[Maxwell] defined a magnetic field line as a line which everywhere is parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system which produced the field changes, the magnetic field changes and field lines can merge or reconnect.

-- Hannes Alfvén

Deniers of Magnetic Reconnection

As Alfvén said above, and as I have shown in detail, magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations. Magnetic reconnection has also been observed both in space and in controlled laboratory experiments.

Disregarding that evidence, many promoters of Electric Universe pseudoscience continue to deny the reality of magnetic reconnection. One of those deniers responded to my demonstration of magnetic reconnection by (surprise!) repeatedly denying magnetic reconnection. Although he himself does not "bark math" (as he puts it), he felt qualified to dismiss the vector calculus, freshman physics, and calculations that went into my demonstration of magnetic reconnection.

His denials illustrate the Dunning-Kruger effect in such pure form that I have excerpted some of his highlights on this web page.

I added some commentary (and doggerel) to make his denials easier for general audiences to understand.

Michael Mozina

The denier posts under his real name, Michael Mozina. After being kicked out of several physics forums, he joined the more tolerant JREF Forum in February 2009. Since then, he has submitted more than 8000 posts, including 2000 in just one year-long thread (where he accounted for almost 40% of the traffic). The excerpts below are limited to his responses to my five-part derivation of magnetic reconnection in that thread during November 2011.

Executive Summary

In certainty did Michael M
     a pseudoscience thread decree.
All fluxy did his plasma swim
     with jubjubicity.

Had we but world enough, and time,
     Debating Mike would be no crime.
Kruger-Dunning threads could grow
     Vaster than empires, and more slow.

But iron-shelled suns are not real stuff.
     Two thousand posts were quite enough.
Tequila, more than Michael, can
     Reveal Mozina's mind to man.

Excerpts

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (1 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

By conducting the experiment in a vacuum and changing the magnetic field slowly, we can make Maxwell's correction as small as desired. (Changing the magnetic field more slowly makes magnetic reconnection happen more slowly,....

BS! That permeability factor that you're running like hell from describes *INDUCTANCE* per unit length, not *RECONNECTIONS* per unit length!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Your entire argument is based on a fallacy. You've simply redefined the term "inductance" to "reconnection"!

That was Mozina's first response to part 1 of my derivation. He saw the magnetic constant in one of Maxwell's equations, noticed that it has the same units as permeability (and is sometimes referred to as vacuum permeability), and concluded that I was talking about inductance, probably because inductance was the only context in which he had ever encountered the notion of permeability.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (2 November 2011)

You have NO INTENTION of EVER providing ANY kind of published support for your *FALSE* claim that your so called "experiment" actually demonstrates "reconnection". You're just going right ahead handwaving away, tossing out a few equations to make it look legit, and your RUNNING away from supporting your actual claim trough ANY published materials. You're EXACTLY like arguing with a creationist that INSISTS "God did it" through some process that has absolutely NOTHING to do with "God".

Mozina likes to pretend his opponents are motivated by religious belief.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (2 November 2011)

Haters are like creationists. They don't care about the actual science. None of the haters (like RC) ever actually addresses or acknowledges the information presented. The haters also fail to provide any published materials to support their claims too like Clinger refuses to provide any PUBLISHED materials to support his handwaves about his "experiment" being an example of "reconnection". Instead he plows right ahead, ignoring the fact that absolutely NONE of his equations related to "reconnections" per unit length.

Mozina likes to invent absurd phrases so he can pretend they were spoken by his opponents. He may then ridicule the phrase he invented for days, weeks, months, or years. On 22 November 2011, a Google search on "reconnections per unit length" (with the quotes) yielded 10 results, all pointing to Mozina's posts within this thread between 30 October and 4 November 2011.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (2 November 2011)

Yes, and since you've never bothered to read Cosmic Plasma or Peratt's book in all the YEARS that we've discussed these topics, you've personally made a CAREER out of arguing from pure ignorance.

Mozina's chief claim to expertise is his claim to have read Cosmic Plasma, a book written by 1970 Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfvén. Although Mozina also claims to have read an introductory textbook on electromagnetism, he has shown no sign of remembering that book's author, title, or content. He understands plasma physics about as well as you'd expect from someone whose knowledge of basic electromagnetism or calculus is accurately described by Mozina's last two words above.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (2 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

That argument isn't working, Michael. Just about everyone has figured out that you don't have a clue about freshman-level math or physics, so you can't possibly have understood whatever legitimate math and physics may be contained within your holy texts.

Your personal attacks aren't working Clinger, not in any scientific sense anyway. I've learned a LOT from noting the questions that you REFUSE to address.

You REFUSE to provide *ANY* kind of published references for your claim. Even though I provided TWO published references to support the fact that "electrical discharges" occur in plasma, you refuse to embrace that fact. You refuse to really spend any time at all addressing my questions about changing materials and changing *INDUCTANCE* per distance unit. You REFUSE to explain where any of the kinetic energy comes from at a couple "ZERO" points in magnetic field. You've pretty much REFUSED to address ANY of the relevant questions surrounding your so called "reconnection" experiment.

I know you think that attacking the individual has some sort of emotional value to you, but from the standpoint of PHYSICS and KINETIC ENERGY, I know for a fact that you have no idea how to answer any of these questions *WITHOUT* acknowledging CURRENTS that ultimately "reconnect" at that point, particularly in plasma.

Sooner or later other people will ask you for PUBLISHED references to support your handwaving, and they'll want answers about the million degree rise in temperatures. They'll be honestly curious to know those answers. Will you treat them as you've treated me? Will you lie through your teeth in an effort to attack that individual too, and will you run like hell from every relevant question they put before you? Will you NEVER read Alfven and Peratt's work for yourself, and rely upon ignorance and arrogance forever and ever?

When Mozina rails against handwaving, he means mathematics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (2 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

In the first part of this derivation and an erratum, we used 5 equations to derive the magnetic field B around a current-carrying rod.

In other words, just like any good creationist, you absolutely, positively refuse to provide ANY kind of published work to support your OUTRAGEOUS claims, instead you just keep handwaving away and tossing around formulas related to INDUCTANCE per distance unit, not RECONNECTION. You also refused to answer any of my related questions about kinetic energy at two zero points in a magnetic field. You just keep flailing away, and trying to use completely unrelated work inside of ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE PLASMAS to support your case (Dungey/Yamada). Wow. Evidently you never intend to address those permeability questions or electrical discharge questions (Dungey) in any meaningful way.

When Mozina says I "absolutely, positively refuse to provide ANY kind of published work to support" my "OUTRAGEOUS claims", he means he doesn't like the references I had already provided:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (2 November 2011)

Let see. Clinger has name dropped four names now, Purcell, Jackson, Dungey and Yamada in support of his personal "reconnection experiment", two of which NEVER EVEN MENTIONED reconnection. The other two papers he keeps referring to (Dungey/Yamada) occur in PLASMAS, include ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES/Discharge chambers, and have NOTHING whatsoever to do with Clinger's personal 'experiment'. Would Clinger like to throw in Jesus and Einstein too as MR proponents? They never mentioned "magnetic reconnection" either, but that clearly doesn't seem to stop him from trying to use them to support his case.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (3 November 2011)

Originally Posted by nvidiot

This is rapidly becoming more and more farcical.

The projection in this thread on MM's part is almost pathological.

Ya, like I'm PROJECTING the fact that his permeability feature describes *INDUCTANCE* per distance unit? Sorry to burst your bubble and "project" scientific fact. FYI, Alfven rejected the whole MR concept as "pseudoscience" for decades, till the day he died.

Hannes Alfvén helped to popularize a "frozen-in" approximation for magnetic fields in plasma, but later warned against "general use of the frozen-in concept. It is increasingly evident that this concept belongs to the pseudo-plasma formalism which is useful only in special cases." In that same paper, Alfvén explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection, although he personally remained skeptical of its relevance.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (3 November 2011)

There is no "magnetic reconnection" at two ZERO points in two magnetic fields because there is no magnetic kinetic energy at that location. The CURRENT is the mechanism of energy transfer, and INDUCTION is the method of energy transfer. No "reconnection" of "magnetic lines" (B lines) ever actually takes place because B lines have no beginning and no ending and no physical ability to "disconnect from" nor reconnect to, any other magnetic line.

Mozina apparently doesn't understand that the energy contained within a magnetic field is not kinetic. The rest of that paragraph is just as wrong.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (3 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

I'm showing how a simple experiment reproduces a magnetic field with exactly the same topology and reconnection that appears in Dungey (1958), Yamada et al figure 3a, the Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection, and many other papers on magnetic reconnection.

Both of their processes took place in PLASMA Clinger, not in a "vacuum" or "air" or "water". You're trying to ride their coattails even though their "experiments" are nothing like your 'experiment'. What a crock.

Although Mozina has never understood basic freshman-level electromagnetism in a vacuum, he fancies himself an expert on plasma physics (because he tried to read Cosmic Plasma without understanding the math). As I showed in part 5, understanding the magnetic field B4 in a vacuum is prerequisite to understanding Dungey's 1958 paper on solar flares, which Mozina had been citing incessantly.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (3 November 2011)

So you haven't read either of Somov's books, one of which I've read, you haven't read Alfven's books, two of which I've read. You haven't read Peratt's book either, and I've read that book too. Somehow, evidently through pure clairvoyance, you've become some sort of resident expert on plasma physics *WITHOUT* reading any of the relevant materials! LOL!

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (3 November 2011)

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That is stupid - shall I ask you about all of the books that I have read that you probably have not?

I can already name at least 5 textbooks on plasma physics that I've read that you haven't read. Can you name even two plasma physics textbooks that you've actually read? Basic electrodynamic theory textbooks do not count since they are not focused on plasma physics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (4 November 2011)

Five entire textbooks, and you still have no clue about magnetic fields, magnetic flux, Ampère's law, the Lorentz force, and other basic concepts of freshman electromagnetism. What good is all that reading if you're not going to understand any of it?

There you go right back to attacking individuals. How sad. What a bunch of crap too since you've yet to cite ANY published work that claims that YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIMENT is an example of "magnetic reconnection". You keep handwaving away, attacking the individual, refusing to address my questions and acting like any good creationist.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (4 November 2011)

It's really frustrating arguing with creationists and EU haters that refuse to educate themselves and that are too cheap and too lazy to read a related textbook. After awhile I guess I start shouting. ;)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (5 November 2011)

An "Electric Universe Hater" is someone that HATES any and all EU oriented concepts. It doesn't really matter if it's "electric comet" theories, or "electric sun" theories, or "electric anything in space" theories, they're all over it because they HATE the possibility that the universe we live in is ELECTRICAL in nature.

EU haters argue like creationists. It's mostly a denial based belief system. RC, GM and Clinger for instance are all in STAUNCH denial that electrical discharges can occur in plasma. Not one of them has ever produced a reference that actually makes such a claim, but they handwave away anyway. Clingers whole "experiment" for instance is a pure handwave. He's provided NO published references related to HIS experiment specifically. RC FINALLY found a reference from Somov about reconnection but Somov specifically associates "reconnection" with "electric fields", induced E fields at that X point, and current reconnection. In other words they typically don't present any published materials to support their SPECIFIC claims, they simply HANDWAVE away, hoping nobody notices they have no real scientific data to support their claim.

They typically aren't even particularly knowledgeable in the topic. Most of them do not own, nor have ever read a book on plasma physics. They love to attack the individual just like a creationists. In this realm they can't call me "evil", so they use other types of derogatory terms like "crank", "crackpot", yada yada yada.

PS's claim for instance is a great example of a hater's argument. It seems to be based entirely upon a CARTOON that he found somewhere on the internet, it's not even a MATHEMATICAL or a published argument. What am I supposed to do with that?

Mozina doesn't recognize mathematical arguments or computer-generated animations that are derived directly from the laws of physics. In the above, he dismissed my mathematical derivation of magnetic reconnection from Maxwell's equations as "a pure handwave", and went on to deny all of the published references and experimental results.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (6 November 2011)

It's like a trip in the twilight zone around here because you all argue from a place of pure blind ignorance, and pure hatred to the E orientation of plasma physics. It's irrational absurd behavior on par with the very WORST type of denial based "creationist" beliefs. The fact your arguments rely on PURE HANDWAVING of cartoons and VACUUM equations is PROOF positive that not only don't you have a credible argument, you don't even understand how to BUILD or PUT FORTH a credible PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC argument. It's pathetic. Not a single one of the real "haters" even owns a textbook, let alone has ever read a textbook on plasma physics, so of course none of you understand the E orientation to plasma physics. It's all just about one word to this ignorant crew, specifically the word "reconnection".

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (6 November 2011)

I don't have a clue how Clinger expects to reconnect anything in vacuum at two zero points in two magnetic fields while only increasing B "slowly". I'm absolutely clueless how Clinger's handwavy form of "reconnection" is supposed to work (yet). He's not "finished" yet, so I can't comment yet.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

I only claim to be smarter than you, GM and Clinger. Actually I don't even claim to be smarter than any of you three, I'm just better educated on the topic of plasma physics because I've personally invested time and money into educating myself on that topic. That time and effort and financial investment puts me WAY ahead of you three (and PS). That's all I claim RC.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

The denial-go-round continues. Round and round and round you go, where you'll stop, nobody knows.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

You two are still clueless by choice since neither of you has read a book on plasma physics. NO (AS IN ZERO) B OR H field lines "disconnect" or "reconnect". They FLUX.

The B field is the magnetic flux density, and the magnetic flux through some surface S is the integral over S of the inner product of B with the unit vector normal to S. Because Mozina doesn't "bark math", he has absolutely no idea what any of that means. He seems to think the word "flux" has something to do with changes in the magnetic field over time, which is not even close to the truth.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

The term "reconnection" is sloppy when looking at B field lines that have no beginning or ending, but can bend and twist like Gumby. That FLUX will in fact INDUCE current, but no B lines need to be broken or reconnected. The only thing that has to occur in a plasma to induce an E field is FLUX, not RECONNECTION. All of you share a common misconception, apparently even you tusenfem. Flux is not the same as reconnecting B lines....

tusenfem is a plasma physicist who pointed out that the book Mozina was citing is "full of reconnecting magnetic B field lines."

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

I really didn't understand the idea that you were trying to convey until near the end of our conversation when I finally realized that you were confusing "bending and twisting" of the magnetic field lines (magnetic flux) with 'B field line reconnection'. Once RC made the same mistake, I FINALLY understood why you folks don't "get it". You're essentially confusing magnetic FLUX with "B field line reconnection". It's a simple enough error, one addressed in that paper that I provided you with, but it seems to be a very COMMON misconception.

It's simple enough, all right: Mozina doesn't know what "magnetic flux" means.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

You, PS and tusenfem are all making the exact same mistake. You're confusing "bending", "twisting" and "fluxing" of the magnetic field with "B field line reconnection".

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Myth 3: Magnetic field lines can neither begin nor end

In my two colored graphs of the magnetic field around four conducting rods, there are two magnetic field lines that begin at the neutral point and two other magnetic field lines that end at the neutral point.

Other than your handwavy claim, what EVIDENCE (published) do you have that ANY of those lines have a "beginning" or "ending" even if they happen to occupy the same space? Why did you (RANDOMLY?) pick THOSE TWO lines out of the whole bunch to claim those two particular lines that you selected have a "beginning" or an "ending"? As far as I can tell that's still a completely RANDOM claim.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

It's interesting that Mozina never discusses the mathematics or even the actual physics involved in these discussions. Instead, his positions are based on what he thinks he understands from old papers written by dead physicists. What a pathetically impoverished way to understand science!

What the heck is there to discuss in terms of math? He hasn't presented any useful maths yet!

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Let's distinguish the front and back of the box by saying the magnetic field lines enter at the back and leave at the front. That means the total flux through the box S is obtained by subtracting (the absolute value of) the flux that enters the back from the flux that leaves the front.

And you're ABSOLUTELY positive that you aren't confusing "magnetic flux" (with respect to your box), including directional components, with "magnetic reconnection"?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

Just for the record. The most likely ERROR that you're making Clinger is mistaking MAGNETIC FLUX for "reconnection". That's what EVERYONE seems to be doing,

"When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be regarded as certain." (I doubt whether Bertrand Russell ever met Michael Mozina, but he was familiar with the type.)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Come to think of it, everything you have ever written about magnetic flux is wrong.

How ironic considering the fact that everything you've said about "reconnection" is wrong, wrong, HORRIBLY wrong, starting with the fact that solar flares occur in PLASMAS, not "vacuums".

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (7 November 2011)

There's no point in worrying about anything else since you've demonstrated conclusively that your beliefs are IRRATIONAL and based on PURE IGNORANCE and irrational hatred.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (8 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

In part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, I proved that Dungey's X-shaped magnetic field can occur within a vacuum, with no plasma present and with virtually no electrical field.

FYI, BALONEY you did. Dungey's arrows in the middle of his diagram relate to MORE THAN JUST B LINES in a vacuum, they include plasma "processes" that are not related to the B lines directly. I can't really comment on your personal arrows in your diagram yet because you haven't provided any math, but at first glance you look to have botched the job because the arrows in the middle "should be" (at least in theory) one directional arrows of the magnetic field from one of your poles. The arrows in and out of the center point of your diagram are TOTALLY FUBAR as far as I can tell so far (with no math). You've proven NOTHING yet except your tendency to handwave in absence of a published work to support your claims. I'm personally DISGUSTED by the fact that you're *STILL* referring to Dungey's work IN PLASMA since your contraption is NOTHING like the process Dungey is describing *IN PLASMA*.

The magnetic field around a current-carrying wire may be the simplest example of a magnetic field that students encounter during their first course on electromagnetism. I had derived the equations for that field directly from Maxwell's equations, and had gone on to construct a linear superposition of four such fields. In the excerpt above, Mozina is acting as though he has never seen that kind of mathematics before, and has absolutely no idea of what simple magnetic fields look like.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (8 November 2011)

Which of your MATHS show a magnetic B line "reconnection" Clinger? Which one results in an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE in a vacuum? All you've done so far is wave around a little circuit theory, wave around a couple of diagrams related to PLASMA physics and you've shown no actual B field line reconnection that might explain million degree solar flares, nor have you shown that any field BEGINS in your X point nor ENDS in your X point. So far the math you have provided is CHILDISH.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (8 November 2011)

What use is math when none of them are even interested in reading a book on plasma physics? They have all the math in the world at their feet. The refuse to read or comprehend any of it.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (8 November 2011)

Originally Posted by Almo

Notice what happens when someone (Clinger) uses real math and physics. They convince people of things!

FYI, Clinger also convinced him that solid magnet reconnection was the same thing as an electrical discharge in a plasma too. People in herd mentalities tend to convince each other of just about anything and everything. Math is optional in my experience, particularly when dealing with "haters" (hate being wrong, hate EU theory/evolutionary theory/whatever).

Mozina's first sentence of that excerpt was an outright lie.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (8 November 2011)

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You are lying - W.D. Clinger has. He has used math to describe the physics of the EM fields generated by current carrying rods.

So what? He's never demonstrated that B field lines "reconnect" nor that they have a 'beginning' or an 'ending' inside of a VACUUM no less. He's buried himself in BS handwave claims that he can NEVER demonstrate mathematically.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (8 November 2011)

Your arrows at the X are FUBAR to this point in time since you have no plasma as Dungey did and no mathematical explanation for them. I have idea how you intend to justify your two directional arrows. I'll have to wait and see I suppose.

Of course, I had by then already given a thorough mathematical explanation of the field lines in question and why they point in the directions shown by the arrows.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (8 November 2011)

Besides, whatever math you have that answers any of my fundamental questions still remains a mystery to the rest of us. Please show us your math.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (9 November 2011)

Published works are a logical way to argue science. The haters of this thread however seem to get by without reading or responding much to the materials, without providing any published materials to support their own claims. Instead they typically just handwave away and engage themselves in daily personal attacks. Haters don't even debate logically or rationally.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (9 November 2011)

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Again, you have not understood a thing, have you?

About Clinger's handwavy "experiment"? Nah. I don't profess to either. I can't imagine how he intends to get an electrical discharge to occur in a "vacuum", let alone get B lines to "begin" and "end" at X. Beats me (shrug). I doubt any of it will make any sense to me in fact until we get to installment five where he pulls the switcheroo and replaces his vacuum with a real plasma. Maybe then it will work.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (9 November 2011)

What kinds of relevant questions have you asked Clinger about his handwavy experiment in terms of all that missing plasma and that BS about B lines "beginning" in a vacuum?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (9 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Magnetic B field lines can begin or end at the same neutral points where magnetic reconnection can occur.

So I'm clear, you're claiming that a magnetic field CREATED by an (electro)magnet a meter away always begins and ends somewhere outside of that magnet, specifically at the 0/Null point, even in a vacuum?

Mozina often misrepresents others' statements. As here, it is often hard to tell whether he's doing it deliberately. It's entirely possible that he just doesn't understand the difference between "magnetic B field lines" and "magnetic field", or the difference between "can begin or end" and "always begins and ends".

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (9 November 2011)

It seems to me Clinger that your entire "magic trick" is renaming the CENTER of the region of the graph an "origin", *SUBJECTIVELY* tinkering with the direction of the arrows in the middle, and then linking it to an X/Y grid. It's not an "origin" in any sense. Those magnetic lines exist BEFORE they might "connect" to some other null point (not reconnect). There's no particle kinetic energy at two NULL points to actually 'reconnect' to another line, not even photon kinetic energy. You're confusing CONNECTION with "RECONNECTION" and CENTER with "ORIGIN". The fields are CREATED in the (electro)magnet, but the lines don't all start and end at the the null points in each and every line, or any line, not even if they happen to "connect" to some other line at some other ZERO/NULL energy point.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (10 November 2011)

If this were a freshman basic EM physics class, you just earned a GIANT *F*. That was an EPIC FAIL!

I now know from a year of your nasty lies that you can't tell the difference between "solid magnet reconnection" and an "electrical discharge process in plasma". You don't know the difference between magnetic flux density changes and "magnetic reconnection". I now know that you are clueless about those lines "beginning and ending" in the X as you have claimed. I now know that you don't even understand BASIC theory because if you did, you'd know that B fields have no beginning or ending! You don't grasp the fact that permeability is measured in INDUCTANCE per unit length, not "reconnections" per unit length. You don't understand that FUTZING with the units make no damn difference in terms of the actual PHYSICS!....

Honestly Clinger, you've utterly SKEWERED yourself (and others) in this thread because you don't even understand that freshman experiment you tried to explain. No magnetic lines begin or end in the null zone of your experiment. Nothing could ever 'reconnect' in your experiment in fact because you don't have an electron or proton to your NAME, in that contraption.

Honestly Clinger, give it up. You've BURIED yourself in this thread....EPIC FAIL!

Mozina must have violated JREF Forum rules in that post, because it was flagged and moved to a part of the forum that cannot be read by non-members. His next post was moved also:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (10 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Thanks. I'm not quite done with producing the animations and cleaning up the graphs, but I should be able to post part 4 this weekend and part 5 next week.

Part 4 damn well better include a BRAND NEW GRAPH contained STRICTLY in the POSITIVE quadrant of the X,Y grid, showing all four magnetic fields IN FULL, and the NULL region better be nowhere close to the "origin" of the graph!

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (10 November 2011)

Originally Posted by jj

You are aware that translation of position axes does not change the result of a calculation based on relative position, are you not?

He can make the bottom left of the image 0,0 if he likes. What he won't keep doing is keep referring to the null region as an "origin".

Despite Mozina's obvious confidence, his power is as delusory as his expertise.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (11 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

You're wrong.

I did not use the word "origin" in part 1 or its erratum. I used the word "origin" once in part 2 and 7 times in part 3 of my simple derivation of magnetic reconnection. Every one of those 1+7=8 uses referred to the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system.

I'll tell you what. Let's make this easy and simple. SIMPLY DO NOT USE THE TERM ORIGIN ANY LONGER and I'll be fine, as long as you explain what the hell you mean by B lines "beginning and ending" at the X. I literally had to find an interpreter to even get a clue what to think about that claim. He says you're wrong and even chastised me for asking him about it. Whom shall I believe, the plasma physicist or some guy I met on the internet that thinks B lines have a beginning and an ending in a magic magnetic NULL point in a vacuum? As far as I can tell you completely confused yourself by moving the null point to the origin and now you think it's the center of the EM field line universe.

I suspect that Mozina's plasma physicist was tusenfem. In reality (which is not Mozina's native habitat), tusenfem had agreed with me while chastising Mozina for garbling the math and physics so badly.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (11 November 2011)

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Oh for goodness sake, the fact that you don't understand that "origin" is a well defined word in graphs is just typical for all discussions with you.

Nah. I think he just confused HIMSELF when he used that term. What the heck is he talking about when he says the B lines have a beginning and ending in the NULL region? I am pretty sure that he just confused himself when he moved the null region to the origin. I believe that the origin of his graph suddenly became the center of the B field universe in his mind the moment he linked it to a graph and put the null region in the middle. I can't think of any other logical reason for him to be talking about the beginning and ending of B lines at the null point.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (11 November 2011)

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Jebus, have you actually read what I have written about the separatrices?

Are you claiming that those B field lines all begin at X *IN A VACUUM*? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (11 November 2011)

Notice here that Clinger's intent seems to be to show us that there is a mathematical exception to the "no beginning, no ending" rule? His *ENTIRE INTENT* was to demonstrate that the NULL POINT was the "beginning and the ending" of every single line. This wasn't a "minor" mistake folks.

Once again, it's hard to know whether Mozina is lying or just doesn't understand the difference between existential and universal quantification.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (11 November 2011)

Like I said before Clinger, EPIC *FAIL*.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (14 November 2011)

I'm already on to Clinger's magic trick. I know he has electromagnets under that table (off the edge of his graph) and his "beginningandendingofBlinesgod" is a fraud. I don't know what games you, GM and PS are playing yet, but it's time for everyone to put their cards on the table, and put up or shut up.

It's time for you four haters, you, Clinger, GM and PS to help Clinger finish part 4 of his *FRESHMAN PHYSICS* homework assignment and demonstrate once and for all, for all the world to see, that I am indeed a fraud and a liar as you have all claimed, or to publicly retract those claims, right now, in this thread. Which is it going to be?

Don't any of the four of you even THINK about playing the disappearing skeptic trick. You've all called me a fraud. I want physical and mathematical proof of that claim or a public apology. Which is it going to be?

Physical and mathematical proof of my claims had already been provided.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (14 November 2011)

At that infinitesimal instant, the two magnetic field lines that are almost touching divide into four field lines that begin or end at the neutral point.

BZZZT! Epic fail part two begins.....

Honestly Clinger, you really do not comprehend even BASIC EM theory. Let me TRY AGAIN to straighten you out, just in case you are in fact interested in EDUCATING yourself.

Literally *NOTHING* begins or ends at the "neutral point" as you're calling it. The term "neutral point" relates to the plasma physics aspect.

In your experiment however (part four without plasma), it's nothing more than a NULL POINT, a region of spacetime where NOTHING HAPPENS. The B field lines (whole fields) "originate" in the four poles of your new graph, not the origin of your first image. See the problem yet? Nothing BEGINS at X. It's just "passing through" X without a penny it's pocket. At the "infinitesimal instant" as you call it, the continuous lines without a beginning or ending all simply "cross", they don't 'begin or end' at the X! There are four complete fields interacting at X (not actual lines), but nothing BEGINS, or ENDS at X. Do you understand this, yes or no?

Magnetic field lines cannot cross. Roughly half of Mozina's words above are being used to make false statements.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (14 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

All of the highlighted statements are false.

Not a single one of those highlighted statements is false Clinger. You've essentially confused a NULL point in a line or a collection of lines as the "beginning and ending" of the line(s). You really don't have the first clue about basic EM theory. The fact that you're STILL trying to defend this nonsense says VOLUMES Clinger. You're only burying yourself deeper and deeper.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (14 November 2011)

FYI Clinger, only PHYSICAL THINGS "create" (not begin or end) magnetic fields, things like solid magnets and THINGS like moving charged particles, physical things like your the poles of your experiment. These PHYSICAL THINGS create magnetic fields. Vacuums and null points are physically incapable of CREATING, let alone "beginning or ending" magnetic fields. The field strength (line strength in your vernacular) simply fades to zero at that NULL point, the lines don't "begin" at the NULL or "end" at the null. No single line or collection of lines begins or ends at it's NULL point! Holy Cow!

Mozina just conceded my point while trying to deny it. The field strength fades to zero at the null (neutral) point, which means the two lines that point into the neutral point must end at the neutral point. Two other lines point out of the neutral point, which means they begin at the neutral point.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (14 November 2011)

Well Clinger...

As much as I'd love to see you 'graduate' from basic EM theory and move on to plasma physics, mostly so I can find out if you ever come out of the closet and admit that electrical discharges occur in plasmas and flares, I can't pass you in good conscience. Sorry. You're welcome to try again, but you may not proceed to part 5 yet.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (14 November 2011)

You call me a liar because you're a hater and that's about all you do know how to do. You certainly don't know squat about physics. You couldn't spot Clinger's BUSH-LEAGUE mistakes. You couldn't and didn't help him in any way. Your sole purpose in this thread is to spew hatred. That's your game.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (15 November 2011)

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Never mind, Clinger, this is just envy and hatred speaking from MM, because you "show off" your mathematical prowess, which MM lacks (and probably would love to have).

What? OMG. While I admit to being envious of sol's basic prowess in physics and Tim's knowledge in general, Clinger and rest of the hater crew don't even have a CLUE about basic theory. In fact the four of them *COMBINED* can't even *CORRECTLY* explain a standard quadrapole magnetic field in a vacuum! Holy Cow! I'd be EMBARRASSED AS HELL to have posted the nonsense to this thread that Clinger has posted!

As a side note, like I said before, the separatrices are special cases. Now, what MM does not seem to understand is that there is still continuity, because the two lines come in, two lines go out. However, the field is zero, by necessity, because otherwise the field would have four directions at that specific point.

Quit confusing him with plasma physics. He doesn't even understand BASIC theory or he would be able to explain his vacuum contraption *WITHOUT* the term "reconnection" and without ERRONEOUSLY claiming that B lines begin and end at the X!. When he can do that LITTLE, then he can think about gloating over his math skills. Until then, those math skills seem pretty damn useless to me, as well as the math skills of all the rest of haters. They couldn't even help him find his BUSH-LEAGUE mistakes as a GROUP! Evidently every single one of them thinks that magnetic B field lines begin and end at a null point in a vacuum of an ordinary quadrapole magnetic field experiment. Sheesh.

In his response, tusenfem pointed out that he hadn't talked about any plasma physics. He was just talking about magnetic fields, field lines, and separatrices.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (15 November 2011)

Look folks, it's very simple. Until Clinger gives up his "religion" in the beginning and ending of B lines *IN A VACUUM*, he's not moving on to part 5, it's that simple.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (15 November 2011)

It's not his math or his graph that is FUBAR, it's his UNDERSTANDING of WHAT THAT MATH MEANS that is FUBAR. When he UNDERSTANDS what he wrote, I'll be a happy camper.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (15 November 2011)

Been there, done that twice now. I made him fix the graph the first time, hoping he would stop confusing the origin of the graph with the origin of the magnetic lines. He didn't take that hint. I then FULLY explained his errors, which he then HIGHLIGHTED in full. I don't know what more I can now do for him. His graph is fine, his math is fine, his understanding of that math and WHAT that graph actually means stinks to high heaven.

After railing against my graphs and math for days on end, Mozina admits that my graphs and math are fine.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (16 November 2011)

Originally Posted by tusenfem

There is no need for plasma, there is no need for monopoles.

Boloney. No plasma, no induced E field, no electrical discharge. No monopole, no BEGINNING or ENDING of any magnetic lines. Those are the physical facts.

There is however need for reconnection of the field lines when the current in two diagonally opposite current rods is changed, because the separatrices will change their location.

The only thing that will happen is the WHOLE FIELD (not one line) is going to change, and magnetic flux densities with shift along with magnetic field topologies....

That, of course, is exactly what everyone means by "magnetic reconnection". Mozina has just admitted the reality of the thing he continues to deny.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (16 November 2011)

To this very day and moment, you are *STILL* confusing *MAGNETIC FLUX CHANGES* in a vacuum, which take place over the *ENTIRE* field, not a single line, or just in the middle region, with mythical monopoles. The ENTIRE FIELD will experience "flux changes" that would (not in your experiment in a vacuum) induce E fields in a plasma, not JUST at the X. Grrr.

When oh WHEN will you understand that B field lines have no beginning and no ending? The only way that could EVER occur is if someone pulls a monopole out of their hat! Magnetic flux CHANGES are NOT "magnetic reconnection"

Mozina doesn't bark math, and hasn't been paying attention anyway, so he has no way of knowing that magnetic reconnection has everything to do with changes in magnetic flux, and absolutely nothing to do with magnetic monopoles.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (16 November 2011)

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Nope. So far as we know, magnetic monopoles don't exist. In fact, their nonexistence is implied by Gauss's law for magnetism.

Then B lines CANNOT and do not have "beginning and endings"! GAH!

Mozina doesn't bark math, so he was unable to follow my proofs that Gauss's law for magnetism holds for the magnetic field B4, nor was he able to follow my proof that two magnetic field lines begin at the neutral point of that magnetic field, and two others end at that neutral point. To him, mathematics is indistinguishable from religion.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (16 November 2011)

Clinger, I'm completely mystified at the moment as to how I might get you to let go of your 'religion', your BLIND FAITH in "Origin", the beginor and endor of B lines in a vacuum. I'm stumped. I've provided you with Wiki web links explaining your error about B lines having no beginning or ending. I've explained to you that only PHYSICAL THINGS like moving charged particles can even 'create' B fields, but even they do not 'begin or end' B lines. I've even taken the time to explain to you how it actually works! Even you know that monopoles do not exist in nature! This is a completely surreal conversation IMO. Evidently you think that every NULL point is the beginning and ending of every line!

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (16 November 2011)

I honestly cannot believe that all four of the hardcore EU haters are *STILL* intent on violating the laws of physics, just so you can all "have faith" in "Origin the great Null", the beginor and endor of all B field lines in the universe!

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (16 November 2011)

Since I don't have a clue how to proceed now, I'll make it simple. The instant you give up your PURE BLIND FAITH that Origin the great NULL is the "beginning" or the "ending" of any B line, you may proceed to part 5, and not one second before then. You WILL NOT violate the basic laws of physics in part 4.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (16 November 2011)

I have explained the ENTIRE process now, SEVERAL TIMES. Pure denial is a tough nut to crack, and all four of you EU haters are in pure, hardcore denial of the laws of physics as we know them. You four *COMBINED* evidently can't tell the difference between an ordinary NULL in a continuous B line from a "beginning/ending" of that same exact B line! It's all the same to you four.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (16 November 2011)

Originally Posted by GeeMack

W.D.Clinger has done a pretty good job so far of making his explanation simple and clear to those who have the ability to understand it.

Sure, and as long as you don't mind the fact that he's GROSSLY violating the laws of physics, praying to Origin the NULL, the beginning and ending of B lines, it's fine! When he, you, RC, and PS are ready to admit that a NULL point is *NOT* the beginning or the ending of any B line or collection of B lines, and B lines are continuous, without a beginning or an end, please let me know. Until then, IMO you're all clueless.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (16 November 2011)

Originally Posted by Almo

He's demonstrated very clearly with his experiment in part 4 how this works.

It evidently "works" by violating the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (16 November 2011)

Clinger, your ENTIRE argument is based upon a misconception you have about NULL points in lines being the "beginning" or the "ending" of the line. The NULL point is NOT a "beginning" of that line. It's just a NULL point in the CONTINUOUS line. No B lines "begin" nor end, not EVER. They are "created" in full continuum form by OBJECTS, specifically MOVING CHARGE PARTICLES. They exist only as a FULL CONTINUUM a complete *FIELD*, without beginning, without ending, and without discrete lines as you imagine them to be in your oversimplified little 2D viewpoint.

If and when you ever get around to ACCEPTING Guass's law of magnetism, let me know. At the moment you're in pure denial of empirical physics. B lines do not begin or end at their null point Clinger. Give it up already!

Magnetic field lines form and, as they move,
Combine: nor can your shouts of
"NULL" remove
The math that says they reconnect sans
Plasma, in a vacuum, though you disapprove.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (17 November 2011)

You handwave around math formulas that you DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND!

During his 8000+ posts at the JREF Forum, Mozina has demonstrated remarkable inability to "bark math" at any level, including the high school level of analytic geometry. He nevertheless believes he is qualified to argue vector calculus with PhDs in mathematics and physics, even as he freely admits he cannot follow their equations (which look like handwaving to him). It would be hard to find a purer illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (17 November 2011)

Well Clinger,

I'm running out of creative ideas on how I might reach you, and get you to abide by the laws of physics, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism. I've even tried speaking to you in your native mathematical tongue ("vector field geek speak") about sources and sinks and about your BLATANT misuse of vector field equations at X. I'm really running out of creative ideas now on how I can explain your error to you.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (17 November 2011)

No, your statements are utter gibberish and based upon pure ignorance including a KLUDGED quote mine from a book and author you've never actually read. Whereas Clinger's actual math skills might end up being his personal salvation, I don't think you even know what a source or sink might be in terms of vector fields and vector calculus. You're WAY out of your league on every level. All you can do is spew hate and remain in pure denial...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (17 November 2011)

Honestly Clinger,

Your exceptional math skills may in fact be your saving grace if you ponder the problem from the standpoint of sources and sinks in vector calculus. You're literally *OVERTHINKING* the problem IMO and trying to do EVERYTHING related to 'reconnection' in a single step, in a vacuum. You'd literally need a monopole to pull off that trick.

I seriously doubt that any of the rest of the EU haters even comprehends what a source or sink might be in relationship to vector fields, but I have to believe that you do. Your math skills are very likely to be your saving grace here if you use them IMO. Either BOTH Wiki pages are incorrect, or you are incorrectly and improperly turning X into a source and sink. It's really that simple. That is probably the BEST shot I can take at reaching you at the level of mathematics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (18 November 2011)

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

You have made that particular claim now multiple times in this thread, and it's just plain wrong. Of course you will get induced fields in a vacuum. How could you possibly not get induced fields in a vacuum?

Faraday's Law of Induction: ∇×E = ∂B/∂t

Ampere's Law: ∇×B = μ0J + μ0ε0 (∂E/∂t)

Faraday's law of induction works like gangbusters in a vacuum. Set the current density (J) in Ampere's Law to zero and we are back to the vacuum again. Change the electric field and you get an induced magnetic field. Of course in a vacuum there are no charged particles to accelerate, but there are still fields (which you can check by putting test charges into your vacuum and watching them bend to the will of the fields present). Yes, you certainly can induce B and E fields in a vacuum.

As you and The Man have surmised and correctly pointed out, that particular statement of mine is both sloppy and factually incorrect. I should have used (and been using) the term "electrical current", not "E field". My apologies, and thank you both for pointing it out. I amend my statements to read: "You can't INDUCE an electrical current in a PURE VACUUM that is utterly devoid of plasma particles. No induced current will occur in the vacuum."

Tim Thompson is another professional physicist, now retired.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (18 November 2011)

Tim, think about how confusing that "device" as you call it, must be to poor Clinger about now. Holy smokes! IMO basic theory is hard enough, and plasma physics is CHALLENGING for anyone, but taking "poetic license" with physics is unacceptable IMO. I really do feel for sorry for any poor uninitiated soul trying to unravel all this "piss poor" naming nonsense. Even a really good mathematician like Clinger is bound to completely confuse the PROCESS as he's been doing now since day one. If a good mathematician gets confused, what hope is there for a struggling college student to grasp the "magnetic reconnection" process correctly? If you simply called it "current reconnection", it would make perfect sense to that graduating freshman.

Honestly, someone competent, BESIDES ME on basic theory and sources and sinks needs to set Clinger straight. I'm dying to find out if he's coming out of the closet in part five and this is just annoying at this point. Please Tim or The Man explain to Clinger that B field have no source, no sink, no beginning and no ending. Do so privately if you prefer. If and when anyone finds a REAL monopole rather than an an ELECTRON RENAMING DEVICE that allow mathematical equations to be simplified for B, then you can call it "magnetic reconnection" with my blessings. What poor Clinger has gone through over the past year however DEMONSTRATES CONCLUSIVELY that the name selected by Dungey to describe an electrical discharge in a plasma *STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN*. It's TOO DAMN CONFUSING!

Mozina is confused because he's in denial. Everyone who understands the math and the physics knows why Dungey called it magnetic reconnection. The names that Mozina advocates (and had been advocating for a year or more) would be misleading and downright stupid.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (19 November 2011)

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Clinger is correct, Mozina is wrong.

IMO, it's highly disappointing you chose "hate" over science Tim.

You certainly didn't do Clinger any favors. I can't believe that response even *AFTER* I took the time to SHOW YOU which EQUATION Priest used to convert electrons into monopoles (magnetic charges). The *SOURCE* is the ELECTRIC field, and the electrons in that paper Tim, not the magnetic NULL! GRR.

I'm taking the night off. I'll deal with your nonsense later.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (20 November 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#B-field_lines_never_end

Now I've seen EVERYTHING. You guys even changed that WIKI page! Unbelievable.

Apparently someone edited one of the Wikipedia pages that Mozina had been citing as the authority for his mistaken idea that magnetic field lines cannot begin or end. Although the person who deleted Mozina's favorite proof text from that article is readily identifiable from its revision history, Mozina blamed us.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (20 November 2011)

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

The final conclusion is obvious: Magnetic field lines can & do end at null or neutral points, and Mozina has failed to provide any authoritative evidence to the contrary.

Boloney. I provided you with two authoritative references, one of which you folks CHANGED! I sure as hell didn't write that WIKI page and something like is sure as sugar exists in pretty much every intro to electromagnetism textbook on the planet. You guys can't change enough WIKI links and books to hide from your source/sink problem.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (20 November 2011)

Originally Posted by The Man

Very nice work W.D. Clinger!!!!

Ya, nice work LYING through his teeth when he said he would duplicate Dungey's reconnection process IN A VACUUM! Nothing like bait and switch advertizing....

Oy Vey. His *ENTIRE* presentation was pure BS. He accomplished NOTHING in his VACUUM in terms of the release of kinetic energy and he *STILL* thinks induction didn't do it. Pathetic.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (21 November 2011)

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Magnetic reconnection is not an electrical discharge.

False. It is a PHYSICAL PROCESS, *INSIDE PLASMA* which induces an E field resulting in an "electrical discharge" in plasma. Deal with it.

Magnetic reconnection is a change in the topology of a magnetic field.

No, that is called a "magnetic flux change". Such a process can and will induce current in PLASMA.

All competent authorities agree that magnetic reconnection is a change in the topology of a magnetic field, as visualized through its field lines.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina (21 November 2011)

FYI, your website is an outright lie. I never claimed "reconnection" didn't occur, I claimed it didn't occur in a vacuum and I claimed it requires CURRENT. You're not only a liar, you're a first class fraud. I never DENIED the process was real, I DENIED you demonstrated it in a VACUUM *WITHOUT* plasma as you promised. Liar.

I can't improve upon Tim Thompson's response to that outburst.

In Mozina's post of 19 November, quoted above, Mozina accused Tim Thompson of choosing "hate" over science. Four days later, Tim Thompson explained why he chooses physics over pseudoscience. It's well worth reading.


Last updated 25 November 2011.


Added 2 April 2013:

Tim Thompson's web page links to many of his informative posts concerning magnetic reconnection and other topics. Sadly, the LaTeX embedded in our posts is no longer being rendered properly by the JREF Forum's software.

Valid XHTML 1.0!