Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection

[RealityCheck01]

The guy with the most "knowledge" in plasma physics, and how it relates to events in space, that can be traced back to the early 1900's was Kristian Birkeland and his team.

This is quite ignorant since Kristian Birkeland know nothing about plasma physics, Michael, for the simple reason that plasma physics did not exist!

The term "plasma" was coined by Irving Langmuir in 1928,[54]

What Kristian Birkeland used was electrodynamics - basically Maxwell's equations applied to electrons in a magnetic field.

The mainstream *rejected* Birkeland's work and *still* rejects the *bulk* of his work to this very day. They only grudgingly accepted his work with aurora because they were *forced* to do so after satellites in space *showed Birkeland was right*.

Wow - you know the amazing fact that scientists like to have observational confirmation of extraordinary theories, Michael !
The mainstream *still* rejects the *bulk* of his Birkeland's work to this very day for the simple reason that the *bulk* of his Birkeland's work was wrong:

• Galaxies are not Birkeland's electrical discharges !
• Saturn's rings are not Birkeland's electrical discharges!
• Zodiacal light is not Birkeland's electrical discharges!
• Solar activity is not Birkeland's electrical discharges!
• His planetary formation idea was just wrong.

 

[RealityCheck01]

FYI, here's what Hannes Alfven had to say about "magnetic reconnection" theory when he presented his double layer paper that made that theory obsolete:

Which reminds me:
Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
3rd October 2013 - 39 days and counting, Michael.

 

[Michael]

I will start by citing the actual blog posts by Tom Bridgman about Dungey:
Sunday, July 7, 2013 On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges"

Why would you of all people do that? Bridgman cited Dungey's papers on *electrical discharges* in solar flares, Mr. "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma".

And more evidence for MR in energetic solar events:
Sunday, July 21, 2013 (Non-) Electric Universe News for Summer 2013

You would know anything about MR theory RC, as you insist on trying to *leave out* all plasma.

The rest of the post is the usual denials from you, Michael, about electrical discharges and plasma as contained in
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

Your use of the term 'actual' is pure personal nonsense. Dungey's use of the term didn't require a breakdown of any dielectric, nor did Peratt. You personally made that up, and that's why you will *absolutely never* be able to come up with a *published* author that uses the term 'impossible' with respect to electrical discharges in plasma. Go read Dungey's paper from Bridgman's website RC. It doesn't say squat about a breakdown of a dielectric. That's your own personal false claim. You're 0 for 3 in terms of being a useful representative on this topic RC. When can we expect you to actually read a textbook on MHD theory RC?

 

[Michael]

Which reminds me:
Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
3rd October 2013 - 39 days and counting, Michael.

Double layers and circuits in astrophysics

Apparently you mean that you've been in personal denial for 39 days and counting. I cited his *original* presentation for you from the conference where he first presented the materials, and I cited the published paper as well. You are simply wasting everyone's time, particularly mine. Why? Did you even bother to read his book? Of course not. I doubt you've even taken the time to read his double layer papers.

Why are you trolling here on ChristiansForums RC? You aren't responding intelligently to anything I've said on any topic. You've consistently misrepresented every author, from Alfven, to Somov, to Peratt, to Dungey, to Bruce, to me personally. You've got no clue about MHD theory because you absolutely will not pick up a textbook and read one!

Alfven called MR theory "pseudoscience" a total of 7 times at that conference RC, 7 different times. He made the entire concept obsolete and unnecessary in all current carrying environments, and according to Alfven, the entire universe is a current carrying environment.

He fully explained flares without resorting to MR theory. Even the so called laboratory 'experiments' on MR theory all begin with electric fields and/or current. They all *include* plasma. You personally don't even understand MR theory in the first place since you're trying to leave *out* the plasma and plasma acceleration in MR theory. You're quite clueless by choice, and therefore you're the last guy in the world that *should be* discussing these topics in cyberspace. For some reason however, you *insist* never reading a textbook on MHD theory. You *insist* on consistently misrepresenting everyone from Somov to Alfven, and you fancy yourself as some sort of expert on MHD theory.

 

[Michael]

Hey RC.....

Since you're defending Bridgman, how about explaining to me why I should believe you and Clinger rather than Bridgman about the *absolute need* for plasma in the 'reconnection' process? There aren't many areas where we *do* agree, but on that point, I *absolutely* agree with Bridgman, and you're the odd man out.

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: July 2013

Often, Electric Universe supporters don't even mention that reconnection with energy release can only occur when the field is imbedded in a plasma.

Bridgman was absolutely right about that point, and you're absolutely wrong about it. Care to explain to me why I should trust you rather than Bridgman on this point RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Why would you of all people do that? Bridgman cited Dungey's papers on *electrical discharges* in solar flares, Mr. "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma".

Why would you continue to deny what Dungey actually wrote in Dungey's papers on null points and magnetic reconnection as the causes of solar flares !

Why do you still cannot understand what Dungey actually wrote in Dungey's papers and that he has "electrical discharges" (note the quotes !) happening in magnetic reconnection as a cause of solar flares?

The rest of the post is the usual denials from you, Michael, about electrical discharges and plasma as contained in
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
Actual (normal, whatever you want to call them) electrical discharges are the sudden electrical currents that are allowed by the breakdown of a dielectric medium. An example is lightning.
Dungey's personal usage (based on a few other authors usages and also used by a few modern authors) of the term "electrical discharges" is not actual electrical discharges. This is something which anyone who can read and understand English can see:
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
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?

There is Dr Charles Bruce and his invalid idea about lightning on the Sun (Errors in Michael's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!).
This expert in electrical discharges did not just state that there are electrical discharges in plasma on the Sun. He stated that his requirement for actual electrical discharges in plasma on the Sun was that the plasma must contain dust particles.

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!
2 years and you remain totally ignorant that citing Dungey is bad if you have the idea that solar flares are "electrical discharges" .

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hey RC.....

Hey M.....
Why can you not understand that Somov, Clinger and other authors are talking about MR in vacuum?
Bridgman, the rest of Somov's textbook, etc. are talking about MR in plasma because that is the more interesting process and it actually is the cause of solar flares !

Hey M.....
Why have you not pointed out the actual, obvious flaw in Bridgman's blog post ?
He thinks that this imaginary Birkeland "solar cathode" model is the same as the crank EU solar models about how the Sun is powered. But Birkeland stating that the Sun is a cathode is not a statement about how the Sun is powered!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Double layers and circuits in astrophysics
...usual rant snipped...

Apparently you still cannot read:
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. Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the Sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from earth....

This fairly ignored paper (35 refereed citations over 27 years) is not the ground-breaking replacement of all MR in plasma that you think it is.
But in case it is not that ignored:
Michael,
Where is the detection of Alfven's predicted "two double layers on the Sun's axis"?
The past 27 years have seen an enormous increase in the amount of data collected abut the Sun.

Look up "magnetic reconnection solar flare" in ADS and you get ~4000 abstracts. Do the same for "double layer solar flare" and you get 71 abstracts ! See how trivial double layers are in solar flares, Michael?

Look up "magnetic reconnection plasma" in ADS and you get ~12,000 abstracts. Do the same for "double layer plasma" and you get ~2700 abstracts ! See how minor double layers are in plasma, Michael?


Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
3rd October 2013 - 39 days and counting, Michael.

 

[Michael]

Apparently you still cannot read:
Double layers and circuits in astrophysics

Actually, it's *you* that refuse to read a book on MHD theory, so you're incapable of understanding the materials, just like you didn't understand *Somov* when he *moved* the currents. You're willfully ignorant by choice RC.

This fairly ignored paper (35 refereed citations over 27 years) is not the ground-breaking replacement of all MR in plasma that you think it is.

Oh, but it is, as Alfven explained at the conference where he first presented these materials. Since you don't understand MHD theory, you can't appreciate it's value.

The past 27 years have seen an enormous increase in the amount of data collected abut the Sun.

Look up "magnetic reconnection solar flare" in ADS and you get ~4000 abstracts. Do the same for "double layer solar flare" and you get 71 abstracts ! See how trivial double layers are in solar flares, Michael?

I see how "trivial' they are to an ignorant person who's never read a textbook on MHD theory and doesn't even understand the *basics* of something like 'reconnection' theory. I realize that your claims don't jive with Bridgman's claims about reconnection theory either. Why is that RC? Why did Bridgman blow you nonsense away about reconnection happening *without* plasma RC? Could it be your clairvoyant physicist routine isn't working as well as you think?

Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
3rd October 2013 - 39 days and counting, Michael.

Your denial process is of no interest to me RC. When are you going to read a real textbook on the topic of MHD theory before trying to debate that topic in cyberspace RC? 730 days and counting!

 

[Michael]

Hey M.....
Why can you not understand that Somov, Clinger and other authors are talking about MR in vacuum?[

The difference is that Somov *included* plasma particles, but Clinger left them out! Ooops!

Bridgman, the rest of Somov's textbook, etc. are talking about MR in plasma because that is the more interesting process and it actually is the cause of solar flares !

You're so stuck in denial at this point, you simply *ignored* what Bridgman said. He *specifically* said that plasma wasn't optional RC. So did Somov, and he even included diagrams for you and everything. You however *ignored* that *requirement* just like you ignored the WIKI definition.

Hey M.....
Why have you not pointed out the actual, obvious flaw in Bridgman's blog post ?
He thinks that this imaginary Birkeland "solar cathode" model is the same as the crank EU solar models about how the Sun is powered. But Birkeland stating that the Sun is a cathode is not a statement about how the Sun is powered!

Apparently you haven't read my blog recently either. Why would you since you're not actually interested in truth.

The bottom line is that you can't even deal with Bridgman's *correct* explanation about *reconnection* requiring plasma. You're stuck on your ignorant hater denial-go-round, and nothing I say will change your mind. You don't care about truth RC, you never did. You've made this a *personal* crusade, and you really don't give a darn about right and wrong. Like most haters, you won't even be bothered to educate yourself, you refuse to read the appropriate materials, and you refuse to respond to the direct question put to you, like why Bridgman *disagrees* with your claims, just like Somov *disagreed* with your claims and *included* plasma, and just like Wiki *disagreed* with your claims and used plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The difference is that Somov *included* plasma particles, but Clinger left them out! Ooops!
...snipped some ranting ...

Ooops, Michael: The difference is that is a lie. Somov never *included* plasma particles in his chapter on MR in vacuum - that is the next chapter!
You can read the word vacuum?
You can read that nothing in that chapter mentions plasma?
You can understand that the chapter ends with mentioning charge particles as a bridge to the next chapter on MR in plasma?

Bridgman *specifically* said that plasma wasn't optional in plasmas! MR in plasmas is the astrophysical interesting process that he was talking about.
Somov *specifically* said that plasma was optional because MR in vacuum is a real process.

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

 

[Michael]

Ooops, Michael: The difference is that is a lie.

Even *with* a diagram, you are incapable of understanding what he said, and apparently incapable have a rational and adult conversation on this *or any other* topic.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Even *with* a diagram, you are incapable of understanding what he said, and apparently incapable have a rational and adult conversation on this *or any other* topic.

Even *with* a diagram, you are incapable of understanding what Somov wrote: there is no plasma in that diagram (there is only a current). There is no current or plasma where the MR happens at the X point. This is Reconnection in a vacuum.
Even with the actual text and title of the chapter you cannot understand what Somov wrote: Reconnection in a vacuum.

As I said on JREF on 1st December 2011
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7804792#post7804792

Somov ran open CURRENTS through the vacuum, introducing WIRES to the PROCESS .
Somov ran open CURRENTS through the vacuum, introducing ELECTRON BEAMS to the PROCESS .
Somov ran open CURRENTS through the vacuum, introducing PROTON BEAMS to the PROCESS .
Somov ran open CURRENTS through the vacuum, introducingIONIZED SILVER BEAMS to the PROCESS .

Can you see that my satirical comments is as stupid as your serious assertion about PLASMA?

Somov has no plasma.
Somov has no wires.
Somov has no beams of any kind of charged particle.

He has 2 parallel electrical currents that just exist.

and Somov ran open CURRENTS through the vacuum, introducing CHARGED PINK UNICORNS to the PROCESS!
To be a little more serious, he could have rubbed pith balls on his shirt and thrown them through the diagram - they also would be currents.

 

[RealityCheck01]

This is some of the text of Somov's chapter, 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.:

Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
X-type points consist a topological peculiarity of a magnetic field. They are places where where redistribution of magnetic fluxes occurs, which changes the connectivity of field lines. Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17. The magnetic field of these currents forms three different fluxes in the plane (x,y). Two of them belong to the upper and the lower currents, respectively, and are situated inside the separatrix field line A, which forms the figure of the eight-like curve with zeroth X-point. The third flux belongs to both currents and is situated outside of the separatrix.

If the currents are displaced in the direction of each other, then the following magnetic flux redistribution will take place. The currents proper fluxes will diminish by the quantity dA, while their common flux will increase by the same quantity. So the field line A2 will be the separatrix of the final state.

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.

The reality of being in vacuum is emphasized. The last emphasis is followed by a narrative bridge about a charge particle or particles to the next chapter on "Reconnection in a Plasma".

 

[RealityCheck01]

A couple of more reference to magnetic reconnection in vacuum (there are not many except in textbooks because it is such a simple, even uninteresting process):
Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990
(1990IAUS..142..271P Page 271)
Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection - (Invited Review); Priest & Schrijver, Solar Physics 190(1/2): 1-24, December 1999
(Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection - (Invited Review))

 

[RealityCheck01]

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]

Michael, if you go onto your theme of "magnetic lines do not break or reconnect" then perhaps you can tell us who said:

[Maxwell] defined a magnetic field line as a line which everywhere is parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system which produced the field changes, the magnetic field changes and field lines can merge or reconnect.

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)

Personally I do not like the terminology since it implies that you can label a field line and watch it break and reconnect as it sweeps across the null point. This cannot be done IMO. But as a visualization of what is going on it is adequate (and standard terminology so it would be idiotic to seek to change it).

 

[Michael]

Even *with* a diagram, you are incapable of understanding what Somov wrote: there is no plasma in that diagram (there is only a current).

Talk about pure denial. Moving current *is* plasma in a vacuum. Those two big I's in this diagram with arrows pointing to the X in the core of the current shows you where the *plasma* particles are located.

It also shows the relative *movement* of those charged particles as the X's move closer together in figure b.

There is no current or plasma where the MR happens at the X point. This is Reconnection in a vacuum.

That is *irrelevant*. The relevant part is A) the presence of plasma and B) the movement of plasma as a result of "reconnection". Your superdud left out A and B in his example, whereas Somov *included* parts A and B. Get a life already and get over it.

I could care less what you said *anywhere* RC. You're in pure denial of fact.

 

[Michael]

The reality of being in vacuum is emphasized.

The reality of the presence of the plasma "current", and the movement of the current channels is *diagrammed* for you and everything RC. All you heard was the term "vacuum", and you ignored the *rest* of his *example* that *included* A) the presence of charged particles described as *current*, and B) the movement of that current as a result of "reconnection". Even Wiki makes it clear that the *process* requires plasma and plasma particle acceleration.

Until you embrace the English language when it *includes* diagrams, you're just living in pure denial.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Michael, if you go onto your theme of "magnetic lines do not break or reconnect" then perhaps you can tell us who said:


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)

Personally I do not like the terminology since it implies that you can label a field line and watch it break and reconnect as it sweeps across the null point. This cannot be done IMO. But as a visualization of what is going on it is adequate (and standard terminology so it would be idiotic to seek to change it).

There are NO magnetic field lines. It is a vector field, do you understand what that is? The lines are simply there for you to determine the strength of the field. You have confused lines with actual reality.

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."

So in astronomers desperation they have turned mere visualization tools into actual objects. And 200+ years of laboratory experiments has shown over and over again that magnetic fields NEVER cross. When the current stops, the magnetic field ceases to exist. Until you learn the basics you will forever be lost.