Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

[RealityCheck01]

...

Whoops - you are right for once, Michael!
Got Somov's explanation of MR in vacuum confused with Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger explanation of MR in a vacuum.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I will make this part of the following post clearer:

ETA2: There is a small "delusion" though, Michael!
In reply to Michael, MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents !
You stated ...
That is definitely wrong as Somov's caption states.
The MR in a vacuum does not move the currents. It is the displacement of the currents that causes the MR. No displacement of the currents, no MR.

Take my physical example of MR in vacuum. We have

• Two wires.
• A vacuum chamber.

Note that there are no charged particles in the vacuum chamber doh.
Put the wires in Somov's configuration a around the vacuum chamber so that the neutral point is inside the chamber. If you leave this apparatus alone then nothing will happen. It will remain in configuration a as long as you are prepared to wait (*).

Now move the wires to displace them nearer to each other. We now have wires in Somov's configuration b around the vacuum chamber. MR has happened. MR has happened around the neutral point. The neutral point is between the wires. Between the wires is the vacuum chamber. Thus MR has happened in the vacuum chamber. This is magnetic reconnection in vacuum doh.

(*) You may think that the configuration a magnetic field can move the wires. The answer is no because the wires are neutral. There will be a displacement of the moving electrons in the wires relative to the ions so wait a couple of nanoseconds for this to stabilize before moving the wires.

 

[Michael]

Whoops - you are right for once, Michael!
Got Somov's explanation of MR in vacuum confused with Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger explanation of MR in a vacuum.

Score one point for actual education, and zero points for the clairvoyant physicist.

Clinger's explanation has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection". Like you, he left out the plasma particles and the movement of plasma particles. Clinger made a *physics* error, not a math error. See the problem now?

 

[Michael]

I will make this part of the following post clearer:


Take my physical example of MR in vacuum. We have.....

Magnetic flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can only assume that you don't have have all that firm of a grasp of solid state physics either. In *solids*, this sort of activity is called magnetic flux, magnetic attraction, and/or 'induction'.

The way you completely ignore the published material and you keep citing yourself over and over and again while chanting "Trust me personally because I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night" simply doesn't cut it for me RC.

Your little experiment has *nothing* to do with "magnetic reconnection" which is a plasma physical process by which magnetic field energy is converted into plasma particle acceleration. Science uses *proper names* for very specific physical processes and claims. You're abusing these labels in a purely haphazard and unacceptable manner. Your claims don't even pass the WIKI whiff test. Wiki explicitly states that reconnection is a process *in plasma*. You can't take the *plasma* out of the process. Furthermore Wiki makes it abundantly clear that the other requirement of reconnection is plasma particle acceleration. You keep leaving these *critical* aspects of 'reconnection' theory out of your unpublished personal handwaves, and you keep insisting they are the same thing. They are *not* the same thing. I've shown you where Somov *satisfied* the plasma requirement by his *inclusion* (not exclusion) of plasma particles in two current streams. I've shown you how he converted magnetic flux into charged particle movement too, satisfying Wiki's second listed requirement.

Your unpublished handwave and Clingers unpublished nonsense satisfies *neither* Wiki requirement for 'reconnection'. All you've described is magnetic flux, magnetic attraction, and potentially induction in solids.

Based on your various statements, I can only assume your understanding of basic EM theory isn't all that great, and your clairvoyant plasma physicist routine is just a joke at this point.

When oh when are you going to read a real textbook on plasma physics RC? I'm really tired of you projecting your own ignorant 'delusions' (that's what you called it) upon me, only because you're too darn lazy to educate yourself.

It would be one thing if you were *nice* about it, and acknowledged your own ignorance on these topics, but since you're arrogantly trying to claim the scientific ground without bothering to educate yourself, and being verbally abusive in almost every post, get lost. If you won't be bothered to educate yourself, and you won't listen to me, there's no point in discussing these various topics with you because they *all* (each one) involve plasma physics, and clearly you can't be bothered to study the topic.

You ranted on about how I don't understand the English language, and I was deluded about the movement of particles in Somov's example, when apparently it was you with the ignorant delusions, and you that can't understand basic English even *with* a diagram to go with it!

Honestly RC, when can I expect you to read at least one (I've read five) textbook on plasma physics?

 

[Michael]

BBC News - LUX results: Dark matter hunt nears final phase

"This first run demonstrates a sensitivity that is better than any previous experiment looking to detect dark matter particles directly."


During this period, the detector did not see any evidence of dark matter.
The team said that this absence also ruled out the possibility that other detectors, such as DAMA in Italy and the CDMS and CoGeNT experiments in the US, had seen glimpses of dark matter.


The researchers said because LUX was so sensitive, if these hints had been correct, then it would have seen dark matter particles too.
However, the scientists are hopeful that in the next 300-day run, which is scheduled to start in early 2014, LUX could be the first experiment to directly detect dark matter.

In spite of *not* finding any signals for exotic matter and in spite of ruling out other previous studies, apparently hope still springs eternal in SUSY circles.

 

[Michael]

Dark matter search comes up empty | Fox News

FYI, the FoxNews version was actually a little more neutral IMO. This test was yet *the most recent* falsification of some earlier claims of probable sightings, and it's yet another failure to turn up anything useful based on Lambda-CDM theory.

10 Serious Problems with Big Bang Cosmology | The Universe

 

[Michael]

A shot in the dark: Detector on the hunt for dark matter

Oy Vey! This is another perfect example of what amounts to pure false advertizing in terms of the detector and it's capabilities. My favorite lines from the article:

There have been previous efforts to locate the axion, but there is greater interest in the Axion Dark Matter Experiment because of recent developments in physics research. The most notable is that the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, lauded for its discovery of the elusive Higgs boson in 2012, did not find evidence to support supersymmetry, a proposed resolution for some inconsistencies among theories of particle physics.
That lack of evidence provided impetus to separate the search for dark matter from work on supersymmetry, Rosenberg said, so the newest version of the Axion Dark Matter Experiment is drawing substantial interest among researchers.

In other words, SUSY theory is obviously a total bust in the lab, and pure desperation over the state of SUSY particle research has set in, so axions have become the "new and improved" version of "dark matter" research these days.

In terms of pure false advertizing however, these comments win the award for being far and away, *the single* biggest false claim being told in the article:

The aim of the Axion Dark Matter Experiment is to search for cold dark matter axions in the halo of the Milky Way galaxy by detecting the very weak conversion of axions into microwave photons.

What they never bothered to mention is the fact that there *is absolutely, positively no empirically demonstrated link* between microwave photons and axions *in the lab*. Their claims are all based on the same affirming the consequent fallacy argument they always pull out of their back pocket. They first *assumed* that there's some connection between microwaves (or sometimes gamma rays) and their mythical particle of the month, and then they point at the sky and *find evidence* of their *blatant unsupported assertion* in uncontrolled observations from space. What a crock. It's nothing but a pure affirming the consequent fallacy (again). This line was my favorite line though:

Assembly of the detector was completed in early October, and the team has begun weeks to months of commissioning, which involves testing and fine-tuning the equipment. Then the hunt will begin in earnest.

I can guarantee you that they aren't actually "testing" or fine tuning the equipment based on controlled experiments where axions are shown to emit microwaves in the lab. All they mean is they're tweaking the equipment to fine tune it's ability to pick up microwaves, and then they intend to point at the sky and pull another blatant affirming the consequent fallacy with that data.

The affirming the consequent fallacy seems to the "go-to" first choice for all new astronomy "tests" and equipment designs. Apparently they believe that if they *claim* that it can see something associated with "dark matter", then surely it must be able to detect dark matter emissions!

Holy cow! They can't even make up their mind if "dark matter" is actually "dark" as they claim, or if it emits gamma rays, or emits microwaves, or some other yet to be determined wavelength of light. Dark matter has *absolutely* become an exotic matter of the gaps claim, and the "properties" of their invisible stuff changes on a whim. Sometimes it's "dark", other times it emits some random wavelength of light because they say so. No other branch of physics would be allowed to get away with this kind of junk science.

 

[Michael]

I can guarantee you that they aren't actually "testing" or fine tuning the equipment based on controlled experiments where axions are shown to emit microwaves in the lab. All they mean is they're tweaking the equipment to fine tune it's ability to pick up microwaves, and then they intend to point at the sky and pull another blatant affirming the consequent fallacy with that data.

Well, no, it's actually not quite that simple, at least in the sense that they aren't "pointing" anything per se. I suppose I now owe it to them to actually *study* their experiment before misrepresenting it again.

Thus far however, I see no control mechanisms, and no controlled *source* of Axions. I obviously have some reading to do.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Score one point for actual education, and zero points for the clairvoyant physicist.

Score -99 points for total denial of basic English and physics so that you can stick with the misconception that MR needs plasma to work.

Clinger's explanation has every to do with magnetic reconnection as anyone can read, Michael !
Magnetic Reconnection
Like Somov and other authors, he left out the plasma particles and the movement of plasma particles.
Like anyone with a basic knowledge of electrodynamics, he derived Magnetic Reconnection without including any plasma or the movement of plasma particles.

Michael is making an logic error: assuming that MR requires plasma and so MR requires plasma .
Michael is making an logic error: a Wikipedia article on MR in plasma does not mean that MR in vacuum is impossible.

Michael is denying simple English:

• Clinger in Magnetic Reconnection shows that applying Maxwell's equations to a situation without plasma results in MR.
• Somov and other authors describe MR in vacuum
  MM What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..." mean?
  Asked on 18th March 2012 - 601 days and counting.

Michael is denying simple physics:

• Clinger in Magnetic Reconnection shows that applying Maxwell's equations to a situation without plasma results in MR.

And are you still in denial of:
Michael, MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents !

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael: Can you understand the insanity of a demand to read an irrelevant textbook?
(as per Michael's demand - replaced 'inane' with 'insane' in that post !)
First asked 29th October 2013 - 10 days and counting.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael - any refutations with actual science to:
Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong II)!
11th November 2012 (no scientific refutation for almost a year).

Perhaps you can cite the many papers measuring no convection currents at all within the Sun ?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Quote the science, or quit making up fantasies, Michael!
24th October 2013

Sunspots are not the photosphere which is measured to have a temperature of ~5700 K - no solid iron mountain ranges. But your idea is even more wrong because you see these mountain ranges in light from material at a temperature > 160,000 K !

Lots of outstanding stuff, Michael.
Have you read The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Critics again and now understand that Dungey stating that "The defining feature of a discharge in this context is a large current density" and

Originally Posted by Dungey (1953 paper)
A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.

is not an actual electrical discharge as generally understood and is not your quote mining of Peratt's definition?

Michael: Was your mention of MR and "monopoles" about any fantasy that MR is impossible because it needs monopoles or was it to do with the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper?
29th October 2013 - 10 days and counting

Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
3rd October 2013 - 36 days and counting
This is not Double layers and circuits in astrophysics ("A simple circuit is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources").

Not that this means much unless the rest of the scientific community threw away MR: Have you heard of the logical fallacy of argument from authority, Michael? (Michael's obsession with Alfven as the authority on plasma).

Citation for the Plank results showing that "universe isn't homogeneous on the largest scales", Michael.
2nd October 2013 - 37 days and counting
(and not to an entire thread contains unspecified musings)

Michael: What does "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..." mean?
Asked on 18th March 2012 - 602 days and counting!

MM: Why did Somov split "Reconnection in vacuum" from "Reconnection in plasma" if MR in vacuum does not exist?
Asked on 18th March 2012 - 602 days and counting!

Michael's idea predicts that the Sun has no central energy source (and is thus hollow)!
2nd December 2012 - 343 days and counting!

And keep these handy :
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For your info, the energy source of the sun comes from outside, not from inside. It is not hollow, but solid. There is no such thing as MR, merely electrical circuits disconnecting and reconnecting, causing the magnetic field to form and collapse then reform again.

There is no such thing as a magnetic field line, merely a magnetic field encircling the electric current, confining it into filaments. This is why the universe is highly filamentary, everywhere you look, contrary to your gravitational only model. Gravity is a weak force and only takes over when atoms are bound and the electric and magnetic forces become balanced. Magnetic field lines no more exist then do altitude lines on a map, they are there simply as a guide to the strength of the field.

Only one thing causes magnetism, electricity. Until you accept this simple basic fact of science known for over 200 years you will always be confused about magnetism.

Magnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origin of Permanent Magnetism

NIT, Trichy

Contents

There is no other known way to create a magnetic field except with electric currents. Your refusal to accept this basic principle of science known since the 1800's is the root cause of your confusion.

You can't even talk about magnetism without violating everything known scientifically about it. It is caused by electric currents, whether on a macro or micro scale. Why do you refuse to accept what your very own science tells you about it? Why must you ignore what the only known cause of magnetism is?

In return all you have is misdirection and Fairie Dust.

 

[Michael]

Score -99 points for total denial of basic English

What is wrong with you RC? Why are you here, and why do you keep hijacking my threads?

You *refuse* to read any textbook on MHD theory, and you can't grasp English explanations of moving currents even *with* a diagram! You then have the audacity to talk about an inability to grasp English? You're unbelievable. I've seen hard core denial and nasty behaviors before, but you're in a class by yourself RC. The internet stalking aspects of your behaviors puts you squarely into the "creepy" zone.

and physics so that you can stick with the misconception that MR needs plasma to work.

The head slap is the fact you personally think otherwise *without* a published citation to support that claim. Apparently everything you know about MR theory comes from some unpublished website.

Clinger's explanation has every to do with magnetic reconnection as anyone can read, Michael !

As anyone can read on WIKI, MR theory requires plasma and plasma acceleration, two things Clinger forgot. That's also why Clinger's nonsense isn't actually published and never would get published. Clinger admitted that he has never even read a single textbook on MHD theory, and his basic EM theory textbook never mentioned the term. Both of you are two peas in a pod. You think you know something about MHD theory based upon *clairvoyance* apparently. Ignorance is not bliss.

Clinger's example is nothing more than an example of magnetic flux, and potentially induction in a vacuum. Since no plasma was involved and no plasma acceleration took place, it *cannot* describe reconnection.

Magnetic Reconnection
Like Somov and other authors, he left out the plasma particles and the movement of plasma particles.

You're in pure denial RC. Somov *included* plasma, and he *included* plasma movement. Clinger didn't include either one!

Like anyone with a basic knowledge of electrodynamics, he derived Magnetic Reconnection without including any plasma or the movement of plasma particles.

False. Like anyone that has never read a book on MHD theory and then tried to describe an MHD process *without* plasma, he epically failed to describe magnetic reconnection *accurately*! His work isn't published and it never will get published. All the published materials *include* plasma and plasma movement.

Michael is making an logic error: assuming that MR requires plasma and so MR requires plasma .

Nope. You're making a logic error by assuming you know something about MHD theory *without* ever reading a textbook on the topic. You've never produced a *published* author that did *not* include plasma and plasma movement when describing reconnection.

Michael is making an logic error: a Wikipedia article on MR in plasma does not mean that MR in vacuum is impossible.

Five textbooks all said the same thing WIKI said about the *necessity* of plasma and the *necessity* of plasma particle acceleration. Since neither of you have read a textbook on MHD theory, all you hear is the term 'vacuum'.

Michael is denying simple English:

Nope, you did that when you denied the fact that Somov *includes* plasma and plasma particle movement.

Clinger is *clueless* about MHD theory because Clinger is like you. He's *never* read a textbook on the topic, and left out two important aspects of *reconnection*.

Somov's example was "trivial'. It *included* plasma particles and plasma particle movement. Clinger's claim was utterly ridiculous and it was *not* published.

Michael is denying simple physics:

Nope, not me. That's you and Clinger. You simply forgot plasma.

.And are you still in denial of:
Michael, MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents !

Nope. The process occurred *to the currents* and had a direct physical effect *on* the location of the currents. You not only don't understand English, you don't understand English *even with a diagram*!

 

[Michael]

Quote the science, or quit making up fantasies, Michael!

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

Quit hijacking this thread RC. This thread is about *mainstream* claims.

I've already explained all these issues to you. The term we used in *published* papers was *rigid*, not solid. You've never even acknowledged that point in *years* of pointless debates RC, just you like never acknowledged that electrical discharges *are possible* in plasmas, or that my model does *not* have a hollow center. You're pretty much intent on *misrepresenting* the facts, just like you *misrepresented* Somov's example, Dungey's work and Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in plasma.

The fact you're still prattling on about 'hollow suns" without ever quoting me demonstrates that you're incapable of telling the truth RC.

 

[Michael]

Michael - any refutations with actual science to:
Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong II)!
11th November 2012 (no scientific refutation for almost a year).

Pure nonsense. Unlike you I got my work published. You didn't publish anything related to astronomy or solar physics, and you clearly know *nothing* about the model we've presented since you keep talking about *hollow* suns! Trollish behaviors seems to be your personal specialty RC.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Pure nonsense. Unlike you I got my work published. You didn't publish anything related to astronomy or solar physics, and you clearly know *nothing* about the model we've presented since you keep talking about *hollow* suns! Trollish behaviors seems to be your personal specialty RC.

That's all the trolls have Michael, misdirection and Fairie Dust. His entire cosmological model relies on Fairie Dust and has been disproved over and over again by every single probe sent into space.

Electric currents in a vacuum, why everyone knows that is impossible, regardless that every single probe measures them.

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

They simply do not understand what electric currents are. It is the flow of electric charge, a simple basic fact.

What Is Electricity? | thunderbolts.info

Misunderstood by almost every single astronomer, because even our teachers do not know what it is.

Electricty Misconceptions Spread By Textbooks

He needs to stop reading grade school explanations. RC needs a reality check.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That's all the trolls have Michael, misdirection..
...snipped more inane fairy dust stuff...

Wow Justatruthseeker: you really know how to fall for the thunderbolts woo !
And a web page from 1995 about the "lies to children" and mistakes in K-6 (ages 11!) science textbooks.

Astronomers know that electric currents exist in space, e.g.
NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

A bit of understandable ignorance - I have actually read university level textbooks.

His entire cosmological model relies on Fairie Dust and has been disproved over and over again by every single probe sent into space.

Please list every single probe sent into space, Justatruthseeker.
For each of these probes show how the data disproves the Lambda-CDM cosmological model.
Or is that statements a total exaggeration (very close to a lie) Justatruthseeker?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Pure nonsense. ...usual rant snipped...

Pure denial:
Michael - any refutations with actual science to:
Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong II)!
11th November 2012 - 365 days and counting

Perhaps you can cite the many papers measuring no convection currents at all within the Sun ?

 

[RealityCheck01]

arXiv.org Search

Quote the mainstream science, not a couple of crank and easily debunked papers as in
Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong II)!
11th November 2012 - no scientific refutation in 365 days and counting
to which you contributed a single image and a fantasy about that image (solid mountain ranges at a temperature of > 160,000 K in images of solar flares ).
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Errors in Michael's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!
Errors in Michael's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!
Errors in Michael's site XV (no surface structures in SOHO RD movie)!
Errors in Michael's site VII (Sun rotates non-uniformly)!
Errors in Michael's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!

Quote the mainstream science, or quit making up fantasies, Michael!

Michael's idea predicts that the Sun has no central energy source (and is thus hollow)!
2nd December 2012 - 347 days and counting!