• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Message from the Dawn of time...

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
The ignorance behind of citing a Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection in plasma to refute a textbook section on magnetic reconnection in vacuum has escaped you, Michael.

The textbook example and the WIKI reference both consistently *include* A) charged particles and B) charged particle movement. You and Clinger left out both A) and B) and therefore your claims are inconsistent with both Somov's example and the WIKI reference. Furthermore you've never come up with any *published* reference that does not include A) plasma and B) plasma acceleration. Likewise you've never produce a *published* reference that ever used the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma. All you've done is cite your *unpublished* self making the same error over and over and over again.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Strike two of ignoring the contents of a paper since 8th March 2012 :p!
Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection (vacuum reconnection)


This creates: Michael's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section XIII (Priest & Schrijver have a toy model of vacuum reconnection)

You haven't cited a single published paper that didn't *include* plasma and plasma particle acceleration. Your own references blow your claims out of the water. You even *made up* the (vacuum reconnection) claim all by yourself since none of your cited authors from those papers even made such a claim. Only Somov used the term 'vacuum', but he also included charged particle and charged particle acceleration. Epic fail!
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
...repeat of fantasies about a textbook...
Michael's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section X (imaginary plasma filaments) :p!
Here is most of the text of section 4.4.2 (figure caption and equations left out)
Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
X-type points consist a topological peculiarity of a magnetic field. They are places where where redistribution of magnetic fluxes occurs, which changes the connectivity of field lines. Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17. The magnetic field of these currents forms three different fluxes in the plane (x,y). Two of them belong to the upper and the lower currents, respectively, and are situated inside the separatrix field line A, which forms the figure of the eight-like curve with zeroth X-point. The third flux belongs to both currents and is situated outside of the separatrix.

If the currents are displaced in the direction of each other, then the following magnetic flux redistribution will take place. The currents proper fluxes will diminish by the quantity dA, while their common flux will increase by the same quantity. So the field line A2 will be the separatrix of the final state.

This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.

Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since
[equation 4.65]
where A is the vector potential of magnetic field,
[equation 4.66]
In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65)
[equation 4.67]
the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.
There are no plasma filaments.

Michael: This fantasy is getting close to a lie. I will give you a chance to show that you are not lying:
Please quote the part of section 4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum that states that the MR is happening with plasma filaments.
Alternately retract the statement that the section contains plasma filaments.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I am disappointed in his inability to comprehend English as displayed in the simple fact that a textbook section called "Reconnection in vacuum" does not contain any plasma.

somov.jpg

You'll note that despite RC's false claims, Somov's diagram includes two currents composed of charged particles (AKA plasma particles) which he designates with X's in both the "before" and "after" image. The *movement* of the charged particles as a result of 'reconnection" is the *acceleration* factor that Clinger and RC could never achieve because they never included any charged particles nor included any charged particle movement.

The WIKI reference even notes that it's a process which occurs *in plasma*, and results in the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle movement. Since RC doesn't have a charged particle to his name (in Clinger's unpublished nonsense), he's got no way to turn magnetic field energy into charged particle movement. His 'rate' of 'reconnection' is therefore *zero*.

Or read the electrical discharges link in my signature to see how he cannot understand that different authors use different definitions of it.
Both Dungey and Peratt explicitly used the term exactly the way I'm using it. On the other hand RC hasn't ever (and won't ever) produce any reference that claim that electrical discharges are "impossible' in plasma.

Keep in mind that I went out of my way, and spent a lot of time and money to educate myself to MHD theory. I've read at least 5 textbooks on the topic. RC has yet to read even one, and Clinger hasn't ever read one either. They're both ignorant by choice.

There's no point in even commenting on the solar debate. It all goes in one ear and right out the other anyway.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
X-type points consist a topological peculiarity of a magnetic field. They are places where where redistribution of magnetic fluxes occurs, which changes the connectivity of field lines. Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17.

You epically failed to include two parallel electric fields in your example and you failed to include particle movement RC.

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
You failed all the highlighted parts RC. Your denial routine is just getting old.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
[..snipped lie about Somov's diagram (no plasma in it!)
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum

Other stuff:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Note that our discussion has nothing to do with MHD. Notice that Michael has not quoted anything from these books he has read to refute anything in this thread.
This is
* Basic reading comprehension: Reconnection in vacuum" is not MR in plasma :p!
* Basic electromagnetism: W.D. Clingers clear derivation of MR in vacuum from Maxwell's equations.
* Basic reality: solar flares are not mountain ranges!
* The basic irrational demand that someone reads a book as if that would magically make Michael's displayed misunderstanding of science correct :p.
* etc.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
The reading comprehension just gets worse, Michael: This is the text of Somov's textbook :wave:!

Yes RC, I know. I also know from the part I highlighted that unlike you and Clinger he *included* charge particles and charge particle movement. Since you did not, you only describe *flux in a vacuum*, not "magnetic reconnection".
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian

He used the term "current" which specifically relates to *charge particles* and charged particle movements, neither of which you've got in Clinger's nonsense. Somov's example *includes* charged particles and charge particle movement. You're just lying.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian

Remarks on the Discharge Theory of Flares

Dungey's *published* papers specifically refute your *unpublished* personal opinions RC.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7620486-69/#post62015533

Peratt also claims that electric discharge occur in plasma just as Dungey did, and he does so *by definition*. That's another book you've never read and don't begin to understand either.

Note that our discussion has nothing to do with MHD.

:doh:

"Magnetic reconnection" is mathematically quantified and only described in MHD theory. The *rate* of reconnection is related to the *speed* of particle moment.

Oy Vey!
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharges in plasma:

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.
The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.
The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharges in plasma:
That is a an actual lie, Michael. That is Anthony Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge.
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
ETA (26 Nov 2012): Michael apprently lied in Michael after over 2 years has at last understood that Peratt's section title is not a defintion since he is back to the ridiculous claim that this section defines electrical discharges in cosmic plasma when the only mention of that in Peratt's entire book is in the title of this section!
I know what he wrote:
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
This is ordinary electrical discharge - he gives the example of lightning and aurora.
The full text of the section is here: Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

11th January 2011: Michael still has no idea what a title is or difference between a title and a definition!

5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?

7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?

And why the obsession with Peratt'?
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?
 
Upvote 0