Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[RealityCheck01]

Trying to falsify every conceivable variation of supernatural forms of matter is a bit like trying to falsify every conceivable supernatural construct of 'God'...

You seem to have missed what I actually wrote, Michael:

FYI Not_By_Chance.
Thunderbolts are a bunch of cranks following the fantasies of Immanuel Velikovsky and expanding them into delusions such as making comets into rocks (average measured density = ~0.6 g/cc; rocks = ~3.0 g/cc), the Sun is not powered by fusion, canyons such as the Grand Canyon were carved out by electrical discharges, gravity is basically electromagnetic, etc.
My post on another forum: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

It is a Thunderbolts lie that the evidence for dark matter has been falsified. No scientific literature has been published that falsifies the famous 2006 Clowe et. al paper or the other observation's of dark matter using similar techniques. The lie is that the paper counts stars - it does not.

You are citing a post on a forum populated by people foolish enough to fall for the Thunderbolts ignorance, delusions and even lies.
You are saying that one of these foolish people is lying on the forum, e.g. Clowe et. al. do not count stars.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why have you directed this at me? I didn't say that Dark [whatever] has been falsified." I merely posed the quite legitimate remark, "Has it never occurred to those who believe in such fantasies that it doesn't actually exist at all and that actually it could be a supernatural force (God) that holds the universe together and makes it work the way it does?"

Let's hope that doesn't occur, or science will stop like it did in the dark ages, when religion held sway and God Did It was the answer to everything. I for one don't want to go back to living in sod huts, being malnourished, and praying for the evil spirits causing my child's cancer to be gone.

Except you are the only ones that keeps bringing religion up in "our" discussions, so leave it out and we won't have to deal with creationism in this scientific discussion...

From your own paper we all know the facts - verses the interpretation of those facts.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407
"An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen."

Indeed - the majority of the matter in the system is "unseen", as it was "unseen" just a few years ago. Links again because you never read them the first time.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2015/15/full/
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html#.VhwZGCtVSrY
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html
http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe-suddenly-bright.html

But then when you finally do begin to "see" some of that plasma - that above 2 million K, you ignore it anyways. Still living in a world of darkness because you keep closing your eyes. Then you disregard taking into account plasma at the temperature of the sun up to that 2 million K plasma you can manage to see.

And would you like to know why you can't see it - but only its effects we call redshift?

Because the transmission of light is in the "forward" direction almost exclusively.

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

"An analysis of the doubly differential cross section above shows that electrons whose kinetic energy is larger than the rest energy (511 keV) emit photons in forward direction while electrons with a small energy emit photons isotropically."

So we all understand that electrons and such at temperatures of the sun and higher have a high energy content. It isn't that there are imaginary particles that do not emit or absorb light, it is that those particles transmit the light in the same direction almost exclusively because of their energy content. The interactions over vast distances leading to the redshift of the spectrum. You always want math - here's the math.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

No one is talking about God "when we discuss things" unless you bring it up. What you discuss with others in an astronomy thread is up to you. But we have no need of your god called gravity that is only applicable to solids, liquids and gasses - planetary systems. And because you keep trying to apply the wrong physics to that plasma that still remains "unseen" below 2 million K, you "can't even explain it by altering the gravitational force laws (fudging them beyond reason). But since you wont even apply the correct physics to 99.99% of what we can see (plasma and Plasma Physics), we sure don't expect you to apply the correct physics to that which is still hidden.

We just doubled the mass and energy of every galaxy in the universe in the last 8 years just in that plasma halo, and then multiplied the original mass by 3 to 20 for all the stars you couldn't see then, and then doubled it again with all the dust at lower temperatures which begin the isotropic scattering of light and hid 75% of nearby edge on galaxies - and yet you two keep preaching the same falsified Fairie Dust 4% they did 40 years ago. Not to mention no one has bothered to revise dark matter estimates to account for all that discovered matter. Because that would then mean you would need less Dark Energy too - and so your claims of redshift = distance and velocity would no longer match your claims of energy required for the claimed velocity. And down it would go in flames for the 2nd time.

 

[Black Dog]

Except you are the only ones that keeps bringing religion up in "our" discussions, so leave it out and we won't have to deal with creationism in this scientific discussion...

How can you not talk about religion when "God Did It" is considered a viable theory?

 

[RealityCheck01]

...sniped insults...
Huh? What the heck are you rambling on about?

Do you 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 point is that Manuel does not do the basic science of showing that a neutron star + layers of "made of common elements in rocky planets and meteorites" + a layer of H + He plasma will result in the volume and average density of the Sun.
The real idiocy of having a neutron star in the Sun is that the Sun would explode as the neutron star's gravity fuses the H + He plasma that the Sun actually is comprised of. If someone were deluded enough to take a Sun "made of common elements in rocky planets and meteorites" seriously then gravity will still squeeze that material to plate the neutron star. We end up with a bigger neutron star! Or maybe a Thorne-Zytkow object.

The Sun is not a Thorne-Zytkow object thus is it insane to think that it contains a neutron star.

More insults follow and are snipped...

Michael: You are agreeing that Neutrons have not been observed to have a "layered structure". That means your imaginary shells do not exist

Usual rant of ignorance about electromagnetism:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
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.)

 

[RealityCheck01]

Do you mean you finally admit that cosmological redshift doesn't even require 'expanding space', dark energy or inflation?

No: Cosmological redshift is "time dilation" (note the quotes!) caused by an expanding universe.

It is a lie that http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171 makes the Lambda-CDM model aspects unnecessary. This is the counterexample of an empty universe. The real universe has observations of stars, galaxies, plasma, dark matter, etc. and the Lambda-CDM model includes them!

 

[Black Dog]

I'll try to listen to the whole thing as I get time today, but Krauss seems like one of the biggest hypocrites in physics. He constantly bashes religion, yet he peddles his own 'faith based' belief system as "science". He tends to turn me off pretty quickly.

He's already complaining about the term 'In the beginning..' while force feeding everyone his own favorite creation mythos that requires not just *one* supernatural construct, but *four* of them!

Well, don't forget he has spent his entire life studying physics and astronomy, and is an expert. He is trying to explain the boundaries of physics and astronomy for people without his education or knowledge, so I think he does a pretty good job. I just look at all the benefits of science: Healthcare, modern education, food, sociology, and stuff. Now, what exactly did mankind accomplish pondering where God came from, and which God did it? It seems obvious which side deserves our support, and which side does not.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's *so* bad in RC's personal case that he actually believes that the plasma physics process known as "magnetic reconnection' is a plasma optional process,....

It is really so sad in your case that you are so determined that magnetic reconnection can only happen in plasma that you have in denial for several years about
* basic English, e.g. a textbook example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum.
* what magnetic reconnection is, e.g. that in an example where we have a couple of wired producing the currents the MR happens in the vacuum (X marks the spot in that textbook example!)
* Maxwell's equations that Clinger uses in an example of MR in vacuum.
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011! (includes Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger - in vacuum.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's *so* bad in RC's personal case that he actually believes that the plasma physics process known as "magnetic reconnection' is a plasma optional process, even though he and Clinger failed to provide a mathematical expression for a rate of reconnection in a vacuum that is greater than zero. Priest even explain to RC that his understanding of the process was a *toy* understanding! RC also thinks that Dungey was a putz with respect to electrical discharges in solar flares, and that electrical discharges are "impossible' in plasma, even though RC has never produced a published reference to support that erroneous claim.

RC pretty much epitomizes the state of complete ignorance of plasma physics. I doubt he's bothered to read a textbook on MHD theory to this very day, yet he makes all sorts of erroneous and ridiculous claims about plasma.

It's because they do not understand magnetic fields, or electric fields. They have not yet come to accept 200+ years of experimental data with magnetic fields. They haven't given up yet on the model that incorrectly predicts magnetic fields for the one that does.

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

"A magnetic field is the magnetic effect of electric currents and magnetic materials."

"There are two competing models for the nature of these dipoles."

"Magnetic pole model and the H-field

Since it is based on the fictitious idea of a magnetic charge density, the Gilbert model has limitations.

Amperian loop model and the B-field

These magnetic dipoles produce a magnetic B-field. One important property of the B-field produced this way is that magnetic B-field lines neither start nor end (mathematically, B is a solenoidal vector field); a field line either extends to infinity or wraps around to form a closed curve.[nb 9] To date no exception to this rule has been found."

But of course they want us to accept the one based upon fictitious things (again), instead of accepting the one that to date nothing has been found not to follow this rule. Go figure. But what can we expect I guess from those that refuse to treat a universe 99.99% Plasma like Plasma?

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=c19efb74f515909c54b562e6e968b802

Sorry, Michael, but linking again to the gullible people at the Thunderbolts web site whose authors actually lie about science does not help your case.
From another forum: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

The poster is lying about "the botched the stellar mass estimates in 2006".

The poster is partially lying about "falsified all their 'popular' mathematical models for exotic matter at LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon100, etc".
* LHC never looked for dark matter particles. It did rule out a simple SUSY extention to the Standard Model.
* LUX, PandaX, Xenon100, etc. have never falsified any mathematical models. They have dramatically reduced the possible parameter space for some dark matter candidates. That they have not reduced the parameter space to zero and that there is overwhelming evidence that dark matter exists is why they continue to run the experiments.

6 November 2014 Michael: Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence

 

[RealityCheck01]

What we *know* is that your galaxy mass estimates are pitifully flawed,

If that is the mass estimates in Clowe et al then this is a lie - there is no "we". There is only ongoing fantasies: 6 November 2014 Michael: Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence.

Without evidence "otherwise falsified claim about the cause of photon redshift" looks like a lie, Michael, because the expansion of the universe has overwhelming evidence for it that has not been falsified - as you know because the science has been pointed out to you for many years.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You tried to treat plasma as a *vacuum* in magnetic reconnection theory!

That is a fairy story, Michael:
I cited Somov's textbook where Somov has an example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum. There is no plasma in that example. So I did not treat a non-existent plasma as anything.
W.D. Clinger has an Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection that contains no plasma. So I did not treat a non-existent plasma as anything.
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011! (includes Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger - in vacuum.)

 

[RealityCheck01]

When Krauss gets to the lensing data, he conveniently ignores the fact that the galaxy mass estimates they've ....

He ignores this fantasy (not fact) because they are the delusions of a gullible poster on the Thunderbolts crank web site forum - not a scientific journal, Michael.
Krauss is not an idiot - he will be able to recognize a crank web site and ignore it if he ever came across that post.

 

[RealityCheck01]

From your own paper we all know the facts - verses the interpretation of those facts.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

8 October 2015 Justatruthseeker: The basics of A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter (ignore the "proof" hype in the title) are simple.

Seemingly repeating 6 November 2014 Michael: Fantasies about visible matter observations and dark matter need evidence without any thinking is not getting closer to the truth, Justatruthseeker. Learning the actual science to that you could make valid objections would be seeking the truth. That way you would not write non-truth such as "We just doubled the mass and energy of every galaxy in the universe in the last 8 years just in that plasma halo..."
Hubble Finds Giant Halo Around the Andromeda Galaxy (May 7, 2015) says "The gargantuan halo is estimated to contain half the mass of the stars in the Andromeda galaxy itself, in the form of a hot, diffuse gas.".
NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas says "The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy."
So average them and we get an additional mass of normal, visible matter of 75% of the mass of stars in galaxies.

A truth that you are missing: The mass of galaxies in a galaxy cluster is a small part of the mass of the cluster. 80-90% of the mass is in the intra-cluster medium. Even doubling the mass of galaxies will only increase the mass of the cluster by a small %. Depending on the cluster, maybe 20%, maybe 10%.
Another truth you are missing: We are missing half of the normal, visible matter. These observations just fill in a bit of that gap.
Another truth you are missing: These observations have little effect on the evidence for dark matter:
* Outside of galaxies so no effect on rotation curves.
* Will have an unknown effect on the motion of galaxies in galaxy clusters. Feel free to do the calculations and found outro the truth, Justatruthseeker.
* Will not effect the several observations of the separation of dark and normal matter in galaxy cluster collisions.
* No effect on the need for dark matter to explain large scale structure.
* No effect on the need for dark matter to explain the CMB power spectrum.

 

[Michael]

Do you 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?

Nope. That's another perfect example of how you willfully misrepresent my statements, just like you misrepresent Dungey's statements with respect to *electrical discharges* in those same solar flare events. You can't keep your stories straight anymore.

The point is that Manuel does not do the basic science of showing that a neutron star + layers of "made of common elements in rocky planets and meteorites" + a layer of H + He plasma will result in the volume and average density of the Sun.

Utterly false. The point is that Manuel has done the science, and published many papers on topics related to astronomy, whereas you have published none apparently, and you've never read a textbook on MHD theory either.

The real idiocy

You are certainly the single least ethical debater I've ever run across in cyberspace, bar none. You constantly pack personal insults and loaded language into every single post that you make, without exception. It's idiocy that you've never published a single paper on these topics, and you utterly ignore the published papers that do exist on these topics. You've made yourself your own personal "expert" on topics you know nothing about, and have no interest in learning anything about.

of having a neutron star in the Sun

As I've shown you, the concept has been observed and/or postulated in other stellar scenarios.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bizarre-star-could-host-a-neutron-star-in-its-core/

Manuel isn't even the only author to propose such concepts RC. So what makes you any sort of expert on this topic or any topic in astronomy when you've personally published fewer papers on astronomy than I have, and I'm not even in Manuel's league?

is that the Sun would explode as the neutron star's gravity fuses the H + He plasma that the Sun actually is comprised of.

The core spins, and it certainly does generate fusion processes in and around the core. In fact it's generating fusion through the pinch processes the whole sun.

If someone were deluded

More sleazy loaded language by the master of debate sleaze. You're apparently deluded into believing that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma too, in *spite of* the published papers by Dungey that say exactly the opposite.

enough to take a Sun "made of common elements in rocky planets and meteorites" seriously then gravity will still squeeze that material to plate the neutron star. We end up with a bigger neutron star! Or maybe a Thorne-Zytkow object.

You really know pretty much absolutely nothing about his model, and you understand it about as well as you understand electrical discharges in plasma.

The Sun is not a Thorne-Zytkow object thus is it insane

Another example of your use of loaded and personal language in debate. "Deluded, deluded, insane", yada, yada, yada. You throw person mud into every single post by the truck load. Proud of yourself RC? The only insanity is trying to have a conversation about plasma physics with a guy that believes that plasma is 'optional' in the reconnection process, and who is incapable of producing a math formula to demonstrate it's even possible to get a non zero amount of reconnection without charged particle acceleration. The insanity is trying to have a conversation with a guy that believes that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma in *spite of* what Dungey published over 5 decades ago.

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.)

For years you've cited some unpublished nonsense from a guy that cannot come up with mathematical expression of a rate or reconnection that is greater than zero in a vacuum. You're not only sleazy in terms of your debate tactics, you engage in complete hypocrisy with respect to *published papers*. You don't even debate scientifically because you constantly just parrot yourself and your unpublished nonsense of choice from your JREF buddies. Pitiful.

 

[Michael]

That is a fairy story, Michael:
I cited Somov's textbook where Somov has an example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum.

Pity for you that his so called "vacuum" was *inclusive* of charged particles as well as charged particle movement during the 'reconnection' process. You and Clinger left out the A) charged particles, and B) charged particle movement/acceleration unlike Somov, and unlike the WIKI reference RC. Even Priest, your own silly reference no less, called your understanding of the process a 'toy' understanding, and explained that the 'real' version *included* plasma! Wow! You're on a non stop denial-go-round.

Between you and Clinger, you've published exactly *zero* papers on this topic (or any topic related to astronomy AFAIK), and neither of you have read a textbook on MHD theory, so what do I care what either of you two think about MHD theory and reconnection theory?

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

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.

What part of 'in highly conducting plasmas' don't you understand RC? What part of a *transferring energy* from the magnetic field into particle kinetic energy don't you understand RC?

 

[Michael]

He ignores this fantasy (not fact)

The fantasy is your constant use of loaded language in debate, and your belief that it is somehow a logical way to debate topics related to science. The "fact" is that you've ignored every falsification of your own theories to date, and you've gone out of your way to misrepresent every related topic, starting with electrical discharges in solar flares (and other plasmas).

the Thunderbolts crank web site forum - not a scientific journal, Michael.

What an irony overload from a guy that keeps citing Clinger from JREF rather than scientific publication. Every link to every paper I provided was published RC, and every one of them demonstrates that the mainstream grossly underestimated stellar masses in 2006 by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20.

Krauss is not an idiot -

No, but he is a hypocrite. He complains about supernatural agents in religion, while peddling four of his own supernatural agents in astronomy theory.

he will be able to recognize a crank web site and ignore it if he ever came across that post.

He's been ignoring every failure with mainstream theory for years, just like the rest of the mainstream, so I doubt a bunch of links to published papers that a posted on Thunderbolts will matter to him. If they ignored all their failures at LUX, LHC, PandaX, Xenon100, and electron roundness tests, what difference does a thunderbolt reference to those same failures matter to them?

 

[Michael]

Sorry, Michael, but linking again to the gullible people at the Thunderbolts web site

As opposed the gullible folks at JREF/ISF that can't tell the difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a pure vacuum devoid of any charged particles, and the particle acceleration process in plasma that is known as 'magnetic reconnection'?

whose authors actually lie about science does not help your case.

You mean like Clinger lied when he said I was a "denier' of reconnection when all I actually "denied" was that it was was plasma optional process? You mean like you keep lying every time you claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma in spite of Dungey's *published* statements to the contrary?

From another forum: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Oh look! How cute. RC cites *himself* from some random website, while complaining about another random website. Neither of those websites have anything at all to do with your *gross stellar miscounts* RC.

The poster is lying about "the botched the stellar mass estimates in 2006".

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars/

Which of those statements is not true RC, or is it you that is doing all the lying?

The poster is partially lying about "falsified all their 'popular' mathematical models for exotic matter at LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon100, etc".

Which one "passed the test" RC, and which one found evidence of anything they expected/wanted to find?

* LHC never looked for dark matter particles.

That is a straight up misstatement of fact. It looked for several types of SUSY related 'sparticles' which were "predicted" in now *falsified* mathematical models galore.

It did rule out a simple SUSY extention to the Standard Model.

It also *verified* the standard model is correct too RC. You're banking your entire theory on the Standard Particle physics model being wrong. Why?

* LUX, PandaX, Xenon100, etc. have never falsified any mathematical models.

More flat out false statements.

They have dramatically reduced the possible parameter space for some dark matter candidates.

Meaning your supernatural gaps are shrinking by the experiment and by the day.

That they have not reduced the parameter space to zero and that there is overwhelming evidence that dark matter exists is why they continue to run the experiments.

What a pitiful exotic matter of the gaps claim. Why are you an atheist again? The parameter space of God has definitely not been reduced to zero either, so by your logic you *should be* a theist too. What's up with the blatant double standard?

 

[Michael]

A truth that you are missing: The mass of galaxies in a galaxy cluster is a small part of the mass of the cluster. 80-90% of the mass is in the intra-cluster medium. Even doubling the mass of galaxies will only increase the mass of the cluster by a small %. Depending on the cluster, maybe 20%, maybe 10%.

The part you keep ignoring is that they botched the stellar miscounts by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 *and* the *utterly missed* all the million degree plasma surrounding every galaxy up until 2012. They don't have a clue how much ordinary baryonic matter any galaxy contains, it's all been a "wild guess" on their part, and it's been off by *huge factors* since the dawn of time!

No forms of exotic matter are necessary to explain "missing mass" RC, not in galaxy rotation patterns, and not in lensing studies.

 

[Michael]

It's because they do not understand magnetic fields, or electric fields. They have not yet come to accept 200+ years of experimental data with magnetic fields. They haven't given up yet on the model that incorrectly predicts magnetic fields for the one that does.

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

"A magnetic field is the magnetic effect of electric currents and magnetic materials."

"There are two competing models for the nature of these dipoles."

"Magnetic pole model and the H-field

Since it is based on the fictitious idea of a magnetic charge density, the Gilbert model has limitations.

Amperian loop model and the B-field

These magnetic dipoles produce a magnetic B-field. One important property of the B-field produced this way is that magnetic B-field lines neither start nor end (mathematically, B is a solenoidal vector field); a field line either extends to infinity or wraps around to form a closed curve.[nb 9] To date no exception to this rule has been found."

But of course they want us to accept the one based upon fictitious things (again), instead of accepting the one that to date nothing has been found not to follow this rule. Go figure. But what can we expect I guess from those that refuse to treat a universe 99.99% Plasma like Plasma?

My conversations at JREF/ISF were rather telling. Not only don't they understand basic plasma physics and plasma physics processes, they don't even have a strong handle on basic EM field theory. Clinger couldn't even cite a single reference in his intro to EM field textbook where it used the term "magnetic reconnection", but I'm sure his book included plenty of examples of magnetic flux in a vacuum which is all that Clinger could ever have hoped to describe without a single plasma particle to his name.

The surreal part was watching all their so called astronomy "experts" at JREF ignore Clinger's bonehead error for *months* and multiple installments, until he finished his final installment and I pointed out them all that Clinger could never even hope to mathematical describe a rate of reconnection that is greater than zero without a plasma particle to his name, and I started to rub his nose in it, so they simply banned me. Sheesh.

RC *still* thinks his "toy" (Priest, RC's own reference used that exact term) understanding of the process is the same as the "real process' which involves plasma, and the transfer of magnetic field energy into charged particle acceleration. His whole argument is based upon a gross oversimplification, and RC remains in pure denial of the fact that Dungey demonstrated that electrical discharges in plasma are *possible*, not *impossible*. They're all pretty clueless. RC and Clinger had not even read a textbook on MHD theory when I was posting on JREF, and RC has still not read one to this very day AFAIK. Feel free to correct me RC if you've actually read one.

 

[Michael]

It is really so sad in your case that you are so determined that magnetic reconnection can only happen in plasma that you have in denial for several years about
* basic English, e.g. a textbook example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum.

His so called 'vacuum' included A) charged particles, and B) charged particle movement! All you heard was the term 'vacuum' and you ignored the rest of his example! Priest, your very own reference, called your understanding of the process a *toy* understand RC. Guess why? There is no *transfer* of field energy into charged particle acceleration without charged particles. Get it?

* what magnetic reconnection is, e.g. that in an example where we have a couple of wired producing the currents the MR happens in the vacuum (X marks the spot in that textbook example!)

You really are clueless about basic EM field theory. The X only marks *one* spot where *continuum* from both fields are *changing over time*. It's not just one location RC, it's *all of them* that are changing and experiencing magnetic flux. Only the charged particle *transfer* counts as 'magnetic reconnection", which is why Somov *included* charged particle movement in his process. Get it?

* Maxwell's equations that Clinger uses in an example of MR in vacuum.

The is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection" without a *transfer* of energy RC. What don't you understand about the concept of a *transfer* of energy?

Why do you keep citing some random website from a guy that's never read a textbook on MHD theory in the first place? What don't you understand about this English sentence RC?

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.

Notice the English terms "in highly conducting plasmas", and the term 'converted"? What do those terms mean to you personally?