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

[Smithi]

You wouldn't know because you've never read it.

I know, because he died over 100 years ago. There will therefore be far more relevant, informed and up-to-date material to study.

More ad-homs. Don't you have any real arguments?

Nope, I visit often. That is being kind to the clowns. Go take a look at the forums. It's hilarious.

I already did in several posts. I explained by the math error made by Scott's detractors, and I explained the physics error they made too.

No you didn't. Sjastro was correct. Scott stuffed up the algebraic substitution. Schoolboy error. Not that it matters - nobody is going to see his error in a crank, predatory journal.

There's more mass *outside* of the stars. Move the plasma and the stars will move too. It's no mystery.

Wrong. Want to link to the paper where this is explicitly shown? Before I link to at least one where it is shown to be wrong?

I hang out here and discuss various topics with atheists too, but that hardly makes me an atheist. I hang out with a lot of people.

Riiiiiiight! So you are not at all embarrassed that the leaders of that cult believe Earth used to orbit Saturn? I would not want to be associated with clowns like that.

Apparently it's beyond your capacity to make a single post that doesn't include a healthy does of ad-homs and personal insults. That only demonstrates that you don't have a real scientific argument.

Sorry, Michael, you are projecting again. You are the one with no scientific arguments.

That's just pure denial. The mechanism used to heat the corona and aurora in that video is an electric field. The excited corona and aurora are clearly visible in the experiment. Denial and ad-homs are your only lines of defense. You've got no scientific argument.

It has nothing to do with reality, as she explains! Want me to email her (2nd offer)? You really think she is using this to explain how the corona is heated? Lol. That is priceless!

What are you talking about? I've posted to Scott's model to many other forums. Usually they simply remove the post and refuse to even discuss it. That's not my fault.

They can obviously see that it is garbage, just as we can.

No, he's not wrong, and in his video Scott even cites at least one counter rotational galaxy that shows signs of Markund convection.

Yep, he's wrong. He always is. And he's done a video? Wow! That sure beats peer review in ApJ!

The fact that you absolutely refuse to read his work isn't evidence that he had no model. Your ignorance of his work is self imposed.

It is irrelevant. He died over 100 years ago. Bethe, for instance, is far more relevant.

That's more than you will ever accomplish in the lab with MRx.

Lol. Posts a video that he misunderstands for the 100th times as if that is proof of anything!

Back to the ad-homs. Yawn. Do you even know how to debate fairly?

Yes, I told you why induction is a stupid claim, as did Tim. It is pure nonsense. If you understood anything about the science, you would never have made such a stupid claim. Go find the Magnetic Reynolds for the lower corona. It'll be huge.

I'm not talking about solar observation, I'm talking about real physical lab tests that demonstrate conclusively that that there is some observed physical difference between ordinary induction in a conductor, and what you're describing as "magnetic reconnection". You keep trying to skip the lab part of the work and point at *unrelated* observations in the sky as evidence to support your model, *before* you do the lab work that even demonstrates that you have a real model.

Induction is impossible. As explained.

What was painfully pointed out to me at JREF is that JREF supporters don't even understand the first thing about MRx theory, starting with the fact that defined as a process that occurs *in* plasma that involves the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration. Clinger prattled on for *months* about how he was going to demonstrate MRx *without* plasma and never came up with his missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of MRx in his vacuum contraption. Not a single JREF member bothered to set Clinger straight, and not a single one of them helped Clinger come up with his missing formula.

No, what was pointed out to you at ISF, by many people who are far better qualified and knowledgeable than you, is that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

You can't even replicate the simplest aspects of coronal heating in a lab, so it's not irrelevant to solar physics, it's just irrelevant to you personally.

Neither can you. What is your fixation with labs? You don't even understand the science.

That's just another example of you relying upon personal insults instead of valid scientific arguments. You're sounding more desperate by the post.

Nope, it was a valid observation.

I'm not asking you to build a whole star in a lab. I'm asking to see you created a sustained planetary aurora and a sustained full sphere hot corona based on "magnetic reconnection". I can and have easily demonstrated those things are related to electric fields in a real lab experiment. why can't you do that with MRx?

I don't care what you want, Michael. You are a complete irrelevance to the world of science, in case you haven't noticed.

False. A pure observation doesn't always allow us to determine cause. Your argument based strictly on observation is an affirming the consequent fallacy.

More unjustified layman's opinion. Not interested. MRx is theorised and observed in flares.

We found them in controlled experimentation, not by pointing at the sky and claiming "neutrons did it".

Wrong. Who built a star in a lab and observed neutrinos? We theorised that the Sun was powered by fusion. We theorised that such fusion would produce neutrinos. Then we looked for them . Get it right.

 

[Michael]

That is a lie.

No, it's currently a statement of fact. To demonstrate an error on my part you'd need to provide us with a real experiment that is capable of differentiating between induction and MRx. I've asked to see such a study for more than a decade and nobody has ever provided one. How is that my fault?

Thompson:
It most certainly is not. And to the surprise of no one, we have already been down this road. The key to understanding why it cannot be induction is that induction can change only the geometry of a magnetic field, but can never change its topology.

That statement is self conflicted. If I change the geometry of the field I change it's topology. There are not even real individual "magnetic lines" in space anymore than than a topology map shows "real lines".

Mozina:
Yet you won't personally explain what's unique about magnetic reconnection, so what can I say Tim?
Thompson:
That's not true, and you know it. It's no wonder that people keep calling you a liar. Are you trying to add me to the list? I have already done that many times. I said it was a change in the topology of the magnetic field, and that certainly is not induction by any stretch of the imagination.

Induction is *directly* related to a change in topology of the magnetic field so that's simply a false assertion. More importantly however, none of them ever provided a paper like I asked!

Tim:
Besides, induction is strictly limited by the diffusion timescale of the plasma, whereas reconnection is impulsive. The two processes are distinctly different both in theory and in practice. Impulsive energy release, such as a solar flare, is quite impossible for any induction process.

Actually it is frankly rather disturbing that Tim would even say such an obviously and blatantly false statement. The coil in my car demonstrates that the induction process is fully capable of resulting in an impulsive energy release. Electrical discharges also routinely result in an impulsive energy release so MRx isn't necessary to explain impulsive energy releases.

So, instead of spreading falsehoods, and further displaying your ignorance of the subject, why do you not do the simple thing, and actually link to a scientific work which says that it is induction?

It's not my job to *disprove your claim*. It's up to you to demonstrate it. All I'm asking you for is a comprehensive laboratory study that clearly demonstrates the key physical differences between ordinary induction and MRx. If you can't do that I have no reason to believe that MRx is a unique physical process in the first place.

Because if the only person on the planet claiming such a thing is you, then why should we take any notice of it, given how little you know about the subject?

That's not true. Alfven discussed it too, and everyone still alive and active in the EU/PC community knows that there is no such thing as a unique physical process as "magnetic reconnection". Nobody doubts that induction is a real physical process. It's ironic you would accuse me of not knowing this subject while I'm *still* waiting to see Clinger's non-existent math formula to express a non-zero rate of "Reconnection" in his vacuum contraption. At least I understand that the process requires *plasma* and plasma particle acceleration which is more than I can say for your entire JREF crew.

 

[Smithi]

No, it's currently a statement of fact. To demonstrate an error on my part you'd need to provide us with a real experiment that is capable of differentiating between induction and MRx. I've asked to see such a study for more than a decade and nobody has ever provided one. How is that my fault?

No, it is a lie. Induction is not possible, as has been explained to you. No experiment needs to be done, and nobody is stupid enough to believe it needs to be done.

That statement is self conflicted. If I change the geometry of the field I change it's topology. There are not even real individual "magnetic lines" in space anymore than than a topology map shows "real lines".

More misunderstanding. You really don't get this, do you?

Induction is *directly* related to a change in topology of the magnetic field so that's simply a false assertion. More importantly however, none of them ever provided a paper like I asked!

No, induction is impossible at those timescales. Learn some plasma physics and take your foot out of your mouth.

Actually it is frankly rather disturbing that Tim would even say such an obviously and blatantly false statement. The coil in my car demonstrates that the induction process is fully capable of resulting in an impulsive energy release. Electrical discharges also routinely result in an impulsive energy release so MRx isn't necessary to explain impulsive energy releases.

Complete gibberish, as he explained.

It's not my job to *disprove your claim*. It's up to you to demonstrate it. All I'm asking you for is a comprehensive laboratory study that clearly demonstrates the key physical differences between ordinary induction and MRx. If you can't do that I have no reason to believe that MRx is a unique physical process in the first place.

I don't care what you want, Michael. You are an unqualified layman. Nobody cares what you want. You are not putting anything in the literature questioning MRx. And neither are real scientists.

That's not true. Alfven discussed it too, and everyone still alive and active in the EU/PC community knows that there is no such thing as a unique physical process as "magnetic reconnection". Nobody doubts that induction is a real physical process. It's ironic you would accuse me of not knowing this subject while I'm *still* waiting to see Clinger's non-existent math formula to express a non-zero rate of "Reconnection" in his vacuum contraption. At least I understand that the process requires *plasma* and plasma particle acceleration which is more than I can say for your entire JREF crew.

Alfven never claimed anything as stupid as induction. Kind of goes against his MHD! And there is nobody in the EU/PC woo community remotely qualified to understand reconnection, let alone write anything up on the subject. You are the only person claiming that it is induction, and that is a very silly claim which deserves no consideration.

 

[Michael]

I know, because he died over 100 years ago. There will therefore be far more relevant, informed and up-to-date material to study.

Again, how would you know? You still can't produce a full sphere solar corona or a stable aurora based on MRX in lab, so how do you know that MRx is "more relevant" to solar physics?

Nope, I visit often. That is being kind to the clowns. Go take a look at the forums. It's hilarious.

A lot of the stuff posted to this forum is hilarious too, and you post here. So what?

No you didn't. Sjastro was correct.

About what? I had to explain several of his errors.

Scott stuffed up the algebraic substitution. Schoolboy error. Not that it matters - nobody is going to see his error in a crank, predatory journal.

That's a false assertion. There was no substitution error. Current will *necessarily* flow along the magnetic fields in a Birkeland current because the magnetic fields dictate the location and flow patterns of the plasma associated with the Birkeland curernt. I explained both the math error *and* the physics error.

Wrong. Want to link to the paper where this is explicitly shown? Before I link to at least one where it is shown to be wrong?

Chandra Shows Halo of Hot Gas Surrounding the Milky Way
Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy

Riiiiiiight! So you are not at all embarrassed that the leaders of that cult believe Earth used to orbit Saturn? I would not want to be associated with clowns like that.

I'd be a lot more embarrassed to be associated with clowns that ignored heliocentrism for more than 1800 years and who still think the universe is controlled by dark invisible forces that have never been seen on Earth.

Sorry, Michael, you are projecting again. You are the one with no scientific arguments.

You mean except for the fact that my beliefs work in the lab.

It has nothing to do with reality, as she explains! Want me to email her (2nd offer)? You really think she is using this to explain how the corona is heated? Lol. That is priceless!

Feel free to email her if that floats your boat. It certainly does explain *and demonstrate* how the coronal heating process takes place.

They can obviously see that it is garbage, just as we can.

They simply can't handle it anymore than you can.

Yep, he's wrong. He always is. And he's done a video? Wow! That sure beats peer review in ApJ!

Ya like the APJ is the be-all-end-all of astronomy.

It is irrelevant. He died over 100 years ago. Bethe, for instance, is far more relevant.

False. If you could create a full sphere sustained corona and planetary aurora in a lab you could claim his work isn't relevant. Since you cannot do so, you can only *allege* that it's irrelevant with no evidence whatsoever to support your false assertion.

Lol. Posts a video that he misunderstands for the 100th times as if that is proof of anything!

If nothing else it proves that EU/PC theory can do things that you models cannot, namely work in the lab.

Yes, I told you why induction is a stupid claim, as did Tim. It is pure nonsense.

Tim's claim that induction cannot cause fast releases of energy is pure nonsense as the coil in my car easily demonstrates. That argument is stupid.

If you understood anything about the science, you would never have made such a stupid claim. Go find the Magnetic Reynolds

If you want to impress me and change my opinion on this topic, it's really easy. All you need to do is provide an experimental study that clearly differentiates between MRx and induction, and show us that MRx works in the lab to produce a full sphere sustained corona and an aurora. How hard can that be if some guy was able to generate an aurora and corona over 100 years ago in a lab based on circuit theory?

 

[Michael]

No, it is a lie.

No it's not. You're only lying to yourself.

Induction is not possible,

Induction is possible in any conductor when exposed to time variable magnetic fields. The fact you would argue otherwise is ridiculous.

as has been explained to you.

Nobody "explained" any such thing to me based on a real experiment. All I've ever seen are absurdly false handwaves like the one's you're now making.

No experiment needs to be done, and nobody is stupid enough to believe it needs to be done.

False. That's an irrational statement. Experiments are the bedrock of science. The fact you run from them only demonstrates a lack of evidence to support your position. You aren't fooling anyone, and name calling isn't going to save you.

More misunderstanding. You really don't get this, do you?

Oh, I get the fact that none of you have produced Clingers missing non-zero rate of reconnection formula in his vacuum contraption. It's been almost a whole decade and not one mathematical hot shot from JREF/ISF managed to produce it.

No, induction is impossible at those timescales. Learn some plasma physics and take your foot out of your mouth.

*If* that were actually true, then you should have a real experiment that shows induction in plasma and how it's incapable of a fast release of energy, and the same experiment would show a unique physical process that is obviously different from induction that *does* release energy faster than induction. Since you can't provide such a paper, I can only assume that you made that up.

Alfven never claimed anything as stupid as induction.

Shall I assume you've never bothered to read Alfven's work either?

Kind of goes against his MHD!

No, it does not. Induction is a real and documented process in conductors when exposed to time variable magnetic fields and plasma is an excellent conductor. It would be impossible for plasma to *not* experience induction in the presence of time variable magnetic fields.

FYI, Alfven used circuit theory to describe high energy plasma events in space. He didn't even rely much on MHD theory.

And there is nobody in the EU/PC woo community remotely qualified to understand reconnection, let alone write anything up on the subject. You are the only person claiming that it is induction, and that is a very silly claim which deserves no consideration.

If that were so you'd have no problem at all providing us with an experiment and paper that proved it. You can't.

 

[Smithi]

Again, how would you know? You still can't produce a full sphere solar corona or a stable aurora based on MRX in lab, so how do you know that MRx is "more relevant" to solar physics?

And you can't do it either. And reconnection is observed. Pointless post.

A lot of the stuff posted to this forum is hilarious too, and you post here. So what?

And I am not associated with those posters. I'm an atheist, and make no secret of it.

About what? I had to explain several of his errors.

About the substitution errors, as you damn well know. He screwed up the maths in his garbage 'paper'.

That's a false assertion. There was no substitution error. Current will *necessarily* flow along the magnetic fields in a Birkeland current because the magnetic fields dictate the location and flow patterns of the plasma associated with the Birkeland curernt. I explained both the math error *and* the physics error.

Wrong. He screwed up the maths. As shown. He is a clown.

Chandra Shows Halo of Hot Gas Surrounding the Milky Way
Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy

And what has that got to do with shifting stars around with a magnetic field? Lol.

I'd be a lot more embarrassed to be associated with clowns that ignored heliocentrism for more than 1800 years and who still think the universe is controlled by dark invisible forces that have never been seen on Earth.

Bore off with your bot-like word salad.

You mean except for the fact that my beliefs work in the lab.

Wrong. You have no ideas that are scientifically valid.

Feel free to email her if that floats your boat. It certainly does explain *and demonstrate* how the coronal heating process takes place.

No, it does not. Stop lying about that video.

They simply can't handle it anymore than you can.

Lol, a heap of erroneous garbage by a clueless EE in a crank, predatory journal! Dear me.

Ya like the APJ is the be-all-end-all of astronomy.

If this clueless clown was correct (and he never is) we would be talking Nobel Prize, and headline news. So he sends it to a crank, predatory journal? Lol.

False. If you could create a full sphere sustained corona and planetary aurora in a lab you could claim his work isn't relevant. Since you cannot do so, you can only *allege* that it's irrelevant with no evidence whatsoever to support your false assertion.

He couldn't neither can you. He is a total irrelevance to modern solar studies. Your hero worship of him is vomit inducing.

If nothing else it proves that EU/PC theory can do things that you models cannot, namely work in the lab.

Nope, that video does nothing of the sort. And EU have done nothing in the lab, other than the laughable SAFIRE nonsense. Trying to prove something that is already debunked and scientifically impossible.

Tim's claim that induction cannot cause fast releases of energy is pure nonsense as the coil in my car easily demonstrates. That argument is stupid.

Nope. As usual the scientist is right, and the uninformed layman is wrong.

If you want to impress me and change my opinion on this topic, it's really easy. All you need to do is provide an experimental study that clearly differentiates between MRx and induction, and show us that MRx works in the lab to produce a full sphere sustained corona and an aurora. How hard can that be if some guy was able to generate an aurora and corona over 100 years ago in a lab based on circuit theory?

Michael, how many times? Your demands are irrelevant. Your beliefs are irrelevant. You are irrelevant. You are producing no science, and don't understand it. Do you think the acceptance of magnetic reconnection is in the balance because an unqualified nobody like you doesn't like it? It is a fact Michael, whether you like it or not.

 

[Smithi]

No it's not. You're only lying to yourself.

No, Michael, you are lying. Show how induction could be responsible for MR. You have come up with a stupid idea, and when asked to justify it with the relevant plasma physics equations, you can't. 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.

Induction is possible in any conductor when exposed to time variable magnetic fields. The fact you would argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Utter nonsense. What is the magnetic diffusivity timescale in the corona? Why don't you link to the paper claiming that induction (lol) is responsible for MR in the magnetosphere and in solar flares. As I said, your unqualified, silly ideas are irrelevant. Show me the science. Where is it? You are the only one claiming this, and you do not understand the science. It can therefore be safely ignored.

Nobody "explained" any such thing to me based on a real experiment. All I've ever seen are absurdly false handwaves like the one's you're now making.

Why would you do an experiment to show something that any idiot can see is impossible? It was explained to you. Magnetic diffusivity. Go found out what it means. This is where your total lack of knowledge of plasma physics lets you down.

False. That's an irrational statement. Experiments are the bedrock of science. The fact you run from them only demonstrates a lack of evidence to support your position. You aren't fooling anyone, and name calling isn't going to save you.

See above. Learn plasma physics. Learn maths.

Oh, I get the fact that none of you have produced Clingers missing non-zero rate of reconnection formula in his vacuum contraption. It's been almost a whole decade and not one mathematical hot shot from JREF/ISF managed to produce it.

Michael, all those posters were far more intelligent than you. And knew far more science.

*If* that were actually true, then you should have a real experiment that shows induction in plasma and how it's incapable of a fast release of energy, and the same experiment would show a unique physical process that is obviously different from induction that *does* release energy faster than induction. Since you can't provide such a paper, I can only assume that you made that up.

What is wrong with you Michael? We don't need to do an experiment, based on the demands of a scientifically challanged layman, and then sit around waiting for nothing to happen. Get a grip. Do the maths.

Shall I assume you've never bothered to read Alfven's work either?

Of what relevance is that? I've got a number of his papers and books. He never tried to explain fast energy releases by induction! He would contradict his own theory! If you've read his stuff, I very much doubt that you understood it.

No, it does not. Induction is a real and documented process in conductors when exposed to time variable magnetic fields and plasma is an excellent conductor. It would be impossible for plasma to *not* experience induction in the presence of time variable magnetic fields.

Utter gibberish.

FYI, Alfven used circuit theory to describe high energy plasma events in space. He didn't even rely much on MHD theory.

Couldn't care less. We know far more about astrophysical plasmas now than he ever knew.

If that were so you'd have no problem at all providing us with an experiment and paper that proved it. You can't.

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.

 

[Michael]

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.

It was explained to you.

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.

 

[Michael]

And you can't do it either.

That video clearly demonstrates that circuit theory can and easily does explain planetary aurora and the solar corona.

And reconnection is observed. Pointless post.

False again. Particle acceleration in plasma is observed but you've never shown that MRx is even physically unique from ordinary induction, let alone ruled out circuit theory as the cause.

And I am not associated with those posters. I'm an atheist, and make no secret of it.

I make no secret about the fact that I reject Velikovki and anode solar models and cults, but you irrationally keep associating me with such things anyway. See the problem?

About the substitution errors, as you damn well know. He screwed up the maths in his garbage 'paper'.

No, actually since I know something about the physics going on, I know damn well that he didn't make any substitution errors. He made logical assumptions based on his model.

Wrong. He screwed up the maths. As shown. He is a clown.

I cited the formulas that show that he got the math right. Your constant personal attacks and ad homs only make you look bad.

And what has that got to do with shifting stars around with a magnetic field? Lol.

EM fields show up in the lab, unlike mythical forms of matter.

Wrong. You have no ideas that are scientifically valid.

False. Every cause/effect claim that I have made has been vetted in the lab with real experiments. None of the LCDM claims enjoy that kind of empirical laboratory support.

No, it does not. Stop lying about that video.

The video speaks for itself, but she does a fantastic job explaining the physics.

Lol, a heap of erroneous garbage by a clueless EE in a crank, predatory journal! Dear me.

More ad homs. Yawn. You really don't have anything scientifically relevant to add to these discussions. Your whole approach has been pure personal attack. I'll stop here since the rest of your post isn't even on topic.

 

[Smithi]

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.

Utter garbage. The magnetic field is frozen-in to the plasma. So there can be no induction, can there? The magnet is not moving through the conductor. Or vice-versa. Remember that guy Alfven? He might have written something about it. That is what Tim and I have told you. To get induction you need to move one in relation to the other. That is not happening. Well, technically, it is. To work out how long it would take to diffuse a certain distance, you will need to use the Magnetic Reynolds number, Rm. When Rm >> 1, the diffusion will be minimal, and the plasma can be taken as frozen-in for most reasonable timescales. The Rm for the solar wind is ~ 260 000, iirc. For the corona it is much higher. No diffusion = no induction. It is a really stupid idea. If you believe otherwise, show where it has been written up. Trust me - it hasn't.

 

[Smithi]

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.

Yes you are. It is plain as day on here and ISF. Want me to quote you again?

 

[Michael]

Yes you are. It is plain as day on here and ISF. Want me to quote you again?

Sure, go for it.

 

[Smithi]

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.

More utter nonsense and ignorance. I am not claiming MR is the only thing capable of particle acceleration. MR alters the magnetic field topology. As demonstrated and detected. And it does it rapidly. There is nothing else doing that. No induction woo, no exploding double layers.

 

[Michael]

Utter garbage. The magnetic field is frozen-in to the plasma.

Plasma isn't stationary however so the term "frozen" is meaningless.

So there can be no induction, can there?

Of course there can. Take an ordinary magnet or electromagnet and wave it by a plasma and the changing field will induce movement in any conductor, including plasma.

The magnet is not moving through the conductor.

Various magnetic fields certainly do move through the conductor.

Or vice-versa. Remember that guy Alfven? He might have written something about it.

Ya, and he dissed on your frozen concept, admitting that it led to all sorts of misconceptions like yours.

That is what Tim and I have told you.

You and Tim failed to listen to Alfven whereas I chose to listen. I don't necessarily hold the same views as Alfven as it relates to MRx theory, but I'm still skeptical.

To get induction you need to move one in relation to the other. That is not happening.

Oh boloney! Solar flares generate *huge* magnetic field changes in and around the atmosphere of the sun. Coronal loops come and go and leave changing magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere. You have *such* an oversimplified concept of plasma it's not even funny.

It's pretty obvious that I will *never* live to see astronomers demonstrate any of their claims in a real lab, including the creation of an aurora and corona based on MRx in a real lab experiment. Ditto for dark matter, dark energy, space expansion, inflation, multiverses, etc. In the mean time I'll stick with real physics like the physics that works in my TV and cell phone.

 

[Smithi]

Sure, go for it.

Thompson:

The plasma processes associated with magnetic reconnection happen because first the topology of the magnetic field changes to that of a lower energy state and then the energy is transferred to the plasma which reacts accordingly.

Mozina:

It's called "induction".

Case closed.

 

[Michael]

More utter nonsense and ignorance. I am not claiming MR is the only thing capable of particle acceleration.

You haven't demonstrated that MRx exists at all as physically separate from other physical processes in plasma.

MR alters the magnetic field topology.

Current alters the magnetic field topology too. So what?

As demonstrated and detected.

In which experiment was this demonstrated and detected as separate from induction and/or charged particle movement (aka current)?

And it does it rapidly. There is nothing else doing that.

Changing the circuit conditions certainly does all that. Cut of the current going to the coil in your car sometime while holding onto the high energy lead and you'll discover that induction does that too.

No induction woo, no exploding double layers.

How do you know there are no exploding double layers? Where's your lab experiment to demonstrate all these handwaves?

 

[Michael]

Thompson:

Mozina:

Case closed.

I didn't claim induction and MRx were one and the same process, I simply noted that induction occurs in *all* conductors during changes to the magnetic field topology. His description of MRx is too generic to eliminate induction as the process he's describing.

 

[Smithi]

Plasma isn't stationary however so the term "frozen" is meaningless.

Tell that to Alfven. You haven't got a clue, Michael. I know the plasma isn't stationary. If it were the field would not be moving either. It is moving at the same velocity as the field. As proven. It's called MHD.

Of course their can. Take an ordinary magnet or electromagnet and wave it by a plasma and the changing field will induce movement in any conductor, including plasma.

SMH! The plasma and magnetic field are co-moving! How difficult can this be. You really are clueless on plasma physics, Michael.

Various magnetic fields certainly do move through the conductor.

Rwally? Which ones? Links, please.

Ya, and he dissed on your frozen concept, admitting that it led to all sorts of misconceptions like yours.

Another lie! How do you get away with this stuff? Is that why you post on places like this? He said it should be applied with care. In high density plasmas he was fine with it. It was in lower density plasmas that he had doubts. Those doubts have been shown to be unfounded. By theory and observation. You want a link to show that you are being economical with the truth again?

You and Tim failed to listen to Alfven whereas I chose to listen. I don't necessarily hold the same views as Alfven as it relates to MRx theory, but I'm still skeptical.

I couldn't care less whether you are skeptical. You have no understanding of the subject. As you keep showing.

Oh boloney! Solar flares generate *huge* magnetic field changes and and around the atmosphere of the sun. Coronal loops come and go and leave changing magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere. You have *such* an oversimplified concept of plasma it's not even funny.

Oh gibberish, Michael. You do not know what you are talking about. Your knowledge of plasma physics is as close to zero as makes no difference. The topology is seen to change in flares, Michael. Induction woo is not doing that, is it Michael? Show me the paper where this is claimed, otherwise you are making stuff up. Again.

It's pretty obvious that I will *never* live to see astronomers demonstrate any of their claims in a real lab, including the creation of an aurora and corona based on MRx in a real lab experiment. Ditto for dark matter, dark energy, space expansion, inflation, multiverses, etc. In the mean time I'll stick with real physics like the physics that works in my TV and cell phone.

Couldn't care less, Michael. You are a nobody, with no scientific influence.

 

[Michael]

Tell that to Alfven.

He told it to me:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JA081i022p04019

 

[Smithi]

You haven't demonstrated that MRx exists at all as physically separate from other physical processes in plasma.

Yes it has been. Stop lying.

Current alters the magnetic field topology too. So what?

Really? Where is this written up? Links please.

In which experiment was this demonstrated and detected as separate from induction and/or charged particle movement (aka current)?

Read the scientific literature. Too many to list here. On the other hand, show me where any scientist is claiming MR is not a real phenomenon. And induction is pure woo, invented by you.

Changing the circuit conditions certainly does all that. Cut of the current going to the coil in your car sometime while holding onto the high energy lead and you'll discover that induction does that too.

What current? Where is this written up? Links, please.

How do you know there are no exploding double layers? Where's your lab experiment to demonstrate all these handwaves?

Tusenfem linked you to a paper if I recall, showing that such a thing was very unlikely in space plasmas. And they certainly haven't been observed. And certainly not in connection with MR.