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

Pattern Recognition

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:19 pm

There are two very consistent patterns that I'm seeing from EU/PC haters on the internet. They're either utterly and completely ignorant of the ideas that they're trying to critique, or they willfully *lie* about EU/PC ideas and bash on strawmen all day.

Brian Koberlein flat out *lied* when he claimed that Thornhill predicted "no" neutrinos from Juergen's solar model. When confronted with that error, he tried to irrationally justify the claim not based upon Thornills own statements, but rather by some perceived *omission* of any mention of neutrinos by a third party in some random PDF file. That was flat out *unethical* from beginning to end, and it's all based upon *lying* about the models in question. He even banned anyone and everyone that pointed out his error. That's how unethical he was.

Tom Bridgman may have simply been *ignorant* of the particle flow patterns predicted by Birkeland, but I handed Bridgman a paper on the topic where Birkeland predicted that both types of charged particles flowed from the sun to the Earth, not just electrons from the sun, and protons from "space" as Bridgman erroneously claimed. He's no longer just "ignorant", by not acknowledging his error on his blog, he's crossed the line into simply willfully misrepresenting Birkeland's beliefs. That's about as scientifically unethical behavior as it gets.

Confused Clinger was simply *ignorant* of plasma physics in genreral, and none of the resident haters set him straight, nor have they collectively acknowledged his error on "magnetic reconnection" or help him come up with that missing math formula I asked him for *years* ago. It's been more than *five years* and counting! They're all clueless about plasma physics, and the behaviors of plasma.

Reality Check flat out lies about everything related to EU/PC theory!

Jonesdave116 *flat out lied* when he claims that Thornill suggested that no comets contain any water/ice. That too is nothing but a strawman and nothing but a flat out *lie*. His error could conceivably be based on *ignorance* of Thornhill's beliefs of course, but let's just wait and see if Jonesnave116 admits that Thornhill never predicted that no water exists on any comets, or he gives us a real quote where Thornill claims that no comets contain any water.

There are of course *legitimate* scientific ways to attack any and all EU/PC concepts, but the haters never do that. Instead they willfully *lie* about the model and try to "debunk" their own strawman.

The two clear patterns of all EU/PC haters is a willful ignorance of the ideas they're railing against, and a complete lack of ethical behavior.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:49 am

Dear jonesdave116,

I specifically asked you to quote Thornhill where he personally predicted that *no* comet ever contains *any* water. You failed to produce one or acknowledge your obvious error of trying to falsify his model based on the presence of water. I can only *assume* that the reason you failed to do so is because A) Thornhill never said it, and B) you're burning your own strawman about his predictions, and lying about what he actually predicted.

Now keep in mind that I personally don't "believe" that Thornhill's comet model is the "best" explanation of comets, anymore than I believe that Jeurgen's solar model is the "best" EU/PC solar model, or the correct one. I'm sure that Wal thinks so, I just don't happen to agree with his assessment on those two particular ideas. I'm not personally attached to him being right about either idea, and I personally don't mind you finding *honest* errors in his beliefs. I do however resent you *misrepresenting the models themselves*!

I'm sure that Thornhill may have made some *errors in his predictions* over the years too, just like you folks botched every single possible "test" on "dark matter" for the past decade! Every single one of the mainstream claims about dark matter have been *lies* by your definition, and they make you all pathological liars too by your definition. Is that acceptable to you too Jonesdave? Do you acknowledge your own "lies" (of being wrong about various prediction), or do you just call other people liars when one or more their predictions don't match observation? Hypocrisy much?

I really don't think that you understand the difference between telling an intentional lie, as Koberlein flat out intentionally lied about Thornhill's neutrino predictions, and a *lie* of omission. You're guilty of lying by insinuation and omission. You've insinuated that any amount of water present is an automatic falsification of Thornhill's comet model. That would only be true if Thornhill had ever actually predicted that *no* water exists on *any* comet. When I asked you support your claim that Thornhill predicted *no water*, you couldn't do it. You're blatantly lying by trying to falsify his model based on the presence of water. He doesn't predict *zero* water! That's your own strawman and your own lie about his beleifs. Get it?

IMO you have a legitimate scientific "criticism of the "predictions" of his model" over the missing "flash" prediction, and I think your criticism about his *claim* that previous observations of water could be explained by OH+ is quite valid as well. While that may have been true prior to satellites in space, it's not true anymore. I don't think that Thornhill can justify that claim anymore. Both of those "predictions/assumptions/claims" that he made are legitimate ways to attack his comet theory, and *falsify the theory*. The presence of *any water* however is not a legitimate way to falsify his model. The fact we've seen water does not falsify his model and it could never falsify his model.

While it's perfectly fair to attack his *model*, it's not acceptable to attack his *character* and attack him personally. Do you have any idea how many failed "predictions" the mainstream has made about "dark matter" over the past decade? If I go by your logic, you're all pathological liars extraordinaire because you've been wrong 100 percent of the time! I don't think that way of course, but I could say that if I went by your logic. See the problem?

I really see no evidence that you folks even *correctly understand* the EU/PC models that you try to falsify with "evidence". If you did, you would focus on the *real* problems with the models themselves rather than make them up in your head, or flat out lie about them like Koberlein. You wouldn't attack *people* for being wrong, you'd attack the *model* like I attack the dark matter model and the LCDM model in general. You've falsely "predicted" all kinds of stuff that wasn't true with the LCDM model. Does that make you all liars too, or are you a gigantic hypocrite?

Honestly, all you're doing at this point is demonstrating to the EU/PC community that you're clueless about various EU/PC models. You can't falsify an EU/PC solar model by claiming that it predicts *no* neutrinos when it fact it predicts the existence of neutrinos. You can't falsify a comet model that doesn't predict *no* water by showing that there is water present. See the problem?

IMO, you do actually have some legitimate criticisms of Thornhill's comet "predictions". You have no right whatsoever to attack the *individual* however.

I'm sure that you folks "hold belief" in all sorts of dark whacky nonsense, and I'm sure you're absolutely wrong about all of it too. That doesn't make you "liars" in my book, just horrifically wrong.

IMO you folks don't even understand plasma physics in first place, and that's the real root of your problems. You can't attack a plasma physics oriented model if you don't understand plasma physics. That fiasco over Clinger claiming to get "reconnection" in a pure vacuum without plasma demonstrated that not only was Clinger completely clueless about MHD theory, you're *all* clueless. You can't *possibly* get a transfer of field energy to particle kinetic energy without particles! Clinger *lied* about that claim. None of you set him straight. Is your failure to acknowledge his error and fix his error a tacit *lie* on your part too? Where's that rate of reconnection math formula I asked you all for over *five years ago*?

If you spent less time bashing people, and more time criticizing the *model*, you'd be a more effective communicator. The fact that dark matter models "predicted" things in the lab allows me to falsify the prediction/model. It doesn't allow me the right to call you all "liars" because you were wrong. See the difference? You are technically telling "lies" about dark mater, but I'm sure you actually believe that crap anyway. You aren't *intentionally* lying even if you're not telling the truth.

Making a *failed* prediction never seems to falsify your own models, but you insist that any failed prediction of any EU/PC model is an *instant* falsification of the model. You're all total hypocrites in that regard. There's no way to even completely falsify your nonsense, because you go out of your way to sweep every failed prediction right under the rug, and you have a horrible case of confirmation bias. No observation can "falsify' your beliefs, otherwise "dark matter" theory would be dead and buried. You're being completely hypocritical by *not* accepting the falsifications of your own claims, while fixating on some falsified ideas in another model, and calling them a "liar" as a result. By your definition, you're all liars, and every human being is a liar.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:24 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Making a *failed* prediction never seems to falsify your own models, but you insist that any failed prediction of any EU/PC model is an *instant* falsification of the model..

There are different kinds of "predictions".

One kind is an estimation, a rough guess what might happen when the theory is correct.
A difference in the observation might not be a falsification. It might need an additional theory
or improved model.
Many scientists think that astronomy is in this level, but they are not.

One kind is an calculated outcome, an exact value that gives an observed value.
The observed value can, of course, be disturbed by all kinds of factors.
By modelling these factors, one can improve the calculations.
These do not undeniably proof that a theory is right, but that the calculation model is correct.
when calculations and observations differ, it can disproof models if they can not be improved.

The other kind is a strict limit, something that should happen or never happen when the theory is correct.
These can debunk a theory. Such a theory would need a serious change.
A lot of modern astronomy is on this level. For example the dark matter model really
needs to be changed seriously.

The last kind is a logical constraint. One theory can never be valid, if another theory is correct.
Magnetic reconnection for example can NEVER happen in normal physics,
because (according to well known physics) magnetic flux lines do not exist and can not "reconnect".
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby kiwi » Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:34 pm

Hi Michael

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


How to explain the BB curve from the Sun? .... a "Gas" certainly does not provide a lattice structure... which comes only from a Solid? (or a semi-liquid that can produce a temporary Lattice? )

Apart from anything else the comment quoted is an absurd statement to level at Wal Thornhill
kiwi
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:31 pm

jonesdve116:

Yep, hence my post #3272 above, re Alfvén's thoughts on reconnection. Unless I'm being totally stupid, it is plain in the table there that he is saying the following:

Column 1, bottom row; Energy release through magnetic merging
Column 2 (heading, 'Fluid plasma (MHD), bottom row; Possible

That looks very much to me (but what do I know?) as if he's saying magnetic merging, i.e. magnetic reconnection, is possible. If that's the case, why do the EU evangelicals bang on as if he had totally ruled it out under any circumstances? More rubbish research?


FYI, you're welcome to email me the paper in question to michaelmozina@gmail.com if you'd like me to read it and comment fully on it. I don't recall you being involved in the whole Clinger fiasco, so let me try to bring you up to speed.

Just as JeanTate lied about my beliefs about comets, Clinger lies about my beliefs about "magnetic reconnection". I never personally claimed the process didn't happen, I said it didn't happen without plasma.

The two columns basically describe the B and E approach to plasma modeling respectively. It's "possible" to swap all the E's with B's in Maxwell's equations, and *with fluid plasma* you can mathematically model a process called "reconnection" whereby magnetic field energy is converted to particle kinetic energy.

In a "particle" approach however, that whole concept is as he said, a "mistake". There's no such thing as "magnetic reconnection" in circuit theory, and it's not allowed in circuit theory. It's a mistake to even use such a term in ordinary circuit theory. Alfven used the 'particle' approach exclusively when modelling everything from solar coronal loops, to circuits in the magnetosphere. By his "particle" approach the term "magnetic reconnection" has no meaning, and no value. His double layer paper describes events in current carrying plasma *without* the term. There is of course ordinary *induction* taking place.

Unfortunately neither of those two columns helps out clueless Clinger. He left out not only "fluid plasma", but plasma particles entirely! Neither column even applies to his nonsense. Clinger cannot produce a mathematical formula to describe a non zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in a vacuum because he doesn't have a single plasma particle to his name to transfer any magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. Get it?

Clinger isn't wrong or right based on either column in fact neither column even applies to his lame example because he *forgot the plasma*! Doh!

Keep in mind that I'm fine with the term "circuit reconnection", or particle reconnnection, but the term "magnetic reconnection" is misleading and easily creates misunderstandings, like Clinger's ridiculous nonsense. Somehow Clinger convinced himself that magnetic field lines are disonnecting from and reconnecting to other magnetic field lines inside of a NULL point no less. Gah! OMG.

It's mathematically possible to model plasma behaviors from either the field/B or particle/E orientation. Both models are "ok" in terms of the math. The problem however is that when current is present in plasma, you really need to consider and acknowledge the *entire circuit energy*, not just local influences. Often times the fluid approach gives erroneous results in current carrying environments. According to Alfven in Cosmic Plasma, the entire physical universe is one big current carrying machine. That's why he exclusively used the particle/circuit approach to creating mathematical models in space. It's not like I actually "deny" that you can model plasma using a B orientation. It's even "sloppy but acceptable" if you really insist on calling it "magnetic" reconnection rather than circuit reconnection from my perspective. What you *cannot* do however is remove the plasma *entirely* and claim to get "magnetic reconnection". That's Clinger's dilemma. He left out the plasma entirely so neither of those columns even applies to his model, and he has no physical way to create a non-zero rate of "reconnection" without a single plasma particle to his name.

You heroes at ISF claim that math is king, and they claim to be more proficient than I am, so where's their math formula for a non zero rate of magnetic reconnection in a vacuum? They have no problem at all calling me all kinds of ridiculous and libelous names, but they sure have a big problem coming up with a single math formula for a bunch of supposedly proficient mathematicians. They cant do it because Clinger doesn't understand plasma physics, which is why he made such a bonehead mistake and tried to leave out the plasma entirely! LOL! He cornered himself over rate issue. He's toast and everyone knows it.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:16 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=3281

JonesDave116:
Also, just to continue the OT theme, there was a HUGE 'electric sun' thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=193096), in which Tim Thompson and W.D. Clinger, among others, tried to explain it to MM. MM eventually got banned, seemingly none the wiser.


FYI, I highly respect and greatly admire Tim Thompson. Tim taught me *many* things during my stint over at JREF. I totally respect Tim even if we never agree on EU/PC theory. He was a wealth of useful and interesting published information and his posts were very thought provoking, useful and insightful. Tim was very helpful to me personally in more ways than I can begin to explain. I will always be in his debt. I could not have any more respect for a "critic' of my own beliefs. Sol (not sol88 although he's cool too) also taught me useful things, as did several other individuals at JREF. I left plenty wiser thanks to Tim and Sol and a few others, I assure you. If there's anything I still miss at all about JREF, it's my conversations with Tim.

Unfortunately all that Clinger ever taught me is that even smart mathematicians can paint themselves right into a mathematical corner, and hang themselves high on their own ego if you give them enough rope. He only began to realize that he'd hung himself when I asked him for the missing math formula to describe a non-zero *rate* of "reconnection" in his vacuum contraption. I still don't think he's come to terms with his error yet or he would have taken down that ridiculous website of his by now.

I however, having read that whole thread recently, now have a reasonable understanding of MRx, thanks to the aforementioned TT and WDC!


Um, I hope you realize that everything that you think you know about magnetic reconnection is FUBAR if it relates to anything that you read on Clingers unpublished webpage. Keep in mind that his material is *not* peer reviewed, and it's not accurate either. It's got a few "pretty pictures" mind you, but it's missing the critical math formula to prove his case because he can't produce it.

WDC created a very useful webpage which is still up:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Nerdliness/MR/


Clinger is a mathematics professor as I recall, but apparently he can't seem come up with one single measly math formula that I asked him for to describe a non zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in his silly vacuum contraption. Go ask him why that mathematical formula is still missing from his website over five years after I requested it? Clinger painted himself into a mathematical corner, but he's still living in pure denial of his missing math formula. :)

I put up with all sorts verbal abuse at JREF related to my supposed "lack" of math skills, but when the going got tough, it was Clinger that had no math, and nothing but pretty pictures to show for himself. :) How ironic is that?

And there is the collection linking Tim's posts:
http://www.cesura17.net/~TimThompson/


Tim's commentary is well worth reading by the way, as well as my responses to Tim's posts. I think I learned more from Tim than anyone else in cyberspace, maybe everyone else in cyberspace put together. :) I have nothing but great respect and admiration for Tim Thompson even if we *never* agree on anything related to EU/PC theory.

One of the things I regret either not knowing about at the time, or not having access to at the time of that solar thread you cited was this specific two minute youtube video:

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

You can learn more about the "electric sun" model I was trying to explain in those two minutes than anyone learned about it at JREF in 10 years. :) The first thing that you'll learn from the video is that Birkeland's cathode solar model actually works in the lab. :)

Keep in mind that Birkeland's cathode solar model is different from Juergen's anode solar model in terms of the wiring and the power source. Birkeland's model is an electrical *generator* as well as having a cathode surface, whereas Juergen's (Thornhill/Scott) solar model has an anode surface, and gets at least part of it's power from the universe. AFAIK all EU/PC solar models predict neutrino emissions from near the surface, not just the core. Assuming we ever get a high enough resolution neutrino image of the sun, we should be able to falsify the standard solar model (or EU/PC) models that way.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:51 pm

As someone who has extensively studied EM at a university, I have to reply too.



I just had a few simple, but essential corrections.

"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."


That is perfectly wrong.
Magnetic field lines DO NOT EXIST.

You can have millions or you can have 2, depending on how many lines you want to draw.
It is a visualisation of a field, not a field itself.

You can do the same with gravity, where you draw circles around the sun as virtual places
where a planet might be circling. Or circles around earth where a moon might be circling.
It does not mean that these circles around the sun collapse with those around the earth,
creating some kind of energy...
It is exactly the same principle.

The fact that these lines are seen as something physical shows how bad the understanding is
of common ElectroMagnetism.

"The reality of magnetic reconnection is denied by a .... "

specialists in electromagnetism with a university degree.

Image


The above figure shows how a magnetism can create an almost NEUTRAL place.
The lines are symbolic lines, they have no physical meaning.
There is no connection, no energy creation from this.
NOTHING HAPPENS.

However, a changing magnetic field can induce an electric current.
This current corresponds with the change of the magnetic field,
and has nothing to do with any "magnetic field lines".
This is how we make AC electricity in our homes.

It looks like astronomy has mistaken the CHANGE in magnetism,
with the movement of SYMBOLIC lines in a magnetic field.

The fact that astronomy has these kinds of theories is really cringing
for someone with a solid knowledge of Electromagnetism.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:00 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:The fact that astronomy has these kinds of theories is really cringing
for someone with a solid knowledge of Electromagnetism.


Yep. In fact, if they had a solid knowledge of electromagnetism they could explain everything that happens in that silly vacuum contraption that Clinger created *without* using the term "magnetic reconnection", because it's *not necessary* and not even applicable! The term "magnetic reconnection" is only related to plasma physics, and Clinger doesn't have a single plasma particle to his name!

The "mathematical error" he made is that he "left out" any formula related to a *positive rate* of "magnetic reconnection". It's not possible for him to come up with such a formula either.

It's really hard to believe how *pitiful* their understanding of even *basic* EM field theory is. It's downright sad. I cringe too.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:32 pm

ferd burfle
Huge thanks for posting this, jd, now I finally get it. People who understand these concepts are smart; people who can explain them, like WDC, to the not- mathematically-gifted are smarter


Ya, he's such a smart and gifted mathematician that cannot even come up with a single measly math formula to describe a non zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in his vacuum contraption in over *five years*! Some gift.

JeanTate:
One of the things I particularly liked, in both these sources and that huge 'electric sun' thread, is the different perspective a mathematician (W.D. Clinger in this case) brings to topics like Magnetic Reconnection and Maxwell's equations, different from the perspectives of physicists and space scientists (not only tusenfem and Tim Thompson), and then again from engineers (dasmiller, for one).


Are any of you mathematical hot shots *ever* going to produce that formula, yes or no? It's already been five years and counting. Help him out Jean. He's obviously struggling with the math.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:11 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
ferd burfle
Huge thanks for posting this, jd, now I finally get it. People who understand these concepts are smart; people who can explain them, like WDC, to the not- mathematically-gifted are smarter



The formulas clearly show how the IMAGINARY magnetic field lines
are interacting with each other. That does not make them less imaginary.

Do you want to see how much mathematics is in astrology? Also uses imaginary lines.

You must be very mathematically "gifted" to make
something that does NOT EXIST seem valid.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:17 am

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=877

Jonesdave116:
Apologies for resurrecting this ancient thread, but Jean Tate suggested we might start a new one regarding comments that were a bit OT in the Electric Comet thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, having done a bit more research now, here is what I take from the EU misunderstandings related to magnetic reconnection:


There is something really amusing from my perspective about you digging up a five year old thread and now you're going to explain MHD theory and magnetic reconnection theory to not only me, but to the entire EU/PC community. :) It's just so cute actually. :)

First off, let's go back to 1976. Alfvén authors the paper:


Did you notice that you had to go back a full decade prior to his double layer paper to even find a statement from Alfven's own lips where he even leaves open the possibility of the reconnection? Notice how he said it remained to be proven? The bad thing for your case/claim is that even back then Alfven insists that the claim remains to be proven so he's not actually *agreeing* with the idea.

So far all you've done is notice that he wasn't *as* closed minded to the the idea and as disillusioned with the idea a decade earlier than he was a decade later. I'd have to say that is a very weak argument at best, don't you?

That's quite a stroll backwards in time, and even then he's not claiming that the idea is valid, in fact he's claiming the idea *remains to be proven* at that time, even *before* he wrote his double layer paper which makes the whole idea irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments.

On Frozen-In Field Lines and Field-Line Reconnection
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...022p04019/full (paywalled)

In that paper he rails against the inappropriate use of the frozen-in concept, and therefore its extension to field line reconnection.

This has been covered by many others before me, who have far greater knowledge in the field. As far as I can make out, he is (rightly) saying that this field line reconnection cannot happen in an ideal MHD scenario. Nobody these days is saying it can, so this is pretty much moot. However, he also says in that paper:

Quote:
In case the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to speak of a 'field-line reconnection' We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism may be applicable, but this remains to be proved.
So, this is quite obviously Alfvén saying that he is not throwing it out entirely, and there may be situations in which it is valid.


He's not claiming it's valid either! Be careful not to pull another "no water/no neutrinos" routine here. He didn't rubber stamp the claim in 1976, nor did he claim it was "proven" in any way in that quote. From my perspective you've having to do some serious quote mining to even leave the barn door open a tiny crack as far back as 76.

So do tell us what he says about the idea later in his career:

Then he goes off on a rant in a conference speech in 1986, saying pretty much the same thing, and calling it pseudoscience:

Double layers and circuits in astrophysics
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9870005703.pdf


He doesn't just call it pseudoscience once, or twice, or three times, or four times. He calls the idea *pseudoscience* (as completely insulting term) *seven* different times in the very same speech! He then explains the behaviors of double layers *without* magnetic reconnection, and made the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments. He also explains in his book Cosmic Plasma that the entire universe is one gigantic current carrying machine, and he uses circuit theory to describe the universe. At no time does he ever personally write any paper extolling the virtues of "magnetic reconnection" theory. I think he got tired of all the ridiculous arguments and silly misunderstandings the term created. Clinger's nonsense is a *perfect* example of why that term is both confusing and misleading. The hot shot mathematical professor is still missing his math formula to describe a non zero rate of magnetic reconnection in a vacuum because it's impossible to describe the transfer of field energy into particle kinetic energy without *particles*! Gah!

However, from a 1987 paper:

Viking in the plasma universe
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...004p00475/full
http://www.imagebam.com/image/26c07e531125370

.....he produces a table (imagebam link above) that states that 'Energy release through magnetic merging' in a 'Fluid plasma' is 'possible'.


You never did email me the paper so apparently you're just quote mining from that single image. I already explained it to you, and neither column helps clueless Clinger because clueless clinger doesn't have any "fluid plasma", not even a single *particle* of plasma. All he's saying in that column is that the *term* is used in MHD theory, and not in circuit theory. He's still not *agreeing that it happens*! You're sticking words in his mouth, just like Thorhnill!

So that would appear to say that his statement from 1976, above, still holds.


No it doesn't. Even in 1976 he claimed that it wasn't proven, so you still haven't shown a quote where he actually *agrees* with the idea. You're *desperately* quote mining at this point, and putting whatever spin you want on whatever you happen to read. You're apparently completely ignoring the other column where he claims that it is a *mistake*, and ignoring the fact that Alfven himself used *circuit/particle* theory to describe all high energy events in space.

Worse yet, you're trying to imply that those seven references to pseudoscience, and his references to putting nails in the coffin of the claim simply do not matter at all. Give me a break.

Now, he knows that it cannot happen in an ideal MHD situation, so what is he saying here? Well, to my mind, it is obvious that he realises that there may be non-ideal MHD situations where it is possible. This would not be at all surprising, given the stance taken by his collaborator Carl-Gunne Falthammar.


To your mind? You're a mind reader now, or mind reader *of* a mind reader (Falthammar)? How come to your mind all those references to Alfven calling magnetic reconnection "pseudoscience" don't matter to you, and those comments about him personally helping to put nails in it's coffin don't matter to you? Talk about lame rationalizations. It's not like he ever overtly came out of the closet *in favor* the idea, but he certainly and completely came out *against* it. In fact he personally tried to nail the coffin shut in all current carrying environments with his double layer paper.

Falthammar was a co-author of Alfvén's, and may have been a student of his(?). It is obvious that they worked together closely, and were of a similar mind.


Um, even I've helped publish enough papers to know that not all authors agree on all ideas. You have a hundred papers from Alfven to choose from. I suggest you make your case with *his* work. Nobody doubts that *other people* accept the term "magnetic reconnection", myself only grudgingly included, and only in certain circumstances (in plasma). We are however debating *Alfven's* beliefs, not my beliefs or anyone else's beliefs. You should not have to read his mind, or quote anyone else, just his own words which were quite harsh in that keynote speech. He was *really* on a tirade about both the 'frozen in" claim, as well as the reconnection claim. He trashed both ideas repeatedly and *publicly*.

Since this conversation is about Alfven's beliefs, not anyone else, I'm simply going to ignore any of your reference that are not from Alvven himself. You really need to make your case with Alfven's own statements and you have plenty of material to choose from because Alfven was a prolific writer.

Quote:
The nonexistence of parallel electric fields was later challenged by Alfven, who suggested that auroral primary electrons may gain their energy from falling through a parallel potential drop above the ionosphere and described how parallel electric fields can 'cut' magnetic field lines. Alfven's idea was contrary to contemporary beliefs and was almost universally disregarded, but when in situ measurements in space became possible, they brought the first indications that Alfven might be right. Since then, an overwhelming amount of empirical data have proven that magnetic field aligned electric fields exist and are of key importance in the physics of auroras [Falthammar,2004], in magnetic field reconnection [Mozer,2005], in shocks [Mozer et al,2006],and in plasma turbulance and many wave modes
.
So, it is obvious that Falthammar, by 2007 at the latest, has been converted to the dark side.


I'd say that Falthammar begrudgingly accepted the term (like I did) because it is mathematically valid to solve Maxwell's equations for both B and E. *if* you understand the actual plasma physics process, the term is just a term. If however you don't really understand the physical process that's occurring in *plasma*, it's a completely confusing term which is *never* used in solid state EM field theory or in the "particle"/E oriented modeling of the same events using circuit theory. Both mathematical approaches can be used to describe the exact same events in plasma. The term "reconnection' has no meaning at all in the circuit oriented approach.

But, hold on; what is he saying in this second quote? First of all, he's got Alfvén suggesting that non-existent field lines can be 'cut'!


Um, don't go all ballistic there just yet. *Birkeland curents* can be cut, but only by cutting the power. The "field aligned currents sustain the magnetic field "line/rope/filament", so if you do break the circuit, you do break the "line" in a sense. You're not even quoting Alfven, just a friend of Alfven, and your'e trying to build a federal case over the term "cut", while ignoring 7 references to 'pseudoscience' and nails in coffins?

Kinda reaching in terms of your rationalizations there aren't you?

Strange that they can be 'cut', but cannot reconnect.


Except you never actually quoted Alfven using the term "cut" in reference to a magnetic line, so we don't have any published evidence from Alfven himself where Alfven actually used that term.

What are they then doing? Just wafting around in the breeze? Who knows? Read on. And then he goes on to say that poor old Hannes was disregarded by contemporary scientists, and that he then turned out to be right. Happy days. And then good old Alfie's brilliant suggestion about magnetic field aligned electric fields is now a key factor in such things as, !tada!, magnetic field reconnection! Brilliant. So the whole concept of MRx is, yes you heard it here first folks, due to Alfvén! Well, at least that's the spin that Carl-Gunne puts on it.


Whaaaaaaat?!?!? Um, no, that's actually your spin on another person's spin on what Aflven said and did. It completely ignores the fact that Alfven himself called the idea pseudoscience, and did his best to nail the coffin shut on the idea. Your whole approach is to spin anything and everything you can, while blatantly ignoring his own negative statements on this topic. Why? You don't like his statements and you can't handle his opinions about magnetic reconnection, that's why.

So, to summarise;
MRx is all Alfvén's fault.


He personally *railed* against the idea! By your logic Martin Luther KIng Jr. was the cause of racism in America too! OMG. You're got logic and common sense standing on it's head. Alfven did his very best to correct the misunderstandings that were occurring throughout his own lifetime. He simply wasn't successful and nailing the coffing shut, but not for any lack of effort.

He led poor old Carl-Gunne astray as well. Not to mention a shed load of other scientists, including those on this board. However, the EU people think he's wrong. Hey ho. Either that or they don't know what they think, because they don't understand what he was saying, and/or didn't bother to do any research to find out.


It doesn't look to me like you did any research to find out what he actually believed on this topic. Instead you seem to have gone quote mining for *anything* that might give you breathing room.

I've explained this to you before, but I'll try one more time. None of this, not one little bit of it helps poor confused Clinger. Neither of those two columns you cited even applies to Clinger's silly vacuum contraption because Clinger doesn't have any fluid plasma, and no way to transfer field energy into particle kinetic energy. How can you all simply ignore that fact?

The mathematical proof that Clinger is clueless is that he's a *math professor* who's apparently incapable of providing us with a single measly math formula to express a non zero rate of "reconnnection" in a vacuum!

The physical proof that Clinger is clueless is the fact that he even thinks that magnetic "lines" are "real" in the first place! OMG! Mangetic fields form as a full and complete continuum. You can draw pretty little lines to denote the field topology, just like you can draw pretty little topology lines on any map! That doesn't mean that there are any real little "lines" on the actual ground were you drew the topology line, nor does it suggest you can "reconnection" different topology lines on your map and get million degree plasma out of the deal! Wow. The fact that none of you can tell the difference between ordinary topology changes in a magnetic field and the transfer of field energy into particle kinetic energy is mind boggling to me personally. I can't believe you could be that naive. I can only assume that none of you have much of a grasp of even basic EM field theory if you really think that "magnetic lines" are "real things"! They aren't real things. They're like *topology map lines*, nothing more. You cant' reconnect them to get energy. You can *induce* current in a *conductor* by changing the magnetic field topology, but magnetic fields do not have a source or a sink, and monopoles do not exist. Your understanding of even basic EM field theory is completely FUBAR if you believe that magnetic "lines" have real substance. The field has a topology that you can 'approximate" with one line or a billion lines, just like a mountain might have topology that you can denote with "little lines". That doesn't mean those topology map lines are "real" things.

Feel free to comment, otherwise we can let this ageing thread return to its well earned retirement, safe in the knowledge that MRx is proven beyond any doubt.


If and when Clinger ever comes up with his missing math homework assignment, dig up the thread again. Until then his lack of a math formula is mathematical proof that he has no idea what he's talking about. Go ask Clinger for that missing math formula. Why can't a math professor deliver on his promise to demonstrate his claim "mathematically"?

I'll remind you again that I'm personally not as "hard core' as Alfven with respect to the term. I'm fine with "circuit reconnection", or "particle reconnection" to describe the exact same events in plasma. I'm 'less fine' with the term 'magnetic reconnection" because it's unnecessarily confusing. It sure confused the hell out of poor confused Clinger, that's for damn sure. Holy Cow!

Magnetic *lines* aren't even real to begin with! Topology lines on a map aren't real either. Those little lines are simply are a *mental device* that is commonly used to denote *topology*, nothing more. They aren't *real*! The whole *field* is real, and the whole *field* topology changes over time. Add a conductor the the mix, and viola, you have the ability to transfer field energy into particle kinetic energy - AKA "magnetic reconnection".

Unfortunately however Clinger doesn't have a single charged particle to his name, so his vacuum contraption is incapable of producing any amount of "magnetic reconnection". Worse yet, Clinger is *so* confused that he's convinced himself that magnetic lines "begin" and "end" in a frigging NULL point where *no* lines/fields of any strength even exist in the first place! What a FUBAR presentation. Even someone with a good EM field background could explain every single process that occurs in Clinger's vacuum contraption *without* resorting to the use of the term "magnetic reconnection" because that particular term only relates to *plasma physics*, and there is no plasma present!

Ask the math professor to see his missing math homework assignment. He won't ever actually produce it because he *can't* physically produce it. He can't transfer field energy into particles without *particles*! OMG! How clueless can Clinger be? He *failed* the math part of the exam as badly as he did the physics side of the exam. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Dear jonesdave116

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:33 pm

Dear jonesdave116,

Unlike a lot of the resident EU/PC "haters" over at ISF, you don't strike me as being beyond hope, particularly on this particular issue since you really have no real "dog in the fight" on MRx.

Mathematically speaking, it's "ok" to model plasma from either the B or the E perspective. If however you try to use the B orientation, and simply ignore the circuit energy, the B oriented approach can lead to erroneous results. When you include the whole circuit energy into the discussion, a whole lot of things make more sense, like how a single indivdiual coronal loop can remain at *millions* of degrees of *days* on end. That's an example of a process that's driven by *circuits* which orginate far below the surface of the photosphere, and close far below the surface of the photosphere. Alfven wrote all about circuit theory in relationship to events in space because the whole of spacetime is a current carrying environment.

The term "magnetic" (as opposed to circuit) reconnection is very misleading. Anyone who's taken basic EM field theory classes knows that magnetic fields from as a full continuum, not little tiny lines. They know that magnetic fields have no source, and no sink. Magnetic "lines" therefore *cannot* disconnect from, nor reconnect to tiny little imaginary lines as you seem to believe in your overly simplistic understanding of magnetism.

Individual lines are sometimes used as human conceptual device to describe the *topology* of things, both of mountain ranges, and magnetic field topologies. Suppose we started with a map of a mountain prior to an earthquake and we drew a bunch of tiny topology lines on that map. Now lets say we drew another bunch of lines on a map of the same mountain range after the earthquake. Now suppose we noticed that the topology lines are different between the two images.

By Clinger's clueless and irrational way of thinking, those topology changes in the "lines" after the earthquake were somehow responsible for releasing *massive amounts of energy* into the mountain, and "topology reconnection" somehow *caused* the earthquake! That's pure nonsense. He has all the physics exactly backwards. Not only do magnetic lines not "begin" or "end" in the null point of his vacuum contraption as he erroneously claimed, they don't even frigging exist there at all because the field strength is *ZERO* in that null point! There are no "lines" at ZERO!

Not only is his physical diagram completely FUBAR, Clinger is pathetically misinformed when it comes to the real and actual physical processes that are going on.

Just as with *any* conductor, the moment you change the magnetic field topology, you will induce current in the conductor/plasma. The only difference between induction in solids and induction in plasma is that the ions in plasma also move not just the electrons. Typically they move in the opposite direction from electrons (depending on their charge of course).

Everything that happens in Clinger's vacuum contraption can be explained *without* using the term "magnetic reconnection" because it's all solid state physics. Basic EM field theory can and does explain everything that happens in his vacuum contraption just perfectly.

Only in *plasma physics* will you hear the term "magnetic reconnection". Alfven *hated* that term because it causes so much confusion in the "newbies" like Clinger. They don't "understand" the real physics, because they completely misunderstand the meaning of the term "magnetic reconnection". The term is exclusively related to *FLUID DYNAMICS*. You can't take the plasma out of the equation and ever hope to transfer magnetic field energy into particle acceleration. That's why your holier than thou math professor failed his math quiz at the end of his presentation, and that''s why he still cannot produce that mathematical formula five whole years later! Since he's a professor of mathematics, he can't possibly be incompetent at math, so it's pretty damn obvious that he utterly screwed up the *physics*!

I don't like the term "magnetic" reconnection, and here's why. When they experiment with "reconnection' in the leb, they almost *always* begin with an E field, and two moving *circuits*. When they bring the two circuits into close proximity, they get "circuit reconnection" where the currents follow their own path of least resistance through the plasma, and through the double layer that connects the circuits. There's nothing particularly weird going on, but it's all *electrically driven".

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

The mainstream is so confused by the term "magnetic reconnection" that they have now put the magnetic cart in front of the electrical horse. As that video of Birkeland's solar model *empirically* (in the lab) demonstrates, the corona of the sun and planetary aurora are *electrical* processes in plasma. You can't adequately describe those events in Birekeland's solar model video from the B orientation of Maxwell's equations because E fields and particle kinetic energy are doing the real work.

Clinger, along with almost everyone else at ISF is simply *hopelessly confused* by a very stupid term ("mistake") that should *never* have been used in relationship to electrically driven events.

Clinger *needs* plasma to use MHD theory, and he needs MHD theory to mathematically describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" because that rate formula is directly related to the acceleration of *plasma*. See the problem here yet?

I'd let them use the term "magnetic reconnection" if they actually had any idea what the term really meant, but Clinger's vacuum contraption, and the deafening silence over his error at ISF demonstrates *conclusively* that the EU haters are utterly and totally *clueless* about plasma physics, completely frigging clueless.

You don't have to believe in EU/PC theory, or even understand plasma physics at all to see how screwed up Clinger's presentation is. Even someone with a good backgound in basic EM field theory can see how screwed up it is! Magnetic "lines" aren't even *real*. They're like topology lines you might draw on a map, but the field is really a 3 dimensional shape. Magnetic fields have no source and no sink. They are *created by* the movement of charged particles, aka moving *plasma* when you're talking about plasma physics.

Induction happens in plasma, just like it happens in any conductor when you change the magnetic field topology. No "magnetic lines" even exist, so no "magnetic reconnection" between two magnetic "lines" is even possible. The topology of the *entire field* will change, but it doen't just change in one little line, it changes *everywhere* in the field.

Do yourself and favor and actually read a real textbook on MHD theory. The folks at ISF are simply *lazy*, and their ignorance of these ideas is self imposed. You don't have to follow in their ignorant footsteps, only because you don't happen to care for some concepts that are under the umbrella of EU/PC theory.

Keep in mind that EU/PC theory is a *cosmology* theory written by Hannes Alfven. Various solar models exist under that cosmology theory. They can't all be correct, but one of them most likely is correct.

Don't toss out the baby with the bathwater. Dark matter theory has failed every "test" it's ever been put to, and the mainstream hasn't tossed that claim out yet. Why should you do that to Alfven's cosmology ideas, simply because you don't care for Velikovski, or Jeurgen'ss solar model? Hannes Alfven didn't even use Jeurgen's solar model, he used the standard solar model with *circuitry* to connnect it to the rest of the electric universe.

Don't let the EU/PC bigots pull the wool over your eyes. A falsified comet model, or some weird random idea in EU/PC theory cannot and does not *falsify the whole cosmology* theory as they would *love* you to believe. Don't wallow around in ignorance with the EU/PC haters. They don't even correctly understand EU/PC ideas in the first place which is why they can say such incrediibly ignorant things like "EU theory predicts *no* neutrinos*. Either they are as ignorant a frigging doorknob, or they are utterly unethical to the point of pathologically lying through their teeth. Either way, you shouldn't follow in their footsteps.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby JouniJokela » Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:44 pm

About the Magnetic reconnection, Just remembered this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtBtD0_KZ9o

And though it sort of shows "Magnetic lines", I also agree with the idea that there is no such thing like magnetic lines or magnetic reconnection.

But this phenomenon is obviously real, so the thing I just realized, was that this actually shows the limited degrees of freedom of matter when electromagnetic field is present.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:31 pm

Ferrofluid Spikes-
The video presenter explains the spikes correctly as a conjunction of magnetic field and gravity. A sort of mass interference pattern along the same principle as cymatics.

Lines-
There are no 'lines' because magnetic fields cannot draw. The probably best description of the morphology of a magnetic field is as fibrous.
Yes, magnetic fields are fibrous.
Experiments with magnets and sensitive headphones will make the field morphology evident.
By definition all Fields have some inherent structure, pattern, form or content; otherwise it is just empty space,
yes ?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

The magnetic substance forms regions of similar polarity. A bit like domains in ferro magnetic materials.

The N-S particles attract each other in serial.
[N-S][N-S][N-S]

But push each other away in parallel.
[N-S]

[N-S]

So there must be some distance between these magnetic regions.

The size of these regions depends on the material that is used.

If you have material in a more or less fixed place, no more regions or chains are formed.
The field lines are not visible any more in such materials.

We can also look in wikipedia:
Magnetic field lines are like streamlines in fluid flow, in that they represent something continuous, and a different resolution would show more or fewer lines

Sadly, mainstream astronomy scientists do not understand the basics of a magnetic field.

Note: all these materials must be ferro magnetic to form such field-line patterns.
And plasma is not ferromagnetic, but reacts to magnetism like electric polarized particles.
See this horrible educational video, which
shows in the end how plasma can spiral towards to magnetic poles of the Earth.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests