Message from the Dawn of time...

[RealityCheck01]

...It turns out that the message Bicep2 saw wasn't from the dawn of time as first (falsely) advertised, it was actually a message from the *dust* of spacetime.
...snipped SDO delusion, ignorance of solar physics, some gibberish, etc. ...

Wrong , Michael: The BICEP2 result was correctly stated to be "from the dawn of time" given the state of knowledge at the time.
The Planck dust map published months after the BICEP2 paper means that is probable that the BICEP2 results are incorrect.

I fixed the link: Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!

The delusion that actual electrical discharges (like lightning) can happen in plasmas has been explained to you before, Michael - see my signature.

The idiocy that there is no evidence for the big bang has raised its ugly head so some basic cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Right. RC drags up a thread that's almost 6 month's old and focuses on something *other* than the topic of the thread, and somehow that's all my fault.

Wrong Michael: You started this derail by citing 3 obviously invalid papers. That they were shown to be invalid 6 months ago in this forum and years ago elsewhere just emphasized the denial of basic science that shows that the idea of a neutron star inside the Sun is ridiculous.
Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!

15th February 2012 on JREF (now International Skeptics):

MM, I've read a handful of Oliver Manuel's papers. I've even heard him speak at an APS meeting. Based on my scientific assessment of Manuel's 'work', when GeeMack says

Oliver Manuel is a crackpot who has postulated a wholly impossible version of the way the Sun is constructed. His numbers are nonsense. His papers on the issue are constructed, at least in part, on complete lies. He's a fraud.

I agree wholeheartedly. You have no way of confirming this, but my physics research overlaps to an uncannily large degree with Manuel's. I mostly do experimental nuclear, particle, and neutrino physics but I've also forayed into stellar interiors (and unusual nuclear physics therein), the solar wind, and geochemistry (including meteorites). If you can find a point in Manuel's "model" that you think is worth defending, let's see it.

idiotic mistakes number one and two includes that Manual's model makes that Sun into an x-ray burster(essentially a mini supernova)

ETA: With those ten lines of Mathematica, I have now written ten lines more stellar-structure code than the theory's author did himself. emphasize the (stellar ) lack of stellar physics displayed in Manuel's papers.

ETA2: On the Solar Neutron-Star Core by Tim Thompson also points out the runaway fusion of Manuel's model

Faced with the realities of the known physics of neutron stars, I assert that the idea that our own sun could have a neutron star or neutron star fragment anywhere inside itself is absurd in the extreme.

 

[Michael]

Wrong , Michael: The BICEP2 result was correctly stated to be "from the dawn of time" given the state of knowledge at the time.

That's the whole problem. They had no actual "knowledge" at all. They simply *assumed* whatever they wanted in that paper. They could have called the B/E relationship in polarized photons "Mickey Mouse" waves and demonstrated that Walt Disney did it after that miserable section 9! Wow. Epic ram rod of a claim to begin with, and epic fail too!

The Planck dust map published months after the BICEP2 paper means that is probable that the BICEP2 results are incorrect.

Guth came out after reading the first disaster of a paper and claimed that it was "Nobel Prize worthy" material. I read section 9 and about died laughing about how amateurish it was!

The delusion that actual electrical discharges (like lightning) can happen in plasmas has been explained to you before, Michael - see my signature.

I've cited Peratt's book (which you've never read) to demonstrate that you're in pure denial, and you remain in pure denial to this day. An "actual electrical discharge" was discussed by Dungey and others back in the 50's, and Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma is defined as a *release of stored EM energy*, not a breakdown of a dielectric! You've refused to produce a single published quote from a real paper that defines it *your personal way* RC. Why is that do you suppose?

The idiocy that there is no evidence for the big bang has raised its ugly head so some basic cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Your use of loaded language (like idiocy and delusional) is another perfect example of your *cheating* in debate. Since you refuse to read a textbook on MHD theory, and you don't know anything about discharges in plasma, you're reduced to childish personal insults. How pathetic. Are you *ever* going to read an actual textbook on MHD theory, or did you intend to argue this topic from ignorance for the rest of your life?

 

[Michael]

Wrong Michael: You started this derail by citing 3 obviously invalid papers.

No. *Six full months* ago, I cited three published papers on the topic of astronomy that I've been involved in because someone asked me. You've published *zero* papers related to astronomy, and you've cited no published work to support *anything* you've said, nor refute anything I've *published*.

That they were shown to be invalid 6 months ago in this forum and years ago elsewhere just emphasized the denial of basic science that shows that the idea of a neutron star inside the Sun is ridiculous.
Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!

You don't know the first thing about plasma physics RC because you refuse to read a textbook on the topic, including the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma as Dungey wrote about *decades* ago, and which Birkeland and his group described in their experiments *over a century ago*!

15th February 2012 on JREF (now International Skeptics):

Ben's points are completely irrelevant by way, not to mention *unpublished*. The *calculated* number that Manuel used came from actual experimention. The *number used to reflect neutron decay rates* and energy release was simply a "standard" number since it made little or no difference to his point anyway.

Nobody "forgot" about gravity either. The crust of a neutron star is thought to be composed of almost entirely ionized iron and nickel atoms. That positively charged "crust" would act to repel all ionized hydrogen, helium and other atoms. Anything that actually made it to the crust would simply become part of the crust.

ETA: With those ten lines of Mathematica, I have now written ten lines more stellar-structure code than the theory's author did himself. emphasize the (stellar ) lack of stellar physics displayed in Manuel's papers.

Nah. Ben didn't even make any attempt to ask any questions about the mass of the neutron core or the model. He simply made up the numbers as he went, *unpublished* numbers of course.

I even did a whole series of spread sheet calculations related to the various options for the mass of the core for Nereid (not that she cared one iota), and not that any of you care either.

ETA2: On the Solar Neutron-Star Core by Tim Thompson also points out the runaway fusion of Manuel's model

Tim (like Ben) simply ignored the charge repulsion and spin components entirely. Yawn.

Stop hijacking the thread now. You're only demonstrating that you won't even answer any basic questions, like when (if ever) you're actually going to sit down and read a real textbook on MHD theory?

Not a single one of you at JREF pointed out to poor Clinger that plasma isn't "optional" in the process called "magnetic reconnection", so evidently not a single one of you understands even the *basics* of plasma physics, nor the difference between plasma physics and simple magnetic flux in a *vacuum*! For crying out loud! How ignorant can you folks be anyway?

 

[RealityCheck01]

No. *Six full months* ago, I cited three published papers on the topic of astronomy that I've been involved in because someone asked me.
...some ranting, fantasies and insults snipped...

Yes - and I have pointed out how invalid those papers were and that this is easily seen as other people have pointed out:
* Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!
* 15th February 2012 on JREF (now International Skeptics):
* idiotic mistakes number one and two includes that Manual's model makes that Sun into an x-ray burster(essentially a mini supernova)
* With those ten lines of Mathematica, I have now written ten lines more stellar-structure code than the theory's author did himself. emphasize the (stellar ) lack of stellar physics displayed in Manuel's papers.
* On the Solar Neutron-Star Core by Tim Thompson also points out the runaway fusion of Manuel's model

A "positively charged "crust" " of a neutron star fantasy pops up !

And talking about hijacking the thread - you mention the delusion that magnetic reconnection only happens in plasma when the derivation that it does not need plasma is clear as in W.D. Clinger's explanation!
This is basic textbook stuff: Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov has 2 sections
4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum
4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma
Magnetic reconnection in vacuum is a trivial physical process which is why the more interesting magnetic reconnection in plasma is only mentioned in Wikipedia.

 

[Michael]

Yes - and I have pointed out

You have scientifically pointed out *exactly nothing* in the field of astronomy because you've never published anything related to the topic. You're clueless about the nature of plasma because you refuse to read a real textbook on the topic, yet you *insist* on putting your foot in your mouth in post after countless post.

All your claims are *personal*, not published and you can't even come up with a *published* author that claims that electrical discharges are "impossible" in (dusty) plasmas! You're apparently clueless to the fact that some *dust* actually does get "ionized" in "electrical discharges" in plasma and there *is* a dielectric breakdown of *some* elements.

There's no point in responding repeatedly to links to yourself quoting yourself! Yes, I have mentioned charge repulsion in relationship to this model, you simply weren't listening (as usual). I've already addressed Ben's comments and Tim's comments too, but as usual, you aren't listening.

A "positively charged "crust" " of a neutron star fantasy pops up !

Your ignorance of even basic neutron star theory is simply astounding. What do you think the "crust" of a neutron star is though to be composed of anyway?

And talking about hijacking the thread - you mention the delusion that magnetic reconnection only happens in plasma when the derivation that it does not need plasma is clear as in W.D. Clinger's explanation!
This is basic textbook stuff: Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov has 2 sections
4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum
4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma
Magnetic reconnection in vacuum is a trivial physical process which is why the more interesting magnetic reconnection in plasma is only mentioned in Wikipedia.

That's complete nonsense. Somov's example *includes* two "currents" (AKA plasma filaments) in his so called "vacuum" which *move* (particle acceleration) as a result of the change in the magnetic fields. You can't even understand a simple *diagram*! You searched the term "vacuum" and that's all you heard or understood apparently. From Somov's book (FYI, I've actually read at least one of his books on MHD theory and you have not):

Oy Vey! Your ignorance is surpassed only by your tenacious grip on pure denial!

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual insults snipped...
Somov's example *includes* two "currents" (AKA plasma filaments)...

Michael, that is a lie about Somov's section with the title "Reconnection in vacuum" which is followed by a section called "Reconnection in plasma".
There are two currents (no quotes!) that are not plasma filaments
We will have to revisit the lack of reading comprehension you displayed about this textbook in the JREF forum, Michael dating from 7th November 2011 to 16th March 2012.
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section IX
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VIII
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VII
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI.
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section V
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section IV
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section III
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

ETA: I will point out something that you still have not grasped after almost 3 years, Michael: The actual magnetic reconnection does not happen at the currents. If someone were obsessing about making the currents physical then we could have them as wires in glass tubes passing through a vacuum chamber containing no plasma. Magnetic reconnection would still happen around the neutral point (X in the diagram you have generously provided to debunk your own claim of plasma filaments )

 

[RealityCheck01]

Somov's textbook is not the only source that describes magnetic reconnection in a vacuum:
Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990 (MR in a vacuum)
Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection (vacuum reconnection)
The origins of electrical resistivity in magnetic reconnection (MR in vacuum)

Magnetic reconnection in a vacuum is a simple derivation from Maxwell's equations- see W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.

 

[Michael]

Michael, that is a lie about Somov's section with the title "Reconnection in vacuum" which is followed by a section called "Reconnection in plasma".

The diagram comes straight from the reference you cited RC. Read it and weep. Like it or not, the key issue was *movement* of the *plasma particles*, AKA "current" streams. The *acceleration of plasma* is the point he makes, and you simply *ignored it*.

There are two currents (no quotes!) that are not plasma filaments

Boloney. There are two moving streams of plasma, AKA *Birkeland currents* flowing through Somovs vacuum. The displacement of the streams of current are the *particle acceleration* component that *requires* plasma! Face it. Plasma is not "optional" in the process called "magnetic reconnection".

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.

Somov's example is A) inclusive of plasma (current), and B) inclusive of plasma particle acceleration. Clinger failed on both key points.

Read the large fonts RC. That's the part you utterly ignored, and Clinger utterly ignored. You two don't know squat about plasma physics because you've never lifted a finger to read a real textbook on the topic of MHD theory.

We will have to revisit the lack of reading comprehension you displayed about this textbook in the JREF forum, Michael dating from 7th November 2011 to 16th March 2012.

Gee, who would have guessed you would cite yourself some more and fail again to cite any author that ever claimed that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma?

Pathetic. When (if ever) are you going to read a real textbook on MHD theory RC?

ETA: I will point out something that you still have not grasped after almost 3 years, Michael: The actual magnetic reconnection does not happen at the currents.

I will point out something that you have not grasped after almost 3 years RC. You don't understand MHD theory or even the basics of MHD theory because you've never bothered to educate yourself. Nobody claimed it has to occur "at the currents". That's another of your strawman arguments. The problem is that *plasma particle acceleration* is not "optional".

If someone were obsessing about making the currents physical then we could have them as wires in glass tubes passing through a vacuum chamber containing no plasma.

BZZZT. The reason the currents can *move* is because they are composed of ordinary plasma. If it were a "solid", it would actually be nothing more than an example of *magnetic attraction". The conversion of magnetic field energy into *particle movement* isn't optional RC, no matter how much you try to deny it.

Magnetic reconnection would still happen around the neutral point (X in the diagram you have generously provided to debunk your own claim of plasma filaments )

You can't "debunk" something you don't even begin to understand. Somov's example was *inclusive* of the highlighted quote from WIKI, whereas Clinger's example was *exclusive* of them. That's Clinger's error in a nutshell. You and the entire crew at JREF are utterly incompetent in the realm of MHD theory *by choice* in your case.

 

[Michael]

Somov's textbook is not the only source that describes magnetic reconnection in a vacuum:

Somov's example was A) inclusive of plasma in the form of two attracting currents, and B) inclusive of particle movement as a result of that attraction.

Clinger failed both points A) *and* B). Epic fail!

Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990 (MR in a vacuum)

1990IAUS..142..271P Page 271

Bzzzt. Priest's example is *On the sun* and it includes A) plasma, and B) plasma particle acceleration. Epic fail. You've gone from denial to simply making stuff up to suit yourself apparently. He doesn't even mention a "vacuum". His example specifically includes points A and B, the same points that Somov *includes* and that Clinger *excluded*. Triple epic fail.

Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection (vacuum reconnection)

Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection - (Invited Review)

Strike two. Their example, like Somov's example and Priest's example *includes* A) plasma (corona, chromosphere) and B) plasma particle accelation. Strike two.

The origins of electrical resistivity in magnetic reconnection (MR in vacuum)

Strike three. They *included* ions, electrons and particle acceleration in their example.

You literally *lied* about the term "vacuum" in all three cases. Not one of your examples excludes A) plasma or B) plasma particle acceleration. You and Clinger put together have read a total of *zero* textbooks on MHD theory, which explains why neither of you can tell the difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum and "magnetic reconnection in plasma".

When are you going to read a textbook on MHD theory RC?

When are you going to provide a *published* reference that uses the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma? Let me guess. The answers are "never" and "never"?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Gee, .....

Gee, who would have guessed that you would persist in the denial of science and English displayed in the following posts, Michael!
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section IX
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VIII
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VII
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI.
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section V
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section IV
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section III
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II
(most of the section text is here)
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

And the list is now bigger:
Michael's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section X (imaginary plasma filaments)!
Michael's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section XI (MR in plasma is not MR in vacuum)!
Michael's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section XII (Priest 1990 states "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process...")
Michael's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section XIII (Priest & Schrijver have a toy model of vacuum reconnection)
Michael's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section XIV (Tanaka 1990 has no problem with magnetic reconnection in vacuum)

 

[RealityCheck01]

The diagram comes straight from the reference you cited RC.
...snipped lies about Somov's "Reconnection in vacuum" section...
..snipped insults...

The point is that you lied about the diagram, Michael :
* There no plasma filaments in the caption.
* There are no plasma filaments in the description of the diagram in the section.
* There are no plasma filaments in the entire section !

 

[RealityCheck01]

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...fantasies about Somov's textbook section snipped...
1990IAUS..142..271P Page 271

Bzzzt. Epic Fail. Strike one of ignoring the contents of a paper since 8th March 2012 !
Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990 (MR in a vacuuum)

Magnetic reconnection on the sun, Priest 1990

In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process...

This creates: Michael's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section XII (Priest 1990 states "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process...")

 

[RealityCheck01]

Strike two.
...snipped fantasy about Somov and ignorance about Priest's paper...

Strike two of ignoring the contents of a paper since 8th March 2012 !
Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection (vacuum reconnection)

Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection - (Invited Review); Priest & Schrijver
"A CD-ROM attached to this paper presents the results of a toy model of 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)

 

[RealityCheck01]

Strike three.

Strike three of ignoring the contents of a paper since 8th March 2012 !
The origins of electrical resistivity in magnetic reconnection (MR in vacuum)

The origins of electrical resistivity in magnetic reconnection: Studies by 2D and 3D macro particle simulations
"A gedanken experiment that illustrates the meaning of electrical
resistivity for magnetic reconnection (a) in vacuum, and (b) in a plasma
(dots represent plasma ions and electrons). The currents J1 and J2 flow
in the flux bundles, while J3 in the plasma does not exist initially and is
induced by the electric field Et during the reconnection process."

(my emphasis added)

This creates: Michael's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section XIV (Tanaka 1990 has no problem with magnetic reconnection in vacuum)

 

[bhsmte]

How do you really feel about Michael?

 

[Michael]

How do you really feel about Michael?

The weird part (besides the stalking across boards) is how much time he spends focused on *me* rather than any particular topic. Much like this thread, he uses any excuse to simply hijack the thread and make it about *people* rather than *ideas*. He also has a nasty habit of using loaded language (liar, delusional, crackpot, etc) to make it really ugly. I guess since he's never read a textbook on MHD theory, that's all he really can do.

 

[Michael]

The point is that you lied about the diagram, Michael :

Nope, you did.

* There no plasma filaments in the caption.

Yes there are. It's a cross section of two streams of current, with the + signs marking the plasma particles that are flowing in the 3 dimensional current filament.

* There are no plasma filaments in the description of the diagram in the section.

Technically yes there are. If you can take a cross section of a it, it's a three dimensional moving stream of current. You're apparently just lying to yourself.

* There are no plasma filaments in the entire section !

False again. There are two identified currents and identified centers of those currents. Those *charged particles* which are identified with the + sign also *move*. You and Clinger left out the plasma current and the plasma particle movement. Epic fail! When are you going to actually read a textbook on this topic RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

How do you really feel about Michael?

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. Or read the electrical discharges link in my signature to see how he cannot understand that different authors use different definitions of it.
I know that he does not understand basic electromagnetism since he cannot understand W.D. Clingers clear derivation of MR in vacuum from Maxwell's equations. That lack of understanding can be extended to a lot of physics, e.g. he thinks that there is an iron surface/crust/thingie under the photosphere because he imagines he sees it in images but:
* the running difference image he likes is of solar flares. Thus no iron surface or crust.

* another image he likes is a PR (not science!) image that has a green layer from processing artifacts as confirmed by the people who created it. His response was to accuse the person who asked the team about the image of lying. A more rational response would have been to ask that team himself which he has not done in the years since this came up.

* he places it below the photosphere but the photosphere is where light escapes the Sun so we can only see structures within the photosphere (~100 kilometers thick which is not his claim). Thus no iron surface or crust.

* The temperature of the photosphere is ~5700 K and increases with depth. Iron has a melting point of 1811 K and a boiling point of 3134 K. Thus no iron surface or crust.

* The upper third of the Sun is the convection zone where convection currents mix things up. Thus no layers of anything including iron.

* Sunspots act like giant eggbeaters to a depth of ~20,000 km. Thus no layers of anything including iron.

* Helioseismology allows us to model the density within the Sun - no iron surface or crust seen.