Magnetic Reconnection

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:16 pm

This is the way that Hannes Alfven described the mathematical "dumbing down" of all plasma behavior to the "magnetic" or B orientation of Maxwell's equations, at the conference where he presented his own 'Double Layer' paper which makes the whole concept of 'magnetic reconnection', irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments, including "current sheets":

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

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 monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.


For anyone interested in reading Alfven's double layer paper, you can find it here:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

The bottom line is that Alfven continuously and methodically used *circuit theory mathematics* to describe high energy events in *light* and/or current carrying plasma. He used circuit theory with respect to the Earth's magnetosphere, and with respect to coronal loops in solar theory, and pretty much everywhere in "spacetime' for that matter. The only exception would have been *dense*, non current carrying environments.

Keep in mind that it makes perfect sense to look at the *entire circuit energy* when trying to explain something like coronal loops, or the Earth's aurora, or something that requires a continuous flow of current over an extended period of time.

Now of course it's possible to *induce* a particle flow inside of any conductor by introducing a changing magnetic field into that conductive environment. That process of the transfer of magnetic field energy into charged particle acceleration inside of a conductor already has a proper scientific name, specifically *induction*.

Furthermore, the introduction of changing magnetic fields into a pure vacuum also has a proper scientific name which you can find in any EM textbook, specifically magnetic flux. When we radically modify the magnetic field topology inside of any conductor, including a plasma, it will of course induce currents in the conductor. In the case of plasma, the ions can move and do move as a result of those magnetic field topology changes and E fields, not just electrons.

When astronomers attempt to "dumb down" all the mathematical formulas in plasma with respect to B, they often forget one very *important* aspect of the physics, as most amusingly and irrationally exemplified by rantings of Clinger, RC, "The Man" and JonesDave116 over at ISF.

When Clinger claimed to have described "magnetic reconnection" in a vacuum, he left out one *extremely critical component in the process in plasma known as "magnetic reconnection", namely the transfer of magnetic field energy into charged particle movement.

From WIKI:

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration. Magnetic reconnection occurs on timescales intermediate between slow resistive diffusion of the magnetic field and fast Alfvénic timescales.


Emphasis mine. Now of course we need A) plasma, and we must B) *transfer field energy* into particle movement to get a non zero amount of "magnetic reconnection" to occur. Without a charged particle to his name, poor pitifully confused Clinger didn't even has the *physical capacity* to transfer any magnetic field energy into particle acceleration.

When PPPL and such do their experiments with so called "magnetic reconnection", they almost always begin *and end* with an E field, *plasma*, and electrical current. They then move the *currents/circuits in plasma* into proximity with one another, and the twister shaped plasma channels "rewire" themselves. It's actually "circuit reconnection", or 'particle reconnection", but magnetic fields don't have a source or a sink. Magnetic *fields* don't form in little tiny "lines" either, they form as a complete 3D *field continuum*. Magnetic lines have no beginning, no ending, no source, no sink, and no capacity to "disconnect from" one source, or reconnect to another sink. There's no such thing as a monopole, so that idea is pure oversimplified nonsense.

What is of course happening inside any current carrying double layer is completely described in Alfven's double layer paper *without* the need for "magnetic reconnection". He made that idea completely irrelevant in all current carrying environments.

Even "The Man" over at ISF thinks that ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum is exactly the same as transferring field energy into particle acceleration. Their entire argument and belief system around "reconnection in a vacuum" (using 'fridge magnets in the "The Man's case) is based upon a gross *oversimplification fallacy*. The easy way to demonstrate that fact conclusively is to point out that to this very day Clinger has been utterly incapable of producing any mathematical equation to describe the *non zero rate* of "reconnection" that he claims to have achieved in a vacuum.

The reason that Alfven called the whole idea of "magnetic reconnection" *pseudoscience* is because it's only *pseudo* correct (mathematically: since we can logically solve Maxwell's equations for B), and the name being used to describe the process is confusing and misleading, and leads to absurd claims and beliefs. That's why Alfven just rejected the idea outright, and he mathematically described the process that occurs in current carrying environments in his double layer paper *without* using the term "magnetic reconnection".

Now of course it's "possible" to solve any equation for E or for B, and it can be "right" from a mathematical perspective. That doesn't mean that any and all *physical claims* are "right" however. Magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum. When the field changes, the *whole field topology changes*, not little esoteric lines. Magnetic fields have source, and no sink. There is no such thing as a "monopole" either. It's therefore physically *impossible* for magnetic "lines" to 'disconnect from" or "reconnect to" any other magnetic line. They are not actually "lines' in the first place, that's simply an oversimplification to start with!

Since we can "solve" the equations for B, I don't necessarily "deny" the process happens, I simply call it "circuit reconnection', or *particle reconnection*, but it's irrational to call it 'magnetic reconnection".
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:57 pm

For completeness, let's add a reference to:

Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL)
http://mrx.pppl.gov/

---

The fundamental basics of magnetic reconnection are wrong:

1) The magnetic field has no lines.
Magnetic field-lines or flux-lines have no physical meaning.
Here is an example of magnetic fluid, that shows field lines.
As you can see that the field-lines move independent of each other. The only constant is that they
keep a constant distance. That is because of the magnetic material, not of the magnetic field.

2) There is no ferromagnetic material in plasma.
Ferromagnetic would mean that the plasma contains small magnetic particles, with a stable direction.
Plasma is not ferromagnetic, and that means that the plasma will not follow the magnetic lines.
In reality, it contains charged particles, that follow circular paths in a constant magnetic field.
The positive particles follow a different path than the negative particles.

3) Collision of magnetic fields is energy-free.
Two magnetic fields just add to each other, like two lights add together without interacting.
Even the fact that two lights do not interact with each other, is proof that magnetic fields do not collide.
Magnetic fields combined create no extra energy.
And if we have superconductivity where magnetic fields are mirrored, we can see
that there is nothing moving. No kinetic energy is created at all. It is a static system.

With this the basis of magnetic reconnection can be moved to the land of the unicorns.

Electromagnetic fields have the following properties:

1) Moving charges, also named currents, create magnetic fields.
2) Charged moving particles (in plasma) follow curved (often circular) paths in magnetic fields.
The positive particles go into the opposite direction of the negative particles.
3) Changing magnetic fields create currents in conducting material, like plasma.
It seems that the result of this effect is sometimes seen as proof for the mythical reconnection theory.
4) Charged particles that are separated from each other, are attracted to each other creating a current.

And all this together creates a very complicated system of electromagnetic interactions in plasma.
Which gets even more complex due to the relativistic speeds of some of the particles.

It is really really sad that most scientists that study plasma in space, do not know
the basics of electromagnetism.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby JouniJokela » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:16 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

The bottom line is that Alfven continuously and methodically used *circuit theory mathematics* to describe high energy events in *light* and/or current carrying plasma. He used circuit theory with respect to the Earth's magnetosphere, and with respect to coronal loops in solar theory, and pretty much everywhere in "spacetime' for that matter. The only exception would have been *dense*, non current carrying environments.



Thanks for posting. It's 318 pages. Can you point out where the bolded stuff can be found. As my time/interest ratio doesn't meet.

I mean it must be helpful if these "exceptions" can be exactly defined. Then this all becomes very easy to test in the lab.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:39 pm

JouniJokela wrote:Thanks for posting. It's 318 pages. Can you point out where the bolded stuff can be found. As my time/interest ratio doesn't meet.

I mean it must be helpful if these "exceptions" can be exactly defined. Then this all becomes very easy to test in the lab.


The definition and distinction that Alfven used was whether or not it was a current carrying environment. If so, he always used circuit theory to explain the behaviors of current carrying plasma.

He did write the book on MHD theory, so there are places where it may apply, specifically in *non current carrying* environments, and presumably in *dense* environments.

Of course Alfven believed that all the plasma of spacetime was a 'current carrying' environment, which is why he chose to use circuit theory to mathematically model such conditions rather than MHD theory.

It's pretty clear however that he dismissed the entire "magnetic reconnection" maths as being pure pseudoscience. Magnetic fields do *not* have a source. They do *not* have a sink either. They form as a complete and full continuum, not tiny little "lines" in some overly-simplistic concept of magnetism. There is no such thing as a "monopole', so there is no physical method by which one magnetic field "disconnects from' or "reconnections to" any other "magnetic line". The field topology changes in a plasma *induce* charged particle movement, but nothing like "magnetic reconnection' is occurring in a plasma. Something like "circuit" reconnection is occuring in a plasma as all the PPPL "experiments" demonstrate. They almost all begin and end with an *electric field* and two *current channels* which effectively "rewire" themselves as current seeks the path of least resistance. Nothing "new" occurs in plasma that doesn't happen in a solid *except* for the fact that *ions also move* as a result of the changing magnetic field. In every other respect, a change in field topology (flux) simply results in *induction*, not "reconnection".

The field topology changes/time are correctly called *magnetic flux*. The resulting charged particle movement in any conductor, including plasma is called *induction*. There is nothing new happening in plasma that doesn't happen in a solid, other than the fact that ions also move and accelerate in a plasma as a reaction to changes in the magnetic field topology over time. The whole "reconnection" claim is a myth and it's misleading as hell. The only thing that happens is a *field topology change/time* which results in *induced current* in the plasma. Now of course there are whistler waves and all sorrts of charged particle movement related activity, but there is no such thing a 'magnetic reconnection'.

The math isn't the problem either because Maxwell's equations let us solve for either E or B. It's the physics that gets botched when using such terms. Pitiful Clinger over at ISF thinks that he described "reconnection' in a vacuum, when all he actually described is "magnetic flux in a vacuum". Period. That's also why after two years and counting he cannot come up with a mathematical expression of a non zero rate of "reconnection" in his "vacuum" experiment.

The transfer of field energy into charged particle movement is a *requirement* of "magnetic reconnection" if any positive (non zero) amount of "reconnection" can occur. Poor Clinger and "The Man" are so confused by simple terms that they cannot tell the physical difference between quite ordinary "magnetic flux in a vacuum" and charged particle acceleration! That's why the term "magnetic reconnection" is so messed up! The "newbies" to the field of MHD theory are confused from the start. It probably would have made a difference if either of them had actually read a textbook on MHD theory of course, but alas they apparently believe that ignorance is bliss.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:13 pm

Here is a classic case in point about MHD "newbies" being utterly clueless about the terms used in MHD theory, and basic EM terms in general:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=3081

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Yep, no magnetic reconnection has been a staple of EU proponents as long as I've been aware of them. Quite telling that proponents of Electro-magnetic dominance in the universe can be so astonishingly, demonstrably and stubbornly wrong about a fundamental aspect of magnetism that you can demonstrate to yourself with just some simple object you probably already have. Just a historically fundamental experiment in magnetism, a bar magnet and compass, demonstrates magnetic reconection as the compass primarily connected to the Earths field is not homeomophic to the compass primarily connected to the bar magnet field. That lack of homeomorphism just wasn't well understood in the early days of electromagnetic experimentation. If your whole shtick is electro-magnetism and you can't even get a fundamental aspect of that right you get nothing but fail.


This paragraph is the opitomy of pure ignorance of both the terms that are used in MHD theory, and the terms that are used in basic EM field theory. The proper scientific terms that "The Man" describes between a compass and a magnetic (ultimately two magnets) is "magnetic attraction" and "magnetic repulsion". That's all he could ever hope to describe with a few solid magnets. Field topology changes over time in a solid state environment is not called "magnetic reconnection". The newbies are utterly and completely botching and misusing terms to suit themselves!

The term "magnetic reconnection" is never used in basic EM field theory, it's a term that relates *exclusively* to plasma physics! It requires A) plasma and B) plasma particle acceleration as a result of a changing magnetic field topology.

Trying to equate the two different environments is a classic case of an *oversimplification fallacy* run amuck. It's also why you and clueless Clinger couldn't come up with any formula to express a positive amount of "reconnection" in a pure vacuum too.

Originally posted by jonesdave116

I think that a lot of the problems stem from their hero worship of Alfvén; "Alfvén said such and such, therefore it must be true!"


There's quite an irony that the mainstream *abuses* Alfven's work, and accuses us of "hero worship". I don't personally "lack belief' in "magnetic reconnection' because of Alfven, I lack belief that folks at ISF even understand the terms as they are used in physics! For crying out loud, there is a clear and obvious physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum and charged particle acceleration, name plasma and plasma particle acceleration! Get it yet?

Unfortunately for them, although he got a lot of stuff right, he also got a fair bit of stuff wrong.
His railing against magnetic recombination being a case in point. This is something that has been demonstrated in the lab countless times, and observed in astrophysical contexts, as well. Despite that, the EU ideologues still deny it can happen, purely based on Alfvén saying it couldn't! This from a bunch who supposedly believe that lab experiment is everything!


The irony of that statement is simply off scale. The classic "experiment" of "magnetic reconnection" is done by taking *two plasma currents* and "rewiring" them into a different *circuit topology* over time. It's *circuit reconnection*, not "magnetic field line reconnection*. The way we know that for a fact is that the moment they turn off the E field in their classic "experiment" on "reconnection". the show stops, the plasma filaments deteriorate, and no "reconnection" occurs anymore. We have then turn back on the *electricity* in order to get "reconnection" between two plasma threads again.

Now of course Alfven's double layer paper describes events inside of a current sheet just fine mathematically *without* once evoking the term "magnetic reconnection", so the term is utterly irrelevant and utterly obsolete in all such current carrying environments as a result of Alfven's double layer paper.

Of course nobody has *ever* shown a mathematical flaw in Alfven's double layer paper, and they never will. Pure denial now becomes the name of the game. They have to pretend that "reconnection' still has some relevancy in current carrying environments, even though it doesn't!

He also banged on a lot about double layers, which is probably why Sol is so keen to ascribe them to pretty much anything, including diamagnetic cavity boundaries! Alfvén and D. A. Mendis were keen on seeing certain phenomena in comets as being possibly due to double layers (albeit in the tail). Mendis wrote a lot on comets, and you can find this DL stuff in earlier work of his, mostly prior to Halley. After that he seems to lose interest in finding them. Observation (or the lack thereof) has a habit of doing that.


The reason he was interested in them is because they form in all types of plasma environments. I'm sure Alfven did spend his time on areas of astronomy that were more relevant than comets.

Alfvén's views on comets were essentially mainstream, and totally at odds with Thornhill's unscientific nonsense. However, he did come up with the rather strange idea that comets could not only produce meteor streams, but could also still be forming from them! I found this unusual abstract from a symposium in 1970. What is unusual about it is the criticism you can see from other scientists (including Whipple) below the abstract:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972IAUS...45..485A
So, he did come up with some rather strange stuff, including the Alfvén-Klein model of the universe.


FYI jonesdave116, some of us in the EU/PC community embrace Alfven's views on comets, as well as his work on coronal loops. Not everyone here at Thunderbolts thinks in lockstep as you seem to presume. Your bigotry toward the EU/PC community is simply absurd, particularly considering the dark, supernatural invisible sky snow globe universe that you live in. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby JouniJokela » Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:17 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
JouniJokela wrote:I mean it must be helpful if these "exceptions" can be exactly defined. Then this all becomes very easy to test in the lab.


The definition and distinction that Alfven used was whether or not it was a current carrying environment. If so, he always used circuit theory to explain the behaviors of current carrying plasma.


Thanks for this. I agree 100%. This Definition for Plasma is naturally correct, but there is plasma-carrying gas-plasma mixtures. It's like saying that liquids are flowing. But when you end up to talk about "what is flow" and what is the upper limit of viscosity;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment

Nothing "new" occurs in plasma that doesn't happen in a solid *except* for the fact that *ions also move* as a result of the changing magnetic field. In every other respect, a change in field topology (flux) simply results in *induction*, not "reconnection".

There is nothing new happening in plasma that doesn't happen in a solid, other than the fact that ions also move and accelerate in a plasma as a reaction to changes in the magnetic field topology over time. The whole "reconnection" claim is a myth and it's misleading as hell.


Thanks for this post. I personally have never even thought that Magnetic field should be "reconnected". But when you point this out, it's indeed difficult to see any reasons for such a reconnection. I mean, If it would be reconnected, how could you explain this hall effect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect

I am also "newbie" in MHD, and just while writing this, I checked out few basic concepts of Hydrodynamic. One of them is Reynolds number. And this has been effectively preventing the people to Understand Turbulence. I am confident, that I have understood the Turbulence correct on Hydrodynamics. And this means you need to abandon the Reynolds number. This (video) is maybe the best live prove I have for it;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoBO93 ... FE&index=2

So as said I just checked out the Ideal MHD;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohy ... istive_MHD
And there you have your "Magnetic reconnection", explained;
wiki wrote:The simplest form of MHD, Ideal MHD, assumes that the fluid has so little resistivity that it can be treated as a perfect conductor. This is the limit of infinite magnetic Reynolds number. In ideal MHD, Lenz's law dictates that the fluid is in a sense tied to the magnetic field lines. To explain, in ideal MHD a small rope-like volume of fluid surrounding a field line will continue to lie along a magnetic field line, even as it is twisted and distorted by fluid flows in the system. This is sometimes referred to as the magnetic field lines being "frozen" in the fluid.[5] The connection between magnetic field lines and fluid in ideal MHD fixes the topology of the magnetic field in the fluid—for example, if a set of magnetic field lines are tied into a knot, then they will remain so as long as the fluid/plasma has negligible resistivity. This difficulty in reconnecting magnetic field lines makes it possible to store energy by moving the fluid or the source of the magnetic field. The energy can then become available if the conditions for ideal MHD break down, allowing magnetic reconnection that releases the stored energy from the magnetic field.


I bolded the bullshit. In conventional Turbulence the same "Bullshit" can be read from here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulenc ... m_transfer

The kinetic energy absorbed in any "Turbulence" can't be recovered. Period. It's a system breakdown. A sort of "reset". Yet, If you want to have some Propulsion, you MUST have turbulence, because of the reversibility of the "no-Turbulence-case".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51-6QCJ ... BA3&t=1653

So this whole "Magnetism" could actually only be this propulsion, which would mean, that if the velocity difference between particles are synchronized, the magnetism just disappears. I just entered to this Idea, but atleast the structure of Magnetic Reynolds number;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_Reynolds_number
Supports my view, more precisely the magnetic diffusivity part of it;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_diffusivity
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:57 pm

wiki wrote:..Ideal MHD, assumes that the fluid has so little resistivity that it can be treated as a perfect conductor...

A perfect conductor is a super conductor. We have them in the laboratories.
Anyone can see that plasma does not behave the same.
We don't see small orbs of magnetic material floating around above the sun.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Persistent, self imposed ignorance has no cure.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:16 pm

by jonesdave116:

On Frozen-In Field Lines and Field-Line Reconnection (1976)
Alfvén, H.
(I'm sure you've got it, so I won't link it)

There is also Alfvén's table of plasma properties that I linked previously where, again, he seems to suggest it is possible under some circumstances. Don't forget, this is many decades ago, and is mostly theory. He had little, if any, observation to go on. Things have moved on. Some people haven't.


The only empirical physics that has "moved on" in "reconnection" theory since it started is Alfven's double layer paper which makes the entire concept irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments. The only "environment" in plasma that might be left to explore with respect to your "reconnection" claim is in a *non-current carrying dense plasma*. That is the one and only condition where Alfven left a "gap" for you to play with JonesDave116. Unfortunately for you, no such environment exists inside of this solar system.

Alfvén was a great one for expounding on the value of lab experiment, and in-situ observation by spacecraft. That is what we now have.


What you now have are a ton of *current carrying* experiments where "reconnection" theory is made irrelevant and obsolete by Alfven's double layer paper. You can't handle that fact, so you're in pure denial of that fact.

Even the "classic" PPPL experiment on "reconnection" is driven from start to finish by an *electric field*. The moment we turn off the electric field, your "reconnection" comes to an abrupt and sudden end. Why do you suppose that is?

You guys are utterly clueless. You continue to put the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse, and you can't even tell the difference between an ordinary topology change in a magnetic field in a vacuum, and a transfer of magnetic field energy that results in a non zero rate of *particle acceleration*! Your entire belief system is based upon a blatant simplification fallacy!

You guys claim that "math is king", but this issue demonstrates that you are all complete hypocrites. Not one of you can provide us with a mathematical formula that shows that Clinger's experiment generates a non-zero *rate* of 'magnetic reconnection'. We all know why too. You haven't got a single charged particle to your name to which you might impart any kinetic energy from a changing magnetic field! Oy Vey. You folks are clueless hypocrites at ISF. Where's your math?

hecd2

Meanwhile, over at Blunderdolts, Mozina demonstrates that after several years of being corrected, he still thinks that the term 'magnetic flux' means a change in the field.


Boloney. At least I know the difference between a field topology change and a transfer of energy into charged particle acceleration. Where's you math to show us a non-zero *rate* of reconnection in a vacuum? You haven't got one and you can't provide one. Well all know why too.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:33 pm

Reality Check:
Magnetic flux ropes are not Birkeland currents.


You sir are a flat out liar and a con artist and that statement is a complete lie. You consistently lie and misrepresent the facts every single chance you get. You've misrepresented the statements of Dungey, Peratt, and everyone else associated with EU/PC theory. You haven't got a clue how anything works, and you refuse to provide us with the math formula that I asked you for *years* ago. Where's your math RC showing us a non-zero rate of "reconnection" in Clinger's clueless unpublished nonsense? You're a complete hyprocrite and a blatant liar. Here is exactly how Alfven describes a magnetic rope, namely a current carrying *Bennet Pinch*!

Hannes Alfven:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."


You're a blatant liar and a total hypocrite RC and your lack of a math formula proves it.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:26 pm

Reality Checks recent post at ISF is an absolute riot!

I believe the textbooks,


The last time I checked with RC a few months ago at CRUS, he *still* had not sat down to read a real textbook on the topic of MHD theory after *years* of playing the "expert" on plasma. LOL! What textbook?

Wikipedia (with a pinch of salt!),


Nope. WIKI's first sentence on "magnetic reconnection" clearly states that it's a process in *plasma* and involves a *transfer of field energy into particle kinetic energy*. He clearly ignores WIKI too.

many credible sources across the Internet,


You mean like Clinger's personal website and ISF? You folks can't even come up with a math formula to describe a *non zero rate* of "reconnection" in a vacuum! Some internet sources. You and Clinger in particular are clueless about the topic of magnetic reconnection because neither of you have (or at least had) read an actual textbook on MHD theory.

what I learned in my 7 years at university learning physics


Pfft. Is that where they "taught" you that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma? You don't even have a firm grasp of basic EM field theory or you could explain everything that happens in Clinger's experiment *without* the term "magnetic reconnection". Bah!

and statements of experts such as Hannes Alfven.


You mean like those statements that he made about "magnetic reconnection" when he called it "pseudoscience" and his double layer paper that made the whole concept obsolete and irrelevant? You didn't learn anything. You made it up.

Basic fact about plasma told to you on 10th July 2009 ():
There are no large scale electric currents in a plasma so your ignorance of science is obvious once (Debye length)


More blatant disinformation from the minister of disinformation. Who would have guessed?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... gneti.html
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mathematical-phys ... netic-rope

RC, you have *no* idea what you're talking about and you just make stuff up as you go. You and I and Clinger all know that neither of you will come up with a mathematical expression for a non zero *rate* of reconnection in your pitiful vacuum because it's physically impossible to transfer any field energy to a non existent particle! You're both ignorant by choice and your lack of a math formula to support your claim shows that you're also a gigantic hypocrite. If math really is king, and you're nothing but a court jester.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:13 am

jonesdave116
I have to be honest here; I am not a fan of Velikovskian woo. That might not have come across before, but I felt it was worth stating.


Great. I've never been particularly impressed with Velikovski's work either. At least we share something in common.

FYI, in case you didn't notice, one doesn't have to sign any documents pledging allegiance to Velilovski, Talbott, Thornhill or Scott to embrace EU/PC theory, Alfven's work, Birkeland's work, Bruce's work, etc, or to post on this forum. Thunderbolts is a diverse community. We embrace our diversity in terms a various solar models, different beliefs about comets, planets, neutron stars, etc. We don't all think in lockstep, and we don't feel the need to force one another to all think exactly alike. You're welcome to reject various EU/PC ideas, and embrace the ones that suit your own personal fancy.

As far as Thornhill goes; the bloke is a liar and a fraud. End of story.


No, that's not the end of the story, and it's not even true. Liars and frauds are not just folks that happen to believe in false ideas, they're people like Brian Koberlein who go out of their way to *willingly* and *knowingly* lie about Thornhill's statements and beliefs, and who defraud the public by willfully and publicly *misrepresenting EU ideas* with *malicious intent*.

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/

Even if LCDM turns out to be complete hogwash, as I'm sure that it will, it's proponents today are not *willfully* lying about their beliefs. They whole heartedly *believe* what they hold belief in, even if it turns out to be false. I don't consider them to be *liars* however, because there is no *willful* intent to deceive. They are simply self deceived at worst case. The same is true for Thornhill, me and everyone else for that matter.

In case you didn't notice, I'm perfectly fine with Alfven's descriptions of comets, and I don't share Thornhill's preference for Jeurgen's solar model either. That's never gotten me in "trouble", never gotten me "banned", never caused anyone or any moderator to mistreat me here at Thunderbolts. Whatever Thornhill's faults might be, he's never tried to shut me up like ISF/JREF. He's never threatened or banned me, and he's always graciously allowed me to speak my mind on his forum. That's more than I can say for ISF/JREF.

I think Thornhill knows full well that he has *preferences* but embraces the idea that he could be wrong on one or more topics related to cosmology. I'm sure that applies to *everyone* too by the way.

I would love to see the idiot on here, trying to defend his woo; but that will never happen. He took too many kickings from Tim Thompson on Usenet, back in the day. I think the burke has learned from that. No chance that he is ever going to put his unscientific bobbins up against actual science, is there?
The bloke is a fraud, and anybody that believes his woo is probably certifiable.


What a bunch of hogwash. He probably won't put up with all the childish verbal abuse that you folks love to dish out, but cannot take. I'm sure he has no desire to be misrepresented by the likes of RC and Clinger who apparently will *never* come up with that rate of reconnection math formula that I asked them for several *years* ago.

You folks cannot even handle an open and fair debate. In fact the moment I cornered Clinger over his missing math formula for a non existent *rate* of reconnection, and returned the favor a bit in terms of the name calling, your beloved "saviors/moderators" instantly banned me forever and ever. You have to outright *avoid* me at Christianforums because you'd have to debate me *fairly* on that forum without all the personal attacks, and without any biased moderators to save you from a real scientific debate. You can't handle a real debate on EU/PC theory because you don't even begin to understand it to begin with. You folks aren't nearly as scary or as bad-ass as you seem to think.

I don't see you busting Koberlein''s chops about botching the solar neutrino predictions of Scott and Thornhill. You simply ignored his lies and his fraud. Why?

Get over yourself. You don't have a lock on "truth" as it relates to astronomy. For crying out loud, 95 percent of your claims amount to placeholder terms for pure human ignorance! After all the string of lab failures on "dark matter" over the past decade, and all the revelations about the botched mass estimates in 2006, you really have no right to judge anyone.

How about giving poor Clinger a hand on that math formula I asked him for *years* ago. Apparently he's having problems coming up with it. Or maybe he just *lied* when he claimed to get "magnetic reconnection" in a vacuum without a single charged particle to his name?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:08 pm

Magnetic reconnection is about magnetic flux-lines that collide.
But as anyone with some knowledge of Electromagnetism, I know there are no flux-lines.
It has no physical meaning, like much of other stuff that theoretical physics made up.

It would be similar to saying that two beams of light collide.

It would be a total change in the physics of electromagnetism and light, if flux-lines would really exist.

-----

But to strengthen the case of Alfven, we could create a simulator
for the electromagnetic reactions in plasma?
Such a simulator would be based on basic known physics.
Something that is impossible with magnetic reconnection,
because there is no basic physical law that supports that.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:14 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:Magnetic reconnection is about magnetic flux-lines that collide.
But as anyone with some knowledge of Electromagnetism, I know there are no flux-lines.
It has no physical meaning, like much of other stuff that theoretical physics made up.


Anyone who really understands basic EM field theory knows that magnetic fields form as a full continuum, not little esoteric lines, and that unlike electric fields, magnetic fields do not have a source or a sink. There is no such thing as a monopole so it's impossible for any magnetic line to disconnect from one sink, or reconnect to any other sink. The whole "reconnection" claim is *physically* FUBAR.

But to strengthen the case of Alfven, we could create a simulator
for the electromagnetic reactions in plasma?
Such a simulator would be based on basic known physics.
Something that is impossible with magnetic reconnection,
because there is no basic physical law that supports that.


It's already been done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Birkeland easily generated a "corona" and "aurora" in the lab. The mainstream will never create a spherical hot corona using "magnetic reconnection". They even use electric fields to generate the plasma filaments in mainstream "reconnection" experiments. They then claim it's a "magnetic reconnection" process even though it's really just a "circuit reconnection" process at best case. The moment you look at the process via circuit theory, the whole reconnection claim falls apart.

It was actually useful for me to post for awhile at JREF. I got to find out first hand just how little the mainstream understand plasma physics, and how poorly they even understand basic EM field theory. Clinger took *months* to completely paint himself into a corner, and the moment I asked the math formula he was incapable of producing, they had to ban me to shut me up. :)

The mainstream really knows almost *nothing* about the physics of the universe. That's why they're reduced to using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of it, and 5 percent "pseudoscience". :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:35 am

JonesDave116
Just for a bit more clarity, for people who may be lurking and are possibly not able to post on here, due to being terminally stupid and offensive:


You folks have to constantly *cheat* at debate by inserting personal attacks into pretty much every single post. God forbid anyone return the favor lest they be banned forever. You cheat and you have to hide behind a corrupt moderation system too. That's why you folks have blatantly avoid me on any neutral ground like Christianforums. You can't handle an honest scientific debate.

Thornhill lied (by omission)


I don't think you understand the concept of a "lie". We all make mistakes, and we all say things that we *believe* to be true, but are not true. We're all "liars" in that respect, every single human being that has ever lived.

A *lie* isn't something *omitted*. That might be a mistake, but leaving something out isn't a "lie".

Brian Koberlein flat out *lied* intentionally when he claimed that Thornhill's solar model predicted "no" neutrinos. *THAT* is an outright lie, and four different people pointed it out so Koberlein banned them all. Tom Bridgman *lied* when he claimed that Birkeland predicted that all protons flowed *toward* the sun too. I even handed Bridgman a published paper by Birkeland himself that predicted the *outbound* flow of both types of particles, and yet Bridgman *continues to lie* about Birkeland's solar model on his blog, just like Koberlein continues to lie about Thornhill's solar model on his blog. They both know that their statements are not true based on the statements of Thornhill and Birkeland, but they continue to propogate their lie anyway. Your beloved Clinger *lied* when he claimed that I claimed that "magnetic reconnection" didn't happen. I said it didn't happen *without plasma*! Clinger still continues to tell lies about me on his blog to this day however. I've never denied the process happens. I just call it "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", but I've never denied that magnetic field energy can be converted into particle acceleration in a plasma, nor did I deny that plasma can be modelled using MHD theory from a field or B orientation.

Those are all good examples of actual *lies*. An omission isn't a lie. It could conceivably be dishonest, but it's not a lie.

You guys leave out important information on nearly a daily basis, in fact you did it again just today:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16151&start=45#p117377

Nobody bothered to mention that ICECUBE tested and *falsified* the whole sterile neutrino claim *just last year*. Are you calling them liars too, or is this just a purely hypocritical EU/PC lynch mob thing?

Why prattle on about a non-existent pre-impact flash, when the biggest news from Tempel 1 was the ice that was ejected?


So what if ice/water was ejected? I don't personally have any problem with water being ejected, and I would think even Thornhill allows for comets to have *various* compositions, some of which I assume would include water. You guys constantly stick false words in Thornhill's mouth however that he never actually states, so it's hard to tell what he *actually* said vs. what you folks *willfully misrepresent* from his statements. Maybe you could quote him where he claims that no comet contains any water whatsoever? Koeberlein claimed he predicted no neutrinos whatsoever, but that was a gigantic *lie*! Quote him please.

How could one say, in regard to the impactor at Tempel 1: "Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact." And then somehow fail to bother to read the papers that show, definitively, that no such X-ray enhancement was seen?


Beats me. I don't even understand the fascination with comets to start with. I don't even personally have any beef with the "standard model" of comets personally, and I'm sure they contain *all* the elements we find here on Earth, including ice and water. I don't have a lot of faith that they are "dirty snowballs" however. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe some are icy, maybe some are rocky. I really don't personally care.

For brevity I'll skip the redundant accusations.

How can said idiot


When it comes to personal insults, you guys can dish it out, but you definitely can't take it. The moment I reciprocated, I got virtually lynched.

then contend that the OH, which won't form, will be then 'misinterpreted' by scientists as H2O? Never heard of spectroscopy, I presume. How are scientists getting a sub-millimeter signal at ~557 GHz from H2O, and somehow confusing that with OH? Hint: OH will not give you a signal anywhere near that wavelength, as would be very easy to find out. I've only got ~ 2 dozen references to such detections between 1985-2006. Obviously some people, who claim to have been studying comets for four decades, are rather selective in their reading.


I don't really know what Thornill believes or doesn't believe about comets, nor do I personally really care. I don't have any problem with comet containing ice and/or water, and frankly I don't care about comets one iota. If he *believes* that OH+ is somehow a "better" interpretation of some observation, I can't stop him anymore than I can stop the mainstream from pointing at Potassium lines and claiming that sterile neutrinos did it, a year after the best "test" of sterile neutrino theory basically falsified them. Lots of people draw irrational conclusions based on a personal preferences. So what? Thornhill didn't do anything that your side didn't do in their "sterile neutrinos did it" article from today!

So, let's have a vote from the non-contributing lurkers:
1) Was Thornhill lying? Or;


No more than your "sterile neutrinos did it" guys lied today. I'm sure they believe that nonsense of course, so I wouldn't call them "liars". I would call them "wrong" however, and I'm personally pretty sure that comets probably do contain water. I'm not sure Thornill would even disagree with that statement.

2) Was Thornhill just grossly stupid?


Maybe on some particular point, he is flat out wrong. If he actually believes that OH+ is responsible for all water type signatures, it's still certainly no more *stupid* than claiming "sterile neutrinos did it" after the last ICECUBE study however. You guys are blatant hypocrites. You ignore your own mistakes and "stupidity" on a regular basis. Look how many times your beloved 2006 baryonic mass estimates were shown to be completely and hugely flawed! You simply ignored every single flaw in that study. You ignored every single "lab test" on dark matter too and you continue to point at the sky and claim that exotic invisible nonsense did it. I personally think you're all grossly incopentent, particuarly after my conversation at JREF about "magnetic reconnection". I'm still waiting for that non existent math formula for a non zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in a pure vacuum. We all know I'm never going to see it too because you're all full of it.

There are no other options.


Just like they're aren't any other options/reasons why I'm never going to get a math formula for a non zero rate of reconnection in a vacuum.

P.S.
Can we now get it in writing that a certain woo merchant believes Carl-Gunne Fälthammar is 'irrational'.


Er no. We might even disagree about some beliefs, but I definitely wouldn't call him irrational.

And still believes (due to an hilarious inability to understand running difference images) that the Sun has a solid surface? Lol.


Of course none of you could explain the persistent features in a single RD image. LOL!

If anybody wants to check that the idiot Thornhill did indeed say the things I have attributed to him, then his and Talbott's 2006 laughably bad 'poster', is here:


I'm sorry but I watched Koberlein flat out lie about Thornhills' beliefs. Let's see your actual quote from Thornhill's website or his book where he claimed that no comet contains any water.

Holy cow. You're so fixated on comets because you can't handle a real debate on any other topic apparently. How sad.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:28 am

jonesdave116

Unambiguous detections of H2O, 1985-2006:


I'm still waiting for you to quote Thornhill where he predicted that *no* water exists on *any* comet. The PDF that Thornhill put out on electric comets states that he expects to see *less* water than the mainstream predicted, and he states that a finding of no water in some cases should not be surprising, but nowhere does Thornhill claim that no comet ever contains any water. You appear to be pulling a Brian Koberlein and simply blatantly misrepresenting (flat out lying about) Thornhill's beliefs and his actual predictions about the water content of comets.

I suspect I'll see your quote where Thornhill predicts that *no* water exists on any comet about the same time that I'll see that formula from you mathematical hot shots for a non zero *rate* of reconnection in a vacuum. It's never going to happen. In the case of Clinger's missing math formula it's already been five years and counting!

Still waiting......

Where's your quote? Where's your math? Where's your ethics?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron