by Higgsy » Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:46 am
Michael Mozina wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:00 pm
And sadly and predictably, this "magnetic reconnection" claim *does not actually work* in a real laboratory experiment, and it doesn't not produce a full sphere working solar corona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4
A full century ago circuit theory was shown *in a real laboratory experiment* to explain the solar heating "problem", a feature of the solar atmosphere which the mainstream still can't agree on. It also produces "strahl" electrons, planetary aurora, etc. Of course, like everything else in mainstream mythology, their models only work on paper, and they don't do squat in a real experiment in terms of explaining a *sustained* particle acceleration process.
I have lost count of the number of times Michael has repeated the same erroneous thing. He's like a stuck record. No-one, no-one has ever, ever modelled a full solar corona with realistic physical processes in the lab (and I doubt that anyone ever will). In the
other thread, we are seeing how far from reality Birkeland's experiment was. It is quite clear, knowing what we know today, that the Sun is not charged to 600MV; and indeed because the solar wind is net neutral the Sun cannot have any negative static charge at all. The claim that the solar processes can be explained by a static charge at the Sun is trivially and obviously wrong, and pop goes the basic premise for Birkeland's solar theory and for the SAFIRE experiments.
As for circuit theory, it is also trivially obvious that on its own it is insufficient to explain the complex processes going on in the heating of the corona and the production of the solar wind, because it deals only with scalar quantities (charge, magnitude of current, resistance, inductance, capacitance, voltage sources), it doesn't deal with vector quantities or vector fields or thermodynamics or fluid flow, or, indeed gravity, all of which are critical to the processes throughout the Sun. Pop goes that repeated and utterly erroneous claim of Michael's. In fact it is trivial and obvious that the Birkeland and SAFIRE models of the Sun are completely wrong at the most fundamental level.
From the paper:
Nevertheless, it is not yet clear what fraction of the energy flux carried by Alfvén waves can be dissipated in the corona by any of the mechanisms proposed.
It was clear to Alfven that the answer was *zero*. He called the whole concept "pseudoscience".
You do realise that statement in the paper was about the mechanisms (resonant absorption and phase mixing) for converting Alfven wave energy into heating the corona, and not about reconnection at all, don't you? You're clearly having reading comprehension problems if your claim is that Alfven called Alfven waves pseudoscience, quite apart from your statement being based on the Blessed Alfven fallacy.
You're so eager to diss anything to do with magnetic reconnection, that you can't even be bothered to read the paper properly, and what you do read, you don't understand.
[quote="Michael Mozina" post_id=4190 time=1609700409 user_id=8376]
And sadly and predictably, this "magnetic reconnection" claim *does not actually work* in a real laboratory experiment, and it doesn't not produce a full sphere working solar corona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4
A full century ago circuit theory was shown *in a real laboratory experiment* to explain the solar heating "problem", a feature of the solar atmosphere which the mainstream still can't agree on. It also produces "strahl" electrons, planetary aurora, etc. Of course, like everything else in mainstream mythology, their models only work on paper, and they don't do squat in a real experiment in terms of explaining a *sustained* particle acceleration process.[/quote]
I have lost count of the number of times Michael has repeated the same erroneous thing. He's like a stuck record. No-one, no-one has ever, ever modelled a full solar corona with realistic physical processes in the lab (and I doubt that anyone ever will). In the [url=https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=282&start=167]other thread[/url], we are seeing how far from reality Birkeland's experiment was. It is quite clear, knowing what we know today, that the Sun is not charged to 600MV; and indeed because the solar wind is net neutral the Sun cannot have any negative static charge at all. The claim that the solar processes can be explained by a static charge at the Sun is trivially and obviously wrong, and pop goes the basic premise for Birkeland's solar theory and for the SAFIRE experiments.
As for circuit theory, it is also trivially obvious that on its own it is insufficient to explain the complex processes going on in the heating of the corona and the production of the solar wind, because it deals only with scalar quantities (charge, magnitude of current, resistance, inductance, capacitance, voltage sources), it doesn't deal with vector quantities or vector fields or thermodynamics or fluid flow, or, indeed gravity, all of which are critical to the processes throughout the Sun. Pop goes that repeated and utterly erroneous claim of Michael's. In fact it is trivial and obvious that the Birkeland and SAFIRE models of the Sun are completely wrong at the most fundamental level.
[quote]From the paper:
[quote] Nevertheless, it is not yet clear what fraction of the energy flux carried by Alfvén waves can be dissipated in the corona by any of the mechanisms proposed.[/quote]
It was clear to Alfven that the answer was *zero*. He called the whole concept "pseudoscience".
[/quote]
You do realise that statement in the paper was about the mechanisms (resonant absorption and phase mixing) for converting Alfven wave energy into heating the corona, and not about reconnection at all, don't you? You're clearly having reading comprehension problems if your claim is that Alfven called Alfven waves pseudoscience, quite apart from your statement being based on the Blessed Alfven fallacy.
You're so eager to diss anything to do with magnetic reconnection, that you can't even be bothered to read the paper properly, and what you do read, you don't understand.