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

ISF is just whacked out of their collective minds...

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:17 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=754

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
This is one of the insane delusions from the Thunderbolts cult - that magnetic fields cannot be frozen into plasma and thus magnetic reconnection (seen in labs all of the time) does not exist.


Originally Posted by The Man
As I've noted several times on this forum you can demonstrate magnetic reconnection with some typical business card type refrigerator magnets.


For over *7* years I've waited for the clueless horde over at ISF to produce their missing math formula to express a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in Clinger's absurd vacuum contraption. It's never going to happen. They had to ban me to shut me up when I pointed out their their clueless "Math Professor" from MIT was completely missing the most important math formula. That's how desperate they were and how irritated they got when they collectively *failed* a simple math quiz. :)

To this day they still erroneously believe that magnetic lines are "real" things which "disconnect" from and "reconnect" to other magnetic lines, as though magnetic "lines" were ever "real" in the first place! Those so called "lines" are nothing more than a "teaching tool" to describe the 3 dimensional topology of magnetic fields on a two dimensional piece of paper, much like topology lines on a topology map are designed to describe 3 dimensional topology features on a 2 dimensional map! The "lines" aren't "real" to begin with because magnetic fields form as a 3D *continuum*, not tiny little 2D lines that disconnect and reconnect.

Of course it's impossible to 'freeze" magnetic lines into a *plasma* because plasma isn't a solid in the first place, and those aren't real "lines" to start with! OMG.

The clueless mainstream posters at ISF never correct themselves, so they simply don't have the physics skills they claim to have in the first place. The only thing that 'The Man" might ever hope to demonstrate with his refrigerator magnets in air is called magnetic attraction, magnetic repulsion, magnetic force and *magnetic flux*, not "magnetic reconnection".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets

Magnetic reconnection is plasma physics term (exclusively) that is defined as the *transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy* and it *requires* plasma in order for that magnetic flux to induce particle movement in a conductor! Wow.

I really did give the mainstream *way* too much credit. They are utterly and totally clueless about even the most basic concepts of plasma physics, starting with the need for *plasma*!

The only thing that is "seen in labs all the time" is the inducement of charged particle movement in plasma as a result of the introduction of time variable magnetic fields inside of a conductor.

ISF really is a wasteland of pure ignorance and utter stupidity. It's no wonder why they're still wallowing around in the dark ages of astronomy. They don't even understand *basic* EM field theory or they would be able to describe what happens with two refrigerator magnets without even using the term "magnetic reconnection"! Oy Vey.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm

EM is part of my university background and this "magnetic reconnection" thing is really
a big conflict between a practical established part of science and a theoretical
mythical part of science.

Since Michael brought this up again, I want to add what is wrong with the wikipedia article:

From Solar Flare and electromagnetism and..

Related to Magnetohydrodynamics, which is the mathematical basis for magnetic reconnection.

They have made some big errors:

1) They assume that the plasma is a perfect conductor.
2) They assume that plasma is a fluid.
3) The use the Cauchy momentum equation in a wrong way.
4) They assume that the flow of plasma "equals" the flow of current.

They mixed together some formulas that are not supposed to be used together.
They use the same theory and same logic error to explain why they think plasma follows magnetic field lines.

It is clearly created by someone who has no clue about both magnetism and plasma.

Of course it can be correct sometimes, just like a broken analogue clock gives the correct time 2 times a day.

The usual defence is that one needs to be a specialist to be able to understand this.
I have to correct that to: "You need to be trained in a wrong way in physics to swallow such bullshit"
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:12 am

Zyxzevn wrote:It is clearly created by someone who has no clue about both magnetism and plasma.


The whole notion that magnetic lines somehow disconnect from or reconnect to other magnetic lines is simply absurd, so even the term they used to describe this process is utterly ridiculous. If they had called it circuit reconnection, or particle reconnection, it wouldn't have confused poor clueless Clinger and the math professor from MIT wouldn't have flunked his own math test. :) I'll be waiting for that missing math formula to describe a "rate" of reconnection in Clinger's vacuum contraption till the day I die because it's impossible to transfer magnetic field energy into charged particle acceleration without a charged particle to their names. :)

Of course it can be correct sometimes, just like a broken analogue clock gives the correct time 2 times a day.


Yep, and in this case the only thing 'correct' about it is that it is possible to transfer magnetic field energy into particle acceleration in plasma (or any conductor) by introducing a time variable magnetic field into the conductor which will of course induce particle movement. That's the *only* thing that is 'correct' about it.

The usual defence is that one needs to be a specialist to be able to understand this.


That's their "claim", but when I asked them about it, it turned out that neither Clinger nor RC had actually read a real textbook on MHD theory. I think they only thing one has to be is a cult follower to "understand" it. :) Anyone with a background in even basic EM field theory knows that magnetic fields form as a full continuum, and those "lines" aren't real to start with anymore than topology lines on a topology map are real and can disconnect and reconnect to cause earthquakes. :) Their whole concept about MHD theory is FUBAR to start with. They literally know *nothing* about it, starting with the fact that it describes the physics of *plasma*, and without *plasma* those terms (and formulas) are meaningless.

I have to correct that to: "You need to be trained in a wrong way in physics to swallow such bullshit"


Indeed. One has to begin by erroneously believing that magnetic lines have beginnings and endings and can disconnect from and reconnect to other magnetic field lines to release energy. It's exactly like believing that topology map lines are "real" physical things that can disconnect from and reconnect to one another at will to release energy in the form of earthquakes. That's exactly how ridiculous it is to believe in their nonsense.

The fact that "The Man" still (years later) believes that he can demonstrate a process in plasma without plasma simply, and the fact that nobody corrects him, simply demonstrates how ignorant they really are. They literally do not know the physical difference between induction in a conductor, and magnetic flux in a vacuum. It's all the same to them. :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:56 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:.. had actually read a real textbook on MHD theory. I think they only thing one has to be is a cult follower to "understand" it. :) Anyone with a background in even basic EM field theory knows that magnetic fields form as a full continuum, and those "lines" aren't real to start with


How can we get more people educated in EM to look through this shit?
I tried to talk to some people on reddit, but the astronomers are just too religious about it.
The real scientists on the other hand, are able to see through it, but they don't know what to do with it.
They do not understand how bad it is.

Maybe we could get more people to see what is wrong with it.
IEEE maybe?

Other "evidence" is related to the solar magnetic field.
So far it appears to me that the sun's magnetic field is measured via the Zeeman effect.
There do not seem to be any other measurements, and the Stark effect is identical.
This means that any mentioning of magnetic field can be electric fields instead (or mixed).

If astronomers are so wrong with the Sun already,
it does not say much good for anything further. ;-)
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:25 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:.. had actually read a real textbook on MHD theory. I think they only thing one has to be is a cult follower to "understand" it. :) Anyone with a background in even basic EM field theory knows that magnetic fields form as a full continuum, and those "lines" aren't real to start with


How can we get more people educated in EM to look through this shit?


I would think that any first semester class on basic EM field theory would suffice frankly. Anyone who's been introduced to EM field *theory* should know that magnetic fields form as a full 3D continuum, and those 2D "lines" aren't real, they are simply a teaching tool to denote the magnetic field topology just like the 2D topology lines on any topology map. You'd think a basic EM field theory education would do, but apparently not in some cases.

I tried to talk to some people on reddit, but the astronomers are just too religious about it.


I hear you. I did not believe that anyone who'd been exposed to EM field theory would buy this "magnetic reconnection" nonsense, but my experiences at JREF were "enlightening' to say the least. Apparently astronomers tend to specialize in specific areas of metaphysics, like "dark" energy/matter, or inflation, but on whole they don't seem to know very much about even basic EM field theory, and even less about MHD theory. Clinger's vacuum fiasco was simply laughable from the standpoint of physics but not a single so called "professional' bothered to point out to him that he needed *plasma* to transfer magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy to get "reconnection". Even the first paragraph of the WIKI page explains that much about "magnetic reconnection' theory, and it clearly states that it's a process *in plasma* that *transfers energy* into particle acceleration. Clinger and RC didn't even know that much!

Holy Cow. The ignorance factor is unbelievable but the denial process is simply absurd. The moment I pointed out to the cast of ignorant clowns at ISF/JREF, that Clinger, the high and mighty MIT math professor had failed to produce a formula to express a non zero rate of 'reconnection" in his vacuum contraption, I immediately got banned. Watching the math professor bite the dust over his missing math formula was an absolute *riot*! I'll never take any of their math aficionado crap seriously ever again. They're clueless, both in terms of physics *and* math! :) Math? What math? They couldn't collectively come up with a single measly math formula to support their claims, so they had to ban me instead! They're clueless cowards.

The real scientists on the other hand, are able to see through it, but they don't know what to do with it.
They do not understand how bad it is.


I think "professionals" from other fields simply assume that astronomers have some 'explanation" for their idea that works out and the term is just confusing. That was my original assumption anyway. I assumed they didn't really think that magnetic lines are real and are capable of disconnecting and reconnecting to other magnetic lines, but evidently that's exactly what they think happens. They essentially believe that topology map lines 'disconnect" from topology map lines and "reconnect" to other topology map lines and thereby cause earthquakes. That's the equivalent analogy to their "magnetic reconnection" argument.

I had no idea how bad it really was until that conversation at JREF/ISF. That's where I finally realized just how out of touch with EM field theory and physics they really are. Up to that point I gave them the benefit of the doubt, but never again.

Maybe we could get more people to see what is wrong with it.
IEEE maybe?


I think most of those scientists would already realize that there's a problem with the 'term", but they probably wouldn't "assume" that astronomers have so poor of a grasp of EM physics. I seriously doubt that any paper on 'magnetic reconnection' theory would pass peer review in an IEEE publication. Only astronomers would be that gullible.

Other "evidence" is related to the solar magnetic field.
So far it appears to me that the sun's magnetic field is measured via the Zeeman effect.
There do not seem to be any other measurements, and the Stark effect is identical.
This means that any mentioning of magnetic field can be electric fields instead (or mixed).

If astronomers are so wrong with the Sun already,
it does not say much good for anything further. ;-)


When you look at the fact that magnetism is directly related to (caused by) charged particle movement, and charged particle movement is a form of "current", it's pretty easy to understand that the electric field is the real work horse behind all sustained high temperature plasma events in space. How that issue can be overlooked and ignored in solar physics is beyond me. Birkeland not only explained why the sun's corona has a higher temperature than the surface of a sun, he *simulated* that process in a lab and he created a full sphere corona around his solar model.

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

The mainstream could *never* simulate and sustain a full sphere "hot" corona in a lab based on "magnetic reconnection" theory because induction is an *isolated/localized* event to begin with, and it's a time limited event as well. Magnetic fields do not heat and sustain million degree plasma in the lab for hours on end, even if it's possible to induce current and heat plasma on a short term basis by introducing time variable magnetic fields into the plasma. You'd think that would be their first clue that they are missing something important, but *noooooo*! :(

The basic problem is that not only is 95 percent of their cosmology theory a metaphysical piece of crap, the other 5 percent is mostly just pseudoscience and total nonsense. Astronomers literally have no actual empirical "knowledge" to offer anyone, and they have no real "expertise" on anything other than myth making with magical math formulas.

Nothing they espouse actually works in the lab as described as best demonstrated by all their billions of dollars worth of lab failures with "dark matter" theory. Birkeland literally knew more about solar physics over a century ago than the collective expertise of the mainstream to this very day. It's really that bad. It's hard to believe mind you, but it really is that bad. I didn't realize how bad it really was until I attended a meeting on solar physics at LMSAL several years ago, and I didn't realize the depth of the problem until that surreal discussion on magnetic reconnection at JREF/ISF.

I think it's natural to give someone the benefit of the doubt to start with, and not everyone in the public has been exposed to basic EM field theory so it's easy for astronomers to pull the wool over the eyes of most people. Anyone however with a firm grasp of basic EM field theory knows that the 'lines' aren't any more real or any more substantive than the lines on a topology map.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:22 am

I think one problem is that the astronomers think that the lines on the sun
are actual magnetic field lines.

I will try to explain it in a way that even astronomers may be able to understand.

Let me start with some examples:

Image
link


These lines look a bit like field lines, don't they?
But are they?

NO! They are NOT magnetic field lines.

Magnetic field lines do not really exist

Image
In magnetic fields iron particles can clump together in lines.
Note that these lines are static, not moving at all.
It also only works with with ferromagnetic materials.
Everything else does not behave like this! Nor does plasma.

We can watch these movies
Image
Image

We can see that plasma is moving along the lines, and sometimes they
are spreading apart.
If something moves, it is a current.

This means that these lines behave like like the currents in a plasma globe.
Image
link


What if we compare a plasma globe to the sun:

Is this the sun?
Image


What about this flare?
Image

Is this a star?
Image

Zeeman or stark

Now let's see the zeeman effect or stark effect on the sun.
See this link
(from here)

The sunspot has a strong effect. But is it zeeman effect (magnetic field) or stark effect (electric field)?
It seems to me that it is the latter.

The astronomers have assumed that there is no electric field, "because plasma".
And that is it. They assume that plasma can not contain electric fields, because they assume
that plasma is a "perfect" conductor.
Plasma can indeed conduct electricity, but it is far from "perfect".
It is even so that we can see these currents in space when they are strong enough.
Like the plasma globe examples that I showed above.

The same happens with this article:
Why is massive star formation quenched in galaxy centers?
Image

"Magnetic fields control the collapse of the molecular clouds in the nuclear ring of the galaxy NGC 1097. As a result, formation of massive stars is suppressed in zones of strong magnetic fields (contours).
"

It is not the zeeman effect, it is the stark effect!
This means that it is the electric field.

So we can read this as:
"Electric fields control the collapse of the molecular clouds in the nuclear ring of the galaxy NGC 1097. As a result, formation of massive stars is suppressed in zones of strong electric fields (contours).

Which is essentially what the Electric Universe is telling us.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby neilwilkes » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:17 pm

It's a bit of a shambles really whatever way we look at it and Chapman has a lot to answer for.
There are a couple of passages that I am reminded of:
1 - Hannes Alfven, from "Cosmic Plasmas"
The crushing victory of the theoretical approach over the experimental approach lasted only until the theory was used to make experimentally verifiable predictions. From the theory, it was concluded that in the laboratory plasmas could easily be confined in magnetic fields and heated to such temperatures as to make thermonuclear release of energy possible. When attempts were made to construct thermonuclear reactors, a confrontation between the theories and reality was unavoidable. The result was catastrophic. Although the theories were generally accepted, the plasma itself refused to believe in them. Instead, the plasma showed a large number of important effects which were not included in the theory. It was slowly realized that one had to develop new theories, but this time in close contact with experiments.
The "thermonuclear crisis" did not affect cosmic plasma physics very much. The development of the theories continued because they largely dealt with regions of space where no real check was possible. The fact that the basis of several of the theories had been proved to be false in the laboratory had very little effect. One said that this did not necessarily prove that they must also be false in the cosmos! Much work was done in developing these theories, leading to a gigantic structure of speculative theories which had no empirical support


2 - Kristian Birkeland, from "The Norwegian Polaris Expedition" (quoted in "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott)
According to our looking at the matter, every star would be the seat and field of activity of electric forces of a strength no-one could imagine. We have no certain opinion as to how the assumed enormous electric currents with enormous tension (voltages) are produced, but it is certainly not in accordance with the principles we employ in techniques on Earth at the present time. It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses of the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Reality Check is a two bit liar and a sleazy con artist.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:31 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=786

Reality Check:
Hannes Alfven stated in 1986 in a workshop about double layers that his opinion was that the frozen in magnetic field approximation was overused, i.e. where the approximation was not appropriate.


No RC, Aflven called it *pseudoscience* and he claimed it was *never* appropriate to use "magnetic reconnection" in current carrying plasma. He also used *circuit theory* and his double layer paper in every instance where the mainstream continues to peddle pseudoscience. Here is what he *actually* said at the very same conference where he first presented his double layer paper that makes the whole concept of "magnetic reconnection" from "frozen" magnetic lines irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments:

Hannes Alfven:

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.


You're such a two-bit liar RC. The only place he even said the 'frozen in" concept "may" be valid was in the dense *core* of the sun, and *not* in light plasma!

Plasma physicists already knew that the approximation could be misused and were already working on treating fluids with finite electric conductivity. That was back in 1986. That is 31 years ago!


And yet 31 years later they still *misuse* the same stupid concept and try to apply it to solar atmospheric physics and magnetophere activity where it clearly *cannot* apply because the whole solar system is a current carrying *light* (not dense) plasma environment! You're still full of it RC.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=787

The Wikipedia article is about MR in plasma and skips the simpler examples of MR in vacuum and air. These are both real physical, trivial processes.


Bullshit. MR does not occur and cannot occur without charged particles and without charged particle acceleration because it's a process *in plasma* that requires a *transfer of field energy* into particle kinetic energy and particle movement. You're still nothing but a two bit liar. It's not just *trivial* without plasma, it's physically *impossible* without plasma and plasma particle acceleration. That's exactly why it's *impossible* for you two clueless pinheads to come up with your missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in Clingers ridiculous vacuum contraption. For an MIT math professor and his clueless physics sidekick, you two are sure are incapable of producing the necessary math formula to demonstrate your claims. Where's your missing math formula RC?

We have a magnetic reconnection thread containing another Thunderbolts cult member absolute denying of even physics textbooks. This is the 'Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)' thread where I quote Somov's textbook section on MR in vacuum. He could not even understand that there were 2 sections with the titles:

4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum
4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma



Liar. In both of those two examples Somov *included* A) plasma in the form of two currents, and B) plasma particle acceleration in the form of moving charged particles, both of which you and clueless Clinger forgot to mention or include in your FUBAR example! You're such a lying sack of crap RC.

Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II has most of the text of 4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum.


Image

The x's in his included diagram show the position of those two currents (I) which mark the two spots where Somov *includes* plasma and he *includes* plasma particle movement (displacement) in his so called 'vacuum". The area *around* the current channels in his diagram may indeed be a "vacuum" in example 4.4.2, but his vacuum and his diagram is not devoid of plasma like clueless Clinger's bullshit.

Hannes Alfven knew the basic fact that double layers and magnetic reconnection are 2 different physical processes.


No, he knew that a double layer was real and he knew that magnetic reconnection was "pseudoscience" and he tried to nail the coffin shut on that pseudoscience with his double layer paper. You're incapable of even telling the truth.

They can happen together. I recall one experiment measuring magnetic reconnection and detecting that double layers formed after the reconnection.


You mean they induced movement in plasma by varying the magnetic fields? I'm sure it required *electrical current* to make it work too. :) You're nothing but a two-bit con artist who cannot tell the truth RC. Nothing that comes out of your mouth is true which is why neither you or Clinger has ever come up with your missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "reconnection" in Clinger's ridiculous vacuum contraption. You two miserably failed your own math test. You are just plain *sleazy*, not to mention clueless. Hell, you even spent months claiming that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma! Who the hell are you to to badmouth anyone? You can stick it where the sun doesn't shine RC.

The only "cult" in astronomy today is the LCDM cult. It's the only cosmology theory around today that *requires supernatural metaphysical dogma* to make it work. "All hail the invisible matter/energy/inflation/pseudoscience sky daddy gods".
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:42 am

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=797

[SelfSim:
And ... looks like he's still arguing about it at cult HQ .. (and still using abusive language)!


Wow, what absolute gall!

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

Reality Check (and most of you) hide behind autonomous handles, you folks willfully and consistently misrepresents and even flat out *lie* about EU/PC solar theories (plural) on a regular basis, and you have the nerve to whine about me using "abusive" language? Really?

Let's take a quick look at a few of RC's recent verbally abusive posts, shall we?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=762
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=750
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=748
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=670

As long as RC is going to act like a bully and a coward, while hiding behind an autonomous handle, spewing tons of insults in virtually every post, he damn well better be able to "take it" too. If you won't put a muzzle on him, stop whining about other people's responses to his flat out lies.

SelfSim:
Oh .. and Mozina seems to like criticizing professional mathematicians so much ..


I have waited for your dynamic duo to provide me with a math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in Clinger's ridiculous vacuum contraption for almost 7 years now and you all run away and hide from that simple mathematical request like frightened little children, even though Clinger *promised* us that he would prove his case with math. Meanwhile Clinger has the absolute audacity to misrepresent my statements and my position on the topic of magnetic reconnection theory on his blog page over that entire time!

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/ ... zina0.html

Clinger:
Disregarding that evidence, many promoters of Electric Universe pseudoscience continue to deny the reality of magnetic reconnection. One of those deniers responded to my demonstration of magnetic reconnection by (surprise!) repeatedly denying magnetic reconnection.


That is a flat out lie. I didn't "deny" magnetic reconnection, I denied that it was possible to achieve "magnetic reconnection" without *plasma* and plasma particle acceleration! You people have no ethics at all and you flat out lie about my statements and my beliefs.

You folks pride yourselves on your math skills, but it's a complete ruse. Your math skills are obviously *woefully* lacking because not a single one of you math aficionados have helped poor clueless Clinger come up with that missing math formula to describe 'a non zero rate of magnetic reconnection' without a plasma particle to his name, nor have any of you set him straight over his *bonehead* error! You can't get "magnetic reconnection" without transferring magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. Period. That's why you *all* run and hide from my simple request to back up your claim with a real math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection' in Clinger's absurd vacuum contraption that is described on his blog.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=799

...how about an update on his progress in acquiring some math skills of his own?

Well, as it turns out, I can report that he recently went on a massive rampage trying to convince all at another forum that his logic (on LIGO's sigma calculations) was flawless .. (never mind that it led to the stupendously tumultuous conclusion that 1=0.5! )


That's another perfect example of your lack of ethics. You flat out *misrepresented* my statements, my position, my beliefs and my obvious use of a *two letter variable name*! For God sake! You folks have ZERO ethics, and you don't even actually care about "science" or truth. All you care about is protecting your funding and your prestige, and you blatantly and willfully *lie* about EU/PC models and people while hiding behind cowardly unanimous handles no less. Proud of yourselves? Your unethical behaviors wouldn't be so outrageous if you weren't using 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance and 5 percent pseudoscience to describe the universe. You people are *clueless* about real physics. All you ever write about is metaphysical crap and pseudoscience. The only 'cult" in astronomy today is the supernatural, metaphysical invisible, impotent on Earth cult of LCDM. Your financial failures on dark matter now amount into the *billions* (plural), and you refuse to accept no for an answer.

Where's your math hot shots? Put up or shut up.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:22 am

Haha..
Magnetic reconnection by T.Thopmson.
I found one crazy scientist there that does not understand EM at all.

Magnetic reconnection is now known to be responsible for rapid movements and bursts of light in the aurora borealis, and is believed to be responsible for similar phenomena seen in solar flares.

No it is not. It is just a bullshit theory.

The "maths" is just an calculation of the imaginary magnetic field-lines.
I can also use maths to calculate lines that describe the visual directions
of the planets relative to earth or the sun.
Yes, the "magnetic reconnection" idea is similar to astrology.
It may give pretty pictures, but is it useful?

The image shows how much bullshit it really is:
Image
link (may not work later)

The animation above begins with a magnetic field line topology in which

Every field line either
begins at the neutral point,
ends at the neutral point, or
loops back on itself.
Given any 5 field lines that loop back on themselves, at least one of the 5 field lines lies within the loop formed by another of the 5 field lines.

Those are topological properties of the magnetic field lines, which means those properties are preserved by any homeomorphism of the field lines.

It shows imaginary field lines. So what?
You can choose ANY amount of imaginary lines as long they follow the FIELD.

Reducing the current within the north and south rods to zero yields a magnetic field line topology in which

Every field line either
begins at the neutral point,
ends at the neutral point, or
loops back on itself.
Given any 3 field lines that loop back on themselves, at least one of the 3 field lines lies within the loop formed by another of the 3 field lines. The original magnetic field did not have that last property. That means the topology of the magnetic field lines must have changed as the current in the north and south rods was reduced to zero. The topology changes again as the current is increased back to 1000 amperes.

Those changes in topology are what we mean by magnetic reconnection.

Reducing the current, causes a change in the magnetic field.
And from Faraday/Maxwell we know that the change in the magnetic field causes
an Electric field.
The electric field is defined by curl(E)= -dB/dt link

This is curl(E) is very difficult for astronomers, so I can understand that they want to look at pretty
moving lines instead. But these lines have nothing to do with it.
This leads to very bad physics.

You can even have the same line-configuration, while there is a change in the magnetic field.
This can happen due to increasing electric currents flowing into the same direction.
Or by changing the medium that is in between the currents.

The phenomena that "magnetic reconnection" tries to describe do not have anything to do with magnetism
nor "reconnection".
The lines on the sun are clearly electric currents, not magnetic field lines.
That means that we see shortcuts of currents when these lines collide with each other.
And these shortcuts causes solar flares.
Wow.
With one simple explanation, I just blasted away 100+ PhD students with their bullshit theory.
I hope they find a better job.
With the maths that they know so well, maybe they can do astrology instead.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:52 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:Haha..
Magnetic reconnection by T.Thopmson.

FYI, that link and that FUBAR webpage and diagram belong to Clinger, not Thompson. Tim Thompson may have been surly and condescending towards me at times, but he posted a *wealth* of useful links and supporting material when he tried to make his points, whereas clueless Clinger never once produced any published materials to support any of his ridiculously false statements. I have nothing but respect for Tim Thompson, and nothing but contempt for clueless Clinger. Clinger is crazy alright and he doesn't even understand *basic* EM field theory, let alone MHD theory. Clinger even admitted to me that he'd never read a single textbook on the topic of MHD theory in fact.

With the maths that they know so well, maybe they can do astrology instead.


The really sad part is that they'd probably have exactly the same lack of success at predicting anything useful in the lab based on astrology as they have with LCMD today. :( Unlike the CDM fiasco, I doubt that anyone has blown billions of dollars supposedly "testing" astrological claims in the lab yet, so it's conceivably possible that they might actually have *more* success in the lab promoting astrology. :)

Considering the fact that their whole LCDM model amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance and pure pseudoscience, and LCDM requires four different supernatural elements, they really have nothing to lose by becoming astrologers. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Run JeanTate, Run!

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:06 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st12096584

JeanTate:

I don’t know whether to thank you or curse you, RC!


Oh, I can tell you..... :)

I found that thread quite riveting, couldn’t tear myself away from it, for well over 10 hours!!


Ten hours? It took you ten hours to figure out that plasma and plasma particle acceleration are not 'optional' in the process known as "magnetic reconnection"? Wow. The very first sentence of the WIKI definition can give you that answer in few seconds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

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.


Emphasis mine. RC's gross *oversimplification fallacy* doesn't fly. You can't take out the transfer of energy requirement described by the term "magnetic reconnection", nor the plasma!

Yes, it’s OT; but just when I thought the discussion couldn’t possibly turn any more surreal or bizarre, it did! A vacuum becomes a plasma when there are two current carrying wires are in it ... and even when they are not (in it) ... whodathunkit


It's surreal alright that RC simply\ "made up" (flat out lied about) the term "wires" when the term doesn't exist in Somov's example, not in section 4.4.2 or 4.4.3. RC simply made up (blatantly lied about) the term "wire" just like RC made up the term "actual" when RC erroneously claimed that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma", as though the term "actual" has any "actual" scientific meaning.

Reality Check has a bad habit of simply *lying* about what Somov said (Somov never used the term wires), lying about what Dungey said (Dungey used the term electrical discharges in relationship to solar flares), lying about what Peratt actually said (Peratt said that electrical discharge were *possible* in plasma), and lying about pretty much everything we've ever talked about in cyberspace, including *lying* about what Findlay wrote in his PDF file since Findlay never mentioned the term neutrino in his entire PDF.

Image

RC made up the whole "wire" nonsense because Somov specifically used the terms "parallel currents" and 'displacement" in a book that is all about *plasma physics*. Worse yet, in Somov's diagram and in his examples, the *currents* are "displaced" as a result of "reconnection", whereas solid wires wouldn't move and would not be "displaced" in the first place! Somov's example *includes* A) plasma in the form of parallel currents and it includes B) *plasma particle movement (kinetic energy transfers, aka "displacement") as a result of the reconnection process. Somov's example is therefore perfectly congruent with the WIKI description of magnetic reconnection.

Clueless Clinger and his ignorant sidekick RC, don't have a single frigging charged particle to their names, and they simply left out both A) plasma and B) plasma particle movement!

You people are just pathetic. You pride (and I do mean pride) yourselves over your presumed superior math skills, yet I've waited now for about 7 years for one of you mathematical hot shots to come up with a math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "reconnetion" in Clingers absurd vacuum contraption, and none of you have delivered. What does that say about your ineptitude at either math or physics, or both? You're all clueless about real physics even if you have some math skills. I guess that's because all you ever write about is invisible, intangible, metaphysical, supernatural bullshit.

Where's your missing math formula Jean? Put up or shut up!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=800

Captain Swoop:
Gosh, didn't realise Mozina was still pushing his stuff after all these years!


Ya, and I didn't expect to have to wait 7 long years for a single measly math proof either, but apparently your whole ISF/JREF community is inept at math or inept at physics, or both.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:09 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st12096702

SelfSim:

If I recall correctly, this miracle was considered justified because Somov's textbook was entitled: 'Plasma Astrophysics' therefore.....


Image

....therefore, when the author introduces two "parallel currents" into his his so called "vacuum" in the context of "plasma astrophysics", it's probably more logical to assume that he's adding *plasma* to that "vacuum" rather than adding solid "wires", a term that Somov never once mentioned.

No of course if we had any doubt about which idea Somov was trying to convey and which thing he was adding to his 'vacuum', plasma or wires by adding two parallel currents, all we need to do is look at the fact that the currents are "displaced" as a result of the "reconnection" process, something that simply would not happen to two solid "wires" in that same "vacuum". In fact we wouldn't even need to use the term "magnetic reconnection" to describe anything related to solid state physics in the first place. "Wires" would be completely out of context with book about "plasma" astrophysics and it would be completely at odds with the first sentence of the wiki definition of "magnetic reconnection" which specifically describes MR as a process which occurs *in* plasma where magnetic field energy is converted into charged particle kinetic energy.

I never said squat about "double layers" or anything of the sort, but then again you folks never worry about actually being honest about my statements or my arguments. Integrity was never your strong suit.

Speaking of miracles, it would be a *miracle* for space to do expansion tricks. Penrose calculated that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that inflation would lead to a "flat" universe than without inflation. Talk about miracles. It would be a "miracle" if your whole grapefruit sized "near singularity" thingy didn't immediately collapse into a singularity since such a tiny physical object would be *well* inside of the Schwartzchild radius of an object which contains all the mass/energy of the whole universe. It would also be a *miracle* if you ever actually found any laboratory evidence of exotic forms of mass or energy after already wasting billions of dollars and finding nothing. It would take a miracle for clueless Clinger to come up with his missing math formula too. You LCDM cult followers are all about putting your faith in all sorts of supernatural "miracles", whereas I prefer common sense and some amount of rational *context*!

Wires? Where the hell would I find the term "wires" in sections 4.4.2 or 4.4.3 in a book about 'plasma" astrophysics? Holy Crap. Talk about bizarre rationalizations. You folks are just grasping at straws.

Where's your bloody math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in Clinger's ridiculous vacuum contraption without a single plasma particle to his name? Run SelfSim, run. Math? What math?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st12096847

Clueless Clinger:

Consider yourself lucky. I participated in that thread for months.

The thread became so repetitive that I created a web page quoting three weeks of Mozina's responses to my own five-part derivation of magnetic reconnection directly from Maxwell's equations. Someone who wants to read just a sampling of that thread's madness could start there.


And what you'll quickly discover is never once did poor clueless Clinger ever provide us with a math formula to describe a non-zero rate of 'magnetic reconnection" in his stupid vacuum contraption or anywhere in his five part clustf*ck presentation! You flunked your own math quiz professor.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:15 am

Looking at the texts, it looks like that these astronomers have made their
own version of Electromagnetism based on field-lines only.
There are many cases in which their alternative EM theory does
not work at all. Moving "reconnecting" field-lines do not need to produce any
energy in the form of electric fields (which they do not even know),
and static field lines can produce electric fields.
From their texts it is clear that they do not understand EM at all.
Nor plasma physics.

Their "physics" is like being thrown back into the middle ages and to
be forced to work with astrology to explain everything.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:39 am

Zyxzevn wrote:Their "physics" is like being thrown back into the middle ages and to
be forced to work with astrology to explain everything.


Yep, that about sums it up alright. They're total hypocrites too. They claim that "math" is oh so important to physics, but when I pointed out that Clinger has presented no math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "reconnection" in his ridiculous vacuum thingy, they all run from that problem, and/or ignore that problem as though it somehow doesn't matter to them that it's mathematically impossible to get "recoonection' without particles and particle acceleration.

They don't even understand *their own ideas* properly, let alone EU/PC models, and they're complete hypocrites when it comes to the math. Math only matters to them if it works in their favor, otherwise it doesn't matter one iota to them. Clinger, a supposed math 'professor" at MIT can't come up with a non-zero rate formula to support his claim, but they don't care. Dark matter mathematical models have been falsified by the dozens over the past decade but they don't care. The mathematical models they use to estimate the speed of convection in their solar model were shown to be wrong by two whole orders of magnitude and they don't care about that mathematical problem either. EU/PC haters in particular are simply unethical, ignorant, hypocritical cowards who hide behind anonymous handles and unethically attack *individuals* because they can't actually win any debate on a particular *topic* based on actual "science". They therefore engage themselves in sleazy personal attacks galore and they flat out lie about individuals too, typically while using anonymous handles like utter cowards. It's just sad and pathetic textbook hater behavior.

Reality Check, sjastro/Hotblack/, and Selfsim are the most ignorant, least ethical cowards on the internet. They never stick to the topic. They constantly lie about the individual and/or the topic, and they all hide like cowards behind their pathetic handles. They are sleazy ignorant cowards one and all. At least Clinger has the balls to use his real name so whatever his other faults might be, including his missing math formula, at least he's not a frigging coward like the rest of them.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest