• analytic geometry
• calculus
• vector calculus
• electromagnetism

before attempting to read books on plasma physics. Michael Mozina's 2000 posts within this one thread demonstrate the folly of feigning expertise in plasma physics without learning the prerequisite fundamentals.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I guess that's why all you can do is engage in personal attacks.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Haters behaviors are all alike. The subject is irrelevant.

Haters often specialize in some particular subject or collection of related subjects.

Michael Mozina, for example, hates math and physics.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Repeating a lie doesn't make it so. (There was no "plasma switcheroo" in part 5. I delivered exactly what I had promised.)

It's your own lie:

Quote:

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

Part five was an EPIC fail. You lied.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

I have given several proofs that Gauss's law for magnetism holds for all of the magnetic fields that I mentioned in my 5-part derivation of magnetic reconnection.

You have no right to a "part five" in the first place Clinger. You didn't deliver what you promised. Part five is a full scale retreat from your claim of being able to reproduce Dungey's "reconnection" *WITHOUT* plasma!

Pure bait and switch!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Michael Mozina, for example, hates math and physics.

FYI, that would be ANOTHER excellent example of your endless stream of lies and personal attacks.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Nor do I. Priest simply demonstrates that CURRENT isn't optional.

Thank you for finally learning that the monopoles ("magnetic charges") in the paper are not actual monopoles, just a computational method.

But you have a (new?) delusion about the paper.
Demoulin & Priest simply demonstrates that MAGNETIC FIELD isn't optional.

The current is a consequence of the magnteic field in the paper because it is caused by the magnteic field (equation 15). Read section 3 and note that before section 3 no currents are mentioned:

1. Starts with equation 15
2. Applies Ampere's theorem to get equation 16 (the current)
3. Applies Gauss' theorem to get equations 17 and 18 (the magnetic charge densities).

FYI:
Ampere's theorem

Quote:

Gauss' theorem

Quote:

Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper!
Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper II

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Thank you for finally learning that the monopoles ("magnetic charges") in the paper are not actual monopoles, just a computational method.

What the heck are you talking about? I've ALWAYS known that monopoles do not exist so B field line reconnection is impossible. I've always known that you NEED current to get "reconnection". You're still in denial of that PHYSICAL FACT, even though it's spelled out clearly in equations 16&17. No current, no "reconnection". A Null is simply a null. It's not a source or a sink. The source and sink of kinetic energy through the Z axis is the E field, not the NULL.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You have no right to a "part five" in the first place Clinger. You didn't deliver what you promised. Part five is a full scale retreat from your claim of being able to reproduce Dungey's "reconnection" *WITHOUT* plasma!

Pure pit of denial.
Part 3 was where W.D. Clinger delivered what he promised in part 1.
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

So long as Michael Mozina continues to wallow in the pit of denial he's dug for himself, we might as well finish up the derivation of magnetic reconnection in the experiment he's been running away from for most of the past year. By giving up on Michael Mozina, we free ourselves to use freshman-level math and physics that lie far beyond his knowledge and capability.
Simpler demonstrations of magnetic reconnection have already been presented in this or related threads, including

• The Man's demonstration using refrigerator magnets
• videos derived directly from Maxwell's equations and recommended by Tim Thompson

The purpose of this derivation is to show how we can get from Maxwell's equations to Dungey's figures, the first half of Yamada et al's figure 3, and Wikipedia's animation using no mathematics beyond freshman calculus.

So the 'bait" is getting from from Maxwell's equations to Dungey's figures. And the "switch" that you are lying about is doing exactly that !

• a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1: the fundamental equations as they appear in the third edition of Classical Electrodynamics by John David Jackson
• an erratum for part 1 above
• a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 2: derivation of equation for the magnetic field around a current-carrying rod
• a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 3: the X-shaped magnetic field with neutral point produced by a particular configuration of four conducting rods
  
  Quote:
• ...
  That reproduces the "figure eight" field of the second figure in [Dungey 1958]:
  ...
  J W Dungey was one of the pioneers who suggested that solar phenomena might be explained by magnetic reconnection. The two-dimensional field shown in figure 1 of [Dungey 1958] can be reproduced and understood in vacuo, with no currents or electric field at all within the region of space shown in that figure.

[Tim Thompson]

Reference Dèmoulin & Priest, 1992

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Originally Posted by Reality Check

(emphasizing that the current is a consequence of the field)

It's then *CONVERTED* to "magnetic charge* in equation 17, ...

No it is not. Look at the sentence immediately prior to equation 16. It read as follows, with my added emphasis:
"Equation (15) gives a singular field only on the negative part of the z-axis. Here both currents and magnetic charges are present:"

The authors then go on to show the current in equation 16 and the magnetic charges in equation 17. This is not a conversion of current into charges, it is a listing of both currents and magnetic charges that are together simultaneously.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

... meaning that *WITHOUT CURRENT* through the Z axis, you have no magnetic charge, and no "reconnection"! Its a 'requirement' for "reconnection". Plasma and CURRENT aren't optional.

Everything you have said here is dead wrong. You do not understand the paper at all, and certainly do not understand the role of equations 16 & 17 in that paper. According to you the authors are "converting current to magnetic charge". Well, no, that's not what they are doing, as I have shown above. Furthermore, neither equation 16 nor equation 17 has a thing to do with magnetic reconnection.

The title of the paper is "The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field". Did you see the words "magnetic reconnection" in that title?

Here is the abstract:
"In a highly conducting plasma, the magnetic field topology determines where, for example, current sheets can form, which is of great importance as a potential coronal heating source. With the classical extrapolation of a continuous weak photospheric field, the determination of topology is in general a difficult challenge. Because of the concentration of the photospheric field at intense flux tubes in supergranulation boundaries a more realistic field representation may be a description in terms of magnetic singularities located just below the photosphere. In this paper we analyze in detail the generalization to linear force-free fields of the standard multipole expansion for singular potential fields. Solutions are presented in spherical coordinates with the constraint that all singularities are located in the half-space z is less than 0 below the solar photospheric plane (z = 0). A great variety of solutions is shown to exist depending on two continuous and one discrete parameter. The properties of monopole and dipole solutions in particular are discussed and it is shown that isolated magnetic charges exist only in the potential limit and not in a linear force-free field."

Do you see the words "magnetic reconnection" anywhere in that abstract? Did you read the highlighted sentence, which explains the point of the paper?

Look at the section headings:

1 Introduction
2 Multipole expansion of a linear force-free field
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Solutions with a Toroidal/Poloidal representation
2.3 Direct solution in the case with cylindrical symmetry
2.4 General properties
3 Study of the particular case l = 0
3.1 Singularity along the negative z-Axis
3.2 Field lines
3.3 Is a single magnetic charge possible in a linear force-free field?
4 Conclusion
5 Appendix: The Chiu and Hilton Green's function

Do you see "magnetic reconnection" on that list? Which of those section titles suggests that magnetic reconnection occurs in that section?
Indeed, can you even find magnetic reconnection anywhere in the paper?

Yes, and here they all are:

Page 535 (Introduction, lower right):
"Reconnection therefore allows a general force-free field to relax to a constant-alpha field (Taylor, 1986; Berger, 1984)"

Page 536 (Introduction, middle left):
"Observations show that flares occur sometimes in bipolar regions which have S-shaped polarity inversion lines. Because these regions are bipolar, the classical picture of current sheet formation, with reconnection taking place at separatrix surfaces, cannot be used because the field topology is that of a simple arcade.

Page 536 (Introduction, lower left):
"On a smaller spatial scale, magnetic fields are observed to be concentrated at supergranular boundaries in small knots of magnetic field. To study the process of reconnection observed there (Martin 1990), it may be very useful to have a simple representation of the magnetic field which retains its main features"

Page 540 (Conclusion, middle right):
"The study of three-dimensional field topology with observed photospheric boundary conditions was initiated by Gorbachev & Somov (1988), who model the observed field as a potential field created by four charges placed below the photosphere. The model supposes the reconnection is taking place at the separator. The location of chromospheric flare ribbons computed from this model compares well with observations, giving support for this kind of modelling."

That's a complete list of all instances of the word "reconnection" in the paper. The infamous equations 16 & 17 are on page 539, right at the beginning of section 3. So where is the connection between equations 16 & 17 & magnetic reconnection? There isn't one.

Furthermore, these equations, and this paper, are vastly overblown and exaggerated by Mozina. This trick of using magnetic charges appears in only a few papers, and they are all early in the process of describing the physics of magnetic reconnection. Its sole purpose is to play a role in multipole expansions of the magnetic field. But superior methods soon arrived and this methodology of using magnetic charges, which was even then esoteric & obscure, disappeared altogether, never to be seen again. It does not appear in any text book on plasma physics, field modeling, or magnetic reconnection that I have seen. That's why I said I didn't want to talk about this, because it is irrelevant. irrelevant. The current state of the physics of magnetic field modeling and magnetic reconnection does not involve any of this at all.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Reference Dèmoulin & Priest, 1992



No it is not. Look at the sentence immediately prior to equation 16. It read as follows, with my added emphasis:
"Equation (15) gives a singular field only on the negative part of the z-axis. Here both currents and magnetic charges are present:"

The authors then go on to show the current in equation 16 and the magnetic charges in equation 17. This is not a conversion of current into charges, it is a listing of both currents and magnetic charges that are together simultaneously.

They exist "simultaneously" as you put it BECAUSE the current carries the magnetic field with it, through the NULL, up the Z axis!

[Michael Mozina]

Look, it's really simple!

No monopoles, no "B field LINE" reconnection. No current in 16, no "magnetic charge" in 17!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What the heck are you talking about? I've ALWAYS known that monopoles do not exist so B field line reconnection is impossible.

How idiotic - I am talking about Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper III, etc.
The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field is not about MR. Strangely enough it is about the properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field.

My impression was that you had finally understood a part of the paper: There are no actual monopoles in it. They explicitly rule them out.

MM: Have you understood that there are no actual monopoles in Demoulin & Priest since section 3.3 states there are no isolated magnetic charges.

The non-observation of magnetic monopoles does not mean that magnetic reconnection cannot happen. MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I've always known that you NEED current to get "reconnection".

Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II
Here the current creates the magnetic field. There is no current where the MR happens.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The source and sink of kinetic energy through the Z axis is the E field, not the NULL.

Gibberish. Kinetic energy has no source or sink. Those terms apply to the field.

The cause of acceleration of charged particles can be an induced E field.

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, feel free to highlight the term "reconnection" all you like Tim. I'm fine with "current reconnection". I'm not fine with "magnetic reconnection" because it implies B field LINE reconnection, and that isn't happening without monopoles.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Look, it's really simple!!

Look, it's really simple!!
There are no actual monopoles at all as stated in the paper.

There is a multipole expansion of an equation. And since you seem ignorant about what this is:
Multipole expansion

Quote:

A multipole expansion is a mathematical series representing a function that depends on angles — usually the two angles on a sphere. These series are useful because they can often be truncated, meaning that only the first few terms need to be retained for a good approximation to the original function. The function being expanded may be complex in general. Multipole expansions are very frequently used in the study of electromagnetic and gravitational fields, where the fields at distant points are given in terms of sources in a small region. The multipole expansion with angles is often combined with an expansion in radius. Such a combination gives an expansion describing a function throughout three-dimensional space.[1]
The multipole expansion is expressed as a sum of terms with progressively finer angular features. For example, the initial term — called the zero-th, or monopole, moment — is a constant, independent of angle. The following term — the first, or dipole, moment — varies once from positive to negative around the sphere. Higher-order terms (like the quadrupole and octupole) vary more quickly with angles.

Or Multipole expansion

Quote:

A multipole expansion is a series expansion of the effect produced by a given system in terms of an expansion parameter which becomes small as the distance away from the system increases. Therefore, the leading one or terms in a multipole expansion are generally the strongest. The first-order behavior of the system at large distances can therefore be obtained from the first terms of this series, which is generally much easier to compute than the general solution. Multipole expansions are most commonly used in problems involving the gravitational field of mass aggregations, the electric and magnetic fields of charge and current distributions, and the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Look, it's really simple!!
There are no actual monopoles at all as stated in the paper.

Then B field *LINE* reconnection is a physical IMPOSSIBILITY! Get off the denial-go-round already!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

FYI, feel free to highlight the term "reconnection" all you like Tim. I'm fine with "current reconnection". I'm not fine with "magnetic reconnection" because it implies B field LINE reconnection, and that isn't happening without monopoles.

FYI:
"current reconnection" is an idiotic description of what happens, i.e. a change in magnetic field topology that includes the breaking and reconnecting of magnetic field lines.
There is no current that spilts/joins/connect/reconnects or does the fandango in MR in vacuum:
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II
Here the current creates the magnetic field. There is no current where the MR happens.

You remain ignorant of what a field line is: MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Then B field *LINE* reconnection is a physical IMPOSSIBILITY!

Then you remain deluded about the paper and have become even more deluded since it is not about MR.


Dèmoulin & Priest, 1992 by Tim Thompson:

• The paper is not about magnetic reconnection. All references to reconnection are in the introduction and conclusion.
• The results of the paper are not used in MR theory.
• The paper cites sources that state that B field *LINE* reconnection is a physical POSSIBILITY.

Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper III, etc.

MR does not need actual monopoles. All it needs is a null point and magnetic field lines that cross it as explained in all of the scientific literature you insist in ignoring.

[Michael Mozina]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986RvMP...58..741T

How exactly is this paper supposed to help your case Tim? It's all a "current" driven process.

[Michael Mozina]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988SoPh..117...77G

I don't really see how this paper helps your case either since it clearly involves PLASMAS and "flares/electrical discharges". IMO you keep shooting yourself (or at least Clinger) in the foot. Without "plasma" and "current", "reconnection" is physically impossible. None of you have a monopole to your name.

[Michael Mozina]

Let's revisit that list of mostly bogus claims by Clinger about Dungey's brand of "reconnection":

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...79#post7668879

Quote:

On 28 December 2010, I suggested a simple experiment that would have helped you to understand that Dungey's paper is about magnetic reconnection. Everyone who's taken a freshman-level course in electromagnetism knows what the magnetic field around a current-carrying rod looks like. If you have two such rods in parallel, carrying equal currents, and measure the magnetic field in a plane perpendicular to the rods, you get Dungey's figure 2. If you take another pair of parallel rods and run the current in the opposite direction, you get Dungey's figure 2 with the arrows reversed. If you take those two pairs of parallel conducting rods and place them so the null points of their magnetic fields coincide, with the planes running through the two pairs positioned at almost but not quite a right angle, then you get Dungey's figure 1.

Those two figures are the only figures in Dungey's paper.

With steady currents running through all four rods, the E field is zero outside the rods. Increasing the current through one pair of rods yields Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection. If the current is increased slowly, then the E field outside the wires remains nearly zero, but the magnetic reconnection still occurs (more slowly).

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.

Note that it took almost an *ENTIRE YEAR* to get Clinger to actually put his claims into some sort of real "presentation"! Holy Cow! Nothing like taking your sweet time, and then blatantly violating your own claims! He didn't even post part 1 for 10+ months!

Clinger claimed that Dungey's brand of "reconnection" could occur *WITHOUT* a plasma. Nothing of the sort is physically possible. In part five he FINALLY introduces the thing he said he didn't need so he could actually get anything at equation 16 and any "magnetic charge" at 17.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Look, it's really simple! No monopoles, no "B field LINE" reconnection.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I'm not fine with "magnetic reconnection" because it implies B field LINE reconnection, and that isn't happening without monopoles.

Absolute crap. There is absolutely no connection of any kind, not in any way, between monopoles and magnetic field line reconnection. All of your references to "equations 16 & 17" are irrelevant horse droppings. All of your attempts to link magnetic reconnection to monopoles have failed miserably. You are embarrassing yourself.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Absolute crap. There is absolutely no connection of any kind, not in any way, between monopoles and magnetic field line reconnection. All of your references to "equations 16 & 17" are irrelevant horse droppings. All of your attempts to link magnetic reconnection to monopoles have failed miserably. You are embarrassing yourself.

Not at all Tim. You're just digging yourself in DEEPER. Without any monopoles, nothing like "B *LINE* reconnection" is physically possible. When did you intend to acknowledge that fact?

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986RvMP...58..741T
How exactly is this paper supposed to help your case Tim? It's all a "current" driven process.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988SoPh..117...77G
I don't really see how this paper helps your case either since it clearly involves PLASMAS and "flares/electrical discharges". IMO you keep shooting yourself (or at least Clinger) in the foot. Without "plasma" and "current", "reconnection" is physically impossible. None of you have a monopole to your name.

What, are you deliberately trying to make people think you are a twit? Or maybe you are just up too late and need to hit the sack. What makes you think that either of these papers in any way argue against magnetic reconnection in a vacuum.

What, you can't read English or something? Look at the first sentence of the abstract for Taylor, 1986: "The theory of plasma relaxation is described and developed." Why would a paper specifically on the topic of "plasma relaxation" have anything to do with a vacuum? And look at the abstract for Gorbachev & Somov, 1988: "By using a topological model for the potential magnetic field above the photosphere, the appearance and development of the separator as a result of vortex plasma flows in the locality of the photospheric neutral line are considered." That's a paper about vortex plasma flows. I'm sure they are going to spend lots of time talking about how magnetic reconnection can't happen in a vacuum too.

Neither of these papers has anything at all to say about magnetic reconnection in a vacuum. Magnetic reconnection in a vacuum is a proven fact, whether you happen to like it or not.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Not at all Tim. You're just digging yourself in DEEPER. Without any monopoles, nothing like "B *LINE* reconnection" is physically possible. When did you intend to acknowledge that fact?

It's not a fact, and you are "full of prunes", as my dear old grandmother used to say. Monopoles are gloriously irrelevant.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

What, are you deliberately trying to make people think you are a twit?

No, I'm trying to make a very specific and highly important point. "Reconnection" is not a "plasma optional" process Tim.