Galaxy rotation patterns are better explained by Birkeland currents than by dark matter.

sjastro · Apr 30, 2019

Well when I thought it was safe until another Scott error pops up!
From his 2015 paper;

Scott has confused the vector representation of B with that of the basis vectors Ρ, Φ and Z.
For example the component of the magnetic field Bθ makes an angle θ with the z-axis and is associated with spherical coordinates, not as represented in the diagram which should be the angle Φ, and is the angle between the projection of the vector on the x-y plane and the x-axis.

The geometrical illustration of r, θ and z with P, Φ and Z is:

For any vector field A in cylindrical coordinates such as the magnetic field B;
A = ArΡ + AθΦ + AzZ

SelfSim · Apr 30, 2019

HotBlack said:
... I mean don't get me wrong he has been a laughing stock since the JREF days when he embarrassed himself about MRx, though 1=0.5 and so many other occasionsions where he comprehensively lost the argument.

(For readers):
HotBlack mentions the 1=0.5 incident ... So, purely as a reminder from the past, here is how Michael's 'math' analysis skills produced the stupendous conclusion that 1=0.5. The lead up to sjastro's post here was an active demonstration of one of the most stupendous contortionist acts by Michael I think I've ever witnessed .. anywhere!

The whole saga was prompted by the challenge of a simple coin toss experiment here.
Yet Michael continues to crow elsewhere (to this very day) about this sorry saga as being one of his successes in math logic(!)

SelfSim · Apr 30, 2019

sjastro said:
Well when I thought it was safe until another Scott error pops up!
From his 2015 paper;
...
Scott has confused the vector representation of B with that of the basis vectors Ρ, Φ and Z.
For example the component of the magnetic field Bθ makes an angle θ with the z-axis, not as represented in the diagram the angle Φ, which is the angle between the projection of the vector on the x-y plane and the x-axis.

The geometrical illustration of r, θ and z with P, Φ and Z is:
...
For any vector field A in cylindrical coordinates such as the magnetic field B;
A = ArΡ + AθΦ + AzZ

Its a little tricky to follow that I think (namely because of the web based presentation medium in 2D).

However, it looks like Scott needs to go back and brush up on his engineering Tech Drawing skills on geometric projections .. or at least come out of the dark ages and use a modern day CAD package which performs projections, rotations and translations.

sjastro · Apr 30, 2019

SelfSim said:
Its a little tricky to follow that I think (namely because of the web based presentation medium in 2D).

However, it looks like Scott needs to go back and brush up on his engineering Tech Drawing skills on geometric projections .. or at least come out of the dark ages and use a modern day CAD package which performs projections, rotations and translations.

More importantly Scott should take a crash course in vector algebra in particular the geometrical representation of vectors in different coordinate systems.
Physicists use, which is not surprisingly known as physics coordinates, where θ is the angle of the vector with the z-axis in spherical coordinates not as described by Scott which adds to what is already a totally confused model.

In the Lundquist original equations the cylindrical coordinate system is based on (r, Φ, Z) not (r, θ, Z) as Scott stipulates.

sjastro · May 1, 2019

SelfSim said:
Nice diagram! I haven't seen the coloured version before.

I note the heading too .. "What is reconnection in vacuum?"

It appears that “Captain Courageous” who gave me the cold shoulder in this thread before his suspension took offence to my post by creating a thread in the safety of some obscure Reddit subforum to engage in some long range vitriol by associating anyone who disagrees with him as being a boneheaded lying EU hater.

Amongst the vitriol is the claim that Somov doesn’t mention current carrying wires and the illustration represents two plasma channels???
The diagram in Somov’s work is self explanatory to anyone familiar with basic physics and electrical engineering as it uses the standard “Cross and Dot” convention for a current in a wire.

Somov’s work involves a chapter on “RECONNECTION IN VACUUM” and explicitly states the example of two parallel currents (not plasma channels) in a vacuum.

It is total delusion to believe that Somov is describing anything else but magnetic reconnection in a vacuum.

Smithi · May 2, 2019

sjastro said:
It is total delusion to believe that Somov is describing anything else but magnetic reconnection in a vacuum.

Quite. Even a child should be able to figure that out. If there is a plasma there, we are no longer dealing with a vacuum. The fact that Somov's section title is;

1.1.2 Reconnection in vacuum

should be a clue. A further clue that plasma is not involved, should be the title of the next section;

1.1.3 Reconnection in plasma

Why, if he was using plasma in 1.1.2, would he then feel the need to have section 1.1.3?
It is plainly obvious to all but the blind that Somov is describing MR in vacuo in 1.1.2. This is further emphasised in the following text from just below Fig. 1.6;

However, contrary to the case of reconnection in vacuum, in astrophysical plasma of low resistivity we have to add an intermediate state. We call it the pre-reconnection state.

Again, why the need to differentiate between vacuum and plasma, if plasma is already included in 1.1.2?

And then we have Fig. 1.10, which sure as hell looks like two current carrying wires;

Furthermore, we have Somov saying the following in section 4.2.4, regarding an observation depicted in Fig. 4.7;

What is the physical meaning of δΨ? - If there were a vacuum without plasma above the plane Q, then the flux δΨ would reconnect at the separator (X1X2) over the two day evolution of the photospheric field sources, and the magnetic field would remain potential without any excess of magnetic energy. In the low-resistivity plasma, changes in the photospheric sources induce an electric current at the separator in the corona. This current in the coronal plasma forms a current layer which will prevent the reconnection of the flux δΨ. Thus, the energy will be accumulated in the magnetic field of the current layer.

Of course, this could all be clarified for Michael simply by emailing the author. Perhaps I should do that, just to put him out of his befuddlement.

P.S. I have a pdf copy of Somov's book. If anyone would like a copy, let me know.

sjastro · May 2, 2019

Smithi said:
Of course, this could all be clarified for Michael simply by emailing the author. Perhaps I should do that, just to put him out of his befuddlement.

P.S. I have a pdf copy of Somov's book. If anyone would like a copy, let me know.

By all means do so for both cases.

I've been eyeing the exchanges at the Reddit subforum.
So Michael has decided if or when Somov shows his section on magnetic reconnection in a vacuum involves wires not plasma channels, Michael will tell him otherwise because no one has shown him the maths.

On the subject of the maths here it is; magnetic reconnection of two magnets in a vacuum where there is absolutely no ambiguity regarding plasma.

Cassak said:
The breaking of field lines in vacuum is accompanied by an electric field (it is required from Ampère-Maxwell and Faraday’s laws!)

https://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/images/c/ce/2016GEM_Sunday_Reconnection.pdf

To expand on this statement a change in the magnetic topology for reconnection to occur requires δB/δt ≠ 0.
The relevant mathematical equations for the Ampère-Maxwell and Faraday’s laws are Maxwell's 4th and 3rd equations respectively which are;
∇ X B = μj + μεδE/δt
∇ X E = -δB/δt

In this case reconnection occurs at a "very fast rate" limited by the speed c in a vacuum; the other extreme is where reconnection cannot occur for an ideal infinitely conductive plasma.
Ohm's law states J = σ(E + v X B)
Since is σ infinitely large J/σ = 0 → E + v X B = 0.
If the ideal plasma is stationary or collisionless v = 0.
Therefore E = 0 and reconnection doesn't occur.

Plasma however is not infinitely conductive and reconnection can occur where there are instabilities in the plasma's current sheet at low reconnection rates.

SelfSim · May 2, 2019

sjastro said:
By all means do so for both cases.

I've been eyeing the exchanges at the Reddit subforum.
So Michael has decided if or when Somov shows his section on magnetic reconnection in a vacuum involves wires not plasma channels, Michael will tell him otherwise because no one has shown him the maths.

On the subject of the maths here it is; magnetic reconnection of two magnets in a vacuum where there is absolutely no ambiguity regarding plasma.
...
https://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/images/c/ce/2016GEM_Sunday_Reconnection.pdf

To expand on this statement a change in the magnetic topology for reconnection to occur requires δB/δt ≠ 0.
The relevant mathematical equations for the Ampère-Maxwell and Faraday’s laws are Maxwell's 4th and 3rd equations respectively which are;
∇ X B = μj + μεδE/δt
∇ X E = -δB/δt
...

Michael's agonising nine year 'sentence' of having to wait for his 'missing math formula' ends in four simple statements, eh!?
(Meh .. its about the same as an average sentence at Guantanamo, I suppose ...)

sjastro · May 2, 2019

SelfSim said:
Michael's agonising nine year 'sentence' of having to wait for his 'missing math formula' ends in four simple statements, eh!?
(Meh .. its about the same as an average sentence at Guantanamo, I suppose ...)

I hope the scenario occurs where Michael practises what he preaches; he is going to tell the author of his own book (Somov) the wires in the section on magnetic reconnection in a vacuum are plasma channels because no one supposedly came up with the maths.
Can anyone make any sense out of this?

One thing is certain however expect a speedy retreat to Cult HQ if Somov responds.

Smithi · May 3, 2019

Dear Ian,
Many thanks to you for your kind letter.
Concerning magnetic reconnection in vacuum, I have nothing to add to Fig. 1.3 in
section 1.1.2. -- Reconnection like reconnection. Yes, in vacuum. Why not? --
During many years of teaching, I never met a student who did not understand this
ordinary process. They (students) understand easily that the parallel currents are
external currents relative to a reconnection region, for example, the vacuum tube
in the laboratory experiments Frank A.G. et al. in Moscow.
I guess that the Individual, which is claiming that the vacuum reconnection is
impossible, simply does not want to understand this simple but real case.
Reasons? - I do not know.
Well, unfortunately or fortunately, I am very busy. Together with one of my post-
graduate student, Pavel Gritsyk (very talent person), I have to complete work on
the thermal (T_e ~ 10 keV) runaway electrons and hard X-ray polarization in solar
flares.
Another young college, Leonid Ledentson (also very good scientist), writes the
text-book (the lectures) on the classical background of plasma astrophysics. So, he
is also busy. Anyway, I ask him to read carefully the web-site mentioned in your
letter. I hope he will find something useful in critics of me.
Thank you once again for your letter. With kind regards and best wishes,
Boris
03.05.2019

SelfSim · May 3, 2019

... And (from the Reddits thread), as expected, Michael responds to Somov's response with abject dishonesty .. Sounds all too familiar, except this time around, its a non CFs member making the call on Michael's behavior .. why does Michael do this regardless of where he posts?

Looks to me like Michael is now down to the age-old, (and highly tiresome), EM duality argument .. but I don't think anyone would argue about magnetic reconnection happening if one was to come across a couple of glass tubes filled with plasma with a big battery energising them, mysteriously floating around in space, would they?

sjastro · May 3, 2019

Smithi said:
Dear Ian,
Many thanks to you for your kind letter.
Concerning magnetic reconnection in vacuum, I have nothing to add to Fig. 1.3 in
section 1.1.2. -- Reconnection like reconnection. Yes, in vacuum. Why not? --
During many years of teaching, I never met a student who did not understand this
ordinary process. They (students) understand easily that the parallel currents are
external currents relative to a reconnection region, for example, the vacuum tube
in the laboratory experiments Frank A.G. et al. in Moscow.
I guess that the Individual, which is claiming that the vacuum reconnection is
impossible, simply does not want to understand this simple but real case.
Reasons? - I do not know.
Well, unfortunately or fortunately, I am very busy. Together with one of my post-
graduate student, Pavel Gritsyk (very talent person), I have to complete work on
the thermal (T_e ~ 10 keV) runaway electrons and hard X-ray polarization in solar
flares.
Another young college, Leonid Ledentson (also very good scientist), writes the
text-book (the lectures) on the classical background of plasma astrophysics. So, he
is also busy. Anyway, I ask him to read carefully the web-site mentioned in your
letter. I hope he will find something useful in critics of me.
Thank you once again for your letter. With kind regards and best wishes,
Boris
03.05.2019

Excellent.
The key point Sonov has made is the vacuum tube experiment which removes any doubt given a vacuum tube is composed of wires and electrodes in a vacuum.
Given that Michael has accused me of being a liar on a site that I do not even participate in for suggesting Sonov's diagram illustrates wires and not plasma, an apology is in order but I doubt one is forthcoming.

A word of warning; now that Michael has decided to contact Sonov, I wouldn't put it past Michael for editing any response that was unfavourable.
I know this from first hand experience.
One of the many reasons Michael was banned from Brian Koberlein's site was that he took one of my responses and edited out all the relevant detail that refuted his post which was then published at Tbolts and savaged.

SelfSim · May 3, 2019

I like this quote from ianw16 .. (thanks Ian):

A quote from Tim T is in order, again;

The simple truth is constantly obvious. You cannot & will not consider anything that contradicts your preconception, despite the fact that you actually know nothing at all about the topic at hand. You are simply intolerant to anything that contradicts your preconceptions. The second sentence makes that plain. You "don't see how", and yet you don't even know what is being measured".

Click to expand...

And that's from 10 years ago too, eh?
Goes to show how hard Michael has worked on spreading his legendary persistent ignorance and behaviors regarding such topics!

SelfSim · May 3, 2019

sjastro said:
...
One of the many reasons Michael was banned from Brian Koberlein's site was that he took one of my responses and edited out all the relevant detail that refuted his post which was then published at Tbolts and savaged.

Just as he did earlier on in the 'Electric Plasmoid' thread (here) when I pointed out the humour of his attributing Smithi's words as being his own ... whereupon Michael then completely deleted the offending misquoted text from his original post .. which then made my post pointing out the error look dishonest.

Smithi · May 3, 2019

SelfSim said:
I like this quote from ianw16 .. (thanks Ian):

And that's from 10 years ago too, eh?
Goes to show how hard Michael has worked on spreading his legendary persistent ignorance and behaviors regarding such topics!

Indeed. Ian is me if you were unaware! I also had a trawl through a whole lot of ancient posts on ISF, where Tim and Tusenfem (Martin Volwerk) point out the gross misunderstandings of Mozina. That led me to this paper, by Eric Priest;

Magnetic reconnection on the Sun
Priest, E. R.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...age=271&epage=271&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf

In a vacuum, reconnection is a trivial process, but in a plasma atmosphere such as the Sun's............

Smithi · May 3, 2019

So, it would appear that the prominent plasma physicists, Priest and Somov, both mean plasma when they say vacuum, and also when they say plasma! Either that or Michael has got himself in a tangle again.

Smithi · May 3, 2019

I'm still scouring the threads at ISF. Something else that had been shown to Michael by Tim Thompson was from a book by Paul Bellan;

Fundamentals of Plasma Physics
Bellan, P. M.
Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul M. Bellan

In this post Tim explained it, but couldn't post the relevant figure. Hopefully I have managed to do so, along with the assignment questions related to the figure;

As can be seen, Bellan's vacuum diagram is pretty much the same as Somov's. Two currents, in vacuo, which are moved closer together. The text in 12.7(b) makes it clear that he is talking about a vacuum here. The text in 12.7(d) then asks the student to replace the vacuum with a plasma. Just as Somov does in his book.

Game, set and match, I'd say!

SelfSim · May 4, 2019

... As I said earlier, I've already emailed Somov. Either you knock off the name calling or I will ban you for awhile. It's your call.

Wow! ..
Imagine scoring the privilege of being banned by Michael Mozina whilst he himself, is currently banned from this forum!
Hilarious!

I feel for Somov though .. can you imagine the pasting he's in for?
Next thing we know, he'll be tarrred with the same brush as every other scientist who's attempted to set Michael straight.

SelfSim · May 4, 2019

I find all of the nonsense 'induction' argument being propagated specifically by Michael, as being quite amusing. Both sjastro and I have been around this exact same 'Somov' reconnection loop before here at CFs, (as have many other folk elsewhere), but I think our CFs thread was deleted (yet again) due to Michael's all-too-frequent abuses(?)

Whilst I think its fair to say that Michael isn't a garden variety EU acolyte, in this instance on the reconnection topic, he continually backs himself into a corner of the standard EU mantra of 'the universe is 99% (or whatever) plasma'. In this sense, he has no choice but to defend its long standing (and completely unevidenced) 'default policy'.
By comparison, thank goodness the LCDM model is continually open to scrutiny yet still ends up as being preferred when viewed in its totality .. (and this is in spite of its 'unknowns' and its present mysteries).
For me, the Somov example contains the loud and clear messages of being built on sound, recognisable fundamental physics, which I believe is always missing from so-called 'EU theorist' work (eg: Scott's).

sjastro · May 4, 2019

SelfSim said:
I find all of the nonsense 'induction' argument being propagated specifically by Michael, as being quite amusing. Both sjastro and I have been around this exact same 'Somov' reconnection loop before here at CFs, (as have many other folk elsewhere), but I think our CFs thread was deleted (yet again) due to Michael's all-too-frequent abuses(?)

The irony is that Somov's diagram actually provides the outline for a laboratory test which should get Michael all excited.
Unfortunately for Michael it also shows that induction is impossible.
As any high school physics student knows the two straight parallel wires in Sonov's diagram do not form a flux surface for the magnetic field to pass through let alone vary the magnetic flux with time for induction to occur.

Note that a symptom of "crankdom" is that cranks expect you to disprove their assertions rather than the onus of them on proving the assertion.
Michael demanding an experiment to show that magnetic reconnection is not induction instead of the logically correct procedure of him demonstrating that magnetic reconnection and induction experiments are the same is a case in point.

Galaxy rotation patterns are better explained by Birkeland currents than by dark matter.

Newbie

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Active Member

Attachments

A non "-ist"

Newbie

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency