Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection

[RealityCheck01]

Talk about pure denial. Moving current *is* plasma in a vacuum.

Talk about a pure fantasy, Michael!

As I said on JREF on 1st December 2011 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...92#post7804792) and continue here:
Current is a wire is not plasma
An electron beam is not plasma
A proton beam is not plasma
A beam of ionized silver atoms is not plasma
A beam of charged peak unicorns is not plasma
A beam of charged pith balls is not plasma

A plasma is not a current of any kind. A general plasma has local, temporary and random currents within it that add up to no overall current unless there is an external force to impose an overall current, e.g. the Sun's magnetic field.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped delusion of plasma in Somov's section Reconnection in a vacuum...

Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma
Continued from posts on JREF dating from 7th November 2011!

 

[Michael]

Talk about a pure fantasy, Michael!

As I said on JREF on 1st December 2011 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...92#post7804792) and continue here:
Current is a wire is not plasma

BZZZT! There was no "wire" in Somov's diagram RC. Pure denial on your part. The 'currents' wouldn't and couldn't *move* in solids.

An electron beam is not plasma

Bzzzt. False.

A proton beam is not plasma

False again.

A beam of ionized silver atoms is not plasma

Bzzzt. You're consistently wrong.

A beam of charged peak unicorns is not plasma

Hey, you actually got one right! It's a *miracle*.

The rest of your post is pure nonsense because your first statements were all false demonstrating conclusively that you absolutely have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Michael]

Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma
Continued from posts on JREF dating from 7th November 2011!

Even with a diagram, you're incapable of understanding the English language apparently:

Notice the to little X's in each image RC and how the they're closer together in the second image? Your superdud of a JREF hero *left out*
those charged particles and *left out* that charged particle movement.

For crying out loud, even WIKI blows your claims away:

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.

Emphasis mine. Your JREF superchump left out the parts I highlighted.

 

[RealityCheck01]

There are NO magnetic field lines.

There are magnetic field lines, Justatruthseeker. In fact field lines exist for any vector field: Field line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are not real objects like the magnetic field. They are a representation of the field. They can break and reconnect as in magnetic reconnection. This does not meant that the magnetic field "breaks" or "reconnects" .

Scientists in all fields use magnetic field lines to visualize magnetic fields. This has nothing to do with the physical reality of magnetic reconnection (just about a quibble I have about the actual name!).
The rest of my post that you skipped over was:

In actual fact, a "lie to children" (undergraduates) is that magnetic lines look like those from bar magnets. So they do not break. But when they graduate and attend post-graduate plasma physics causes, they are told that this is a "lie to children". At a point where the magnetic field is zero, magnetic lines do not exist. It is possible to arrange a magnetic field with X shaped magnetic field lines with no magnetic field at the crossing (see Somov and W.D. Clinger and many others). The crossing is a null point. If you then change the magnetic fields so that field lines sweep across that null point, they have to not exist at that point. Scientists call this field lines breaking and reconnecting.
It does not break Gauss's law - Gauss's law for magnetism allows magnetic field lines to begin or to end at neutral points of a magnetic field. JREF Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

As you can see magnetic field lines (or equivalently a specific change in the topology of the magnetic field) can break and reconnect.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped GIGANIIC TEXT...
...snipped a delusion about some "JREF superchimp"...

Wow - Michael you cannot understand that Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is an article about MR in plasma - the interesting case of MR !
Without your colorful gigantic text:

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.

and with some reasonable emphasis.

That has nothing to do with:

Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma
Continued from posts on JREF dating from 7th November 2011!


Or maybe Michael's insult about a "JREF superchimp" is referring to W.D. Clinger:

W.D. Clinger is a JREF user who was inspired by Michael Mozina's inability to understand magnetic reconnection to write a series of posts showing that magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations.
Magnetic Reconnection

If you want to see some responses to this science and mathematics from Michael Mozina then W.D. Clinger has another web page with his opinion of the responses:
An Unusually Pure Example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

 

[RealityCheck01]

There was no "wire" in Somov's diagram RC.

There is none of your imaginary plasma in Somov's diagram either, Michael.
Neither is there as I said on JREF on 1st December 2011 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...92#post7804792) and continue here any of the following:
Current is a wire is not plasma
An electron beam is not plasma
A proton beam is not plasma
A beam of ionized silver atoms is not plasma
A beam of charged peak unicorns is not plasma
A beam of charged pith balls is not plasma

Also:
A plasma is not a current of any kind. A general plasma has local, temporary and random currents within it that add up to no overall current unless there is an external force to impose an overall current, e.g. the Sun's magnetic field.

P.S. You do know that you can move wires and the current in them moves as well, Michael ?

 

[RealityCheck01]

And getting back to Tom Bridgmans blog, here is a relevant quote:
On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges"
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges"

"X" Marks the Spot
As mentioned above, one of the common characteristics in observations of solar flares was the existence of a magnetic null point near the location of the observed flare. This null point would divide the region up into four zones, forming an 'X'-shaped configuration, as noted above.

If it were just a static magnetic field in a vacuum or in air, according to Maxwell's equations, it would be of little interest. But let that magnetic field vary in time, and according to Maxwell's equations, you'll get an electric field. Put this configuration in a plasma, even a neutral plasma, with equal numbers of positive ions and negative electrons, and all kinds of interesting things start to happen. Some Electric Universe supporters erroneously claim that magnetic reconnection occurs in a static magnetic field, which is incorrect. Often, Electric Universe supporters don't even mention that reconnection with energy release can only occur when the field is imbedded in a plasma.

 

[Michael]

And getting back to Tom Bridgmans blog, here is a relevant quote:
On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges"
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges"

Your own reference sunk your battleship RC:

Some Electric Universe supporters erroneously claim that magnetic reconnection occurs in a static magnetic field, which is incorrect. Often, Electric Universe supporters don't even mention that reconnection with energy release can only occur when the field is imbedded in a plasma.

Even Bridgman understands that reconnection is not a plasma optional process and you can't even define a *rate* of reconnection without *plasma*! You shot yourself in your own foot with your own reference (again).

Watch the rationalization hat dance begin.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7758314-7/#post65347556

 

[RealityCheck01]

Your own reference sunk your battleship RC:

Now you resort to totally ignoring what was written, Michael !
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges"
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges"

"X" Marks the Spot
As mentioned above, one of the common characteristics in observations of solar flares was the existence of a magnetic null point near the location of the observed flare. This null point would divide the region up into four zones, forming an 'X'-shaped configuration, as noted above.

If it were just a static magnetic field in a vacuum or in air, according to Maxwell's equations, it would be of little interest. But let that magnetic field vary in time, and according to Maxwell's equations, you'll get an electric field. Put this configuration in a plasma, even a neutral plasma, with equal numbers of positive ions and negative electrons, and all kinds of interesting things start to happen. Some Electric Universe supporters erroneously claim that magnetic reconnection occurs in a static magnetic field, which is incorrect. Often, Electric Universe supporters don't even mention that reconnection with energy release can only occur when the field is imbedded in a plasma

.
The magnetic reconnection happens but is of little interest when static and in a vacuum.
Let the configuration change (which is magnetic reconnection in the context of a page on MR, especially with a null point !) and you get an electric field.
Put that changing configuration in a plasma and you get interesting stuff happening.

He does not state that MR is impossible in a vacuum.

This is basically what happens in Somov's book.
1. Take an 'X'-shaped configuration with a null point. It is in a vacuum. It is static.
2. Allow that configuration in vacuum to change - now you have MR (field lines sweeping across the null point and so breaking and reconnecting).
3. That causes an electric field as at the end of the section.
4. Now add charge particles and interesting things happen - to be explored in a section on Reconnection in a Plasma.

 

[Michael]

The magnetic reconnection happens but is of little interest when static and in a vacuum.

False. Nothing but 'magnetic flux', 'magnetic repulsion' and 'magnetic attraction happens in a vacuum. Without any conductor, no *currents* are induced as a result of that flux, and no kinetic energy transfer occurs between the magnetic field and particle (plasma) kinetic energy. No plasma, no "rate" of reconnection, no *magnetic reconnection". For goodness sake at least read and *comprehend* the first paragraph of the WIKI definition of magnetic reconnection *in plasma*!

Let the configuration change (which is magnetic reconnection in the context of a page on MR, especially with a null point !) and you get an electric field.

False again. Add the plasma back in, and you get *induction*(magically renamed 'magnetic reconnection) in the plasma, everywhere *except* the NULL, because the magnetic field energy is *zero* in the NULL.

You guys are clueless to even *basic* EM field theory, let alone have a clue about plasma physics, or charged particle acceleration.

Put that changing configuration in a plasma and you get interesting stuff happening.

Indeed. You get *real* magnetic reconnection, not just magnetic flux in a vacuum!

He does not state that MR is impossible in a vacuum.

He doesn't state it is either! His example *included* plasma and *included* plasma particle movement as the transfer took place.

This is basically what happens in Somov's book.

I wouldn't trust you to explain anything about anyone or anything they said. You basically shot yourself in the foot with your last reference who pointed out that *reconnection* requires plasma. Your own reference blows your claims out of the water. Whom shall I believe now, the astronomer or some retired IT guy who thinks electrical discharges are impossible in plasma yet runs away from my request for an *external* (from yourself) reference?

The 'interesting things' that happen in plasma is "magnetic reconnection" that couldn't occur without plasma. You and your math kludge are *hopeless* when it comes to actual physics. Even your own *professional* references disagree with you claims, and you blatantly try to tap dance around it! Talk about irony overload! Wow!

 

[Michael]

Electric Universe supporters (along with RC and all his clueless JREF buddies) don't even mention that reconnection with energy release can only occur when the field is imbedded in a plasma.

Your own reference killed your claim RC. How ironic you didn't notice that without plasmas, there's no energy release and therefore you have a *zero* rate of "reconnection".

 

[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.

You and your JREF hater posse *blatantly ignored* the large font *requirements* that are related to the *process* that occurs *in plasma* that is called 'magnetic reconnection'. Tom Bridgman busted your claim outright. His statements are *consistent* with the WIKI definition. Your claims are not.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

False. Nothing but 'magnetic flux', 'magnetic repulsion' and 'magnetic attraction happens in a vacuum. Without any conductor, no *currents* are induced as a result of that flux, and no kinetic energy transfer occurs between the magnetic field and particle (plasma) kinetic energy. No plasma, no "rate" of reconnection, no *magnetic reconnection". For goodness sake at least read and *comprehend* the first paragraph of the WIKI definition of magnetic reconnection *in plasma*!

Actually without electric currents in the plasma there would be no magnetic field in the first place.

K&J Magnetics Blog

"Curie Temperature is the temperature at which all magnetization of the magnet is lost."

The highest of which is iron at 1043K.

Curie temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And even the surface of the sun is 5800K with supposedly the core being 15 million K.

Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without that electric current flowing along the plasma to create the magnetic fields, there could be no alignment of electrons at the temperatures on the sun and hence no magnetic field would be possible. They conveniently forget that part of empirical laboratory evidence as well.

I have yet to see one of them even attempt to explain how the sun maintains a magnetic field without those electric currents at those temperatures??????? I have asked several times and of course they always forget to answer.

 

[RealityCheck01]

False.
...snipped irrelevant rants, insults, etc....

For goodness sake, Michael, at least read and *comprehend* the first paragraph of the WIKI definition of magnetic reconnection *in plasma not vacuum* !

His example *included* plasma and *included* plasma particle movement as the transfer took place.

Wow over 2 years now, Michael, and you retain the fantasy that a diagram and an example not describing plasma contains plasma !

Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma

Google Books has the full text of sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 that Michael has this fantasies about.
Cosmic Plasma Physics - B.V. Somov - Google Books

This "discussion" (how can you discuss something that does not exist in an example) started on JREF on 23rd November 2011
JREF Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

 

[RealityCheck01]

How ironic you didn't notice that without plasmas, there's no energy release and therefore you have a *zero* rate of "reconnection".

How ironic that you make up fantasies about what I notice!
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges"
I noticed that for magnetic reconnection in a vacuum there is no energy release over 2 years ago in Somov's book. That is what makes the process real but trivial
See
Michael's fantasy that a Reconnection in a Vacuum section describes plasma.

I know that there is energy release for MR in a plasma.

I know that there is a reconnection rate (not a rate of reconnection) for MR in plasma. It is the ratio between the inflow and outflow velocities of the plasma.
I know that it is only defined for MR in plasma so it is idiotic to apply it to MR in vacuum.
You seem to be retaining a fantasy from your JREF posts that there is a defined reconnection rate for MR in a vacuum.
20th March 2012: MR reconnection rates are only defined for plasma!

Maybe you have never read past the first paragraph
Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
because that is where reconnection rate is defined !

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped gigantic text....

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.

As anyone can read this is about MR in plasma and does not state that MR in vacuum is impossible.

Somov does state that MR happens in a vacuum: Michael's fantasy that a Reconnection in a Vacuum section describes plasma.

The derivation that MR happens in a vacuum is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations.
Magnetic Reconnection
and non-science, non-mathematical responses to the derivation do not change the correctness of the derivation :
An Unusually Pure Example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect[/QUOTE]

P.S.
Michael, where is the detection of Alfven's solar axis double layers (10th November 2013)?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7758314-5/#post64465037
Michael, Cite Alfven's paper(s) which replaced MR theory in "current carrying environments" (3rd October 2013)
http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178-18/#post64241389[/

 

[RealityCheck01]

I have yet to see one of them even attempt to explain how the sun maintains a magnetic field without those electric currents at those temperatures???????

You need to read what you link to, Justatruthseeker.
Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has a link to
Stellar magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A stellar magnetic field is a magnetic field generated by the motion of conductive plasma inside a star.

More than that we would have to both attend some post-graduate astronomy courses or read some textbooks .

And no - you do not need electric currents for magnetic fields. Permanent magnets do not have any electric currents. These are magnetic basically because electrons have a magnetic moment due to their spin. N.B. this is not classical spin so there is no electric charge spinning around in a circle.

ETA: I will also point out that the Sun does not "maintain" a magnetic field as in a permanent magnet. The magnetic field flips every 11 years or so. It develops multiple north and south poles. It does lots of strange things that point to a plasma dynamo origin.

 

[Michael]

For goodness sake, Michael, at least read and *comprehend* the first paragraph of the WIKI definition of magnetic reconnection *in plasma not vacuum* !

Irony overload. Sometimes your denial thing is just so irrational, it's just bizarre.

Wow over 2 years now, Michael, and you retain the fantasy that a diagram and an example not describing plasma contains plasma !

Even *with a diagram* where X literally marks the spot of the 'current/moving plasma particles', you're still wallowing around in pure denial of what Somov wrote *and* diagrammed out for you. Absolutely amazing.

Somov's example is *inclusive* of moving charged particles that *move* as a result of *reconnection*. Plasma is not *optional* in Somov's example, nor is it optional on Wiki, nor is it optional according to Tom Bridgman, and he was your *own* reference!

When are you going to sit down and read a real textbook on MHD theory RC? Arguing from ignorance is just a foolish behavior and it's making you look silly.

 

[Michael]

How ironic that you make up fantasies about what I notice!

Apparently you live in your own fantasy world and notice what you want to notice, and ignore what you want to ignore.

I noticed that for magnetic reconnection in a vacuum there is no energy release over 2 years ago in Somov's book.

What? There *is* energy release in Somov's book and Somov's example. The currents *move* as a result of 'reconnection' in his example. You're living in a fantasy world RC.

That is what makes the process real but trivial

Without plasma and without the transfer of field energy into kinetic energy, it's not only '"trivial' it's not "magnetic reconnection'. Magnetic flux in a vacuum is not "magnetic reconnection'. Magnetic attraction/repulsion in a vacuum is not 'magnetic reconnection'. Go read the WIKI reference again. Magnetic reconnection is a *process* that occurs in *plasma*, and involves the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. If you have no particles to accelerate, you can't transfer kinetic energy to non existent particles! Give it rest already. Your denial-go-round hat dance just gets weirder by the day.

I know that there is energy release for MR in a plasma.

Then Clinger's goofy nonsense in a vacuum has *nothing* to do with 'magnetic reconnection' since he never transferred any magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. He has a *zero* amount of 'magnetic reconnection' happening in his pitiful example of *magnetic flux in a vacuum*.

Get off the denial go round already. Neither of you even has a strong grasp of basic EM field theory, and neither of you have read a textbook on plasma physics, which is exactly why neither of you can provide a published reference that claims that plasma is optional in the magnetic reconnection process.