Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection

[RealityCheck01]

They don't want to understand. ...

That is basic physics which anyone can understand is irrelevant to this thread, Justatruthseeker.

The solar wind escapes from the Sun because it is hot. If an ion or electron or atom or molecule (or rocket!) has a velocity greater than the escape velocity of the body holding it then it can escape that body

 

[RealityCheck01]

Magnetic reconnection is advanced textbook physics. But the concept is easy to understand. Magnetic field lines do not exist at points where the magnetic field is zero. The force on a charged test particle will have a zero magnitude. The force on a charged test particle just outside of the null point will have a non-zero magnitude. A magnetic field line is a line drawn through points where that test particle has the same force exerted on it. At these null points we have a "magnetic field point" not a line.

Arranging this is easy in a vacuum - just have a couple of parallel, equal currents and there will be a null point in the vacuum between them. Displace the currents and magnetic fields lines will cross the null point. By definition they break and reconnect. Add plasma and it becomes extremely complex which is why there are thick textbooks on the subject.
For example: Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma

 

[Michael]

Magnetic reconnection is advanced textbook physics. But the concept is easy to understand.

True, but you and Clinger never read any advanced textbooks in physics and neither of you therefore understands it.

Anyone *should* be able to understand the first sentence of the WIKI definition, including terms "in plasma" and "transfer of energy", but alas you don't.

 

[RealityCheck01]

True, but you and Clinger never read any advanced textbooks in physics

Which is a lie - you know that I have read Cosmic Plasma Physics By B.V. Somov because I have been quoting that advanced textbook to you for over 4 years.
Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma.
For example from ISF:
15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?

We have the fantasy that a Wikipedia article starting with magnetic reconnection in plasma has to contain the textbook example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum !

W.D. Clinger has an example showing from Maxwell's equations (basic electromagnetism ) that 4 currents without plasma produce magnetic reconnection. Sadly the Latex if broken in the original posts.
Your response is years of repeating the fantasy that MR only happens in plasma. MR becomes non-trivial in plasma so that is where papers are written and Wikipedia starts.
Magnetic Reconnection

Science
Magnetic reconnection refers to the merging and separation of magnetic field lines that can occur at neutral points of magnetic fields as those fields change over time. Alternatively, magnetic reconnection refers to changes over time in the topology of magnetic field lines.

Although magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations, it is usually discussed in connection with plasma physics. Magnetic reconnection has been observed in space plasma and in laboratory experiments. Magnetic reconnection is now known to be responsible for rapid movements and bursts of light in the aurora borealis, and is believed to be responsible for similar phenomena seen in solar flares. Magnetic reconnection may also play some role in heating the solar corona.

Pseudoscience
The reality of magnetic reconnection is denied by a motley group of folklorists and amateur physicists who promote an Electric Universe based on Immanuel Velikovsky's speculations combined with long-refuted scientific conjectures put forth by notable scientists such as Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfvén. By misinterpreting some unfortunate remarks by Alfvén, these pseudoscientists denounce magnetic reconnection as pseudoscience.

In particular, the Electric Universe folk often declare that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations, specifically Gauss's law for magnetism. Their argument is based upon the following over-simplification of Gauss's law for magnetism, which is widely repeated even by people who should know better:

Gauss's law for magnetism is equivalent to the statement that the field lines have neither a beginning nor an end: Each one either forms a closed loop, winds around forever without ever quite joining back up to itself exactly, or extends to infinity.

-- Wikipedia's article on Gauss's law for magnetism, retrieved 12 November 2011.

Although that's a useful white lie when we try to explain magnetic field lines to humanities or engineering majors, it isn't quite true: Gauss's law for magnetism allows magnetic field lines to begin or to end at neutral points of a magnetic field.

I will give you yet another chance for a rational explanation of actual errors in the Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection:
30 November 2016 Michael: Now that you have had over 4 years to think, list the mathematics errors in W.D. Clinger's mathematical derivation of magnetic reconnection.

 

[Michael]

Which is a lie

If so, it's only because you read a whole book recently because you've admitted in the past that you haven't read an entire actual textbook on this topic.

- you know that I have read Cosmic Plasma Physics By B.V. Somov because I have been quoting that advanced textbook to you for over 4 years.

No, I know that you read about three paragraphs of that *online* reference after you used Google to find "magnetic reconnection vacuum". AFAIK, you've never read that entire textbook, or any textbook on MHD theory. Did you read the whole book RC, and when did you buy it? The stuff you've cited to date is simply online at Google, but not the entire book.

Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma.
For example from ISF:

There you go again back to citing yourself and *unpublished junk*. There you go again *avoiding* my request for a mathematical expression for a *rate* of reconnection *without* charged particle acceleration. Run RC run.

You and Clinger always must run from that request because without charged particle acceleration, you necessarily have a *zero* rate of reconnection happening. You're simply unbelievable. You have no math formula to support your *entirely bogus* claim that you achieved a non zero rate of reconnection without a single charged particle to your names. Run, RC run.

 

[Michael]

I will give you yet another chance for a rational explanation of actual errors in the Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection:
30 November 2016 Michael: Now that you have had over 4 years to think, list the mathematics errors in W.D. Clinger's mathematical derivation of magnetic reconnection.

You'll give me another chance to point out again that both of you are *incapable* of producing the math formula that demonstrates that Clinger ever acheives a non-zero rate of "reconnection" without a single changed particle to his name, and without a single transfer of energy to that charged particle. Let's see your math RC. You won't produce it of course.

You also won't produce a published reference that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You have a long history of sticking your foot in your mouth and running from my requests of *published* supporting documents.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You'll give me another chance to point out again ....

An irrelevant post with no mathematics or even electromagnetism!
30 November 2016 Michael: Now that you have had over 4 years to think, list the mathematics errors in W.D. Clinger's mathematical derivation of magnetic reconnection

Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma.
From ISF: 15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?

 

[RealityCheck01]

If so, it's only because you read a whole book recently because you've admitted in the past that you haven't read an entire actual textbook on this topic.

I quoted Somov to you over 4 years ago, not recently. I never claimed to have read the entire book. The extract was a futile effort to see if you could understand

• a chapter on magnetic reconnection in vacuum with
• an example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum where
• reconnection happens at a point X outside of the currents and stating that
• magnetic reconnection in vacuum is a real process.

As anyone reading this thread can see the response has been years of denial of English and physics, e.g. that plasma is an ionized gas leading to the fantasy of two parallel currents being plasma magically not expanding.

 

[Michael]

An irrelevant post with no mathematics or even electromagnetism!
30 November 2016 Michael: Now that you have had over 4 years to think, list the mathematics errors in W.D. Clinger's mathematical derivation of magnetic reconnection

Yes, and four years ago I pointed out the obvious one, specifically a *lack* of mathematical *rate* of reconnection. For four years you've been running from my request, and watch you do it again right now......

Somov's so called "vacuum" wasn't "empty". It *included* charged particles, and it *included* charged particle *movement*. You and Clinger forgot that part. Doh!

What does the English term "in highly conductive plasma" mean to you RC? What does the term "transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration" mean to you?

 

[Michael]

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia

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.

Please explain that single sentence WIKI definition of reconnection for us RC, and put emphasis on the parts that I highlighted in big letters for you.

 

[Michael]

Here's what it *does not say* RC:

Magnetic reconnection is a process in a pure vacuum in which magnetic field topology changes, and nothing else happens!

Notice the difference?

 

[Michael]

I quoted Somov to you over 4 years ago, not recently. I never claimed to have read the entire book.

So by your own admission, your ignorance of MHD theory is purely self imposed, and four years later you've made no attempt to educate yourself on the topic by reading an actual textbook on the topic. Sheesh!

 

[RealityCheck01]

30 November 2016 Michael: Now that you have had over 4 years to think, list the mathematics errors in W.D. Clinger's mathematical derivation of magnetic reconnection

Somov: 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum followed by 4.4.3 Reconnection in a Plasma.
From ISF: 15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia

Please explain why an WIKI article about MR in plasma is a better source than a textbook on MR with a chapter on MR in vacuum followed by one on MT in plasma !

 

[Michael]

It is a law of physics (Maxwells equations) that an electric field accelerates positive and negative charges in different directions. Birkeland did not demonstrate a violation of a law of physics.

Sputtering doesn't violate any laws of physics, it's documented fact. High speed Electrons slamming into slow moving protons will push the protons in the direction of the electron beam movement RC. No laws of physics were being violated. I even handed your buddy Bridgman a *published paper* by Birkeland which shows his *actual* predictions on this topic.

What happened in Birkeland's "little Earth" experiment was that electric and magnetic fields were present. So there was some spluttering (the "soot" on the glass of his apparatus). These would have been ions being torn off the surface of the terrella.

There's more to it than that, but indeed that exactly how his ion moment ideas got started alright.

The "two calculations" are possibly the ones about electrons where he calculated that they travelled almost at the sped of light. This is incorrect - the solar wind is much slower.

He simply underestimated the *plasma density* of spacetime, just like you're *still* doing to this day RC! You're also trying to ignore the difference between the 'solar wind', and what astronomers call "strahl". The electrons streams can and do travel much faster than "solar wind". In fact proton blasts from solar flares have reached Earth at about 1/3 of the speed of light, and protons are much *heavier* particles than electrons.

Birkeland wrote an entire paper which predicted that *both* types of particles came from the sun, to the Earth, and both types flowed into 'space', from the sun.

He also correctly predicted polar jets, electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, a high temperature corona, and a host of other accurate "predictions".

He even produced a *lab simulation* of his ideas RC, not just mathematical "pseudoscience" as Alfven called it.

 

[Michael]

Please explain why an WIKI article about MR in plasma is a better source than a textbook on MR with a chapter on MR in vacuum followed by one on MT in plasma !

Because evidently you skipped chapter 1 of Somov's textbook when he explained that all the maths in MHD theory relate to *plasma* and the movements of *plasma*. WIKI's first paragraph explains this RC. You don't want to read that part about *plasma* or that part about a *transfer of energy*. You didn't include those things like Somov's diagram included them, so you are forced to live in pure denial of your error. You and sad Clinger haven't got a plasma particle to your name, so you have no way to transfer any magnetic field energy into charged particle movement. Somov's example contains the *transfer of energy* which you forgot.

 

[Michael]

30 November 2016 Michael: Now that you have had over 4 years to think, list the mathematics errors in W.D. Clinger's mathematical derivation of magnetic reconnection

I told you what the error was over at JREF when it was still called JREF. I told you both that you were incapable of producing any mathematical expression of a positive rate of reconnection, therefore you produced no "magnetic reconnection".

Where's your math RC?

You've been running from that request for *years* now. Let's watch you run again.......

 

[Aryeh]

I don't think many of the readers or posters actually understand the physics and mathematics behind the OP, and why your argument has teeth.

Moreover, if I understand correctly, part of your point is the very scientists purporting theory barely understand the physics and mathematics.

I tried to explain to someone that it is ludicrous to build scientific theory off of mathematically erroneous foundations - flawed data sets and high error. Of course that entire point was ignored in favor of the argument. "Science," as it were, has become a religion - with the layperson pulling most of the weight of defense for the scientific community (instead of the scientists themselves.) The structure of academia is set up like most religious structures - especially Orthodox or catholocism.


If people are arguing quantum electrodynamics, plasma physics and field theory with you - and they use Wikipedia as a reference (instead of, way, articles or personal knowledge base,) you can guess you will get a lot of knee jerk opposition to anything going against mainstream theory. By any means.

I would suggest you find people who would be able to academically engage with you (even disagree,) know their science and math, don't worship the "beast of academia," and are willing to have minds open to things not contained in the scientific status quo. However, I have no idea where would find such a place.


It is never the disagreements that get me, personally. But, you can always tell who actually understands the content, and who is just flash teaching themselves (via wiki and Google) for the sake or arguing for their status quo science doctrine.

 

[Aryeh]

I told you what the error was over at JREF when it was still called JREF. I told you both that you were incapable of producing any mathematical expression of a positive rate of reconnection, therefore you produced no "magnetic reconnection".

Where's your math RC?

You've been running from that request for *years* now. Let's watch you run again.......

For some reason, people don't seem to connect that if the math is off, the entire foundation is off.

I tried to explain that with theories that use marginal data sets to "prove" extraordinary scientific claims (like astronomy.) It always goes ignored. Always.

 

[Michael]

I don't think many of the readers or posters actually understand the physics and mathematics behind the OP, and why your argument has teeth.

FYI, you can actually start to understand why my argument has teeth simply by conceptually understanding this working model, even without understanding *any* of the math. In fact all you actually have to know about it is that it *works on electricity* and it physically lights up the corona and aurora around the respective spheres.

EU/PC theory *works in the lab*. Whatever it's other faults, it's an empirically based theory with empirically tangible predictions and laboratory support galore.

Whatever LCDM theory might be, it's almost (not completely) devoid of empirical cause/effect justification. Furthermore at least 95 percent of it cannot and has not been demonstrated to exist or be "real" in any way. The remaining 5 percent of the maths are based upon what Hannes Alfven called "pseudoscience", and which he personally made obsolete and irrelevant in all current carrying plasma via his own published and peer reviewed double layer paper.

Whatever LCDM theory might be, it's fundamentally a "creation mythology" too. All known forms of matter and energy are presumed to have originated from an object smaller than an atom.

Even Alfven's own "bang" theory didn't require the universe to rewind itself to a near "point", only a somewhat smaller diameter before "expanding" again.

There is no need for a 'creation event' in EU/PC theory, in fact EU theory allows for a static universe, and a static universe interpretation of redshift is my personal preference in fact.

It's therefore illogical and irrational for a guy peddling a creation mythos that requires "blind faith" in four unique forms of 'supernatural construct" to be throwing stones at a purely empirical theory of the universe.

Right or wrong, EU/PC theory doesn't require any additional forms of matter or energy to explain the universe. It's core tenets can be shown to work in the lab, and in simple experiments that work here on Earth.

You don't even have to understand the math to see for yourself that the physics is works in front of you in simple experiments.