Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[GeeMack]

Dear GM,

It seems that you have the video skills to be able to pick apart the original image into the various colors and I've seen you create RD images from original SDO press release movies. How about putting that skill of your to some good use here for us? How about taking the various iron ion wavelengths and creating 3 RD images from the three iron lines? Wanna bet there's a clear ridge line in the RD movies?

Running difference graphs are simply a way to visually indicate the change in level between a particular pixel in one image and the corresponding pixel in another image. A running difference video is just a series of these graphs displayed in sequence. In the case of 211Å, 193Å, and 171Å filtered images from the AIA instruments on the SDO satellite, all the data is being obtained from the Sun's corona, thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. Obviously nothing in such an image or video can show anything at or below the photosphere, either in its original format or processed as a series of running difference graphs.

That being said, I have fairly high resolution videos from several of the AIA filters of the flare event at approximately 09:30 on September 24. The frames making up these videos represent data acquired at intervals of less than a minute each across a period of about three hours. I have worked them several ways. I slowed them down and sped them up, overlayed them in various combinations, added, changed, and removed color, tweaked contrast and brightness, and produced running difference sequences from all of them. There's the makings for some very pretty PR material here. There are also some interesting observations in the behavior of plasma at various levels in the solar atmosphere when subjected to such an immense shock wave. Anyone seriously interested in that particular solar event would probably find these videos I've made to be quite interesting. Maybe I'll YouTube some later.

As for using any of these videos to satisfy some sort of a bet? Given an objective professional solar scientist as an arbiter, and maybe $500 or $1000 left in some sort of escrow account so I know the money is there to win, I'd bet that nothing I've made here and nothing anyone else has made or could make from this data could objectively be determined to show any solid or rigid features or plasma being deflected by any such alleged features.

And of course no objective connection has ever been made between the notion that the Sun has a solid or rigid surface and the notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic electric sparks. So at its essence, this idea that we can see plasma bouncing off ridges and cruising down valleys doesn't really seem on-topic for this thread.

 

[Reality Check]

Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma

You called me a liar and said that I misrepresented Alfven's opinion on the topic of MR theory. Care to recant and apologize, or are you unable to admit your mistakes?

You have been thold this many times before but here goies again.
The speech extract starts with

"Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept."
​

It is this concept that he goes on to call pseudoscience.
This is an approximation that is made in magnetohydrodynamics. See Ideal and resistive MHD.

The book extract explicitly contridicts your assertion as you would have seen if you read the second paragraph:

113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES
All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention. This does not mean that all papers in which `magnetic merging' is used are of no interest, because there exist some good papers (e .g., Hill, 1975) in which the term is merely a synonym for "current sheet acceleration ."

His implication in the first sentence is that there are theories of `magnetic merging' that meet his criteria and so are correct.

What you saisd was:
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
He didn't need no stinking MR theory to explain the behaviors of a double layer in plasma. In fact, Alfven specifically REJECTED MR theory, particularly and explicitly in ANY current carrying environment.
[/qupotte]
The first sentence is idiotic because MR theory does not describe double layers and no one expects it to.
I sustepoec that you got this from a comment in the speech. However that comment was a rather dumb thing to say. The existence of magnetic reconnection just means that there are two separate physical processes (magnetic reconnection and double layers) that exist.

You have not provided any quote from Alven stating that he "specifically REJECTED MR theory". The explicitly bit has an implied opposite: He specifically ACCPETED MR theory in ANY NONE "current carrying environment".

The best that you have is that he rejected the application of MHD to a plasma with frozen in magnetic fields.
If you meant that then say so and I will say that you were not lying.
A pity that plasma physicists have always known that this was an approximation that needed to be applied carefully.

P.S. Where are are Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That being said, I have fairly high resolution videos from several of the AIA filters of the flare event at approximately 09:30 on September 24. The frames making up these videos represent data acquired at intervals of less than a minute each across a period of about three hours.

FYI, I'm actually more curious about what a longer timeline between images might look like, as long as you're 'into it'..... I suppose it's best that you create them yourself, lest you accuse me of manipulating them in any way.

I'd be happy just to see the RD images of the original movie.

FYI, my personal inclination from creating various RD images would be to begin with the 171A filter and space the images exactly the same as that gold 171A RD image on my website. TRACE could not even process images at less than a minute between images. I have no idea if less than a minute would even be enough time between images to show any 'differences'. I suppose I'll have to play around with them myself as well.

I have worked them several ways. I slowed them down and sped them up, overlayed them in various combinations, added, changed, and removed color, tweaked contrast and brightness, and produced running difference sequences from all of them. There's the makings for some very pretty PR material here. There are also some interesting observations in the behavior of plasma at various levels in the solar atmosphere when subjected to such an immense shock wave. Anyone seriously interested in that particular solar event would probably find these videos I've made to be quite interesting. Maybe I'll YouTube some later.

Please do. I'll take anything you've got.

As for using any of these videos to satisfy some sort of a bet? Given an objective professional solar scientist as an arbiter.....

That would be difficult IMO. Who would you suggest? Someone that already has posted in this thread (or another) that has already agreed with you? Let's just start by looking at some of you images.....

How about posting a link to your raw videos rather than a youtube link so that we get to see them in full resolution? It's seems a pity to spend all that effort to create them only to stuff them into a low resolution movie on Youtube.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have been thold this many times before but here goies again.

Translation: "I can't and won't admit my mistakes."

The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong.

Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.
I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.

That's as blunt as it gets RC. Worse yet, all your cited experiments put another nail in the coffin according to Alfven. All of them violate his prime directive.

You are living in pure denial.

 

[Michael Mozina]

His implication in the first sentence is that there are theories of `magnetic merging' that meet his criteria and so are correct.

It's absolutely astounding to me that you can twist logic like a pretzel like you do. If you mean CURRENT SHEET ACCELERATION HAPPENS, yes, Alfven explained all of that in his double layer paper! Sheesh!

So you agree with Alfven when he stated the following RC?

the term (magnetic reconnection) is merely a synonym for "current sheet acceleration ."

 

[Reality Check]

Translation: "I can't and won't admit my mistakes.".

Wrong: I can and will admit my mistakes when you provide any quote from Alven stating that he "specifically REJECTED MR theory".

The speech is him specifically rejecting the application of the frozen-in approximation. The book is him implicitly accepting MR theory in some cases.

 

[Reality Check]

It's absolutely astounding to me that you can twist logic like a pretzel like you do. If you mean CURRENT SHEET ACCELERATION HAPPENS, yes, Alfven explained all of that in his double layer paper! Sheesh!

I mean what I said: His implication in the first sentence is that there are theories of `magnetic merging' that meet his criteria and so are correct.

You do not cite Alfven's definition of CURRENT SHEET ACCELERATION.

Of course the acceleration of charges HAPPENS, and this is explained by the different mechanisms in magnetic reconnection and double layers.

So you agree with Alfven when he stated the following RC?

No. He is wrong. Magnetic reconnection is a much bigger process than just 'current sheet acceleration'. It includes a changing in the topology of the magnetic fields that causes the current sheets to accelerate.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I mean what I said: His implication in the first sentence is that there are theories of `magnetic merging' that meet his criteria and so are correct.

Not a single one of the experiments on MR theory that you have cited to date meet his criteria:

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.

You do not cite Alfven's definition of CURRENT SHEET ACCELERATION.

It's his paper on double layers that he presented to the conference where he called MR theory 'pseudoscience' a half dozen times!

Of course the acceleration of charges HAPPENS, and this is explained by the different mechanisms in magnetic reconnection and double layers.

I guess you missed that part where Alfven specifically EXCLUDES MR theory inside of double layers eh? You missed that whole nail in the coffin thing?

No. He is wrong. Magnetic reconnection is a much bigger process than just 'current sheet acceleration'. It includes a changing in the topology of the magnetic fields that causes the current sheets to accelerate.

Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant RC. I did NOT misrepresent his opinion on this topic. He specifically REJECTED all forms of MR theory inside of double layers and inside of all current carrying plasmas in general!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong: I can and will admit my mistakes when you provide any quote from Alven stating that he "specifically REJECTED MR theory".

Ya, just like you accepted that definition of an electrical discharge from Peratt..... Sheesh. What does a guy have to do? He called it pseudoscience. He said OF COURSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING. He said it was wrong. He rejected it inside ANY current carrying environment. The only time he accepted the idea was when the term is merely a synonym for current sheet acceleration, or the same thing he describes in his double layer paper!

The speech is him specifically rejecting the application of the frozen-in approximation. The book is him implicitly accepting MR theory in some cases.

He also specifically rejected it inside of double layers and inside of current carrying plasma which you are simply IGNORING to suit yourself!

Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.

Every single experiment you have cited to date is just another of many NAILS in the coffin RC.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Notice how the study of and the existence of double layers is FATAL to MR "pseudoscience" according to Alfven?

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption

Ya, just like you accepted that definition of an electrical discharge from Peratt..... Sheesh.

I accept the definition of an electrical discharge from Peratt.
What I do not accept is you cherry picking the first sentence from the full definition.
What I do accept is that you still canto answer the following questions:

• Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
  First asked 7 December 2010
• Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
  First asked 11 January 2011
• Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
  First asked 3rd February 2011
• MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title?
  Shouldn't the title be "Electrical discharges in Plasma"?
  Or what is the magical property of "cosmic" plasmas that allows lightning in them when lightning is impossible in normal plasmas?
  First asked 11th May 2011

or
Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?
For example - you have at least one book by Alfven. He probably discusses such a fundamental topic. So cite him.


P.S. Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma?

Every single experiment you have cited to date is just another of many NAILS in the coffin RC.

Every single MR experiment that has been cited to you is another of many NAILS in the coffin of Alfven's 30 year old opinion.

The massive nail in his opinion is the empirical evidence (that you are of course still ignoring) that DL's can happen after magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption (and double layers)?

The simple fact is the magenteic reconnection experiments show that current distrultion happens after the reconnection?
(last mentioned in michaelsuede: Why are no DLs detected in MR experiments until after reconnection? 8th April 2011).

Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
which clearly shows (read the abstract, see Fig 9) that current disruption (and thus DLs) happens afer the magnetic reconnection.


Michael Mozina,
Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption?


Or to put it another way: Where are your citations to the formation of DLs in magnetic reconnection experiments before or at the reconnection event?

The massive silence from you about the last question means that even you cannot resurrect Alfven's opinion from the grave.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

What does that sentence mean to you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I accept the definition of an electrical discharge from Peratt.

It's a definition of an electrical discharge in plasma which you claim is impossible. Who shall I believe, some guy from the internet or a professional from Los Alamos?

What I do not accept is you cherry picking the first sentence from the full definition.

You cherry pick whatever you want! You IGNORE the fact that by DEFINITION electrical discharges occur in a plasma according to Peratt. By DEFINITION discharges are the release of stored EM energy not IONIZATION PROCESSES! You cherry pick left, right, up, down, back, forth and sideways.

The same thing is true with Alfven. He rejected the whole concept of MR theoryinside of a double layer and he bluntly said "Of course" there is no such thing. You simply don't want to hear it, just like you don't want to hear the fact that an electrical discharge in a plasma has nothing to do with ionization.

The only reason Peratt mentioned lightning is because it's the CLOSEST THING humans can relate to in terms of total energy release! You're twisting his works and Alfven's words like pretzel. You don't care what anyone says.

 

[Reality Check]

Notice how the study of and the existence of double layers is FATAL to MR "pseudoscience" according to Alfven?

Notice how this quote makes Alfven seem really dumb (which he was not)?
Double layers are a separate phenomena to magnetic reconnection. The study and existence of double layers will have no effect with the study and existence of magnetic reconnection.

Alfven had the hope that all physical situations that were being explained using magnetic reconnection would eventually be explained using double layers. That would make MR theory redundant (not wrong). For some reason he ignored the actual experiments being conducted.
He was shown to be wrong in the same year as his speech by

Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
which clearly shows (read the abstract, see Fig 9) that current disruption (and thus DLs) happens afer the magnetic reconnection.
​

 

[Michael Mozina]

The massive silence from you about the last question means that even you cannot resurrect Alfven's opinion from the grave.

Huh? You're blatantly spitting on his grave RC. He never wrote a single paper in support of it, and he called it pseudoscience and specifically rejected it in ANY current carrying environment. You however don't care! You don't listen. You don't WANT to believe it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Notice how this quote makes Alfven seem really dumb (which he was not)?

No, it doesn't make him seem dumb, it makes your denial of his position seem dumb.

Double layers are a separate phenomena to magnetic reconnection.

BS. You've never provided a single example of an experiment that didn't start in one.

The study and existence of double layers will have no effect with the study and existence of magnetic reconnection.

Then you have a duty to demonstrate your claim which you have not done. In fact all your experiments nailed the coffin shut.

Alfven had the hope that all physical situations that were being explained using magnetic reconnection would eventually be explained using double layers. That would make MR theory redundant (not wrong).

Yes, at the level of physics it does make it "wrong". Particle collisions are NOT "magnetic field reconnection" they are just particle collisions.

For some reason he ignored the actual experiments being conducted.

The all involved "current sheet acceleration" in the lab.

He was shown to be wrong in the same year as his speech by

Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
which clearly shows (read the abstract, see Fig 9) that current disruption (and thus DLs) happens afer the magnetic reconnection.
​

Boloney. He was shown to be right when we looked at your so called "'magnetic reconnection experiments". You didn't start with two simple magnetic lines. You pulled a "bait and switch". You started with two CURRENTS!

 

[Reality Check]

It's a definition of an electrical discharge in plasma which you claim is impossible. Who shall I believe, some guy from the internet or a professional from Los Alamos?

Believe the professional from Los Alamos. Just do not quote mine him (sorry cherry picking is something else).
It is a definition of an electrical discharge that is the release of energy (your quote mining) from the breakdown of a dielectric medium (the rest of the definition). The examples that he gives are lightning and the aurora.
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title?
Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?

You IGNORE the fact that by DEFINITION electrical discharges occur in a plasma according to Peratt.

You QUOTE MINE Peratt's definition thus misrepresenting (charitably) what he wrote. Any one who can read can see that his actual definition of an electrical discharge is the release of energy (your quote mining) from the breakdown of a dielectric medium (the rest of the definition).

You IGNORE that fact that this section has nothing to do with electrical discharges in plasma as the section title makes clear: 'Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma' where 'Cosmic Plasma' is the title of the book!

You IGNORE that fact that this fundamental process is covered in one page that never actually discusses plasma.

The only reason Peratt mentioned lightning is because it's the CLOSEST THING humans can relate to in terms of total energy release!

The reason Peratt mentioned lightning and aurora is that they are the COMMONEST THINGS that people understand as electrical discharges.
What you cannot understand is that Peratt ignored actual electrical discharges in plasma (Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma? )

What you cannot understand is that you have not presented any evidence that any textbook discusses actual electrical discharges in plasma (Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook? )

 

[Reality Check]

Huh? You're blatantly spitting on his grave RC. He never wrote a single paper in support of it, and he called it pseudoscience and specifically rejected it in ANY current carrying environment. You however don't care! You don't listen. You don't WANT to believe it.

Huh? You're blatantly ignoring what I am saying MM.
I know he never wrote any papers on MR.
I now that he called it pseudoscience.

I WANT to believe that Alfven was not so blinkered that he did not know about the experimental results that said that he was wrong (Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 ).

 

[Reality Check]

BS. You've never provided a single example of an experiment that didn't start in one.

BS: Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986

 

[Reality Check]

Boloney. He was shown to be right when we looked at your so called "'magnetic reconnection experiments". You didn't start with two simple magnetic lines. You pulled a "bait and switch". You started with two CURRENTS!

I suspect that even Alfven would call that post extermely ignorant.

The TWO CURRENTS are nothing to do with double layers in plasma. They are TWO CURRENTS that establish the magnetic field configuration that allows magnetic reconnection to happen.

And thare are MR experiments without TWO CURRENTS:
Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption (and double layers)?

• Fast magnetic reconnection in laser-produced plasma bubbles
• Magnetic Reconnection and Plasma Dynamics in Two-Beam Laser-Solid Interactions
• Observation of Megagauss-Field Topology Changes due to Magnetic Reconnection in Laser-Produced Plasmas
• Bidirectional jet formation during driven magnetic reconnection in two-beam laser–plasma interactions