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

[Michael Mozina]

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....

You want to believe that he really didn't reject the concept of MR inside of double layers, so you cite another double layer paper to support the idea? Really? Hoy Vey!

 

[Reality Check]

What does that sentence mean to you?

It means that you are quote mining again !

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

It means that in a particle model, there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer which is obvious physics.

 

[Reality Check]

You want to believe that he really didn't reject the concept of MR inside of double layers, so you cite another double layer paper to support the idea? Really? Hoy Vey!

That is idiotic.
No one (including Alfven) thought or thinks that MR happens inside DLs. Alfven wanted to replace MR with double layers.

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


cites experiments that show the sequence of events is

1. Magnetic reconnection.
2. Current disruption
3. DLs.

ETA:
Magnetic Field Line Reconnection Experiments, 5. Current Disruptions and Double Layers (1983)

In a large laboratory plasma a current sheet is generated in the process of magnetic field line reconnection. The stability of the sheet with respect to local current increases is investigated. When the current density in the center of the sheet exceeds a critical value, spontaneous local current disruptions are observed. The current from the center of the sheet moves out to the sides. Magnetic flux variations in regions remote from the current sheet generate an inductive voltage in the current loop that drops off inside the plasma in the form of a potential double layer.
...

ETA2
Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment (1982) PDF
DLs forming after magnetic reconnection causes current disruptions as decribed in the introduction and throughout the paper.

 

[Tim Thompson]

On Magnetic Reconnection: The Last Word

Here's what I say, amongst other things ...

All of Mozina's arguments that magnetic reconnection are "pseudoscience" are themselves exactly that: pure & unadulterated pseudoscience. All he can ever say is "Afven said so", a religious acolyte parroting the ancient script of the demi-god. But you can rest assured that at no time will Mozina ever refer to physics, never demonstrate any physical reason for rejecting magnetic reconnection. He has religion and only religion to fall back on. That and pseudosciece, but never science.

And here is a representative comment from Mozina ...

On no. Your entire industry can't tell a current from a 'magnetic line' or they wouldn't be reconnecting two CURRENTS in plasma and calling it "magnetic line reconnection". Alfven was right. The term "pseudoscience" applies to the concept of MR theory. It's "pseudo" correct from the standpoint of mathematics (sort of), but from the standpoint of particle physics, it's FUBAR.

And here is what I take away from the discussion of magnetic reconnection.

ONE
Mozina's constant retreat into the claim that currents are connecting and magnetic fields are not is blatantly stupid and absolutely falsified, absolutely falsified, in both laboratory experiments and by in-situ observations of space plasma. He is in hard-core denial of facts & physics.

TWO
At no time, at no time ever, has Mozina actually referred to the details of any laboratory experiment presented to him. At all times and on all occasions he has rejected all experiments, sight unseen, because they conflict with his personal philosophical/religious bias. We have never seen a physical explanation of what "current reconnection" is, we have never seen any response to the point that Maxwell's equations require magnetic reconnection to happen, and we have never seen an appeal to any physical argument that the reconnection of magnetic field lines can not or should not happen in real plasmas. Neither have we seen any response to the point I have made before, that simple merging of currents strongly violates the law of conservation of energy and is therefore physically impossible under any circumstances (e.g., Magnetic Reconnection Redux XIII, 30 May 2010)

THREE
Nothing said by Alfven about magnetic reconnection is relevant because he was wrong. I therefore reject every argument that appeals to Alfven on the topic of magnetic reconnection. Alfven was dead wrong, period. I have shelves of books in my library that prove he was wrong. We have numerous laboratory experiments that prove he was wrong, and prove that Mozina is wrong, period.

This entire discussion of magnetic reconnection with Mozina is useless. He is himself about as ignorant on the topic as it is possible to be, and presents arguments that stand so astoundingly stupid that they deny the reality of that which is seen and documented in real laboratory plasmas. I see no point in continuing this fatally flawed discussion. This thread has already gone 91 pages, 3623 posts & counting, and other threads have gone even longer, and it's all just and endless repetition of the same hopeless stupidity from Mozina, and the same refutations from real physics, and the same endless appeal to "Alfven is God, how dare you criticize anything he ever said!"; at least, that is certainly the case on the topic of magnetic reconnection.

I have said all I have to say on magnetic reconnection and do not intend to address the topic again, since doing so is too frustrating to contemplate. I see nothing to add to the numerous detailed posts I have already made. The only thing FUBAR around here is Mozina on magnetic reconnection.

 

[tusenfem]

True. The Birkeland current will contain dense current carrying plasma, and a less dense region around the field aligned current that acts as a path of greater resistance in comparison to the dense plasma thread.

The current flows along the magnetic field and thus when the magnetic field gets squeezed together, the current also gets squeezed together, increasing in strength. It has nothing to do with "greater resistance", you might want to read up in Alfvén's or Peratt's books again, where they talk about a reduction of the electric field in the pinched plasma.

A less dense plasma can still very well carry currents.

It really doesn't matter what you begin with because the plasma is going to form tornado like filaments that "go with the flow" and the magnetic field around that current is going to either deflect any incoming particles or merge them directly into the filament, but it will definitely create *AND SUSTAIN* a "less dense" region around the Birkeland current. As long as the current flows, the magnetic field flows with it. The field will act to create an 'insulating" and less dense region around the filament.

Tornado filaments wow
For the rest this is just bunk, with the magnetic field "deflecting incoming particles" and "the magnetic field flowing with the current"

I think your misconception lies in your belief that the magnetic field must evacuate ALL particles from the immediate surrounding areas in order to effectively insulate the filament/Birkeland current.

No, I am pretty clear about what happens, but I have to take it to extremes using YOUR words about "evacuating" and "pulling all plasma towards it" in order to finally get you to express yourself more clearly about what exactly your thoughts and ideas are on this topic of "pinch".

It's really a "path of least resistance" issue, not a "need for a pure vacuum" issue.

No, it is really a "(Birkeland) current flows along the magnetic field" and not at all about resistance.

 

[tusenfem]

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

Then I guess you better start searching for double layers near observed reconnection regions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's what I say, amongst other things ...




And here is a representative comment from Mozina ...

FYI, I really have no idea why you feel the emotional need to fixate on the individual rather than to just make your case, preferably in the lab.

And here is what I take away from the discussion of magnetic reconnection.

ONE
Mozina's constant retreat into the claim that currents are connecting and magnetic fields are not is blatantly stupid and absolutely falsified, absolutely falsified, in both laboratory experiments and by in-situ observations of space plasma. He is in hard-core denial of facts & physics.

If you actually believe that to be true Tim, you'll have to provide me with an actually experiment that doesn't:

A) begin in current carrying plasma
B) makes *SOME* scientific attempt to eliminate particle collisions as the 'culprit'
C) reconnect two "Birkeland currents" in plasma!

So far, almost every single one of your experiments begins in a current carrying plasma. No attempt was made in those experiments to eliminate particle collisions as the culprit. There were typically two field aligned currents that were brought into close proximity in time and space, and they "reconnected". Big deal. Currents do that all the time. I told you that I would accept the term "current reconnection" to describe your dumbed down math YEARS AGO Tim.

Even the "laser" experiment generated two field aligned currents that "reconnected". Again, it's no biggy. Currents reconnect all the time inside of plasmas. Its what they do!

TWO
At no time, at no time ever, has Mozina actually referred to the details of any laboratory experiment presented to him.

That is a flat out false statement. I specifically addressed your BIRKELAND, FIELD ALIGNED CURRENTS by name. You'd just love to ignore that they actually started with two field aligned currents, but that's exactly what they did! They reconnected two field aligned currents. Whoopdydo.

At all times and on all occasions he has rejected all experiments, sight unseen, because they conflict with his personal philosophical/religious bias.

What "bias"? Alfven rejected the concept blatantly. I offered you a legitimate alternative. I offered to accept your dumbed down math so long as we gave the physical process a legitimate scientific name. I offered to let you call it "current reconnection", or "circuit reconnection" years ago. It's you that has religious emotional need to call your dumbed down math "magnetic reconnection". You didn't start with two simple magnetic lines however, you started with two BIRKELAND CURRENTS!

We have never seen a physical explanation of what "current reconnection" is,

You have never shown me a physical experiment that did *NOT* begin with two field aligned currents! Virtually all of them began in current carrying plasma and started with field aligned currents. Even the lasers generated TWO CURRENTS in the plasma. Every single one of your own physical experiments DEMONSTRATES that you reconnected "currents".

we have never seen any response to the point that Maxwell's equations require magnetic reconnection to happen,

BS. They don't "require" anything of the sort. They may "allow for" the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy, but that already has a proper scientific name. It's called *INDUCTION*, not "magnetic reconnection".

and we have never seen an appeal to any physical argument that the reconnection of magnetic field lines can not or should not happen in real plasmas.

Pure baloney. I showed you that you BEGAN WITH TWO CURRENTS, not simple magnetic lines. I showed you where you pulled a 'bait and switch' in the lab. Had you actually started your experiments with two simple magnetic lines inside of *NON CURRENT CARRYING PLASMA, I wouldn't be crying fowl. As it stands, you pulled a massive bait and switch. You didn't start with magnetic lines at all. You began with two Birkeland currents and you reconnected a couple Birkeland currents in plasma. I said I was fine with "current reconnection", but your religious attachment to the term "magnetic reconnection" won't even allow you to personally compromise. No. You still feel the emotional need to attack the individual and ignore the physical evidence entirely.

Neither have we seen any response to the point I have made before, that simple merging of currents strongly violates the law of conservation of energy and is therefore physically impossible under any circumstances (e.g., Magnetic Reconnection Redux XIII, 30 May 2010)

That argument is pure BS. It no more violates the conservation of energy laws than a short circuit between two solid wires violates those same laws. The energy comes from the CIRCUIT ENERGY TIM, not the "magnetic lines".

Strike two for you.

THREE
Nothing said by Alfven about magnetic reconnection is relevant because he was wrong.

You have never found a mathematical flaw in his double layer paper Tim. His paper explains collisions and deflections of particles inside of any double layer *WITHOUT* any need of "magnetic reconnection". If you can't find the flaw, that's "strike three" for you Tim. Show me the mathematical flaw in his double layer paper, or you just struck out completely Tim.

The only way you can "prove me wrong" is to show me some experiment that actually begins with magnetic lines and contains no "double layers". If you can't do that, and you can't find a flaw in Alfven's maths, I don't need your stupid "magnetic reconnection" theory. It's pointless and redundant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then I guess you better start searching for double layers near observed reconnection regions.

I guess you need to show me a physical experiment that actually begins with "magnetic lines", not "Birkeland currents". There's no way in hell a double layer will NOT form between two field aligned currents.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The current flows along the magnetic field and thus when the magnetic field gets squeezed together, the current also gets squeezed together, increasing in strength.

I agree.

It has nothing to do with "greater resistance", you might want to read up in Alfvén's or Peratt's books again, where they talk about a reduction of the electric field in the pinched plasma.

A less dense plasma can still very well carry currents.

Woah. Sure, a less dense region CAN carry currents, but not nearly as efficiently as the pinched filament with all that plasma to work with. That semi-evacuated region around the thread becomes an undesirable path for the current because it is more resistant than the dense filament. It's a RELATIVE thing that requires no "absolute" insulation.

Tornado filaments wow
For the rest this is just bunk,

For the rest: All high energy filaments form into Birkeland currents which look pretty much like the kind you'll find inside of an ordinary plasma ball. As much as they'd love you to believe this all very mysterious, it's BS. I suggest you reread that last PDF I posted. It shows the tornado like filaments that will form inside of current carrying plasma.

with the magnetic field "deflecting incoming particles" and "the magnetic field flowing with the current"

That's exactly how Alfven described it. Shall I believe the guy with the Nobel, or you?

No, I am pretty clear about what happens, but I have to take it to extremes using YOUR words about "evacuating" and "pulling all plasma towards it" in order to finally get you to express yourself more clearly about what exactly your thoughts and ideas are on this topic of "pinch".

It's only extreme because you're technically dragging your feet, not looking for "scientific truth". If you were looking for truth, you personally would have stepped in and set RC and GM straight. You never did. You STILL have not done so.

No, it is really a "(Birkeland) current flows along the magnetic field" and not at all about resistance.

The reason Birkeland currents form in the first place is because the magnetic field is in fact a good "broom", either sweeping particles away from the surrounding thread, or pinching them into the thread. It acts to insulate the thread from the surrounding plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No one (including Alfven) thought or thinks that MR happens inside DLs. Alfven wanted to replace MR with double layers.

Ding, ding, ding, give the man a cookie. His intent was to make MR theory irrelevant by explaining double layer interactions from the perspective of particle physics.

Until and unless you can show me an experiment that DID NOT begin with two "currents", I have no desire to call your dumbed down math and your bait and switch experiments anything other than "current reconnection". If and when any of you get around to showing me an empirical experimental example of 'reconnection' that doesn't reconnect currents, you let me know.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Believe the professional from Los Alamos.

Great. By DEFINITION he claimed that electrical discharges occur in plasma as a result of a release of stored EM energy. You're just stuck in denial.

 

[tusenfem]

I guess you need to show me a physical experiment that actually begins with "magnetic lines", not "Birkeland currents". There's no way in hell a double layer will NOT form between two field aligned currents.

Really!
I would love you to show how two field aligned currents create a double layer.
Please show me in full detail, and I will help you to get it published.
Nobody ever tried something like that.

 

[tusenfem]

I agree.

thank you

Woah. Sure, a less dense region CAN carry currents, but not nearly as efficiently as the pinched filament with all that plasma to work with. That semi-evacuated region around the thread becomes an undesirable path for the current because it is more resistant than the dense filament. It's a RELATIVE thing that requires no "absolute" insulation.

What kind of nonsense is this?
If the plasma gets denser, then there will be more collisions and the resistivity goes up. That is also one of the reasons why the plasma heats up in a pinch. Stronger current density (because compressed) with higher density will lead to stronger Joule heating, which would be a greater resistivity.
The low density plasma that remains can easily carry a current and will not at all have a "greater resistivity".
Relative or not, your argumentation is completely wrong. I would advise to actually read a book about plasma phyiscs.

For the rest: All high energy filaments form into Birkeland currents which look pretty much like the kind you'll find inside of an ordinary plasma ball. As much as they'd love you to believe this all very mysterious, it's BS. I suggest you reread that last PDF I posted. It shows the tornado like filaments that will form inside of current carrying plasma.

You have already shown a long time ago that you don't have any idea how a plasma ball works, so please leave that be until you do understand. I have given the correct description a long time ago in a thread not far away from here.
A plasma ball does not have Birkeland currents, if only for the reason there is no frakking magnetic field in the ball apart from the Earth's magnetic field.

That's exactly how Alfven described it. Shall I believe the guy with the Nobel, or you?

Please quote exactly what Alfven described? I also saw some nonsense about collisions and deflections of particles inside of any double layer (in answer to TT) what Alfven was supposed to have said.
You can believe "the guy with the Nobel", however he got that for his development of MDH, and as anyone knows in MHD you cannot have reconnection. If Alfven would have doen plasma physics, then he would have seen his error.

It's only extreme because you're technically dragging your feet, not looking for "scientific truth". If you were looking for truth, you personally would have stepped in and set RC and GM straight. You never did. You STILL have not done so.

Oh PuhLees! I have posted more plasma physics in your threads than you will ever be able to write in a lifetime. If you would actually write stuff down, with the corresponding math, just like Alfven and Peratt and Birkeland have done, then there could be a real discussion. But no, you're with the Alfvenic Taliban, no doubt, everything has been written down in the holy Cosmic Plasma.

I am not here to set RC or GM straight, what am I, your nanny? Maybe you should actually put in some REAL EFFORT in doing physics and math and not just claim your ubiquitous "it's in the book."

The reason Birkeland currents form in the first place is because the magnetic field is in fact a good "broom", either sweeping particles away from the surrounding thread, or pinching them into the thread. It acts to insulate the thread from the surrounding plasma.

What on Earth are you talking about? A broom? It just swipes up free flying electrons and ions? Well, there are no free flying electrons and ions, they are stuck to the magnetic field. So either sweeping them away or pinching them, and I guess in between it will just deflect the other odd particle?

Pleas give a complete description of what you mean, I am not going to guess anymore about your assumptions and lack of understanding and physics.

 

[tusenfem]

Ding, ding, ding, give the man a cookie. His intent was to make MR theory irrelevant by explaining double layer interactions from the perspective of particle physics.

Until and unless you can show me an experiment that DID NOT begin with two "currents", I have no desire to call your dumbed down math and your bait and switch experiments anything other than "current reconnection". If and when any of you get around to showing me an empirical experimental example of 'reconnection' that doesn't reconnect currents, you let me know.

However, the process of double layer creation is something so completely from MRx that the notion cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If the plasma gets denser, then there will be more collisions and the resistivity goes up.

No, absolutely not! There are more ions in the filament to work with, and more ions to conduct the current. Plasma is a EXCELLENT conductor. Only when then current exceeds the plasmas ability to conduct will you start to see the resistivity go up to the point it matters.

That is also one of the reasons why the plasma heats up in a pinch.

If the current is strong enough, sure it heats up, but in comparison to the evacuated regions, it's still a better conductor, not to mention the kinetic energy aspects and the pinching processes that are still keeping the particles pinched together.

Stronger current density (because compressed) with higher density will lead to stronger Joule heating, which would be a greater resistivity.

Sure, but it also leads to a MUCH stronger magnetic field that will still act to pinch any particles back into the filament.

The low density plasma that remains can easily carry a current and will not at all have a "greater resistivity".

It's essentially a pure vacuum by the time you reach the current flows you're describing!

Relative or not, your argumentation is completely wrong. I would advise to actually read a book about plasma phyiscs.

I've read plenty of them. You're right back to ignoring physics. Not a single one of your experiments passes Alfven's smell test. Not a single one of your experiments does NOT begin with two currents or does NOT reconnect to "currents". If you want to call it "current reconnection", you go right ahead. Otherwise it is pure bait and switch. You have dumbed down the math to the B field orientation but your whole process begins and ends with current inside of a current carrying plasma. Alfven wrote the book on Plasma physics and he rejected your theory entirely. Reading books written by pseudoscientists doesn't really thrill me I'm afraid. Until and unless I see you start your experiments with a B field rather than CURRENT, I'm not interested. I don't need MR theory to explain current sheet acceleration. Alfven already did it.

I'm not going to respond to your nonsense line by line, but:

Oh PuhLees! I have posted more plasma physics in your threads than you will ever be able to write in a lifetime.

Er no. Actually you've posted more pseudoscience to this thread than anyone else according to Alfven. You've yet to produce a single experiment that even passed his smell test!

If you would actually write stuff down, with the corresponding math, just like Alfven and Peratt and Birkeland have done, then there could be a real discussion......

That's clearly false. If that were true to begin with, you wouldn't be clinging to "pseudoscience" to begin with, and you wouldn't need another math mommy.

But no, you're with the Alfvenic Taliban, no doubt, everything has been written down in the holy Cosmic Plasma.

No, actually I even split with Alfven and offered to compromise with you and call the process what it really is: CURRENT RECONNECTION. I offered to call it "CIRCUIT RECONNECTION" too. You rejected that offer because your zealous attachment to your pseudoscientific religion.

I am not here to set RC or GM straight, what am I, your nanny?

Are you interested in truth or not? Do discharges happen in plasma or not?

Maybe you should actually put in some REAL EFFORT in doing physics and math and not just claim your ubiquitous "it's in the book."

Why bother? You ignored Mann and Onel, not to mention the guy with the Nobel prize! What difference does it make? Your emotional attachment to your pseudoscience doesn't rise or fall on my math skills. It just makes you feel good to think your math skills are superior. So what? Do you have a Nobel? Did Alfven? Did he know math? Did he reject your claims?

What on Earth are you talking about? A broom? It just swipes up free flying electrons and ions? Well, there are no free flying electrons and ions, they are stuck to the magnetic field. So either sweeping them away or pinching them, and I guess in between it will just deflect the other odd particle?

If you even understood the first three chapters of Alfven's book, you wouldn't need me to explain any of this stuff to you.

Pleas give a complete description of what you mean, I am not going to guess anymore about your assumptions and lack of understanding and physics.

Oh for crying out loud! Go reread the first three chapters of Alfven's book. Note his preference for circuit theory and his distaste for your 'reconnection" religion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

However, the process of double layer creation is something so completely from MRx that the notion cannot be taken seriously.

Boloney. YOUR CITED LAB EXPERIMENTS TO DATE ALL CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING!

 

[ben m]

Go reread the first three chapters of Alfven's book. Note his preference for circuit theory and his distaste for your 'reconnection" religion.

Alfven liked modeling things as circuits, and disliked reconnection? What a surprise. I'm amazed, I don't think I've ever heard about that before. You certainly haven't mentioned it eighty or ninety times. Tell me again, why don't you, maybe it will sink in. I can't believe that people on this thread have been arguing that reconnection actually happens, and that circuit "theory" is only an approximation to the microphysics, without knowing that Alfven had contrary "preferences" and "distastes"! Surely they'll change their minds in light of this new and never-before-posted fact.
</sarcasm>

 

[tusenfem]

Boloney. YOUR CITED LAB EXPERIMENTS TO DATE ALL CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING!

No, not true, because the reconnection is already going on in, say the x-direction, and at a certain point the current in the y-direction can form double layers, but as was clear in the paper, the reconnection magnetic field structure was already in place.

You just don't understand basic plasma physics.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Although the PR piece appeared to me to be a composite of 211Å, 193Å, and 171Å filtered images, I don't know that for sure. I'm sure we all agree a more valid analysis can be made from data closer to the source.

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.

Looking at thermal data acquired from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere, processed or not, is not really relevant to the claim that the Sun has a solid or rigid surface. There is data available which was gathered from regions of the solar atmosphere much, much nearer the photosphere and the alleged, but physically impossible, surface. I have made videos, composites, and running difference sequences of the region of the September 24 shockwave with a detailed view of several levels of the atmosphere.

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?

An objective solar research scientist or astrophysicist, particularly one who is intimately familiar with the satellite images under consideration would seem to be a reasonable choice as arbiter of such a bet. The catch is, I suppose, that anyone who actually understands the satellite imagery under discussion, the purpose and methods of gathering and processing the data, already likely agrees with my assessment.

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.

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. Maybe a good next step would be a detailed description of that connection, objective, quantitative, and supported with contemporary references. If some wild guess is the only connection between some electric Sun conjecture and a solid surface conjecture, looking for plasma bouncing off ridges and cruising down valleys in any videos I've made would seem off topic here.

But so far, it looks like there's not a single ridge or valley to be found in a series of graphs showing simple differences in brightness values of pixels using thermal data acquired from several thousand kilometers above the photosphere...

​

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have no idea why the hell you'd invade my personal privacy like that and put my picture on a video. You've essentially turned this thread into a private smear campaign. What pathetic behavior.

I also have no idea or why you would post such a low resolution and useless image, but thanks anyway. Even your rudimentary RD image lays waste to Tim's stupid "hopping shockwave" theory. The right angle turn takes place right by some other "persistent structures" that are even visible in what you posted, not that you made any serious attempt to do it "professionally" as you first claimed.