• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Fantasies are not a demonstration of anything expect a fertile imagination, Michael....
Which is exactly why your dark matter deity is dead. It's based upon nothing but pure imagination. You *imagined* that you properly accounted for all the ordinary mass in that 2006 study, but they didn't even properly account for all the stars in the various galaxies correctly. They missed the stellar mass alone by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20. You also *imagined* that you folks would find evidence of exotic matter theory in empirical experiments, but they've all been a complete bust, and nothing but fertile imagination.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
What they want to ignore is that electric current (energy) that flows without particle movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current

"Although current is flowing through the capacitor, no actual charge is transported through the vacuum between its plates. Nonetheless, a magnetic field exists between the plates as though a current were present there as well. The explanation is that a displacement current ID "flows" in the vacuum, and this current produces the magnetic field in the region between the plates according to Ampère's law:[3][4]..."

"...The magnetic field between the plates is the same as that outside the plates, so the displacement current must be the same as the conduction current in the wires, that is, ID = I, which extends the notion of current beyond a mere transport of charge."

But of course we also know they cant grasp normal currents (Ampere's Law) - so to expect their notions to change to match reality is just asking too much from them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampère's_circuital_law

"Ampère's law relates magnetic fields to electric currents that produce them."

Hence they do not even understand basic magnetism nor permanent magnets - let alone to think they can discuss magnetic flux.

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). "

We have known this experimental data for over 200+ years - and for 200+ years cosmologists have completely ignored the laboratory data in favor of Fairie Dust. Don't understand what's going on - blame it on magnetic fields while refusing to consider the origin of those fields.

I mean in 200+ years of experimental data magnetic lines never cross, never break, never reconnect, never do anything except form closed loops.

https://www.boundless.com/physics/t...tic-fields-155/magnetic-field-lines-549-6686/

  • A magnetic field line can never cross another field line. The magnetic field is unique at every point in space.
  • Magnetic field lines are continuous and unbroken, forming closed loops. Magnetic field lines are defined to begin on the north pole of a magnet and terminate on the south pole.
Nothing else has ever been observed in the entire history of experimentation with electromagnetism.

And then say they cross but then have to clarify to tell the real truth that they don't actually cross.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=404

"It’s not really true that magnetic field lines cannot cross, but where they do, the magnetic field strength has to be zero.

Here’s why: A magnetic field line is that path in space that points in the direction of the magnetic field at every point along it. Walk along a magnetic field line carrying a compass, and the needle will always point in the direction you need to go in order to stay on that magnetic field line (the needle has to be able to pivot up and down as well as around in a circle like most compasses).

If two field lines crossed, then that is saying that the magnetic field points in two different directions, at one place. There’s only one direction to the magnetic field at any place at any time, so this doesn’t happen.

A field of zero is the only kind of magnetic field without a direction. You get this inside of quadrupole magnets, say. Here’s how to make such a field. Start with four bar magnets, and arrange them like so:

{A magnetic field of 0? Why can't they just state the facts and honestly say "no field at all"? My comment}

The magnetic field in the center of that thing will be zero, but magnetic field lines will point in towards the center from the left and right, and field lines will point away from the center up and down. So even here they don't actually cross."

So RC and the others like to read the first sentence and think they understand it all. They don't cross because "If two field lines crossed, then that is saying that the magnetic field points in two different directions, at one place. There’s only one direction to the magnetic field at any place at any time, so this doesn’t happen."

Of course it doesn't happen, nothing can go in two directions at the same time, or occupy the same point in space as another thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
It's because they do not understand magnetic fields, or electric fields. ...
That is an dumb statement, Justatruthseeker, because astronomers understand magnetic fields and electric fields by accepting 200+ years of experimental data with magnetic fields. A usual prerequisite for astronomy is post-graduate courses in electromagnetism.

Astronomers know that Wikipedia is not a post graduate level textbook.
Astronomers know that magnetic field lines break when the magnetic field is Astronomers know that two parallel currents have a magnetic field with a neutral point (the magnetic field is zero).
Astronomers know that if you displace the currents then the magnetic field lines will "sweep" across the neutral point. That means that they break and reconnect. This is called magnetic reconnection.

Justatruthseeker, do you know what 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' means?
That is a title of a section in Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov which states "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process:".

Michael is going on about his delusion dating from 2011 that magnetic reconnection in vacuum is impossible.
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011! (includes Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection y W.D. Clinger - in vacuum.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Nope. ...
The surface of the Sun: The sun has a rigid iron surface ...
This is an example of a "running difference" image of the sun's surface revealed by the TRACE satellite using its 171 angstrom filter. This filter is specifically sensitive to iron ion (FE IX/X) emissions and records a C3.3 flare and mass ejection in AR 9143 in 171Å on 28 Aug. 2000. The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges.
Your web site still has
* A running difference image that was from images of solar flares thousands of kilometres above the photosphere.
* The stupidity of "mountain ranges" on or under the surface of the Sun because of this image.
* There is still a "rigid iron surface".
Thus you still have the delusion that images of solar flares thousands of kilometres above the photosphere are iron mountain ranges on the surface of the Sun, Michael.
The surface being under the photosphere is even more deluded given all of the light we see comes from the photosphere by definition and the optical depth of the photosphere is ~100km, e.g. we see a few photons a year from 4800 km down!

The point is that a nuclear scientist (Manuel) managed to get invalid papers published with the fantasy that the Sun contains a neutron star and that he knows the composition of the Sun without doing basic checks that any competent scientist would do.
Let us add the idiocy of not doing basic research. There is an entire branch of astronomy called helioseismology that Manuel has ignored. This is the solar equivalent of the seismology that has allowed us to determine the internal structure of the Earth. Helioseismology works. Helioseismology models the Sun as a H/He plasma.

Lots of insults snipped until we get to the delusion that the Sun is a Thorne–Żytkow object (a red giant speculated to contain a neutron star with 1 possible candidate).
The Sun is not a red giant, Michael :p!

Fantasies and insults snipped.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Pity for you that his so called "vacuum" was *inclusive* of charged particles...
A pity that is a lie since no charged particles are included in the example as anyone who reads the section can see.
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011!

But I better check - yes Google Books still has the entire section available! I have a transcript of almost all of the section form 2011 but that does not have his figures that contains two parallel currents in vacuum with X marking the spot where MR happens.
Reconnection in vacuum followed by a section called Reconnection in plasma.

What part of that section of a textbook in plasma physics do you not understand, Michael? The question is moot though - after 4 years it is obviously nothing!
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
...snipped insults about me and Krauss...
I pointed out how delusional it would be to think that Lawrence Krauss would know about your fantasies, Michael, because they are your fantasies in forum posts, not the scientific literature.
Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist. He should be aware of the papers you have fantasies about and will know what the real implications for dark matter are.

From another forum: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.. This shows that it would be idiotic to take posts on that forum seriously because anyone posting there has been taken in by the ignorance, delusions and lies of Wal Thornhill and David Talbott. Mostly Thornhill since he actually lies to readers and is the main narrator of videos.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
As opposed the gullible folks at JREF/ISF ...
As exposed by the Thunderbolts authors, from another forum: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.. This shows that it would be idiotic to take posts on that forum seriously because anyone posting there has been taken in by the ignorance, delusions and lies of Wal Thornhill and David Talbott. Mostly Thornhill since he actually lies to readers and is the main narrator of videos.

A bit of a lie about JREF/ISF people - you were presented with real science. The only gullible bit was the JREF/ISF belief that you would abandon your fantasies if you were presented with the science as taught in textbooks and the scientific literature.

Oh ridiculous - you demand that I do not cite a long list of ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. as if you really want me to post everything here :eek:!

However we can start with basic reading comprehension about Wal Thornhill lying to his readers.
14 October 2015 Michael: Should a list of confirmed predictions only contain predictions that have been confirmed?
For example, there is a prediction that it might rain next Monday. It did not rain on that Monday. Is that a confirmed prediction, Michael?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
That is an dumb statement, Justatruthseeker, because astronomers understand magnetic fields and electric fields by accepting 200+ years of experimental data with magnetic fields. A usual prerequisite for astronomy is post-graduate courses in electromagnetism.

Astronomers know that Wikipedia is not a post graduate level textbook.
Astronomers know that magnetic field lines break when the magnetic field is Astronomers know that two parallel currents have a magnetic field with a neutral point (the magnetic field is zero).
Astronomers know that if you displace the currents then the magnetic field lines will "sweep" across the neutral point. That means that they break and reconnect. This is called magnetic reconnection.

Justatruthseeker, do you know what 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' means?
That is a title of a section in Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov which states "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process:".

Michael is going on about his delusion dating from 2011 that magnetic reconnection in vacuum is impossible.
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011! (includes Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection y W.D. Clinger - in vacuum.)

So then it's real simple. Why don't you show me one of those post-graduate college courses like I showed you that don't say exactly the same thing? Why don't you show us Gauss, Ampere's or Maxwell's laws in those books and let's see what they say?

Or is it because you can't find any that support your Fairie Dust any more than you can find one single Plasma experiment in which the gravitational force laws were applied? Is that why you refuse to accept the science for some guy on a blog-spot that can't show anything either???

So go ahead - show us all what they say. I'd give you some more of those post-graduate courses, but we will use your accepted post-graduate textbook link. So show me Ampere's law in your accepted link, or are you having the same trouble finding your Fairie Dust as you are having with those plasma experiments and gravitational force laws???

No, I think all you can do is make claims and link to blog-sites when it comes down to the actual science.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
...nothing to do with what I wrote....
Michael, what I wrote and you did not address was:
The mass of galaxies in a galaxy cluster is a small part of the mass of the cluster. ...
This is about Justatruthseeker's invalid assertion that the discovery of plasma halos around 2 galaxies doubles the mass of every galaxy
* A 75% increase is not 100% :p!
* Depending on an average of a sample of 2 from 200 billion is totally dubious.
* There are not only galaxies in the universe.
There is also the intra-cluster medium which contains most of the mass in a galaxy cluster. That reduces the size of the increase.
* We are missing half of the normal, visible matter.
These observations go a little way to fill that gap.
* These observations have little effect on the evidence for dark matter.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
There is an entire branch of astronomy called helioseismology that Manuel has ignored.

And a few others ignore it too it seems.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/30/11928.full

Seems we are about 20 orders too small to support mainstream's theory of convection outward and thereby sustain the Fairie Dust magnetic re-connection claims. Helioseismology is indeed useful when one accepts the data for what it says.

EDIT:

Wait - I thought you said Wiki was no good - so what you doing posting links to it then for? Is it good enough or isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
My conversations at JREF/ISF were rather telling. ...
This post is more telling about your JREF/ISF conversations, Michael:
  • You repeated the delusion that a textbook section called "Reconnection in vacuum" contained plasma.
  • The ignorance about EM textbooks as if you had never read them.
    Magnetic reconnection is a post-graduate subject, not a basic topic in electromagnetism.
  • The delusion that people fluent in physics cannot not understand the Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection in vacuum by W.D. Clinger.
  • That tutorial started from Maxwell's equation (first year physics!) applied to an example and used basic calculus (first year math!) to show that MR happened in that example without any plasma.
  • The delusion that you "started to rub his nose". What you did was totally ignore the physics and mathematics and just continuously repeat that there must be plasma, usually with the citation of a Wikipedia article of MR in plasma.
  • The fantasy that this was why you were banned.
    The JREF/ISF forum rules do not include banning for presenting (according to you) valid science. Or invalid science for that matter.
Your record at JREF/ISF does not mention banning because of presenting science:
Ban Notice: Michael Mozina
"Michael Mozina has been banned for breaching the Membership Agreement while on probation."
Lisa Simpson (27th March 2012)
Suspension Notice: Michael Mozina
Suspension Notice: Michael Mozina, GeeMack
Suspension Notice: Michael Mozina
Suspension Notice: GeeMack, Michael Mozina
Suspension Notice: GeeMack, Michael Mozina
Suspension Notice: Michael Mozina
Suspension Notice: Michael Mozina
Lisa Simpson (5th May 2010)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
And a few others ignore it too it seems.
Your citation to Anomalously weak solar convection
Here, we analyze observations of the wavefield in the solar photosphere using techniques of time-distance helioseismology to image flows in the solar interior.
makes the statement that helioseismology is ignored in the paper not the truth, Justatruthseeker.

Also:
* There is no "20 orders" in that paper.
There is
Within the wavenumber band < 60, convective velocities are 20–100 times weaker than current theoretical estimates.
* This is not really "mainstream's theory of convection outward"
The "current theoretical estimates" come from numerical simulations of solar interior.
* This is nothing to do with the documented phenomena of magnetic reconnection.
Even Michael with his inability to understand the title "Reconnection in vacuum" or the phrase "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process" knows that magnetic reconnection in plasma happens. That is really hard to deny when there are labs doing it!
* You must like embarrassing Michael :p .
His web site has the delusion that the Sun is layered according to atomic weight but here you are, Justatruthseeker, citing the measurement of convective currents right through his layers!

P.S. 14 October 2015 Justatruthseeker, do you know what 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' means?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Your citation to Anomalously weak solar convection

makes the statement that helioseismology is ignored in the paper not the truth, Justatruthseeker.

Who said helioseismology was ignored in the paper? That's your strawman. You are just ignoring it is all.





Also:
* There is no "20 orders" in that paper.
There is :Within the wavenumber band < 60, convective velocities are 20–100 times weaker than current theoretical estimates.

Ahh, so we find 20 is the lowest limit and it's up to 100 times weaker than your theoretical estimates. And so in actuality we find your theories falsified even more than the tiny 20 times I listed.



Even Michael with his inability to understand the title "Reconnection in vacuum" or the phrase "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process" knows that magnetic reconnection in plasma happens. That is really hard to deny when there are labs doing it!

You mean your denial of it?

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/science-of-magnetic-reconnection

"This little understood process can occur in thin layers just miles thick."

What layers miles thick is it occurring in if it's in a vacuum???

"Under normal conditions, the magnetic field lines inside plasmas"

Wait I thought we were talking about a vacuum in your fantasy world - not plasma that we know it happens in.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mms-studying-magnetic-reconnection-near-earth

"This plasma carries embedded magnetic fields along for the ride."

A purely false conjecture - since that plasma is too hot to sustain a magnetic field without electric currents.

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2744

"As you heat a magnet you supply it with more thermal energy, so the individual electron spins (like tiny magnets themselves) become more likely to be in high-energy states, pointing oppositely to their neighbors. That means that they're less lined up so the total magnetism is reduced. At some point, in between the weakening of the overall magnetism and the availability of extra thermal energy, it becomes easy for domain walls- the boundaries between regions that are lined up pointing different directions- to slide around. Then the domains will rearrange so that they reduce the large-scale field energy by pointing different directions. That means that your permanent magnet is no longer overall magnetized. As you heat further, individual spins within domains become more likely to point opposite to their neighbors, and that reduces the average alignment seen by their neighbors too, reducing the effect which favors their having lined up in the first place. At a well-defined temperature, called the Curie temperature, the whole tendency to align into domains collapses, and the material ceases to be a ferromagnet at all."

but go ahead - believe that plasma that according to you is 15 million degrees in the center leading down to 5000K at the surface is capable of holding magnetism without a supplied electric current. Go ahead - refuse to accept every laboratory experiment in the last 200+ years. It would be nothing new for you.

But lets look at those experiments that one and all use plasma to cause your claimed magnetic reconnection.

http://plasma.physics.swarthmore.edu/SSX/faq.html

Quite educational in that without that electric current running through the plasma you have no magnetic field. And funny how it requires plasma too.

http://web.physics.udel.edu/research/plasma-physics/magnetic-reconnection

"If two parcels of magnetized plasma have oppositely directed magnetic fields and there is a region of weaker or zero field between them, then under the right circumstances the parcels can approach each other."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection
"Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas"

You cant even get your theory to match observations of magnetic materials, let alone the reality that exists in space.


We both agree someone is ignoring the experimental data - it's only too bad for you that that one is you.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
So go ahead RC, why don't you link to that actual experiment that did not use plasma to cause what you misinterpret as magnetic re-connection?

Or are you having as much trouble finding that Fairie Dust as you are one single plasma experiment in which the gravitational force laws were applied instead of electromagnetic force laws?

Here, let me help you.

http://bp.pppl.gov/pub_report/1998/PPPL-3265.pdf

"We report a quantitative experimental test of the Sweet-Parker model of magnetic reconnection in a controlled laboratory plasma."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA091iA05p05579/abstract

"They are obtained by expanding in powers of the Alfvén Mach number and may be used to elucidate some of the puzzling properties of numerical experiments on reconnection which are not present in the classical models."

"The Sonneruplike regime is a special case of a weak slow mode expansion in the inflow region, and it separates two classes of members with reversed currents."

http://www.leif.org/research/Alfvenic Mach number variation.pdf

"Just as for sound waves in air, there is a concept of ’supersonic’ flow [an airplane going at Mach 2, for instance] in the solar wind as well. The speed with which hydrodynamic waves can propagate is called the Alfven speed [after Hannes Alfven who first figured this out]."

So again - you require particle flow in every model you have and current.

It's in the very math itself.

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

"The corresponding basic equations consist of a combination of fluid dynamics and electrodynamics:"

Don't try your strawman.

"Here, ρ, v, p, j, B, E, σ−1, e and μ0 denote respectively mass density, velocity, pressure, current
density
, magnetic field, electric field, resistivity, plasma energy density and vacuum permeability (see the article
on MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS).

So we see mass is involved, velocity of particles, pressure of particles, actual current density, electric fields, the electric resistivity, plasma and vacuum permeability (all of which you ignore when it comes time to talk about what is happening. It's required in the math - you just forget to mention it when it comes to your claims.

You can't show me a single experiment in which plasma or electric currents was not used to cause the event can you? So why are you making claims you can not support by one single experiment? Why are you propagating Fairie Dust?

Yes, please stop ignoring those experiments RC in favor of wild claims of Fairie Dust.

http://mrx.pppl.gov/Publications/yamada99jgr.pdf

"Magnetic reconnection always occurs during plasma formation or configuration change and is regarded as the most important self-organization process in plasmas"

"Almost all nonlinear processes in MHD fluids involve magnetic reconnection. It occurs in a regime where two conductive plasma region of different magnetic configuration meet."

So we find it is when that plasma of differing charge meet (i.e. the current flow is disrupted - causing the collapse of the magnetic field. As always occurs in every experiment where two currents are crossed.

But that's probably why you can't show me a single experiment on magnetism that doesn't include electric currents. Nor one single paper where particles above the curie temperature maintain their magnetic fields.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
That is an dumb statement, Justatruthseeker,

Your debate style is dumb RC because it's based on calling people names, and abusing them personally rather than based upon logic and science. You take the low road in debate in every single post, mostly due to the fact that you're scientifically bankrupt, and you refuse to read any textbooks on any related topics. Have you even read a single textbook on MHD theory yet RC?

because astronomers understand magnetic fields and electric fields by accepting 200+ years of experimental data with magnetic fields. A usual prerequisite for astronomy is post-graduate courses in electromagnetism.

No, they don't understand electromagnetism or they'd know the actual name for magnetic flux in a vacuum. The whole lot of them peddles a form of pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. They don't understand it, and neither do you.

Astronomers know that Wikipedia is not a post graduate level textbook.

Yet you've never read a real textbook on MHD theory now have you?

Astronomers know that magnetic field lines break when the magnetic field is Astronomers know that two parallel currents have a magnetic field with a neutral point (the magnetic field is zero).
Astronomers know that if you displace the currents then the magnetic field lines will "sweep" across the neutral point. That means that they break and reconnect. This is called magnetic reconnection.

You are the very last person on Earth (well, maybe Clinger too) that should be discussing this topic, since you haven't produced a mathematical expression for a rate of reconnection that is greater than zero in a pure vacuum. Going to run from that request yet again RC?


Justatruthseeker
, do you know what 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' means?
That is a title of a section in Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov which states "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process:".

Too bad for you that his example in a "vacuum" included two displaced currents, whereas you and Clinger didn't.

Michael is going on about his delusion dating from 2011 that magnetic reconnection in vacuum is impossible.

No, you intentionally misrepresented what I said. What I said was that the physical process in plasma called "magnetic reconnection" requires plasma, and it's not a plasma optional process. You can't even keep your stories straight. You can't define a rate of reconnection that zero RC. You'll run from that request again, just watch.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian

And indeed it does, *under* the surface of the photosphere. That has nothing to do with the corona.

Your web site still has
* A running difference image that was from images of solar flares thousands of kilometres above the photosphere.

You don't understand a RD image, and the electrically active loops traverse the entire atmosphere of the sun, not just the corona.

* The stupidity of "mountain ranges" on or under the surface of the Sun because of this image.

The stupidity factor is related to your personal attack debate style. Since you have nothing to offer in terms of physics or science, you constantly resort to personal attacks in every post. Pitiful.

* There is still a "rigid iron surface".

Yep, but it's located *under* the surface of the photosphere RC. How many times must I explain that to you anyway?

Thus you still have the delusion that images of solar flares thousands of kilometres above the photosphere are iron mountain ranges on the surface of the Sun, Michael.

You still have the delusion that 171A images show *only* processes occurring in the corona. They don't.

The surface being under the photosphere is even more deluded given all of the light we see comes from the photosphere by definition and the optical depth of the photosphere is ~100km, e.g. we see a few photons a year from 4800 km down!

Gee, you used the term "stupid" and the term deluded twice now. Do you even know how to debate fairly and honestly RC? The delusion is yours, and yours alone.

The point is that a nuclear scientist (Manuel) managed to get invalid papers published with the fantasy

And you slapped in another loaded term, "fantasy". Pitiful RC. Note the Manuel has published numerous papers on this topic, whereas you have published exactly none. You don't debate based on published literature RC. You refer to *your own personal opinions* instead. You effectively *cheat* at debate on a regular and consistent basis. What published paper refutes any of his claims RC?

that the Sun contains a neutron star and that he knows the composition of the Sun without doing basic checks that any competent scientist would do.

Since you've never published any papers on any topic in astronomy, how would you even know what competent scientists do or don't do?

Let us add the idiocy of not doing basic research.

Let's add the idiocy of the fact that you have no idea what kind of research he did, and you're therefore reduced to pety name calling yet again. Do you ever debate honestly and with integrity RC?

There is an entire branch of astronomy called helioseismology that Manuel has ignored.

No, he didn't. Heliosciesmology shows mass flow changes occurring right where he would expect them to occur, and oh by the way, the mainstream claims about convection were shown to be off by two whole orders of magnitude. Your mainstream solar model is dead.

This is the solar equivalent of the seismology that has allowed us to determine the internal structure of the Earth. Helioseismology works. Helioseismology models the Sun as a H/He plasma.

So what? The process also shows the mass flow changes turn from vertical to horizontal at right around 4800KM under various sunspots, just as Manuel's model predicts.

Lots of insults snipped

You should snip pretty much all of your posts then if you're worried about insults. All you ever do is load up your posts with personal attacks and personal attack language. It's a pitiful way to attempt to deflect the fact that you know absolutely nothing about these topics, and you consistently misrepresent Birkeland's solar model. You've never published even a single paper related to solar physics or astronomy, so your scientific opinions are utterly irrelevant.

The Sun is not a red giant, Michael :p!

It's still a sun just like any red giant, and Manuel isn't even the only one to propose such ideas.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
This post is more telling about your JREF/ISF conversations, Michael:
  • You repeated the delusion that a textbook section called "Reconnection in vacuum" contained plasma.
Priest called your claim a 'toy' version RC. Remember that? Why did he call it a "toy" version RC? What did he add to distinguish between a "toy' and the "real" process RC? Be honest now.

Somov's example is inclusive of A) plasma currents, and B) plasma current displacement. You and Clinger forgot both A) and B).

The ignorance about EM textbooks as if you had never read them.

Well, at least I know the proper scientific term for ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, unlike you and the JREF crew. Not one of you ever offered a rate of reconnection that is greater than zero without particle acceleration, and none of you ever will. That's the direct proof that none of you have a clue about this topic RC. Put up or give it up.

Magnetic reconnection is a post-graduate subject, not a basic topic in electromagnetism.

Correct. That's why you and Clinger should have read a textbook on the topic of MHD theory, and not have tried to base your claims on a basic demonstration of magnetic flux in a vacuum. Since neither of you bothered to read a textbook on the topic, neither of you have a clue how it really works.

The delusion that people fluent in physics cannot not understand the Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection in vacuum by W.D. Clinger.

The delusion is that Clinger's unpublished nonsense has any scientific merit to start with. Clinger hasn't even read a textbook on MHD theory either RC. You both are willfully ignorant by choice.

That tutorial started from Maxwell's equation (first year physics!) applied to an example and used basic calculus (first year math!) to show that MR happened in that example without any plasma.

And since there isn't an plasma, nor any plasma particle acceleration occurring in his example, there is exactly *zero* amount of "magnetic reconnection" occurring in his example. You skipped the whole "transfer of energy" aspect, meaning you transferred zero amount of energy.

The delusion that you "started to rub his nose". What you did was totally ignore the physics and mathematics and just continuously repeat that there must be plasma, usually with the citation of a Wikipedia article of MR in plasma.

No, what I did was ask you two to come up with a mathematical expression of a rate of 'reconnection' that is greater than zero in Clinger's example. You couldn't do it, you won't do it, and you continuously run from that request. You do so because you both know deep down inside that without a transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration, you've achieved exactly *zero* magnetic reconnection. Zero!

The fantasy that this was why you were banned.

I was ultimately banned because you and your crew cannot handle an open and honest scientific debate. You cheat. You resort to personal attacks and your opinions are based upon pure ignorance, because you and Clinger never bothered to actually read a real textbook on these topics. I got banned because you folks are incapable of dealing with scientific fact, like the fact that without particle acceleration, you've transferred *zero* energy, and achieved *no* amount of "magnetic reconnection". You folks even changed the WIKI page on magnetism to suit yourself in the debates, but when you got tot he WIKI page on reconnection, the very first sentence (and every other explanation on that page) blew away your claims. You then got all flustered an banned me.

  • The JREF/ISF forum rules do not include banning for presenting (according to you) valid science. Or invalid science for that matter.
It does however have a bad habit of engaging in personal attacks galore, and dishing it out on a regular basis, but they are incapable of "taking" it. The moment I retaliated even a little, they went ban happy.
Your record at JREF/ISF does not mention banning because of presenting science:

My record there speaks for itself RC, and your record there speaks for itself too. To this day you erroneously claim that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible, in spite of Dungey's direct statements to the contrary. What do you know about presenting "science"? All you ever present are your (or Clingers) unpublished nonsense. When are you going to produce a published reference that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma RC?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
The "current theoretical estimates" come from numerical simulations of solar interior.
* This is nothing to do with the documented phenomena of magnetic reconnection.

Oh yes it does. That 'estimated jet speed' convection process was supposedly generating those powerful 'magnetic fields' in your model. Now that it's been measured at *walking speeds* rather than jet speeds, you have a serious magnetic field problem on your hands that is now 2 orders of magnitude too small to explain your 'reconnection' process!

Even Michael with his inability to understand the title "Reconnection in vacuum" or the phrase "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process" knows that magnetic reconnection in plasma happens.

Actually, I know that the process described in Alfven's double layer paper, which you erroneously call "magnetic reconnection' does in fact happen in *plasma*, and there is only a *toy* process which would occur in the *absence* of plasma, and there would be *zero* plasma particle acceleration as a result of those changing magnetic field topologies.

That is really hard to deny when there are labs doing it!

Labs however only do it with *plasma* RC. You won't find any published papers describing a non zero amount of reconnection occurring in a vacuum. Virtually all of those experiments start and end with *current* and/or charged particle acceleration. None of them occur in a "vacuum' devoid of current/particle acceleration.

His web site has the delusion that the Sun is layered according to atomic weight but here you are, Justatruthseeker, citing the measurement of convective currents right through his layers!

The layers in any model wouldn't necessarily represent any barrier to measuring mass flow.

It means you keep ignoring the current and current displacement taking place in Somov's example and that doesn't take place in Clinger's nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Who said helioseismology was ignored in the paper? That's your strawman. You are just ignoring it is all.

His entire debate strategy is based upon the use of strawmen galore, personal insults, and loaded language. He basically then repeatedly cites links to *himself* rather than supplying any *published* arguments anywhere in the conversation.

Ahh, so we find 20 is the lowest limit and it's up to 100 times weaker than your theoretical estimates. And so in actuality we find your theories falsified even more than the tiny 20 times I listed.

Ya, it's worse than 20. It's somewhere between 20 and 100 times too small to match their now *falsified* convection model. It's up to 100 times (two orders of magnitude) too small to match their bogus models.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Michael, what I wrote and you did not address was:

What you never address RC is the fact that your bogus 2006 lensing study was based upon a *host* of false premises about how much ordinary baryonic mass might be present. They *grossly* underestimated both the stellar masses, *and* the stellar masses shared between galaxies, *and* the dusty and plasma between stars. They didn't just miss the numbers by a little, they missed the stellar counts by between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. You botched that study to high heaven, and I've even shown you personally where in the paper they used those erroneous and flawed mass calculations in that ridiculously flawed and boastful 2006 paper.

* These observations have little effect on the evidence for dark matter.

Boloney they do. Every bit of "missing mass" which has been found since 2006 has decreased any need for an imaginary form of invisible matter. You're just in pure denial of scientific fact (as usual).
 
Upvote 0