Michael, do you want to go through your mistakes point by point? For example he pointed out this massive error of yours:
JREF Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)
I notice that many of your replies get over long and the point being debated can be lost while doing so. He corrected you thus:
Now units can be tricky in physics. You have to know what the units represent.
It's apt you begin here, and apt you point that out. Since your math hero began in the absence of plasma, he's pretty much limited himself to *solid state* physics. In the realm of solid state physics, the various processes he might describe in his vacuum chamber are "magnetic repulsion", "magnetic attraction", and/or magnetic flux. These are all things that are accurately described in Clinger's intro to EM field theory textbook, a textbook that was apparently devoid of the term "magnetic reconnection" for obvious reasons. Let's start with some terms that apply in solid state physics:
Permeability (electromagnetism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the realm of Clinger's quadrupole experiment, these are the *physical meanings* of the terms he's using in those math formulas. One gets the impression from reading Clinger's comments that he thinks if he switches from meters to feet, somehow the terms magically change their *physical* meaning. They don't.Permeability is the inductance per unit length.
So what happens when we allow for 'magnetic flux' in some region of spacetime, and we change some of the parameters of Clinger's experiment? Suppose we substitute his physically useless vacuum with a solid conductor (insulated from the electromagnets of course), say a solid metal?
Electromagnetic induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now any sort of magnetic flux Clinger might create in the metal, might indeed result in *induction* within the metal, specifically it will result in the movement of electrons.Electromagnetic induction is the production of a potential difference (voltage) across a conductor when it is exposed to a varying magnetic field.
Now suppose we *include* the concept of plasma physics, and we replace Clingers worthless vacuum with another conductor, this time some "plasma"? Again, just like in the solid state experiment, the variable magnetic fields moving through the plasma will result in *induction*. The primary difference is that in solids the protons are all fixed in a solid lattice structure, so they don't move much, except to perhaps vibrate. The large flow movements of protons are restricted in solids, whereas the protons are also free to move around in plasma. The movement of protons therefore can also represent a form of *induced* current, and must considered in terms of the electromagnetic effect as well as the movement of current.
Your math hero however hasn't even read a single textbook on plasma physics, and if he understood basic solid state EM field theory, he would have used the *proper* scientific terms to describe what's *actually* going on in his presentation of solid state physics principles, namely magnetic flux, magnetic attraction, and/or magnetic repulsion. He did not need any other term to describe his solid state experiment in fact.
When I got curious about plasma physics, the first plasma physics textbook that I read was Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma. The Nobel Prize winning author on plasma physics basically explains how plasma physics principles "should be" applied to events in space based on his decades of research with plasma, including plasma in the lab. His book is basically the sum total of all his important published papers, but he has the opportunity to present the material in a comprehensive and organized manner. Each time that Alfven describes the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy, he was *extremely careful* to use the proper scientific term *induction*. His paper on on double layers represents *his* explanation of the physical events taking place inside current sheets/double layers. According to Alfven his double layer paper makes MR theory obsolete and irrelevant in all current carrying environments. Basically Alfven switched pretty freely between the B (magnetic field) and E (circuit/particle) orientation of Maxwell's equations, but for the most part he oriented himself to circuit theory, and the "particle" approach to plasma physics in all current carrying environments.
Peratt's book was actually better in many ways, including more detailed mathematical presentations, and proper definitions of terms (like discharges) in plasma. Again, Peratt's quite concise about the way magnetic field energy is converted in particle kinetic energy, and he give many examples in his book. I'd say it was more detailed presentation of both the B and E orientations toward plasma physics.
Somov's textbook was more of a "mainstream" oriented presentation, focused mostly on the B orientation, although he does quite nicely bring the B and E orientations together in his presentation of 'reconnection' theory. It was very nicely done IMO. Somov's example of 'reconnection' was however 100% *inclusive* of charged particles and charged particle movements.
Which *specific* published or peer reviewed citation are you claiming that Clinger presented that *actually* supported his claim about 'magnetic reconnection' in a vacuum, devoid of all charged particles and charged particle movement/acceleration?I am fairly sure that you misrepresented many of his claims and also were not honest about him not supplying links that support his claims.
When it comes to presenting published material to support your claims, you and Clinger are both whistling Dixie as it relates to plasma physics, particularly since neither one of you have ever read a textbook on the topic. Like I said, Clinger fancies himself as some sort of expert on any topic of personal choice, from MHD theory to GR theory, simply by virtue of his math skills. As he demonstrated with MHD theory and the "magnetic reconnection" debate however, he doesn't even personally understand the physical (moving charged particle) difference between magnetic flux through a pure vacuum, and magnetic flux through a conductive plasma that induces currents in the plasma! He may understand math, but he doesn't even *begin* to understand the physics behind the terms he's trying to use! MHD theory is *easy* to understand if you've had some circuit theory background, but GR theory is *subtle* in ways that even experts struggle with at times. If he can't get the most *basics* concepts of plasma physics right, why in the world should I trust him to understand the physical nuances of GR theory?
Last edited:
Upvote
0