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

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:42 pm

Just when I throw my hands up in the air, I come across another NASA article on MR that conforms to EU theory. This one is even more overt in it's similarities - but instead of dealing with the Sun, it involves the solar wind interacting with the Earth's magnetosphere. They even have a model (in GIF form) of diocotron instabilities and use these to support their claims of MR. So now we have observational evidence for DI on Jupiter, at Saturn's polar vortex, NASA models at the Earth's Magnetosphere, and there were some very old TPOD articles that referenced the instabilities in solar filaments that extend out into the suns corona. The facts are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/taking-a-spin-on-plasma-space-tornadoes-with-nasa-observations

Again, the main differences are mainly semantic - yes a few sentences are clearly LCDM dogma. But for the most part, altering a few words would in no way change the meaning or the definition of the process. The changes would simply acknowledge the role of EM.

They maintain the solar wind is charged particles. They maintain a shear force instability between the solar wind and the magnetosphere. The main issue is that after acknowledging the particles are charged, they then describe this instability in terms of oppositely moving neutral gases (Kelvin Helmholtz waves) and not oppositely moving plasmas (diocotron instabilities).

Twenty years ago NASA would never have printed this, let alone doing so with such indirect reference to electromagnetism. This actually gives me hope that LCDM/EU reconciliation of MR is something that can happen. In my lifetime. Amazing.

I hope this is not simply confirmation bias - that I am seeing what I want to see when I want to see it.

Cheers
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:55 pm

verisimilitude wrote:I hope this is not simply confirmation bias - that I am seeing what I want to see when I want to see it.

Cheers


Not at all. NASA is between a rock and an electric hard spot with respect to space weather forecasting. They already 'know" that there is an electrical connection between the sun and various planets, including the Earth, but they have no idea yet how to fully come out of the closet:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... dec_themis

Even more impressive was the substorm's power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That's approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.

Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found an answer:

"The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mathematical-physi ... netic-rope

These twisted helically structured magnetic fields are called flux ropes or “flux transfer events” (FTEs) and are observed at Earth and even more commonly at Mercury. The conditions that allow FTEs to be generated at a planet worsen with distance from the Sun, however they have been observed at all the planets out to Jupiter.

The observation of this phenomenon at Saturn has been elusive. Searches have been undertaken to find an FTE with NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, with reports published of none being found. Up until now….

The Cassini spacecraft has been in orbit around Saturn since 2004, and after many years analyzing the data collected, Cassini has observed the first FTE at Saturn. The observed magnetic signature was successfully compared to that of a model to show that Cassini indeed observed a flux rope at this giant magnetosphere, and that the spacecraft passed close to the structure’s center. It is also estimated that the flux rope could be up to 8300 kilometers wide.


Emphasis mine. Magnetic ropes have already been shown to connect the sun to every planet out to Jupiter so far.

So how did Hannes Alfven describe a "magnetic rope"?

Hannes Alfven from his book Cosmic Plasma:

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


Everywhere in the solar system that the mainstream tries to use "magnetic reconnection" to describe high energy plasma events, Alfven used circuit theory. Magnetic ropes are the plasma 'wires" which connect the circuits.

Keep in mind that all the laboratory experiments on so called "magnetic reconnection' typically begin and end with an E field that creates two flowing filaments which they then move into close proximity so they can watch them "reconnect' themselves. :) The whole thing is obviously an electrically driven process from start to finish which can be easily demonstrated simply by flipping off the electricity to the experiment, in which case the 'reconnection" process ends immediately. :)

Changing the magnetic field topology in any conductor, including plasma will *induce* charged particle movement inside the conductor, but there is simply no such thing as "magnetic reconnection" as described by clueless Clinger and crew.

It really would make sense to call the process "circuit reconnection", or "particle reconnection", but it makes no sense at all to call it 'magnetic reconnection" because magnetic fields have no source, and no sink. Magnetic lines are not real, nor can they disconnect from, or reconnect to any other magnetic lines. Magnetic reconnection is a stupid and confusing term IMO.

NASA ultimately knows all this IMO, they just don't know how to come out of the closet yet and admit it. I think that's mostly due to the ignorant bigotry of the mainstream toward electric sun theories. Birkeland explained and
simulated a full sphere "hot" corona, as well as planetary aurora over a century ago in his lab:

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

NASA has never been able to duplicate that feat based on "magnetic reconnection", but it's quite easily explained and demonstrated in the lab with ordinary circuit theory. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:19 am

Is this what NASA calls "magnetic ropes" or "magnetic flux lines" ?

Image
link
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:20 am

Zyxzevn wrote:Is this what NASA calls "magnetic ropes" or "magnetic flux lines" ?

Image
link


Yep, and when two of them interact they call it "magnetic reconnection". :ugeek:

When they do an experiment on MRx in the lab, they also tend to start with an electric field and two such current carrying filaments.

Then again, clueless amateurs like Clinger tend to blatantly screw up the whole concept:

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

Image

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.


Since Clinger's vacuum contraption includes no plasma, it's not actually a 'neutral' point, it's an ordinary magnetic null point which he essentially claims are the sources and sinks of magnetic field lines. He actually thinks that magnetic lines "begin" and "end" and 'reconnect' in null points. Oy Vey.

That's exactly why the term "magnetic reconnection" is just a really stupid term, and a very confusing one at that.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:50 am, edited 3 times in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:43 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Yep, and when two of them interact they call it "magnetic reconnection". :ugeek:

When they do an experiment on MRx in the lab, they also tend to start with an electric field and two such current carrying filaments.


Help. They don't even know what (+) and (-) means.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:55 pm

FYI verisimilitude, I uploaded a Helioviewer movie that I made of a couple of sunspots to show you what I mean about sunspot umbras and their polarity. I overlaid a HMI continuum image so you can (barely) see the two umbras of the two sunspots, along with a magnetogram image so that you can see the black/white color overlay from that image, and a 131 AIA image in blue which shows the coronal loop activity in the region of the sunspots:

http://www.etwebsite.com/sdo/2011_10_13 ... Mag-hq.mp4

As you can see in the composite image, the sunspot umbra on the left has the opposite magnetic field polarity from the one on the right, and the coronal loop bundles are flowing from one umbra to the other. The direction of the flow of electrical current through the coronal loops dictates the polarity alignments in the umbra regions, and the umbra regions are areas of massive coronal loop activity due to charge separation in those regions.

IMO the coronal loops are actually originating from a deeper, more rigid layer of the solar atmosphere. By "rigid", I mean it's probably a solid surface IMO, but it could simply be a layer of more dense plasma. Whatever it's made of, it rotates evenly, unlike structures in the photosphere which to come and go in about 10-minute intervals and which rotate unevenly. That whole "rigid" layer rotates evenly in running difference iron ion wavelengths like this RD 131A image:

http://www.etwebsite.com/sdo/2011_10_13 ... 131-hq.mp4

IMO the "rigid surface" is charged differently in different locations and the coronal loops originate at the surface of that rigid layer. Only the largest coronal loops come up and through the surface of the photosphere, and they leave their magnetic field signatures on the surface of the photosphere. As I mentioned, if you overlay 1600A and magnetogram images, you'll notice that the "hot spots" (brighter regions) in 1600A are correlated to the strong magnetic field signatures in magnetogram images. Those hot spots in 1600A also correlate to the larger coronal loop layouts. It's the heat of the coronal loop that leaves hot spots on the 1600A and 1700A images, and the current flowing through those loops also generates the magnetic field signatures in magnetogram images. If you overlay a 1600A, magnetogram and 131A for some period of time, you can observe those correlations quite easily and without exception.

The mainstream has the false impression that the footprints of coronal loops can only be seen in the "transition region" between the chromosphere and the corona, whereas in reality the footprints of coronal loops are visible below the surface of the photosphere. They are located under the photosphere IMO, at least in face on images.

Limb images however tend to give the (false) impression that there's a "transition region" above the photosphere, but that's actually an optical illusion that is caused by the absorption of those wavelength's along the limb where the light has to penetrate much more atmospheric plasma. In "face on" images however, the coronal loop footprints are originating below the surface of the photosphere, on the "rigid' layer beneath the photosphere.

Image

In this composite 171A Trace (in blue) and Yohkoh x-ray (in yellow) image, you can see that the blue areas of the coronal loops descend much further into the solar atmosphere than the x-ray emitting 'tops" of the coronal loops which are located in the corona and are only visible in the corona. The x-rays from the loops are absorbed in the chromosphere and photosphere, but the 171A wavelengths are not as easily absorbed and are visible under the surface of the photosphere.

In virtually every respect Birkeland's terella experiment is identical to what we observe in the solar atmosphere, including the heating of the corona by the current flow through the corona.

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

When Birkeland introduced an electromagnetic field inside the solar terella he was able to create coronal loops which essentially followed the magnetic field lines of the internal field. By using a 'rough' surface he noticed that the coronal loops would tend to concentrate at the tops of the bumps on the terella. The same is true in solar activity. The footprints of the coronal loops are fixed to "rigid" surface points and they tend to concentrate on the "bumps"of the rigid surface.

Sunspots have no set polarity or charge, negative/positive/N/S alignments because it's the flow of current inside coronal loops that dictate those N/S alignments, and the charge separation is actually occurring on the rigid surface below the photosphere.

As "weird" as these ideas might sound to you, they all jive perfectly with every SDO image, and every other satellite image of the sun.

Coronal loops are simply current carrying plasma threads, aka "magnetic ropes" which originate on the rigid surface and return back to the rigid surface below the photophere. The larger loops traverse the surface of the photosphere and leave their heat and magnetic field signatures on the surface of the photosphere as we see in magnetogram and 1600A images. The smaller loops never rise high enough into the atmosphere to cross the surface of the photosphere which is why we only observe strong N/S field alignments in magnetogram images near the largest loops, and not over the whole surface.

Birkeland knew more about solar physics 100 years ago than mainstream astronomers know to this day. He would have *easily* been able to explain how SDO images work, whereas the mainstream still struggles to explain them. In fact they still can't seem to explain the heat source of the corona, which is completely *obvious* to anyone who embraces Birkeland's solar model.

Virtually all these same layouts and explanations would apply to an anode Juergen's model too, but the solar wind direction and content tends to favor a rigid cathode surface rather than an anode surface IMO.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:15 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
Yep, and when two of them interact they call it "magnetic reconnection". :ugeek:

When they do an experiment on MRx in the lab, they also tend to start with an electric field and two such current carrying filaments.


Help. They don't even know what (+) and (-) means.


FYI, I have actually read some decent published papers on MRx theory by Birn, Dungey and Priest that actually acknowledge and describe the flow of current through the plasma thread, but they all still refer to those current threads as 'magnetic lines', when in fact they are field aligned currents, not just 'magnetic lines". They all tend to oversimplify the process.

You can and should just Ignore Clinger entirely. He has absolutely *no* idea what he's talking about. He actually believes that null points are miraculous sources and sinks of magnetic lines which "reconnect' in those null regions. :) Oy Vey. I've seen bad presentations before, but his clueless crap is utter nonsense that violates even basic EM field theory. Null points are not sources nor sinks of magnetic field lines because magnetic field lines have no beginning or ending, no sources or sinks, and the lines aren't even "real" in the first place as you well know. In fact, the only place that "magnetic reconnection' cannot happen in plasma is in null points because the field is zero in those regions, and therefore the field cannot change inside of a null point to induce particle movement in a null point! Holy cow. Clinger doesn't understand the first thing about plasma physics, starting with the fact that MHD theory describes the movement of *plasma* and the term "magnetic reconnection" requires plasma! :mrgreen:

We'll see Clinger's missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of reconnection in his presentation when hell freezes over because it's mathematically impossible to describe a non-zero rate of reconnection without plasma, and without plasma particle acceleration.

IMO that's the danger of using a stupid term like 'magnetic reconnection" rather than calling it circuit reconnnetion or particle reconnection. It's confuses the hell out of people who don't have a strong EM field background, and who've never read a textbook on MHD theory (like Clinger).

It is possible for circuits to "short circuit" or to rewire themselves in plasma, but nothing even remotely like the nonsense that Clinger is describing is happening, that's for damn sure. The fact that not a single individual at JREF/ISF ever set him straight in nearly 7 years only shows you how clueless they all are as it relates to plasma physics and even basic EM field theory.

Even tusenfem was wrong when he claimed that the magnetic lines reconnected inside a '"separatrix" between the two current channels inside the current sheet that forms between the two current channels. The *particles* of plasma can of course move from one current channel/circuit to the other, but it has nothing to do with magnetic lines disconnecting from, or reconnecting to other non existent magnetic lines!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:32 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:..When Birkeland introduced an electromagnetic field inside the solar terella he was able to create coronal loops which essentially followed the magnetic field lines of the internal field..

Did he apply an electrical or magnetic field?
And did the loops follow the field-lines or circle around the field lines as is normal?

In my little experiment with a plasma globe and magnets, I noticed that the currents can curve
nearby magnets, but they still go to the place that has the best conductivity.

The currents will create their own magnetic field (field-lines form a circle around the current).
And I think that this confuses the astronomers too, because you will see a larger magnetic field
near the current lines. Almost as if the current follows the magnetic field.

Thanks for the images. I will look deeper into them soon.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:01 pm

By "rigid", I mean it's probably a solid surface IMO, but it could simply be a layer of more dense plasma. Whatever it's made of, it rotates evenly, unlike structures in the photosphere which to come and go in about 10-minute intervals and which rotate unevenly.
...
Sunspots have no set polarity or charge, negative/positive/N/S alignments because it's the flow of current inside coronal loops that dictate those N/S alignments, and the charge separation is actually occurring on the rigid surface below the photosphere.

Makes sense. But I fear that leaves me further from where I started - Rightly or wrongly (until more data comes in) I visualize shear forces creating the diocotron instabilities that lead to what we call MR in general and CME in particular. The problem all along is that these instabilities are not observed at the surface; they are merely implied by the activity at/around sunspots, the edges of coronal holes, and by extension, the similar activity at the poles of gas giants. Moving them down a layer, while adding an additional layer of uneven rotation, is essentially a second degree of shear force that still cannot be seen. Not cool, Mozina; I thought we were working together here ;)

The videos were great. Maybe it is a trick of the mind, but the matter appeared to be flowing in the same direction for long periods of time, only to be broken up by ever-so-brief moments where the direction of flow reversed, just long enough to be noticed, before switching back to business as usual. This was more apparent in the second video at the lower section and in the quick, closer-to-the-surface bursts between the holes.

Cheers
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:05 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Image


Repeat it in slow motion, so it syncs up with the central field lines touching and pulling apart: "Shear.... Force..."

I'm done now 8-)
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:45 am

verisimilitude wrote:Makes sense. But I fear that leaves me further from where I started - ...


Perhaps, but I would say that your starting point may not have been accurate to start with, specifically as it relates to the polarity of various sunspots. They aren't all the same.

Rightly or wrongly (until more data comes in) I visualize shear forces creating the diocotron instabilities that lead to what we call MR in general and CME in particular.


Is that because you were taught to think that way, or because you have overwhelming laboratory evidence to support that ideas? If you look at that video of Birkeland's model that I posted earlier, you'll see small discharge processes occurring all around the sphere in his model. These are very much like CME type events. Birkeland added a magnetic field inside his sphere and by increasing it's strength, he could generate coronal loop type features which tended to concentrate into two bands in the northern and southern hemispheres. What you're calling "diocotron instabilities", I'd just call "electrical discharges".

The problem all along is that these instabilities are not observed at the surface; they are merely implied by the activity at/around sunspots, the edges of coronal holes, and by extension, the similar activity at the poles of gas giants.


But in both instances, Birkeland created these very same features simply be adding an electric field and a magnetic field to the sun. He was not only able to replicate a full sphere "hot' corona that way, the created and sustained hot auroras around the poles of planets too. What empirical laboratory evidence can you cite that these same things can be replicated and *sustained* in the lab without using an electric field to sustain them?

Moving them down a layer, while adding an additional layer of uneven rotation, is essentially a second degree of shear force that still cannot be seen. Not cool, Mozina; I thought we were working together here ;)


:) It's "cool' in the sense that it more closely resembles Birkeland's original terella experiments. Adding a rigid/solid cathode surface actually "completes" his model. Without it, it wouldn't work.

The videos were great. Maybe it is a trick of the mind, but the matter appeared to be flowing in the same direction for long periods of time, only to be broken up by ever-so-brief moments where the direction of flow reversed, just long enough to be noticed, before switching back to business as usual. This was more apparent in the second video at the lower section and in the quick, closer-to-the-surface bursts between the holes.


I have actually seen plasma threads that do appear to "change direction" in terms of the flow, but I suspect this is due to the influences that Scott wrote about in his Birkeland current paper. Sometimes the flow can be occurring in both directions at the same time.

For the most part however, I think sunspot regions in particular tend to be driven by strong electric fields underneath the sunspot, that originate on the rigid surface, just like they do in Birkeland's working laboratory model. They're pretty consistent over time as demonstrated by the consistent nature of the polarity of the sunspot. It's always one direction or the other, and it typically remains that way for very long periods of time.

Repeat it in slow motion, so it syncs up with the central field lines touching and pulling apart: "Shear.... Force..."


Except magnetic lines aren't "real" anymore than topology lines on a topology map are "real', and the field strength in a null is *zero*. Whatever that image is, it isn't "magnetic reconnection" because it would be impossible to express a non zero *rate* of "magnetic reconnection" without plasma and without plasma particle acceleration.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:55 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:..When Birkeland introduced an electromagnetic field inside the solar terella he was able to create coronal loops which essentially followed the magnetic field lines of the internal field..

Did he apply an electrical or magnetic field?


I apologize for my sloppy and ambiguous use of the term "electromagnetic". He used a *magnetic* field inside the sun (powered by electricity of course), and he used an electric field between the terella and "space" (sides of the chamber). As you surmised, the magnetic field helps to 'guide' the current flows over time.

And did the loops follow the field-lines or circle around the field lines as is normal?


I'd assume they spiraled around the magnetic field lines as is "normal'.

In my little experiment with a plasma globe and magnets, I noticed that the currents can curve
nearby magnets, but they still go to the place that has the best conductivity.


Indeed. By adding "bumps" to his terella, the discharges tended to concentrate themselves near these bumps on the surface, and I'm sure that electrical currents followed the paths of least resistance the entire time.

The currents will create their own magnetic field (field-lines form a circle around the current).
And I think that this confuses the astronomers too, because you will see a larger magnetic field
near the current lines. Almost as if the current follows the magnetic field.


I think the magnetic field lines act to "direct" the flow of current at times, but as you state, the current itself spirals around that so called "line" they talk about. They're essentially ignoring the current in their models, and ignoring the whole "circuit energy' that's involved in these processes.

Thanks for the images. I will look deeper into them soon.


My pleasure. I'm really impressed with the Helioviewer online tool, particularly now that they've added running difference images and features. It's possible now to create about any image you might be interested in, including layered images that show the various wavelengths and how they work together. The largest coronal loops are the things that produce the N/S magnetic field alignments on the surface of the photosphere, and they leave "hot spots" (bright regions) on that same surface that show up in 1700A and 1600A images as well. By overlaying the various images, those relationships become much more 'visible" and you can see now they change over time. Helioviewer is a *great* tool, particularly for analyzing SDO images.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:15 am

Ultimately, I can understand Birkeland currents into/out of the poles, but I struggle to rationalize them being *all over* the solar surface, so I endeavor to find plausible explanations based on all the data I can find ran through all the thought experiments I can muster.

So, yeah, it's my own personal failing. Thank you for being kind.

Cheers.
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:42 am

I was a Standard Model believer until I came across the Magnetar. It was then when I finally realized the disconnect from Electro and Magnetism was fatal to their system. The next step that pushed me further away was when I started reading about Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities - using shear forces between neutral gases/liquids to explain electromagnetic events. Then, I found the work of Anthony Peratt and Dr. Scott. While I do not subscribe to their systems, in general, and EU in particular, many aspects of it make complete sense.

The aspects that make the most sense are those that explain Standard Model ideas in EM terminology, and vice versa. Peratt's work with plasma showed me that Kelvin–Helmholtz, when applied to charged matter, is actually Diocotron Instability. And it's everywhere in the cosmos.

This little NASA video shows what I am talking about - https://youtu.be/B7VOMiFlKSU?t=26 - It's deliberately cued up to the "Standard" description of the issue. Skip to 1:40 if you just want the goods.

Now go back to that first video you posted for me - http://www.etwebsite.com/sdo/2011_10_13_18_28_21_2011_10_14_18_19_33_AIA_131__HMI_Int__HMI_Mag-hq.mp4 -

To the lower left of the Right-Hand hole, notice a small black blob appears and grows throughout the video, until the very end when it breaks into three parts. That *appears* (it's a short video playing extremely fast) to be the beginnings of very small scale version of what is shown in the NASA video.

I cannot state it enough (being an academic skeptic and all) - I am not arguing this *is* the process (your multi-layer approach is much closer IMO) but what I *am* arguing is that as these instabilities grow they lead to what the EM-deniers call "MR." If I could prove it, I would. Until then, I theorize it.

Of course I can read your subtext - I am wrong and do not know what I am talking about. I can respect that. And I am okay with that. Thinking about life, the universe and everything keeps me going.

Cheers.
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:14 pm

verisimilitude wrote:I was a Standard Model believer until I came across the Magnetar. It was then when I finally realized the disconnect from Electro and Magnetism was fatal to their system. The next step that pushed me further away was when I started reading about Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities - using shear forces between neutral gases/liquids to explain electromagnetic events. Then, I found the work of Anthony Peratt and Dr. Scott. While I do not subscribe to their systems, in general, and EU in particular, many aspects of it make complete sense.

The aspects that make the most sense are those that explain Standard Model ideas in EM terminology, and vice versa. Peratt's work with plasma showed me that Kelvin–Helmholtz, when applied to charged matter, is actually Diocotron Instability. And it's everywhere in the cosmos.

This little NASA video shows what I am talking about - https://youtu.be/B7VOMiFlKSU?t=26 - It's deliberately cued up to the "Standard" description of the issue. Skip to 1:40 if you just want the goods.

Now go back to that first video you posted for me - http://www.etwebsite.com/sdo/2011_10_13_18_28_21_2011_10_14_18_19_33_AIA_131__HMI_Int__HMI_Mag-hq.mp4 -

To the lower left of the Right-Hand hole, notice a small black blob appears and grows throughout the video, until the very end when it breaks into three parts. That *appears* (it's a short video playing extremely fast) to be the beginnings of very small scale version of what is shown in the NASA video.

I cannot state it enough (being an academic skeptic and all) - I am not arguing this *is* the process (your multi-layer approach is much closer IMO) but what I *am* arguing is that as these instabilities grow they lead to what the EM-deniers call "MR." If I could prove it, I would. Until then, I theorize it.

Of course I can read your subtext - I am wrong and do not know what I am talking about. I can respect that. And I am okay with that. Thinking about life, the universe and everything keeps me going.

Cheers.


I think if you look carefully at that video, the small black blob that is moving in the video is from the magnetogram image, not the continuum image of the surface of the photosphere. That moving black area is where the coronal loops are shifting position across the surface, it's not a feature of a moving umbra. I'd have to got back to the original helioviewer images to be certain, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

Ultimately, I can understand Birkeland currents into/out of the poles, but I struggle to rationalize them being *all over* the solar surface, so I endeavor to find plausible explanations based on all the data I can find ran through all the thought experiments I can muster.

So, yeah, it's my own personal failing. Thank you for being kind.


I don't believe that it's your own "personal' failure, rather I believe that it's a function of the way your were "taught" solar physics. The loops and filaments in the solar atmosphere are the direct result of an *electric* field that persists at the surface. The rigid surface has a net negative charge with respect to "space" in Birkeland's model (net positive in Jeurgen's model).

Image

When Birkeland added a magnetic field inside the sphere, he was able to concentrate the coronal loop activity into two distinct bands in the northern and southern hemisphere. The B/W image is from his actual experiments, whereas the orange part of the image comes from a Yohkoh image. By "roughing up" the surface of the sphere, the discharges tended to concentrate on the 'bumps" of the terella as well. The filamentary features are a result of the flow of electrical current, and the coronal loops are following magnetic field lines from an electromagnet inside the sphere. When he turned off the magnetic field, the discharges tended to occur randomly around the sphere, much like you see in the University of Leicester video:

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

If you watch the solar sphere for awhile, you'll see small discharge occurring randomly around the sphere. By adding a electromagnetic inside the sphere, and changing the field strength over time, he was able to reproduce images that more accurately resemble solar satellite imagery, with large loops flowing through the atmosphere, and small discharges occurring randomly too.

I think the basic problem is that we were *all* taught to believe that the solar surface is net neutral with respect to space, whereas in real life, that's simply not the case. Even the mainstream model expects some separation between electrons and protons in the sun with some amount of net negative charge at the surface. It's a very small figure in the mainstream model, whereas in EU/PC models, it's a much larger figure. Birkeland calculated the voltage at about 600 million volts whereas Alfven put the figure closer to a billion (US) volts.

Unless you start to think in terms of electrical activity, I don't thinks it's really possible to explain a full sphere hot corona, or even a massive CME from just Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities. I'm sure that Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities play some role in the process, but I can't see how they would explain the most massive CME events that we observe.

I'll try to take a look at the raw images again later tonight to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that the moving black blob regions are magnetogram changes related to coronal loop movements rather than due to surface changes near the umbra in the continuum image.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
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 2 guests