No, Michael, you are lying.
No, I'm certainly not lying.
I'm simply asking you for the first obvious and logical thing that anyone would ask you for when proposing a brand new physical process in plasma.
Time variable magnetic fields are a *known and demonstrated* cause of charged particle acceleration in conductors. Plasma is a nearly perfect conductor. As such, all conductive plasma will also respond to time variable magnetic fields by inducing charged particle acceleration in plasma.
You are the one making the *new* claim here. You're claiming that something *other* than ordinary demonstrated induction is responsible for charged particle acceleration in plasma. It is therefore *your* (not my) responsibility to demonstrate your claim in a real laboratory experiment *before* you start handwaving at plasma in the sky.
All I'm asking you for is the logical thing *anyone* would ask to see, namely a laboratory study that explains and demonstrates the clear and obvious difference between induction and your new proposition.
The fact you can't provide such a study is not my fault. It doesn't make me a liar. It doesn't make me an "idiot" or part of a 'cult' either. The fact you have to resort to such obviously deflective debate tactics says volumes. If you had any real evidence you'd simply provide it. Since you don't you attack me personally. Your motives for the personal attacks are quite obvious. You don't have a valid scientific argument and you're irrationally blaming me for it.
Show how induction could be responsible for MR.
I don't have to do that, and I'm not even making that claim in the first place! The only claims that I've made are that time variable magnetic fields in a conductor will induce charged particle acceleration, and plasma is a nearly perfect conductor.
You are claiming that MRx is a unique and separate cause of plasma particle acceleration. It's therefore your responsibility to demonstrate that MRx is unique and different from induction and demonstrate your case in a real laboratory experiment. That would require a comparison of both types of charged particle acceleration and a clear demonstration of each type of acceleration and a comparison of each type of acceleration. The fact you can't provide that is not my fault.
You have come up with a stupid idea,
No, induction is not a "stupid" idea, it's been demonstrated in the lab for hundreds of years. Your misuse of the term "stupid" is another example of your lack of a valid scientific argument and your pathetic attempt to blame me for it.
and when asked to justify it with the relevant plasma physics equations, you can't.
I don't care about equations, I want to see the *physics* first. The equations are irrelevant. Alfven saw the very same equations and rejected them as pseudoscience. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I want to see the *physics* and see you demonstrate that they are physically unique and different from induction.
What is the Magnetic Reynolds number in the photosphere? Or corona? And why is that important?Ans why does it show that you don't know what you are talking about.
Why are you even discussing anything outside of the lab? I didn't ask you about solar physics. I asked you about plasma physics.
Utter nonsense. What is the magnetic diffusivity timescale in the corona?
Why are you still talking about solar stuff when I asked you a question that needs to be addressed in the lab, and can *only* be addressed in the lab?
Why don't you link to the paper claiming that induction (lol) is responsible for MR in the magnetosphere and in solar flares.
I'm not making that claim in the first place.
As I said, your unqualified,
I'm obviously more qualified than you and your JREF buddies because none of you have provided Clingers missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "reconnection' in his vacuum contraption, but you all cite his website rants as being important somehow.
silly ideas are irrelevant.
True, and real ones work in the lab.
Circuit theory easily explains a sustained, hot, full sphere corona and planetary aurora. Silly stuff like MRx doesn't work in the lab to produce working models of these things.
Show me the science. Where is it?
To support the fact that induction happens? Really?
Electromagnetic induction - Wikipedia
You are the only one claiming this, and you do not understand the science. It can therefore be safely ignored.
Even if I personally knew *nothing* about science, Birkeland certainly did and you can't even replicate his work and produce a working model of your claim in a lab. That alone would be enough to convince me that Birkeland was right and you have no idea what you're talking about, and your refusal to read his work is obviously part of the problem.
Why would you do an experiment to show something that any idiot can see is impossible?
Do you ever argue any points without all the loaded "idiot" commentary? Any idiot can see that your debate tactics are based on fear and intimidation, not physics.
Nobody "explained" anything to me, they handwaved at me and dodged my simple request to see a real experiment that demonstrates the difference between ordinary induction and "reconnection". Any idiot should know that you can't even discuss "magnetic reconnection" without plasma particle acceleration, but I've certainly seen them try.
Magnetic diffusivity. Go found out what it means. This is where your total lack of knowledge of plasma physics lets you down.
Yawn. Your whole argument is one big personal attack. I ask for simple and obvious examples of your claims and you fail to provide them and then launch into another personal attack. How obvious can you be?
See above. Learn plasma physics. Learn maths.
I already pointed out the obvious mathematical errors made in these threads. I've pointed out the physics errors too, including Clinger's physical error in trying to leave out charged particle acceleration in the process known as "reconnection". I even pointed out Clinger's missing math formula. Nobody cared. You don't really care about math or physics because you don't even begin to understand the actual physics, and your math is therefore meaningless.
Michael, all those posters were far more intelligent than you.
That could very well be true, and completely irrelevant as well.
And knew far more science.
Which "science"? Had any of them read Birkeland's work? Alfven's work? Peratt's book? Somov's book on MHD theory? I have no idea. The fact your JREF crew tried to leave out plasma entirely in the "magnetic reconnection" process however demonstrates that they don't know the very first thing about plasma physics and MHD theory, specifically that it *requires plasma*!
What is wrong with you Michael?
Nothing. I'm fine thanks. I'm just expecting you to demonstrate your claim like I would expect anyone to demonstrate their claim.
We don't need to do an experiment,
Yes, you do. Otherwise you have no way to be sure if MRx theory is 'pseudoscience' as Alfven claimed, or if it's a real and physically different from ordinary induction.
based on the demands of a scientifically challanged layman,
Alfven certainly wasn't a "scientifically challenged layman" and he rejected MRx, so apparently that's not the issue. I know you'd love to blame me personally, but your logic is obviously flawed and the problem has nothing to do with me personally, but rather with your inability to demonstrate your claim.
and then sit around waiting for nothing to happen. Get a grip. Do the maths.
Alfven did the math and he flat out rejected MRx as pseudoscience. Get a grip. It's not about the math, it's about your lack of of a physical demonstration of your claim in controlled experimentation.
Of what relevance is that?
I was just wondering how much relevant literature you might not have read.
I've got a number of his papers and books. He never tried to explain fast energy releases by induction!
He certainly did discuss induced current in plasma, and it would be an obvious way for plasma to convert magnetic field energy into particle acceleration. He also talks about the circuits being "pinched" to the point of failure and the fast release of magnetic field energy all along the entire circuit.
He would contradict his own theory! If you've read his stuff, I very much doubt that you understood it.
You're obviously projecting again. If you'd understood his work, you wouldn't be so adverse to embracing circuit theory and Birkeland currents in space.
Couldn't care less. We know far more about astrophysical plasmas now than he ever knew.
If my experiences at JREF and with Clinger are any example, that's clearly false. At least Alfven knew that MRx requires plasma.
It's your dumb idea, you prove it! I know it's not possible. You do not seem to understand the relevant science. As usual.
It's not my idea, and I'm not making any extraordinary claims about unique energy transfers in plasma. You're the one making the claim and you're the one without a single published paper to your name to demonstrate it in the lab.