A simple test for the EU people.

[Michael]

Please don't ever try to say you know what someone else claimed. To many failures on your part.

The failure started with Clinger trying to *dumb down* and *oversimplify* the process, apparently because he never bothered to read or comprehend any book on the topic of plasma physics.

What "textbooks"? A book for a class that no one takes can hardly be called a textbook.

I'm pretty sure that Somov's work is still recommended reading in a lot of classrooms. Any textbook that is devoted to the topic of MHD theory can and will *accurately* describe the "magnetic reconnection" process in plasma. It's essentially the B orientation of Alfven's double layer paper. Somov does a very good job tying the E and B orientations together in his book by the way, not that you or Clinger would have any clue.

See, what did I say about not claiming anything about anyone else. Simply too many failures on your part. Try again.

I'm simply pointing out that your non-physicist, non published "guy" from some website isn't anyone's *peer* on topics related to *physics*!

For goodness sake! You have *never once* presented any peer reviewed rebuttal to *any* paper I've posted in this thread, not once! Notice how ridiculous that looks after awhile? Anyone can cite an unpublished, non peer reviewed hater blog. When can I expect to see you start citing *published* and *peer reviewed* materials in your rebuttals to any of the *published* and peer reviewed materials I have presented?

 

[Seipai]

Oh for crying out loud.....

Go read the WIKI reference on magnetic reconnection for yourself then. It's clear from even the Wiki reference that magnetic reconnection is a physics process that occurs *in plasma*, whereby magnetic field energy is *converted into* charged particle movement. You can't convert magnetic field energy into charged particle movement without charged particles to move, and without plasma.

Clinger has a proven track record in terms of utterly ignoring the physics aspects of the debate. He fixates on the *math*, to the utter exclusion of what he's trying to describe. When he painted himself into a mathematical corner over the *rate* of reconnection, he simply buried his head in the sands of pure denial! If he can't tell the difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and plasma particle acceleration, what makes you think he understands the subtle nuances of GR theory and Schwarzchild's *original* statements? Even Einstein rejected the concept of an infinitely dense object, and the whole concept defies the Pauli exclusion principle.

It is not my fault if you made a possible readable reply illegible by your hysteria.

 

[Michael]

It is not my fault if you made a possible readable reply illegible by your hysteria.

Nor is it my fault if you can't understand the English language. Even the very first paragraph in the Wiki explanation makes it perfectly clear that magnetic reconnection is a physical process that occurs *in plasma* which requires the transfer of energy from the magnetic field into charged particle movement.

No plasma = no plasma movement = zero amount of "reconnection", = no reconnection. Holy cow! You two are peas in a pod. Ignorance is *not* bliss when it comes to physics. Even the math sunk Clinger's own ship at the end because Clinger couldn't even define a *rate* of reconnection in his 'vacuum' *devoid* of charged particles, and therefore devoid of any charged particle movement.

 

[Elendur]

Justa. I'd like it if you either answer my post or notify me if you won't.

 

[Michael]

What's worse is that the Lorentz Force "requires" one to account for the force on charged particles, but of course we are assured by JREF fools that charged particles are not needed.

They never even acknowledged their math was based on *inductance* per unit length, not 'reconnections' per unit length, or the fact they were mathematically incapable of expressing a *rate* of reconnection in his bogus magnet flux experiment.

Ultimately it's nothing more than an induction process in a conductor (plasma) that transfers changing/varying magnetic field energy into particle acceleration. It's nothing earth shattering of course, it's a very easily demonstrated process in solids.

The most amazing aspect from my perspective is that nobody at JREF bothered to correct any of Clinger's nonsense. Ultimately what Clinger describes is an ordinary quadrapole experiment, potentially he might describe magnetic attraction, magnet repulsion and magnetic flux. Without plasma however, he's never going to transfer magnetic flux energy into charged particle movement (inductance per unit length, not reconnections per unit length of course).

The worst part IMO is that the mainstream simply *leaves out* all the actual circuit energy from both circuits when trying to describe the energy exchange inside that double layer/current sheet, even when talking about the *lab* experiments that *rely* on the E field! It's bizarre to say the least. It's no wonder that none of LMSAL's MHD models are working out with respect to the IRIS images. They utterly *refuse* to turn on the electrical current.

 

[Riberra]

Clinger
mathematics of black hole denialism - JREF Forum

Post 17 from JREF forum

Originally Posted by Stephen J Crothers
Time stops at the Schwarzschild point-mass. The conventional concepts of the Schwarzschild sphere and its interior are meaningless.

...snip...

Applying (31) to the Kruskal-Szekeres extension gives rise to the absurdity of an infinite acceleration at r = α where it is conventionally claimed that there is no matter and no singularity. It is plainly evident that gravitational collapse terminates at a Schwarzschild simple point-mass, not in a black hole.

...snip...

The correct conclusion is that gravitational collapse terminates at the point-mass without the formation of a black hole in all general relativistic circumstances.

That's an extraordinary claim, because it contradicts all mainstream research into the implications of general relativity for black holes.
When I can identify obvious errors in the chain of reasoning that's alleged to support the claim, I'm inclined to regard the extraordinary claim as unproven.

When I've done the math myself, and found that correct mathematics refutes most of what Crothers and (Leonard S. Abrams) has to say, I'm inclined to regard the extraordinary claim as incorrect.

Here a peer reviewed paper confirming Leonard S. Abrams claims and also Crothers claims above and demonstrating that Clinger have based his demonstration on Hilbert's trivial error and not from the original Schwarzschild’s paper...
Peer reviewed paper
[gr-qc/0102084] Reconsidering Schwarzschild's original solution
Published here:
Reconsidering Schwarzschild's original solution - Antoci - 2001 - Astronomische Nachrichten - Wiley Online Library
First they begin the paper by a pre-
liminary reassessment of the historical record as conditio sine qua non for
avoiding any misunderstanding
Chapter 1
1. Introduction: Schwarzschild’s solution and the
“Schwarzschild” solution
Nowadays simply talking about Schwarzschild’s solution requires a pre-
liminary reassessment of the historical record as conditio sine qua non for
avoiding any misunderstanding. In fact, the present-day reader must be
firstly made aware of this seemingly peculiar circumstance: Schwarzschild’s
spherically symmetric, static solution [1] to the field equations of the ver-
sion of the theory proposed by Einstein [2] at the beginning of November
1915 is different from the “Schwarzschild” solution that is quoted in all the
textbooks and in all the research papers. The latter, that will be here al-
ways mentioned with quotation marks, was found by Droste, Hilbert and
Weyl,
.............
Page 7
4. The analytic extensions of the “Schwarzschild” solution
As previously shown, Hilbert’s solution was born out of the accidental
choice of the radial coordinate r produced by setting µ = 0 in equation
(2.3); hence there is no reason to accept as unavoidable consequences of
the very field equations of general relativity all the features stemming from
this choice, in particular the existence of the region for r < 2m. How-
ever Hilbert&#8217;s solution was soon perceived as the unique &#8220;Schwarzschild&#8221;
solution and as such it became the obligatory starting point of all the the-
oretical exertions. The curious circumstance that what was initially meant
to model the field of a &#8220;Massenpunkt&#8221; displayed two singularities, one at
the &#8220;Schwarzschild radius&#8221;, and a second one for r = 0, instead of the single
one appearing in Newtonian physics, suggested the idea that one of them
had to be spurious
7
. Since the Kretschmann scalar happened to be finite
at the &#8220;Schwarzschild radius&#8221;, while it was infinite at r = 0, the conviction
arose that the &#8220;true&#8221; singularity was the one at r = 0. Therefore the sin-
gularity displayed by the components of the metric at r = 2m had to be
a mere mathematical mishap, devoid both of geometrical and of physical
meaning. A reason had to be given for the wrongdoing, and it was found in
a presumed inadequacy of the coordinate system at r = 2m.
The search thus started for different coordinate systems that allowed to
erase the singular behaviour displayed by g
ik
at r = 2m. Already in 1924
Eddington had unintentionally succeeded in the task [20] by rewriting the
static &#8220;Schwarzschild&#8221; solution in stationary form through the introduction
of what would have been called the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates
8
. In
1933 Lemaitre achieved the same result by rewriting [22] the &#8220;Schwarzschild&#8221;
metric with cosmological term in time-dependent form. Another solution to
the problem was given in 1950 by Synge with a geometrically inspired paper
[23] that represents the now forgotten forerunner of the maximal extensions
[24], [25] of the &#8220;Schwarzschild&#8221; metric obtained by Kruskal and Szekeres.
All these exertions entail coordinate transformations x
(see pdf paper )
whose
derivatives happen to be singular at the &#8220;Schwarzschild&#8221; radius in just the
appropriate way for providing a transformed metric that is regular there.

..............
In page 8 ..

One cannot help noticing that the restriction to admissible coordinate tran-
frormations, which looked mandatory in the old papers, with the lapse of
the decades has become optional and dependent on taste. In the time span
that goes from Hilbert&#8217;s paper [4] to, say, the publication of Lichnerowicz&#8217;
book [26] with his axioms inscribed in the first chapter, transformations
like the ones needed to efface the &#8220;Schwarzschild&#8221; singularity were simply
disallowed.
Nevertheless, the rule was violated here and there, and already in Synge&#8217;s
paper one finds an explicit program of transgression, since for the latter
author &#8220;it is precisely the non-regular transformations which are interest-
ing&#8221; [23]. But the value of scalars cannot be altered by any transforma-
tion, however &#8220;interesting&#8221;. Therefore in all the alternative forms of the
&#8220;Schwarzschild&#8221; metric mentioned in this section the singularity in the met-
ric components at the &#8220;Schwarzschild&#8221; radius is canceled, but the norm &#945; of
the acceleration of the hyperbolic motion on the invariantly specified Killing
orbit remains infinite at the position of the erased singularity. Since &#945; has
a well defined physical meaning, an infinite value of &#945; in the middle of a
manifold should not be so light-heartedly overlooked: either this singular-
ity should be removed from that position, or a physical argument for its
existence there should be given.
**Already in 1916 Karl Schwarzschild had deliberately sent the singularity
in the &#8220;Nullpunkt&#8221;, thus stipulating that there his idealised vacuum model
ceased to be physically meaningful, because the source of the field had been
attained.

**Which is the confirmation of Crothers claims

Time stops at the Schwarzschild point-mass. The conventional concepts of the Schwarzschild sphere and its interior are meaningless.

Applying (31) to the Kruskal-Szekeres extension gives rise to the absurdity of an infinite acceleration at r = &#945; where it is conventionally claimed that there is no matter and no singularity. It is plainly evident that gravitational collapse terminates at a Schwarzschild simple point-mass, not in a black hole.

The correct conclusion is that gravitational collapse terminates at the point-mass without the formation of a black hole in all general relativistic circumstances.

 

[Michael]

Post 17 from JREF forum

Here a peer reviewed paper confirming Leonard S. Abrams claims and also Crothers claims above and demonstrating that Clinger have based his demonstration on Hilbert's trivial error and not from the original Schwarzschild&#8217;s paper...
Peer reviewed paper
[gr-qc/0102084] Reconsidering Schwarzschild's original solution
Published here:
Reconsidering Schwarzschild's original solution - Antoci - 2001 - Astronomische Nachrichten - Wiley Online Library

The one thing that you absolutely positively *won't* get from Clinger, is any *published and peer reviewed* material that *actually* supports his absurdly ridiculous claims. When I asked him for supporting peer reviewed references to verify his MR in a vacuum gaff, he basically waved his hands and cited irrelevant papers and books that did not even *describe* the events in question, like his intro to EM theory by Percell who never even *mentioned* the topic of MR theory in his textbook. The last citation they handed me at JREF, (Somov's example) actually *included* charged particles and charged particle movement in Somov's description, and he went into a pure denial routine about it. Clinger couldn't even mathematically define a *rate* of reconnection without charged particles and charged particle movement. To Clinger, if the math looks right to him on paper, it must be *gospel*. To hell with anyone's peer reviewed opinion on the matter of actual *physics*.

Don't bore Clinger with actual *peer reviewed science*. He apparently doesn't have the time for it.

 

[Seipai]

The one thing that you absolutely positively *won't* get from Clinger, is any *published and peer reviewed* material that *actually* supports his absurdly ridiculous claims. When I asked him for supporting peer reviewed references to verify his MR in a vacuum gaff, he basically waved his hands and cited irrelevant papers and books that did not even *describe* the events in question, like his intro to EM theory by Percell who never even *mentioned* the topic of MR theory in his textbook. The last citation they handed me at JREF, (Somov's example) actually *included* charged particles and charged particle movement in Somov's description, and he went into a pure denial routine about it. Clinger couldn't even mathematically define a *rate* of reconnection without charged particles and charged particle movement. To Clinger, if the math looks right to him on paper, it must be *gospel*. To hell with anyone's peer reviewed opinion on the matter of actual *physics*.

Don't bore Clinger with actual *peer reviewed science*. He apparently doesn't have the time for it.

Why do you insist on making these empty claims? If they were true I would think you would have linked the site.

The last time you linked you did not do to well in your debate with Clinger.

 

[Michael]

Why do you insist on making these empty claims?

The only one making "empty" claims was Clinger and his vacuum devoid any particles to accelerate.

If they were true I would think you would have linked the site.

I did better than that. I linked you to *his own* site, where he provided you with the links to the appropriate threads. Didn't you read it?

The last time you linked you did not do to well in your debate with Clinger.

Pfft. The last time I debated Clinger publicly, he stuck his physics foot in his mouth for the entire world to see. He ultimately tried to bury his head in the sands of pure denial as he tried to ignore the fact that he couldn't even define a *rate* of reconnection without plasma. The mathematician got blown out of the water by his own inability to present any relevant math related to the rate of reconnection! Clinger still can't tell the difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum and particle acceleration in plasma.

Sorry, but your JREF hater doesn't impress me much when it comes to actual *physics*. He also had the same bad habit you do of running from every request to provide *published* references to support any of his goofy claims. The few references that he actually finally cited in that thread either didn't even mention magnetic reconnection theory at all like Purcell, or they *included* plasma in their example like Somov! He buried himself the last time we debated. Based on the fact that he left his presentation of ordinary magnetic flux around a NULL on the internet, and is bogusly trying to pass it off as 'magnetic reconnection', he *still* hasn't figured it out yet either.

 

[Seipai]

You mean this site where he totally took you apart? :

An Unusually Pure Example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

I notice that you did the same thing there that you have done here. You misunderstand someone's argument and then you accuse them of doing something that they did not do.

I am sure you got kicked off of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums . Did you learn anything when you were there? If you asked your questions politely they would probably have answered them for you. That is one site that might have been able to explain to you why your beliefs are unfounded.

 

[Michael]

You mean this site where he totally took you apart? :

An Unusually Pure Example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

Took *me* apart? See the problem already? The debate was never about *a person*, it was about an *idea* or a "claim/belief". The "person" who could never produce a published reference to support his claims was your hero, clueless Clinger, not yours truly. My references were all published. His were all "made up" in his head. Purcell didn't even *discuss* 'magnetic reconnection' in his book and Somov's example was *inclusive* of plasma and the movement of plasma.

I notice that you did the same thing there that you have done here. You misunderstand someone's argument and then you accuse them of doing something that they did not do.

Sorry, but he did "do it", and his "presentation" (if you can really call it that) is still online no less!

Magnetic Reconnection

Because I am not a physicist, and was trained in mathematics, it was easier for me to derive magnetic reconnection directly from Maxwell's equations than to understand published derivations that start with plasma. Because my derivation avoids the complications of plasma, and uses only freshman-level physics and vector calculus, it might help a wider audience to understand magnetic reconnection.

I'm sure it was *easier* to ignore the plasma physics aspects, but it was still just *wrong* beyond belief.

I still see you're ignoring your *requirement* to provide *published* rebuttals to work with. Why? Do you just not have any? Is some random guy from some random unpublished hater website the basis if your entire belief system as it relates to this topic? No wonder you're so confused.

What *published* reference supports your hero's claim that 'magnetic reconnection' occurs in the absence of plasma and plasma acceleration?

 

[Michael]

Here's the thing your clueless hero could never do, and the thing you will never do either. Neither of you will *ever* produce a reference that claims that magnetic reconnection occurs in a vacuum, in the *absence* of plasma or plasma acceleration.

You'll hem, you'll haw, but neither of you will *ever* come clean with a *published* paper or textbook to support your utterly bogus claims!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here's the thing your clueless hero could never do, and the thing you will never do either. Neither of you will *ever* produce a reference that claims that magnetic reconnection occurs in a vacuum, in the *absence* of plasma or plasma acceleration.

You'll hem, you'll haw, but neither of you will *ever* come clean with a *published* paper or textbook to support your utterly bogus claims!

Of course they won't, because plasma is a necessary component. So they will as you say haw and hand wave, and make claims they can't support, because all they have is Fairie Dust. How do you support Fairie Dust when it has no support but other Fairie Dust?

But you will find plenty that shows plasma is required.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/MHD_reconnection

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/spring2012/physics218c/JBTReview.pdf

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30890394/yamada97pop.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1391825126&Signature=LarMMdExzi0Lns%2FUYNOFAd7Tgy8%3D&response-content-disposition=inline

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/ITC/eaaa_reconn_schindler.pdf

 

[Seipai]

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)

BS! That permeability factor that you're running like hell from describes *INDUCTANCE* per unit length, not *RECONNECTIONS* per unit length!

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:

He saw the magnetic constant in one of Maxwell's equations, noticed that it has the same units as permeability (and is sometimes referred to as vacuum permeability), and concluded that I was talking about inductance, probably because inductance was the only context in which he had ever encountered the notion of permeability.

Now units can be tricky in physics. You have to know what the units represent. For example torque and work have the same units. Of course most physicists would never mistake the two since torque is a vector and work is a scalar. I have seen lay people make that mistake.

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.

 

[Seipai]

Of course they won't, because plasma is a necessary component. So they will as you say haw and hand wave, and make claims they can't support, because all they have is Fairie Dust. How do you support Fairie Dust when it has no support but other Fairie Dust?

But you will find plenty that shows plasma is required.

MHD reconnection - Scholarpedia

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/spring2012/physics218c/JBTReview.pdf

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30890394/yamada97pop.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1391825126&Signature=LarMMdExzi0Lns%2FUYNOFAd7Tgy8%3D&response-content-disposition=inline

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/ITC/eaaa_reconn_schindler.pdf

I am not going to do your homework for you. I looked at two of those articles and they did not seem to support your claim.

The seem to say that magnetic reconstruction can and will occur in a plasma, I did not see any of them claim that a plasma was required.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am not going to do your homework for you. I looked at two of those articles and they did not seem to support your claim.

The seem to say that magnetic reconstruction can and will occur in a plasma, I did not see any of them claim that a plasma was required.

You looked at none of them.

MHD reconnection - Scholarpedia

"Magnetic reconnection is a change of magnetic connectivity of plasma elements due to the presence of a localised diffusion region, where the magnetic field may diffuse through the plasma. Reconnection is a fundamental process in an almost-ideal plasma whose magnetic Reynolds number [FONT=MathJax_Math]R[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]m[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]e[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]=[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]L[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]e[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]v[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]e[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]&#951;[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main],[/FONT] is much larger than unity, where [FONT=MathJax_Math]L[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]e[/FONT] is the typical global length-scale for variations in plasma properties, [FONT=MathJax_Math]v[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]e[/FONT] is a typical plasma velocity and [FONT=MathJax_Math]&#951;[/FONT] is the magnetic diffusivity"

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/ITC/eaaa_reconn_schindler.pdf

"Magnetic reconnection is a fundamental dynamical process in highly conductive plasmas."


There is no maybe, there is no qualifier, there is no if. Stop ignoring the facts in favor of pseudoscience and Fairie Dust.

And stop treating those imaginary lines drawn on paper to indicate strength as if they were real actual entities.

Field line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Note that, like longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a topographic map, these lines are not physical lines that are actually present at certain locations; they are merely visualization tools."

 

[Seipai]

You can't understand your own articles.

This one:

MHD reconnection - Scholarpedia

Is specifically about magnetic fields in a plasma. Of course in that context they are going to talk about magnetic reconnectivity in a plasma.

So you still fail.

Better luck next time.

 

[Seipai]

Hey, I made a mistake. I had to reread some articles on magnetic reconnection. That can happen when you are not fully up on an idea.

I am still fairly sure that Michael is wrong in his claims about Clinger.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey, I made a mistake. I had to reread some articles on magnetic reconnection. That can happen when you are not fully up on an idea.

I am still fairly sure that Michael is wrong in his claims about Clinger.

There is no so-called magnetic reconnection without a source for the magnetic field.

Magnetic field lines can never cross, it is the electrical currents in the plasma that sometimes intersect and cause the event they call magnetic reconnection.

Why can&#039;t magnetic field lines cross? - Yahoo Answers

https://www.boundless.com/physics/magnetism/magnetism-and-magnetic-fields/magnetic-field-lines/

Magnetic Field Characteristics

Since we know it is impossible for magnetic fields to point in two different directions at the same time, then it is logical that something else is causing the phenomenon.

It must logically be the electric current pathways intersecting, since only electric current causes magnetism and electric current is moving charges.

Creation of Magnetic Fields

Magnetic fields can be caused by all of the following except which one? - Yahoo Answers

Origin of Permanent Magnetism

"In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit)"




You just realized Clinger was wrong about plasma being optional and still want to try to defend his ideas? They will all be shown to be wrong when you do research on them as well.

 

[Elendur]

Justa, you still have two unaddressed posts by me:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7793802-84/#post64949832

http://www.christianforums.com/t7793802-84/#post64952637

It's close to a week now since I posted them and I've seen no response that you've noticed them.

I see only three reasons why that should be. Either you've missed them, you've put me on ignore or you're avoiding them.