The serious problem with "reconnection" theory and the sun.

[Michael Mozina]

https://books.google.com/books?id=E_TnC ... on&f=false

It's worth noting that up until 2012, all the mainstream solar flare maths related to "magnetic reconnection" models were based upon their required powerful magnetic fields to be created by, and sustained by jet speed convection in the solar convection zone. This paper (actually several of them) even discusses the topic in chapter 2 (formation).

"Magnetic flux which is observed in the solar photosphere most probably has it's origin in dynamo processes operating near the base of the convection zone from where it rises to the surface due to the combined effects of buoyancy and convective flows. "

In 2012 however, we discovered that the mainstream solar flare model which requires and predicts "jet speed" convection was actually falsified by two whole orders of magnitude!

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-unexpected ... rface.html

I even discussed that minor little problem with the mainstream solar flare model with Tom Bridgman of EU/PC hater fame back then too. The silence from the mainstream has been deafening since 2012. They basically lost their entire power source with respect to solar flares, or more correctly, they had their power reduced by 99 percent, so any magnetic flux they had to work with from solar convection speeds was also cut by 99 percent. Ooopsy?

If you read a bit in that first link, the author(s) are basically trying to ignore the formation of flux ropes in the atmosphere, and certainly it's an electophobic oriented concept that all begins and ends and hinges upon the convection speed, and the resulting magnetic fields that can then be moved/waved around in the solar convection cells that we observe in the photosphere. Their entire magnetic reconnection model of solar flares was based upon a now falsified premise, namely that the convection speeds would be something on the order of jet speed, thereby generating large scale magnetic fields, whereas the "observed reality" is about 1 percent of that "predicted value" they made, closer to walking speed in fact. Epic fail!

Anyone in the EU/PC community who's studied "flux ropes", already understands that they are actually sustained by, and ultimately created by the flow of electrical current through plasma. Anyone who doesn't conceptually understand their cause cause already can pick up a plasma ball at the store, and learn about the basics for under 30 bucks. They can empirically verify for themselves that the filamentary processes that they observe inside the plasma ball involve the flow of electrical current simply by turning the plasma ball on and off. They can put their fingers on the surface of the ball and watch the current carrying threads concentrate themselves to the area of the surface with least resistance. They can watch as they get brighter as the current gets more concentrated by the placement of their fingers on the ball. They can verify for themselves that electricity is the actual horse that makes the whole thing work, and the magnetic fields are the resulting cart that acts to concentrate the current, not the other way around as the mainstream seems to believe.

The mainstream suffers from electrophobia. They have utterly shunned the flux rope process in terms of the innate electrical nature of that structure. Maxwell's equations allow us to solve the math for a flux rope from either a B orientation (field orientation), or an E (particle/circuit) orientation at will. We can mathematically model the same process either way.

The basic model of the mainstream does actually involve magnetic flux ropes. However, they erroneous believe that if they take all the E's out of the equations, and they solve all the mathematical equations for B, they've magically somehow altered the way that *nature actually functions*. Somehow in their messed up minds, the electricity isn't required to get the plasma ball to work anymore because there are no E's left in their math equations! In their tangent from reality world of imaginary magnetism alone, the flow of current through the filaments is no longer required to make the process work, the electric field is not *really* powering the whole plasma filamentation process anymore. Nope. In their wild B oriented imagination it's actually all driven by "magic magnetism". They've simply dumbed down the equations so far that they simply can't see the E's anymore, so now they won't accept the E oriented solutions to the very same problems. Alfven himself made their "reconnection" theory obsolete and irrelevant with his double layer paper. They simply ignored it, and they have continued to ignore it for decades.

Their solar flare model has been *destroyed* by SDO observation, and they have simply buried their collective heads in the sand for over three years now just like they have done with with respect the mathematical flaws in that now falsified 2006 lensing study on dark matter. I guess the basic idea is if you pretend to the public that you don't *really* have a problem with your math and your claims, maybe they won't notice!

I noticed.

[D_Archer]

Hi Michael,

Well said, it is cool you keep up on both sides of the coin. I do think mainstream science has 'struck out' a lot in just a few years, they were better at propping up in the past but their failures are becoming more apparent, greater and embarassing.

You say they are whitewashing the E-Field, but why would that be? And with just B and E, you are also still missing D, does mainstream say anything about the displacement field?

Regards,
Daniel

[SDK]

Hi.

I may be wrong, but I suspect that the conundrum with the E field and the B field started with Faraday's interpretation and postulation of electric induction being caused by a conductor crossing magnetic lines of force. I suppose again that we all know the very basics of induction of a coil by a passing magnetic field.

When a conductor, say a copper coil, approaches the magnetic field of say a permanent magnet, an opposite magnetic field is induced in the coil, mechanically resisting the magnetic field of the magnet. That for me means, that the lines of force of the magnet and the forming lines of force of the conductor do not quite mix, being of opposite polarities. Yet, the induction takes place even on the approach of the coil toward the magnetic field of the magnet. By the same token, a question can be risen: "How does a secondary coil of an insulating transformer know, that there exists a variable magnetic field contained within the closed steel core, with which it is not in any physical contact?" In other words: "How does the secondary coil detect the alternating magnetic field occupying the space, which is not occupied by the material of that coil?"

Should not these two phenomena suffice to realize, that there is some existing and ever present field, which may and apparently follows the action of "creation" intensification and collapsing of magnetic fields, which is actually the culprit behind the induction of electric current in conductors and which can be so far only inferred, but not directly observed, as much as even the magnetic lines of force are observed only indirectly [steel shavings for example] and actually created by the tool of observation?

BTW, I do not subscribe to the notion, that magnetic field around a conductor is the cause of electric current[s] within the conductor, or vise versa. I see them as two manifestations of one and the same phenomena. I am convinced, that the issue of what comes first and what comes second is an artificial dilemma.

But IMHO the communication of an induction process does not even concern E field, but rather concerns the increases and decreases in [roughly speaking] the density of gravitational field around the conductor under changing electrical current and therefore also its oscillation, while the electric pressure [Volts] is kept at whatever value. This itself can be interpreted as an indication that electric current in a conductor flows in a form of multi strand Birkeland currents compacting and releasing the local gravitational field the way a radio transmitter may actually do the same, inducing again electric currents in a receiving antenna by way of "shaking" the gravitation. Just because the waves on a pond are induced by a spruce paddle does not mean that the waves on the pond are made of wood and vise versa, just because those waves rock a cedar canoe does not mean that they are made of wood either. That itself points to sort of electric nature of gravitation, albeit not necessarily in the externally polarized form, but more or less a form of an electric analogy of a much finer structure of what is called vacuum of alternate polarity and flows of Birkeland currents.

If someone would like to point me to Maxwell, fine, but there is one major logical flaw to his theory. His EM propagation is flat in two orthogonal coordinates as both those sets of coordinates represent orthogonal planes. Both of them are missing the third, spatial dimension. In other words, it does not provide for the third coordinate ad denies his EM waving any volume. Only a multi strand spiral seems to be able to do that for transverse waves propagating through a volume, rather than following a medium interface, i.e. a surface. Maxwell theory may be a nice mathematical shortcut, but it can't represent actual state of the affairs. We do not live atop a flat land any longer.

But going back to the convection driven magnetism and heat exchange of the sun. I personally see it as a minor cause, if any. It is the same as with the earth weather, or the system of ocean currents, which are IMHO again predominantly driven by electrical phenomena and also causing such phenomena in spots of mechanically driven turbulence, extremes of which can be seen in cyclones and tornadoes and even water vortexes. But as we can see in the ocean currents and the stratospheric jet streams, the latter ones capable of exceeding the speed of sound, one can only wonder, why the weather forecasting is still more of an art than a science.

With kind regards, Slavek.

[jjohnson]

@Slavek - interesting response, although I'm not so sure that Maxwell's (nor Poynting's nor Heaviside's) equations limit themselves to a 2-dimensional spatial universe at all. In fact, Maxwell's equations started out as quaternions, a many-dimensioned form of notation that a) is much more complex and cumbersome than typical Hamiltonian notation, and b) I don't understand at all. Hence their conversion to a simpler math form that some maintain has omitted certain important aspects of his original description. True or not, I can't say.

Please note a reference source for us all, for upper atmospheric wind movements exceeding Mach 1. I used to fly up there, and jet streams hardly ever exceeded 250 knots, well under the local speed of sound at altitude and temperature. If anything in weather actually and naturally exceeds the speed of sound, I would guess it would have to be a tornado, which EU proponents maintain is formed and proceeds via strong local electrical input. That likely would be accompanied by loud sound waves, as shocks are formed between transitions in fluid media between subsonic and supersonic regions. Tornadoes are often described as "sounding like a freight train" or "roaring" - so there is some evidence that sonic shock effects may be occurring in that case. Or it just might be turbulent shear.

Thanks
Jim

[SDK]

@Slavek - ... I'm not so sure that Maxwell's (nor Poynting's nor Heaviside's) equations limit themselves to a 2-dimensional spatial universe at all.

Hi Jim. Nor am I. I know just the 2x two dimensional diagram of his EM waving. Flat Earth was just a sarcasm. None the less, multi dimensions are supposed to be only a topological tool, nothing that could not be described in 3d. So I would expect a 3d isometric diagram to pick the structure of his proposition as much as the verbatim.

Please note a reference source for us all, for upper atmospheric wind movements exceeding Mach 1. Thanks Jim.

I am sorry but I'd rather eat my words than to try to find the reference again. I do not record such anecdotal references, usually popping up through out professional literature. I remember it only because I found it surprising. The best I can do off the bat for you is this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercane Hypercanes would have wind speeds of over 800 km/h (500 mph).

[Michael Mozina]

Hi Michael,

Well said, it is cool you keep up on both sides of the coin. I do think mainstream science has 'struck out' a lot in just a few years, they were better at propping up in the past but their failures are becoming more apparent, greater and embarassing.

You say they are whitewashing the E-Field, but why would that be?

Sorry I missed this question earlier. I would say they are whitewashing the fact that in order to generate and sustain multimillion degree "magnetic ropes" (which Alfven describes as a Bennet pinch) *requires* the use of E fields. If you look at SDO images, particularly iron ion images of the solar atmosphere, it's lit up like a Christmas tree over virtually the entire surface. There are 3 dimensional loops, 3 dimensional current sheets, massively heated plasma all around the solar atmosphere. Birkeland generated *exactly* these same superheated regions on plasma in his lab using E fiends, and he made all sorts of successful predictions using his model. Virtually every key predicting he made, from high speed solar wind of *both* types of charges, cathode rays, solar flares, polar jets, have all been verified by high energy solar satellite imagery.

The mainstream has tried to "dumb down" the entire process to the B orientation of Maxwell's equations to the absolute exclusion of the E or circuit orientation. At times however one must consider the entire circuit energy, particularly when trying to explain long term, high speed, high temperature coronal loops.

The long term nature of those loops, often lasting hours and days, is specifically and directly related to the current flow process *throughout the entire circuit*, not just the stuff we see sticking up and through the solar photosphere and into the chromosphere and corona.

And with just B and E, you are also still missing D, does mainstream say anything about the displacement field?

Regards,
Daniel

There's always going to be some merit to the B oriented view of plasma physics. There are however times where one has to look to the E oriented perspective. I have seen a few folks write papers on this topic, including Kosovichev awhile back. Few however have really looked at Alfven's work in it's entirety, and if Bridgman is any example, they know almost *nothing* about Birkeland's work.