That would surely require a theoretical construct of a 'flux surface' though, no? .. (which is strictly verboten by order of 'the parent body'!)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.
... And yet somehow, Maxwell got away with using one .. which is apparently readily acceptable (with a blind eye) by the EU bretheren..(?)
The whole thing here is that, in Michael's case, any of his demands of 'disproof' always imply an unstated and usually concealed assumption, (either wittingly, unwittingly or half-witttingly), which commences with an 'If ..' (Eg: 'If the universe is filled with 99% plasma ..')sjastro said: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.
Michael's entire quest is one huge test of that hidden unevidenced physical assumption which apparently, can be pinned onto anything at will, which looks even vaguely related to it .. in this case poor old Boris Somov's textbook! (Ie: 'If the conductors are contained driven plasma ...').
I just wish the discussion was more focused on his quest for such a nonsensical Holy Grail .. rather than on the well defined (theoretically and practically evidenced) physical mechanism of reconnection?!
Upvote
0