Message from the Dawn of time...

[Michael]

Some rather incoherent posts just repeating the delusion that MR in vacuum includes plasma, Michael.

"Real" magnetic reconnection A) requires plasma particles, and B) requires plasma particle *acceleration*. Only your "toy" understanding of physics happens in a vacuum. Priest even *explained* the difference between *real* reconnection, and your dumbed down *toy* understanding of the process!

The idiocy of thinking that I cannot read is obvious.

In your case it's not just a lack of reading that's the problem it's *denial* that's the core problem. Somov's example *includes* A) plasma and B) plasma particle movement.

Demanding that textbooks on plasma physics never mention vacuum is inane, especially since Somov's textbook has a section on magnetic reconnection in vacuum.

Somov's example comes from a textbook on *plasma physics* and he includes *plasma* in his example. The fact you don't understand that *basic* issue is directly related to your *gross self imposed ignorance* on this topic. You're taking his entire example *out of context*, and trying to pretend it's related to solid state physics. In a vacuum all you can get is a *toy* understanding of the physics and nothing more than *magnetic flux* not "magnetic reconnection".

In Priests paper he even explained the difference between you *toy* understanding of physics and the *real* thing. The *real* thing includes A) plasma and B) conversion of magnetic field energy *into particle acceleration*. Your *toy* understanding of the process is specifically and directly related to your ignorance of plasma physics and the fact you *refuse* to educate yourself to this topic. When are you *ever* going to stop arguing MHD theory from *pure ignorance*?

 

[Michael]

Here's the definition of *real* 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.

Here's RC's "toy/pretend/dumbed down" version of the process:

RC's toy version of Magnetic reconnection (aka magnetic flux in a vacuum) is a physical process in which the magnetic topology is rearranged.

Your "toy" version is just a "toy" RC, nothing more. Your selective reading skills are simply unbelievable. Priest even differentiated the "real" physical process from his *toy* for you too, you simply ignored the fact that the *real* definition requires A) plasma and B) acceleration of plasma.

 

[Michael]

In the *context* of "plasma physics" which Somov's book describes, those two *currents* are necessarily composed of *moving plasma*. The displacement of those currents is also *clearly* described. Somov's example is inclusive of real A) plasma and B) plasma displacement.

You're just playing with toys!

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rant snipped...

Wrong, Michael: "Real" magnetic reconnection does not need plasma -interesting magnetic reconnection happens in plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Here's the definition of *real* magnetic reconnection:

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is a lie, Michael: There is no mention of "real" in that Wikipedia article about MR in plasma .

 

[RealityCheck01]

In the *context* of "plasma physics" ...

That is beyond wrong, Michael. That the subject of the book being plasma physics precludes any mention of vacuum is delusional given that the section is about MR in vacuum. Google Books has 8 results for the word vacuum in his book.
Google Books even has 6 results for the word vacuum in Alfven's Cosmic Plasma book.

 

[Michael]

That is a lie, Michael: There is no mention of "real" in that Wikipedia article about MR in plasma .

There's the mention of the term "real" in the very paper by Priest that you tried to use to demonstrate your claim. Priest *specifically* differentiates between the *real* thing, and a 'toy', but you insist that the 'toy' is in fact 'real' in spite of everything he said! Your selective reading skills, and endless strawmen are absurd.

WIKI *absolutely* mentions plasma RC. It also mentions a *conversion of energy* from the magnetic field *into* charged particle acceleration. You're in denial of both Priests distinction between a "toy" and a "real" process, and you're in pure denial of term "plasma" on the WIKI page. You're in pure denial of Somov's inclusion of *plasma* in his example from a *plasma* physics textbook too! Denial is pretty much your last line of defense, along with your endless stream of personal attacks.

Ignorance is not bliss RC. When did you intend to stop arguing MHD theory from pure ignorance?

 

[Michael]

Wrong, Michael: "Real" magnetic reconnection does not need plasma -interesting magnetic reconnection happens in plasma.

Now the operative qualifier word is "interesting' while RC outright ignores Priests deliberate use of the words "toy" and "real".

You're 1/212th right. Magnetic flux in a *conductor* is a lot more interesting than simple magnetic flux in a vacuum.

How do you even justify the fact that the *rate* of your "toy" definition of reconnection is zero and will always be zero regardless of the amount of flux you introduce into your *toy* process?

Wiki's definition of the *plasma physics* process known as "magnetic reconnection" is correct. It's a process *in plasmas* where magnetic flux energy through a conductor is converted into particle acceleration.

Without particles and particle acceleration, you're tinkering with toys, not plasma physics.

 

[Michael]

That is beyond wrong, Michael. That the subject of the book being plasma physics precludes any mention of vacuum is delusional given that the section is about MR in vacuum. Google Books has 8 results for the word vacuum in his book.
Google Books even has 6 results for the word vacuum in Alfven's Cosmic Plasma book.

His vacuum isn't empty however RC. It's got *two* (not even just one) current streams flowing through it. His book is all about *plasma physics* (MHD theory), not about "wires" and basic EM field theory. In the context of MHD theory and plasma physics, the reader is expected to be educated on the topic well enough to understand that Somov's inclusion of 'current' inside of a so called 'vacuum' is an inclusion of *moving plasma* inside that vacuum.

The fact that you *take his words of the context of plasma* and insert solid state physics in it's place is simply another example of your *pure desperation*. There are no 'wires', just plasma and plasma particle movement as explained by WIKI. Even the WIKI article can explain why those currents are composed of *moving plasma* and not wires. You refuse to believe WIKI. You refuse to believe Somov, and you refuse to believe even Priest when he explained the difference between your *toy* comprehension, and the *real* process. Strike three.

 

[RealityCheck01]

There's the mention of the term "real" in the very paper by Priest that you tried to use to demonstrate your claim....

Wow - the ignorance just gets bigger, Michael !
Priest's paper is not that Wikipedia article that you lied about containing *real* magnetic reconnection.

Here is *real* magnetic reconnection:
7th November 2011: A section describing the process of reconnection in a vacuum has Michael going on about induction!

Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov

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.

The emphasis is actually in the textbook!

The delusion that a paper about MR on the Sun can only mention processes in plasma when Priest 1990 states "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..."
And you need to quote them using the "real" in the context of MR.
P.S. Note the absence of plasma in Figure 1 "The breaking and reconnecting of magnetic field lines in a region (shaded) of very string magnetic gradient) !

Cannot understand English: the Priest & Schrijver paper has a toy model of vacuum reconnection. They specifically exclude plasma from the model.

 

[RealityCheck01]

His vacuum isn't empty however RC. ...snipped delusions about Somov's example of MR in vacuum...

His vacuum is not empty, Michael. It contains two parallel equal currents which are not fantasies about "current streams" or plasma.

You do not have to repeat ignorance about basic EM field theory. We all know that you display the inability to understand that magnetic field from a current is the same as a magnetic field from a current (in an wire or other medium)

Michael's ignorance of electromagnetism is exposed with his idea that
Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example then would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?
somehow invalidates the example. As if his introduction of plasma does not:
how deluded is the statement that "electric currents are plasma" - Very !

ETA: If you were capable of answering
5 November 2014 Michael: Where does magnetic reconnection happen in Somov's example?
then you would know how deluded making the currents plasma is
("The fourth bit of delusion is the basic fact that magnetic reconnection does not happen at the two parallel, equal electric currents !")

 

[Michael]

His vacuum is not empty, Michael. It contains two parallel equal currents which are not fantasies about "current streams" or plasma.

It's a book on the topic of plasma physics. The only "fantasy" going on is your denial process. The inclusion of the moving plasma is what A) creates those fields around the moving plasma in Somov's example, which B) *attracts* the two plasma particles together causing *displacement* of the currents.

You're reduced to trying to take his "currents" out of the context of plasma physics, and even WIKI makes it clear that you can't do that!

You do not have to repeat ignorance about basic EM field theory.

Considering the fact that you should (but don't) know the proper scientific name for magnetic flux in a vacuum makes your claim about "basic" EM field theory quite ironic.

We all know that you display the inability to understand that magnetic field from a current is the same as a magnetic field from a current (in an wire or other medium)

In this case however, Somov is writing about *plasma* physics. In the *context* of his book on *plasma* behaviors, there are no "wires". You invented those wires in your head. Unlike plasma particles that can *move*, wires would only *attract*, and no displacement takes place. You're deliberately *changing* what he said to suit yourself, just like you did with Dungey, just like you did with Peratt, just like you did with Priest too. Priest even *clearly* differentiated between a *toy* understanding of the magnetic process and *real* understanding of the physical process in *plasma*, and you simply ignored it!

ETA: If you were capable of answering
5 November 2014 Michael: Where does magnetic reconnection happen in Somov's example?

I've answered that question a bunch of times for you. You simply ignore what I say and repeat the same question. The magnetic attraction takes place *all around* the current streams, not in tiny little "lines" as you seem to imagine in your *toy* understanding of physics. The attraction occurs within and between *entire fields* which are *created by*, and connected to the moving plasma. The "reconnection" (transfer of stored energy) occurs *at the particles* as they *move* as a result of that *attraction*.

It's the *transfer* of energy from field to particle movement that defines the difference between your *toy/pretend* understanding of plasma physics and the real deal RC. Priest explained it clearly and you ignored him, so I'm sure you'll ignore me too *yet again*.

It's the *movement/displacement* of the current that is called "magnetic reconnection", not just the magnetic field topology changes that result from that movement.

 

[Michael]

Wow - the ignorance just gets bigger, Michael !
Priest's paper is not that Wikipedia article that you lied about containing *real* magnetic reconnection.

The only one telling lies about "toys" being "real" is you. Get real RC. The *real* process *includes* plasma. Only Priests *toy* did not.

Cannot understand English: the Priest & Schrijver paper has a toy model of vacuum reconnection. They specifically exclude plasma from the model.

Apparently you cannot understand English because Priests "real" version of magnetic reconnection *included* plasma, and he (unlike you) clearly explained the clear difference between a *toy* comprehension of flux in a vacuum, and a *real* understanding of the physical process in plasma. Only you would cite a couple of authors that *differentiate* between "real" processes and "toy" understandings of the process and turn right around and try to ignore the key difference they described between them.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's a book on the topic of plasma physics. ...snipped rant...

It's a book on the topic of plasma physics. That does not mean that it cannot mention the word you so fear - vacuum !

magnetic attraction takes place *all around* the current streams, ...snipped insults...

Wrong, Michael:

• a fantasy about "magnetic attraction" is not magnetic reconnection in vacuum
• a fantasy about "current streams" is even worse

The place that magnetic reconnection happens is stated in the text and marked in this diagram:

5 November 2014 Michael: Where does magnetic reconnection happen in Somov's example?

That is related to the abysmal ignorance about electromagnetism that you are persisting with. Wires carrying currents produce the same magnetic fields as the currents in Somov's example!
Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example then would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Whoops - a double reply!

His vacuum isn't empty however RC. ..snipped rant and "current stream" delusions.....

His vacuum isn't empty however Michael - it contains two parallel, equal electric currents (not any delusion of "current streams").
That two parallel, equal electric currents are plasma is delusional is obvious to anyone who knows what plasma is:
* a gas (no magic restriction to two parallel lines !)
* no currents (fairly random charge movement result on no current)
thus how deluded is the statement that "electric currents are plasma" - Very !

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped rant...

There is the delusion that I have a toy model . The toy model of magnetic reconnection is in a scientific paper that you are incapable of understanding even the English, Michael!
Cannot understand English: the Priest & Schrijver paper has a toy model of vacuum reconnection. They specifically exclude plasma from the model.
You ignore what they say and go on rants about the subject of the paper - as if you have the power to dictate the contents of scientific papers !

This has been going on for almost 3 years
9th December 2011 Michael denied a toy model of vacuum reconnection by stating a fantasy about what the model was (it was not about the photosphere or corona because it had no plasma in it)

 

[Michael]

It's a book on the topic of plasma physics. That does not mean that it cannot mention the word you so fear - vacuum !

You're obviously projecting your own fears on me again. I don't fear the term vacuum at all. You simply fear the terms plasma and current since Somov's "vacuum" contains both, and you and Clinger forgot something as basic as plasma!

Wrong, Michael:

• a fantasy about "magnetic attraction" is not magnetic reconnection in vacuum[/quote]

Had Somov used "wires" it would have been magnetic attraction. You can't even keep your own strawmen straight, or you're not trying. Which is it?

a fantasy about "current streams" is even worse

A "current" that is sustained inside of a vacuum over time is a "current stream", and it has already been studied in a lab too. Guess what *structure* a current forms in plasma RC? A *Birkeland current/Bennett Pinch* in plasma! They end up looking like an ordinary plasma filament, or any ordinary *discharge* in plasma with enough current flow.

The place that magnetic reconnection happens is stated in the text and marked in this diagram:

It's even shown as a "grey" area to represent a whole *field*, not just a LINE as you seem to primitively imagine. You don't even seem to have a firm grasp on basic EM field theory, and you've refused to read a textbook on plasma physics now for at least three years.

5 November 2014 Michael: Where does magnetic reconnection happen in Somov's example?

Answered and ignored, just as I assumed.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7810720-38/#post66607488

You really don't listen to anything I say, and you simply repeat links to yourself over and over and over again. I'm wasting my breath even bothering to respond to you.

That is related to the abysmal ignorance about electromagnetism that you are persisting with. Wires carrying currents produce the same magnetic fields as the currents in Somov's example!

Nobody denied that. That's another of your own strawmen RC. You're projecting your own ignorance again because Somov's example was in a *plasma physics* context and represents *plasma*, not wires! You're intentionally *changing* the context and the meaning of his statements and ignoring the fact that solid wires would not move, therefore no "magnetic reconnection" would take place.

Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example then would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?

We don't have wires in Somov's example of *plasma* physics! That's your own *misstatement of fact*. Somov's "currents" relate to a book about *plasma*, not solid wires. Reconnection wouldn't happen in wires because solids wouldn't move. The reconnection is a result of *plasma movement*, and you're *afraid* of that term.

 

[Michael]

Strike two of ignoring the contents of a paper since 8th March 2012 !

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

A CD-ROM attached to this paper presents the results of a toy model of vacuum reconnection, which suggests that rapid flipping of field lines in fan and separator reconnection is an essential ingredient also in real non-vacuum conditions.

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

Apparently RC cannot understand the difference between a "toy model" and the "real" process even when Priest and Schrijver explain that the difference is *plasma*!

Absolutely unbelievable. Here's how magnetic reconnection is actually described 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.

 

[Michael]

The difference between your *toy* understanding of "magnetic reconnection" is that in your *toy* version, the "rate" of reconnection in a pure vacuum will always necessarily be equal to zero, because there is never a *transfer* of magnetic field energy into charged particle acceleration as occurs in "real" reconnection theory. Your blatant mistake is so obvious that even a child could see it, but you steadfastly *refuse* to see it, even when Priest explained the key (plasma) difference between your *toy* and the *real* thing!

 

[RealityCheck01]

..usual rant snipped...

Repeat of the delusion that Somov's MR in vacuum example contains plasma.
Repeat of the delusion that "magnetic attraction" means "magnetic reconnection".

A new delusion - that a current in plasma forms

A *Birkeland current/Bennett Pinch* in plasma"

Birkeland current

A Birkeland current is a set of currents which flow along geomagnetic field lines connecting the Earth’s magnetosphere to the Earth's high latitude ionosphere. In the Earth’s magnetosphere, the currents are driven by the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field and by bulk motions of plasma through the magnetosphere (convection which is indirectly driven by the interplanetary environment).

A Bennett Pinch is one of many kinds of plasma or solid or liquid pinches.

A pinch is the compression of an electrically conducting filament by magnetic forces.

The conductor is usually a plasma, but could also be a solid or liquid metal. In a Z-pinch, the current is axial (in the z direction in a cylindrical coordinate system) and the magnetic field azimuthal; in a theta-pinch, the current is azimuthal (in the theta direction in cylindrical coordinates) and the magnetic field is axial. The phenomenon may also be referred to as a "Bennett pinch"[1] (after Willard Harrison Bennett), "electromagnetic pinch",[2] "magnetic pinch",[3] "pinch effect"[4] or "plasma pinch".[5]

Pinches occur naturally in electrical discharges such as lightning bolts,[6] the aurora,[7] current sheets,[8] and solar flares.[9] They are also produced in the laboratory, primarily for research into fusion power.

It's even shown as a "grey" ...more ranting...

Nothing in that rant is the answer to the question:
5 November 2014 Michael: Where does magnetic reconnection happen in Somov's example?
unless I interpret it as total ignorance about magnetic reconnection and where it happens, Michael .

Juts in case you are being honest about actually answering that question somewhere and I missed it:
12 November 2014 Michael: Please cite one of the posts where you identified where MR happens in Somov's example of MR in vacuum.

Now that you acknowledge that Wires carrying currents produce the same magnetic fields as the currents in Somov's example, you can answer the question:
Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example then would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires? without any display of ignorance about the wires not producing the same magnetic fields.