Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

[Michael]

Dungey specifically stated that "electrical discharges" *can and do* occur in plasma and then he defined what the term "electrical discharges" means ....

Then by *definition* he falsified your utterly erroneous claim about discharges being "impossible" in plasma!

Peratt's definition is *completely congruent* with Dungey's use of the term and it's *inclusive* of "reconnection" theory just like Dungey. Your pitifully sad claim about their definitions being "different" is *utterly irrelevant*. They both *blow your false statement away*. You can't even name an author that uses the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma. You're stuck on a denial-go-round of your own creation, and therefore you just cite yourself over and over and over again and never produce a name.

 

[Michael]

And the questions he still cannot answer:
MM: Why did Somov split "Reconnection in vacuum" from "Reconnection in plasma"?

So he could start with a *simple* example with a *few* charged particles, and then move into more *complex* arrangements. I can (and have) answered your question because unlike you *I actually read his book*!

The question you can't answer is when anyone here can expect you to stop arguing MHD theory from pure ignorance, take some time to visit a library, and actually take the time and make the effort to *read* a real textbook on MHD theory?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The key difference is that Somov *included* charged particles,
...usual ranting and insults snipped...

The key fact is that Somov started with a vacuum, described MR in a vacuum, *mentioned* charged particles and then went onto an new chapter about MT in plasma.

The fact is that anyone with can read and understand those sections in Somov (and not go on with insane demands that the rest of the book be read !)will see that MR can happen in a vacuum.

The fact is that basic physics will show anyone who is not delusional or ignorant that MR can happen in a vacuum:

• no magnetic field = no magnetic field lines.
  At a point or in a region where there is no magnetic field, there are no field lines. Such a point is called a null point.
• A magnetic field line can cross a null point.
• That magnetic field line does not exist at the null point - it is broken.
• Change the magnetic field and field lines will cross the null point.
• The field lines will break because there is no magnetic field at the null point .
• The field lines will reconnect as they move away from the null point because there is a magnetic field away from the null point .

See, Michael - no plasma !

If you want a physical situation to relate to:

Put some wires in a vacuum chamber. Put current through then to create an X-type neutral point. Change the current. There you go MR around the neutral point which is in a vacuum .
​

For that matter the wires can be outside of the vacuum chamber. MR happens around the neutral point which is at the center of the wires, i.e. in vacuum.

Then there is the contradiction: You state that MR (defined as magnetic field lines breaking and reconnecting) happens in plasma but then you deny that MR even exists (i.e. magnetic field lines never break or reconnect) .

Is this another case of you denying scientific definitions like you deny solar transition region, Dungey's "electrical discharge", etc.?

Or Michael:

What special magical thing happens only in plasma to allow magnetic field lines to break and reconnect?
​

Give your sources or show your math (otherwise it is an unsupported assertion, i.e. fantasy).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Then by *definition* he falsified your utterly erroneous claim about discharges being "impossible" in plasma!

I do not claim that: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

Peratt's definition is *completely congruent* with Dungey's use of the term

That is a fantasy as usual, Michael :
13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!

You are quote mining (lying) about Peratt's definition:
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge

This is ordinary electrical discharge - he gives the examples of lightning and aurora. He never defines or gives examples of electrical discharges in plasma (unless you do not know what a title is!)
​

That quote mining gives a definition that does noit mention MR
That quote mining gives a definition that does not mention current density.
That quote mining turns the above fantasy into a lie, Michael.

11th January 2011: Michael still has no idea what a title is or difference between a title and a definition!
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?

 

[RealityCheck01]

So he could start with a *simple* example with a *few* charged particles, and then move into more *complex* arrangements.

So you cannot understand that there is even simpler example that he starts the section with, Michael !
The simple example that Somov starts the section "Reconnection in vacuum" with is MR in vacuum .
But then you have no idea what an example is! The example is MR in vacuum. There is no example in that section of MR in plasma. He mentions what the moving magnetic field lines in the example of MR in a vacuum can do to a single hypothetical charge particle (not even plasma - it could be an electron or a proton or any other particle with charge) or charge particles. Again this need not be a even plasma - it could be an electron gas or a proton gas or an ionized gas (or even a solid as no mention of the particles being free !).

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.

You missed: Asked on 18th March 2012 MM What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..." mean?

Peer reviewed material that states plasma is optional in MR

Michael Mozina:
What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..." mean?
What does "A CD-ROM attached to this paper presents the results of a toy model of vacuum reconnection..." mean?
What does "magnetic reconnection (a) in vacuum, and (b) in a plasma" mean?

 

[RealityCheck01]

While I am thinking abut Michael 's fantasies about magnetic reconnection, I recall the he mentioned MR and "monopoles" before which seems related to
Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper
22nd November 2011
The paper is The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field which does a "multipole expansion of a linear force-free field". Michael got very confused with the mathematical multipole expansion which give monopole, dipole, etc. components and a magnetic monopole which is nothing to do with the mathematic monopole component.

Better explained in Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper II

Section 2 is the multipole expansion of a linear force-free field. This has an infinite number of components labelled with l which has values of 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. In a multipole expansion, l=0 is the monopole component (l=1 is the dipole, l=2 is the quadruple, etc.). For example the CMB power spectrum has monopoles (the l=0 component)

!

Section 3.3 is Demoulin & Priest explicitly proving that there can be no isolated magnetic charges (no actual monopoles) in a linear force-free field.

Are you still confused, Michael?
The "monopoles" implies that you have reverted back to a status of ignorance from:
Thank you for finally learning that the monopoles ("magnetic charges") in the paper are not actual monopoles, just a computational method.

If this is the assertion that MR is impossible because it creates monopoles this is wrong and silly since you agree that MR is possible in plasma and you have stated no way to magically stop this imaginary creation of monopoles.

 

[Michael]

The key fact is that Somov started with a vacuum, described MR in a vacuum, *mentioned* charged particles and then went onto an new chapter about MT in plasma.

The key fact is that Somov's vacuum *included* charged particles, whereas Clinger tried to *exclude* them.

The fact is that anyone with can read and understand those sections in Somov (and not go on with insane demands that the rest of the book be read !)will see that MR can happen in a vacuum.

You personally can't seem to understand Dungey when he used the term "electrical discharge", you didn't understand Peratt when he use the term "electrical discharge in plasma", and you don't comprehend much of anything you read apparently. The insane attitude that you can just read a single paragraph in a textbook and suddenly become an "expert" on some topic you know nothing about it is the real problem, and everyone knows it.

Dungey was *very* clear with his use of terms. So was Peratt. So was Somov.

The fact is that basic physics will show anyone who is not delusional or ignorant that MR can happen in a vacuum:

The delusions is all your own. You're deluded into thinking you're an expert on a topic you've never studied. You're therefore deluded into thinking that you can take away the *energy transfer* aspect of *reconnection* and still call it "reconnection". Ignorance is not bliss.

You can't even point us to *any published experiment on Earth* that claimed to achieve "reconnection" without charged particles. The delusions start and end with your personal ignorance of MHD theory.

When are you going to *finally* read an appropriate textbook on this topic?

 

[Michael]

I do not claim that: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

What a bunch of horse manure. You've been peddling the same "impossible" nonsense for over 2 years. You don't know anything about plasma physics because you've never bothered to read a textbook on the topic! You *pretend* to be the clairvoyant physicist.

Every time I ask you to support your erroneous claims with a real published author, you just cite yourself again and again and again, and yet you've *never* published anything relevant.

Name a real published paper and a name RC, or get a life.

 

[Michael]

So you cannot understand that there is even simpler example that he starts the section with, Michael !

The simpler example was also *inclusive* of charged particles, it simply included *fewer of them*!

The simple example that Somov starts the section "Reconnection in vacuum" with is MR in vacuum .

In a vacuum that *includes* charged particles in the vacuum! Honestly you won't actually study the topic, so you just make it up as you go apparently.

You apparently just latched on to another term (in this case the term vacuum) and you ignored his *inclusion* of charged particles in that vacuum.

When are you going to read a textbook on this topic RC?

 

[Michael]

While I am thinking abut Michael 's......

You *constantly* bear false witness against others. You constantly stalk me around the internet just so you *can* bear false witness against me. You can't even discuss the topics in question intelligently because you've never studied them, so your entire *routine* requires that you *misrepresent* the beliefs and statements of others.

When are you going to quote me about a hollow sun, or can we just assume you're a two bit liar?

 

[Michael]

FYI, from Somov's book in section 4.4.2 entitled 'Reconnection In A Vacuum':

Let us illustrate the process with the simplest example of two parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in a vacuum as shown in figure 4.17.

Somov's vacuum *includes* two currents of *charged particles*. You and Clinger *left them out*! No wonder you can't transfer any magnetic field energy into particle movement!

Let's quote WIKI again:

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

Emphasis mine. Somov *includes* plasma particles, and he *includes* the movement of those charged particles in his example, just as WIKI insists must be done. It's impossible to transfer magnetic field energy into charged particle movement without a single charged particle to Clinger's name! You can't even define a 'reconnection rate' without particles!

Your ignorance of MHD theory and plasma physics is completely and absolutely self imposed RC. You don't know the first thing about it because you don't bother to study it by reading an actual textbook. What little you *think* you know is based upon you *misrepresenting* a single sentence, a single word, or a single paragraph from a book you never bothered to read.

I really have no idea why you keep misrepresenting these claims. You've misrepresented Somov's claim which *includes* currents in his so called "vacuum". You've misrepresented Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma which is defined as a *release of stored EM energy*, not a breakdown of a dielectric. You've misrepresented Dungey's statements too since he makes it abundantly clear that electrical discharges in plasmas *are* possible, not *impossible*.

You really are like a completely unarmed man at a tank fight, and just like an ignorant atheist trying to debate Christian theology *without* ever bothering to actually read the Bible! What kind of irrational nonsense is that?!?!?

When are you actually going to make an effort to educate yourself and read a real textbook on MHD theory RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Somov's vacuum *includes* two currents of *charged particles*.
...usual rants and insults snipped...

For your information that is abysmally ignorant of Somov's section and MR in vacuum, Michael:

MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents !
​

I forget which of these posts you first came up with the delusion that MR happens at the current!
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section IX
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VIII
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VII
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI.
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section V
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section IV
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section III
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section
Let's quote Somov again yet again rather than a Wiki article abut MR in plasma (another is needed!):

Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov

Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
...
This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.

Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since
[equation 4.65]
where A is the vector potential of magnetic field,
[equation 4.66]
In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65)
[equation 4.67]
the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.

 

[Michael]

For your information that is abysmally ignorant of Somov's section and MR in vacuum, Michael:

MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents !​

So what? Look at figure 4.17 on page 103 RC. As a result of the "reconnection' process, the *currents channels* move closer to each other. EM field energy is being *converted* into particle movement. Clinger doesn't have a single electron to his name! At point A) in figure 4.17, the current channels are further apart. After reconnection (B), the currents have *moved* as a result of the field transfer. Energy was transferred into *particle movement*.

The only delusion around here is your delusion about being a clairvoyant physicist without ever reading a related textbook on MHD theory!

Then again there's that *delusion* you have about me promoting a hollow sun theory. Care to quote me, or shall we all just assume that you're completely incapable of telling the truth?

 

[Michael]

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

I emphasized and highlighted the part of "reconnection" that you and Clinger forgot. You forgot that the reconnection process A) requires plasma, and B) requires plasma *movement* as a result of the field energy transfer. Clinger forgot A) (plasma) and B) (plasma movement). Somov *included* A) and B). Epic fail on Clinger's part.

 

[RealityCheck01]

So what?

So: Michael, MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents !
That is way it is called MR in vacuum, Michael.

And there is two bits of ignorance in your post.
Firstly: There cannot be plasma in Somov's section producing the current. So there is no MR in plasma in that section ay you wrongly think.
The current producing the MR in vacuum could be in practice

• current in wires.
• beams of electrons.
• beams of protons.
• beams of any charged particles in fact

It cannot be plasma because plasma does not have a single current as in the section - it has billions of tiny currents directed in random directions.

Secondly: You are still ignoring that the currents (and even the charged particles) are not physically at the neutral point. Consider the situation of the wires producing the current and charged particles being outside of a vacuum chamber.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

I emphasized and highlighted the part that states that this is MR in plasma, not MR in vacuum
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov

Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
...
This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.

Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since
[equation 4.65]
where A is the vector potential of magnetic field,
[equation 4.66]
In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65)
[equation 4.67]
the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.

I emphasized and highlighted the parts that states that this is MR in vacuum, not MR in plasma.
MM What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..." mean?
Asked on 18th March 2012 - 586 days and counting.
(emphasized and highlighted the inability to understand English for over 2 years!)

Peer reviewed material that states plasma is optional in MR

Michael Mozina:
What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..." mean?
What does "A CD-ROM attached to this paper presents the results of a toy model of vacuum reconnection..." mean?
What does "magnetic reconnection (a) in vacuum, and (b) in a plasma" mean?

I emphasized and highlighted the parts that states that this is MR in vacuum, not MR in plasma.

​

 

[Michael]

So: Michael, MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents !
That is way it is called MR in vacuum, Michael.

No, it doesn't. It *pulls* the currents closer together as a result of the *reconnection* process. You're ignoring the change in distance between the two currents in Somov's example. The field energy *results in* particle movement. By *including* rather than *excluding* charged particles, Somov *satisfies* the "in plasma" requirement. By *moving* the particles as a result of an energy transfer, he satisfies the need to *move plasma particles* as a result of the 'reconnection' process.

Clinger and you *left out* the plasma, and no magnetic field energy is actually being converted into charged particle movement. *EPIC* fail for you and Clinger. Great presentation by Somov. Pity you've never read his book (or any MHD textbook) and therefore you don't understand it. Somov is a great author, and good teacher of this material by the way. I highly recommend his book assuming you *eventually* decide to drop the role of clairvoyant physicist.

And there is two bits of ignorance in your post.
Firstly: There cannot be plasma in Somov's section producing the current.

What?!?!? Your ignorance is thinking that the "current' isn't composed of charged particles, AKA 'plasma'.

So there is no MR in plasma in that section ay you wrongly think.

False. The currents themselves *are* plasma! Electrons *are* plasma. The currents/plasma particles *moved* too as a result of the reconnection process in Somov's example.

Clinger couldn't beat his way out of paper bag in terms of the *physics*. All he know is math. Like you he's never even read a single textbook on MHD theory.

Somov doesn't say squat about "wires". You inserted that claim in there all on your own, just like you inserted that erroneous claim about a hollow sun in my mouth. You're constantly *misrepresenting* what people *actually* said. Quote Somov where he used the term 'wire'. Better yet, quote me where I claimed the sun was hollow. You can't do either of those things because you made it up in your head in your personal little hater/stalker fantasy!

 

[RealityCheck01]

The key fact is that Somov's vacuum *included* charged particles,

The key fact that anyone who can read English can see is that Somov started with a vacuum, described MR in a vacuum, *mentioned* charged particles and then went onto an new chapter about MR in plasma.

The key fact that anyone with basic mathematical skills can see is Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger starts with Maxwell's equations and no plasma and gets MR.

The key fact is I asked you
MM What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..." mean?
Asked on 18th March 2012 - 586 days and counting.
And the 3 papers there accept that MR happens in a vacuum.

The really key fact is that MR happens in a vacuum .

 

[RealityCheck01]

What a bunch of horse manure. You've been peddling the same "impossible" nonsense for over 2 years..

What a total lie, Michael: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
I am not an idiot and only an idiot would think that lightning, etc. (actual electrical discharges) can happen in plasma.
I can read and understand English:
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!
8th November 2011: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!
I can read and understand the page in Peratt's book:
results.

11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
This is ordinary electrical discharge - he gives the example of lightning and aurora.
The full text of the section is here:
Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

This section title is "1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" so I should mention that this is the title not a definition. Do you know the distinction now, Michael?
11th January 2011: Michael still has no idea what a title is or difference between a title and a definition!

So will Michael understand that there is no discussion or examples of electrical discharges in plasma in Peratt's book or any other textbook anytime in the next 3 years ?
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
And
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?

The answer is - not so far and there are only a few months to go !

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, it doesn't.
..snipped irrelevant rant and insults...

Yes it does - MR happens at the neutral point which is between the current, i.e. in vacuum.
Please tell me that you are not idiotic enough to think that the currents run though the neutral point despite the clear diagrams in Somov's section "Reconnection in vacuum!

Wow -you are ignorant enough to think that any bunch of charged particles producing a current is a plasma

• a current in a wire is not a plasma.
• a beam of charged particles is not a plasma.