Electric universe theories here.

[tusenfem]

This coming from the guy that promotes "magnetic reconnection" theory? Please. Magnetic fields form as a whole continuum. They don't exist individually (we can think of them that way for mathematical purposes of course) so they can't "disconnnect' or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines. They lack physical substance. They cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect" in any physical sense.

More importantly, nature already generates lots of x-rays and gamma-rays here on Earth in good old fashion "electrical discharges". Birkeland created "electrical discharges" that look identical to the ones we observe in the solar atmosphere. He created "solar wind" composed of many elements as well as electrons. If you had read his work you would not need to ask me the following question:

Please explain why Birkeland "predicted" that there would be more than "electrons" flying off the sun. Once you find out his answer, you won't need me to hold your hand anymore and you'll realize that this specific phenomenon was a legitimate scientific "prediction" that came directly from his experiments and was not "predicted" before he began the experiments. In other words, it was something he LEARNED during his ACTIVE EXPERIMENTATION. You folks forgot how to conduct physical experiments or how to isolate things at the level of physics. For instance, what is *PHYSICALLY UNIQUE* about the energy releases from "magnetic reconnection" that are physically distinct and shown to be physically different from "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" in plasma? What is the exact physical energy release mechanism that can't otherwise be explained by particle interactions in current carrying plasma, combined with induction, that requires us to dream up a whole new term "magnetic reconnection"?

who would have guessed, no answer on my simple question how electrons, accelerated by the electric field from the sun to the heliosphere, can drag along ions (which are much heavier and will feel an opposite force from said electric field) to create the solar wind.

Instead of a simple answer (it cannot be done) we get a rant about magnetic reconnection.

ladidadidaaaaaaa

 

[tusenfem]

Again, discharges in plasma tend to heat plasma to millions of degrees. Sustained discharges can forms as "plasma filaments" like we see inside of an ordinary plasma ball. They emit light over the whole filament due to the electrical current running through the plasma. We certainly see plenty of evidence that these high energy emissions are directly related to the discharges predicted in Birkeland's physical experiments.

That's quite an enigma for a "magnetic reconnection" proponents. It's one thing to release energy as a "burst" at plasma a crossing point. It's quite another trick to release energy over the whole course of the plasma thread, and sustain it for hours! Nice trick wouldn't you say?

For goodness sake, this is standard solar plasma physics. Strong currents are driven through the coronal loops (magnetic field lines coming out of the Sun, turning over and going into the Sun again), through the shearing motion of the foot points of these loops. The strong currents HEAT the plasma that is in the loops. There are NO discharges here that heat the plasma. Naturally, the hot plasma emits radiation, THAT IS WHAT PLASMAS DO! Unless you want to call the current flowing in the coronal loop a "discharge", which would be rather ridiculous.

The fact that the loops emit radiation is NOT an enigma for solar plasma physics, IT IS WHAT HOT PLASMAS DO (not that you would know about that MM). Yes, the loops can get very hot and has NOTHING to do with reconnection. That does not just happen, reconnection in such a loop, there have to be certain conditions fulfilled before a loop can flare.

MM you are just obfuscating your lack of knowledge by claiming that others cannot explain things (when indeed they can, you just don't know about it). Stop playing this stupid evasion game, and start to explain the electric universe, which it the topic of this thread. Why don't you start explaining the electric solar wind, like I asked already thrice (once Sol88 and twice you) and not only me also other members have asked.

Science is more than looking at pretty pictures and stringing words together that sound profound but are everything but. You just try to use the fallacy that "if theory A cannot explain what I think is correct than my theory must be right".

 

[tusenfem]

Here's that article on the activity in a comet tail that I was talking about earlier David.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001165932.htm

That still does not explain how the water is created at the comet. O³⁺ will still NOT react with two H⁺ to form H₂O.

And apart from that, according to the electric comet "theory" the oxygen comes from machining the surface of said comet.

 

[Sol88]

the solar "wind"

Chit! you go away for a couple days and look what happens

Tusenfem wrote:

MM you are just obfuscating your lack of knowledge by claiming that others cannot explain things (when indeed they can, you just don't know about it). Stop playing this stupid evasion game, and start to explain the electric universe, which it the topic of this thread. Why don't you start explaining the electric solar wind, like I asked already thrice (once Sol88 and twice you) and not only me also other members have asked.

MMMM....if the Sun was made of iron at it's core, then...

The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star

Low-mass electrons carry most of the electric current in space plasma. Galaxies and the stars within them seem to be “born” electron deficient by an efficient charge separation process observed in laboratory plasma discharges. Stars operate as positive anodes in a galactic glow discharge. I wrote about red giant stars in Twinkle, twinkle electric star, “Red stars are those stars that cannot satisfy their hunger for electrons from the surrounding plasma. So the star expands the surface area over which it collects electrons by growing a large plasma sheath that becomes the effective collecting area of the stellar anode in space. The growth process is self-limiting because, as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger. Electrons caught up in the field are accelerated to ever-greater energies. Before long, they become energetic enough to excite neutral particles they chance to collide with, and the huge sheath takes on a uniform ‘red anode glow.’ It becomes a red giant star.

The electric field driving this process will also give rise to a massive flow of positive ions away from the star, or in more familiar words—a prodigious stellar ‘wind.’ Indeed, such mass loss is a characteristic feature of red giants. Standard stellar theory is at a loss to explain this since the star is said to be too ‘cold’ to ‘boil off’ a stellar wind. And radiation pressure is totally inadequate. So when seen in electric terms, instead of being near the end point of its life, a red giant may be a ‘child’ losing sufficient mass and charge to begin the next phase of its existence— on the main sequence.”

also Twinkle, twinkle electric star

Juergens went to great pains to explain the complex and exquisitely tuned control mechanism of the solar discharge. His insights are of paramount importance for an understanding of the Sun and for clarity on one of the most frequently asked questions: can we rely upon the Sun as a constant source of life-giving energy? As noticed by Scott, the tufted plasma sheath above the stellar anode seems to be the cosmic equivalent of a ‘PNP transistor,’ a simple electronic device using small changes in voltage to control large changes in electrical power output. The tufted sheath thus regulates the solar discharge and provides stability of radiated heat and light output, while the power to the Sun varies throughout the sunspot cycle.

>> The Sun’s plasma sheath. The white curve shows how the voltage changes within the solar plasma as we move outward from the body of the Sun. Positively charged protons will tend to “roll down the hills.” So the photospheric tuft plasma acts as a barrier to limit the Sun’s power output. The plateau between (b) and (c) and beyond (e) defines a normal quasi-neutral plasma. The chromosphere has a strong electric field which flattens out but remains non-zero throughout the solar system. As protons accelerate down the chromospheric slope, heading to the right, they encounter turbulence at (e), which heats the solar corona to millions of degrees. The small, but relatively constant, accelerating voltage gradient beyond the corona is responsible for accelerating the solar wind away from the Sun. Credit: W. Thornhill (after W. Allis & R. Juergens), The Electric Universe.

This ability of the Sun’s plasma sheath to modulate the solar current was demonstrated dramatically in May 1999, when the solar wind stopped for two days. The bizarre event makes no sense if the solar wind is being ‘boiled off’ by the hot solar corona. But in electrical terms, its regulating plasma sheath performed normally and there was no noticeable change in the Sun’s radiant output.

If the Sun is iron and then we can have

Underlying all tube operation is the fact that any metal is continuously emitting electrons. Both the number and the speed with which they are emitted increases very strongly with temperature, although in fact emission takes place at anything above absolute zero (-273°C). To understood emission, we have to look at what is going on inside the body of the metal. In any metal, there are one or two electrons that can easily be detached from an atom, so that inside the solid metal there is a kind of sea of electrons floating around independently of any particular atom. The latter are fixed in place inside the crystal structure and do not move about at all, although they vibrate in place. This sea of electrons is common to all metals, and indeed is really the defining characteristic of a metal and explains many of their familiar properties such as electrical conductivity and the fact that they are shiny.

Since the electrons are not attached to any particular atom, they move about constantly, very much like the molecules in a gas. The average speed of the electrons increases with temperature, but because they are constantly bouncing off of the atoms and each other they do not all have the same speed but rather obey a statistical distribution law.

If an electron happens to be going towards the surface of the metal, then it will naturally tend to fly right out through the surface. However there are powerful forces trying to stop it, for the simple reason that there are positively charged metal atoms inside (because they have lost one or two electrons to the “electron sea”) and none outside. Thus an electron approaching the surface is slowed down, and only those having enough energy can escape. The amount of energy required is called the “work function”, and varies for different metals.

This is a convenient point to say how electron energy is measured. First of all, the energy of an electron corresponds directly to its speed. This follows the same law for kinetic energy as anything else, such as a car:

LINK

And what about secondary emissions?

Especially if the sun's core where iron, then induction heating could be on the cards!

Induction heating allow the targeted heating of an applicable item for applications including surface hardening, melting, brazing and soldering and heating to fit. Iron and its alloys respond best to induction heating, due to their ferromagnetic nature. Eddy currents can, however, be generated in any conductor, and magnetic hysteresis can occur in any magnetic material. Induction heating has been used to heat liquid conductors (such as molten metals) and also gaseous conductors (such as a gas plasma). Induction heating is often used to heat graphite crucibles (containing other materials) and is used extensively in the semiconductor industry for the heating of silicon and other semiconductors.

That heating WILL release electrons!

The Ions are be repelled and the electrons are being emitted= the solar "wind"(Thermionic emission)

Thermionic emission

Thermionic emission is the heat-induced flow of charge carriers from a surface or over a potential-energy barrier. This occurs because the thermal energy given to the carrier overcomes the forces restraining it. The charge carriers can be electrons or ions, and in older literature are sometimes referred to as "thermions". After emission, a charge will initially be left behind in the emitting region that is equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to the total charge emitted. But if the emitter is connected to a battery, then this charge left behind will be neutralized by charge supplied by the battery, as the emitted charge carriers move away from the emitter, and finally the emitter will be in the same state as it was before emission. The thermionic emission of electrons is also known as thermal electron emission.

The classical example of thermionic emission is the emission of electrons from a hot metal cathode into a vacuum (archaically known as the Edison effect) used in vacuum tubes. However, the term "thermionic emission" is now used to refer to any thermally excited charge emission process, even when the charge is emitted from one solid-state region into another. This process is crucially important in the operation of a variety of electronic devices and can be used for power generation or cooling. The magnitude of the charge flow increases dramatically with increasing temperature. However, vacuum emission from metals tends to become significant only for temperatures over 1000 K. The science dealing with this phenomenon has been known as thermionics, but this name seems to be gradually falling into disuse

 

[tusenfem]

Galaxies and the stars within them seem to be “born” electron deficient by an efficient charge separation process observed in laboratory plasma discharges. Stars operate as positive anodes in a galactic glow discharge.

Welcome back, Sol88 and thanks for quoting this drivel from holocrap.
I hope you understand that holocrap is claiming the exact opposite from what Michael Mozina is claiming.

Sheesh, even the EU proponents among each other cannot get their stories straight.

 

[GeeMack]

Welcome back, Sol88 and thanks for quoting this drivel from holocrap.
I hope you understand that holocrap is claiming the exact opposite from what Michael Mozina is claiming.

Sheesh, even the EU proponents among each other cannot get their stories straight.

Lending even more support to my suspicion that Michael is completely alone in his delusion. And it brings back a question (one of dozens) that Michael has never answered about his inability to convince anyone that he is correct. Not a single professional or academic in the field of astrophysics or related sciences agrees with him, not even remotely. I would like to hear his explanation for being so utterly incapable of making his case in a way that anyone can understand.

It seems to come down to him being the single most intelligent human who ever lived, so far beyond the mental processing ability of any other person that nobody can understand his awesome insight. Well, maybe there is an alternative explanation, that being that he is wholly incapable of communicating with normal, rational human beings in a sane and reasonable way, therefore his correct explanation of how-things-are is simply being missed by the masses. Oh wait, there's one more very good possibility. It could be that he's simply wrong in every way, and no matter how well he explains his fantasy or how intelligent he might be, he'll never convince other people because there's no truth to his claim. Yeah, there's much evidence for that. I think I'll go with "C".

 

[Ziggurat]

MMMM....if the Sun was made of iron at it's core, then...

Oh, but Michael doesn't think the core is iron. Rather, he thinks that there's an iron shell floating on top of some high-pressure plasma His model is ridiculous, but you haven't even figured out what his model is.

The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star

So much stupid in such a small space.

"The growth process is self-limiting because, as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger."

Nope. An increased area would produce a decreased electric field. The author is clearly clueless about electricity.

 

[GeeMack]

Oh, but Michael doesn't think the core is iron. Rather, he thinks that there's an iron shell floating on top of some high-pressure plasma His model is ridiculous, but you haven't even figured out what his model is.

Well you have to admit it would be difficult for Sol88 to figure out what the Mozina model is, since Michael hasn't actually specified his crazy notion in terms of a solar model. He doesn't know how thick the shell is. He can't define the thermal or density characteristics. He won't actually commit to a particular material, other than to say some vague kind of iron that acts unlike any material ever known. He doesn't know anything about the science required to see 4000 kilometers into the photosphere, but he thinks it can be done. He even thinks he's the only human on Earth who has actually done it.

He doesn't know where the electricity comes from that powers his glowing orb, but fancies it operates like a $19.95 Wal-Mart plasma ball, or the white hot sparks blowing off an arc welder's electrode. But he doesn't seem to actually know how those things work. He doesn't know what sort of current or resistance values would be required to make the Sun as hot and bright as it is. He doesn't know that brighter isn't necessarily hotter, even though that has been explained to him many times.

He does believe Birkeland postulated a solid surfaced Sun, but can't actually show anyone where Birkeland did that. He sees what appear to be calculations in Birkeland's notes, and assumes that must be where the answer lies, but has no clue what those numbers really mean. He went on about his hero Birkeland's iron terrella model for several weeks once before someone actually had to tell him the terrella wasn't iron at all. It was brass.

Michael can't do math. It's doubtful he can even balance his own checkbook judging from the evidence he's placed before us here. And that running difference image he posts at the very top of his web site, the one he keeps lying about not being explained by anyone? He doesn't even know how to explain it himself. "It looks like a surface." Yep, that's it. He doesn't know how high the mountains, which things are surface features and which ones aren't, how big an area the picture includes, and over what kind of time span the sequential source images were gathered. He can't explain, in any detail, that first image he hangs out as evidence.

Not once has Michael been willing to specify a quantitative detail about the running difference image, or about anything related to his wacky conjecture. Numbers, quantitative data, something on which to start calculating the plausibility of his fruitcake fantasy, are meaningless to him. He's said so himself repeatedly. Solar models, at least from a legitimately scientific point of view, require quantitative descriptions. Michael has never offered any such thing. There is no model. So it's no surprise that Sol88 doesn't know what Michael is talking about. Nobody really does. Not even Michael!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I already did that a long time ago: Comments on Magnetic Reconnection. But we all know quite well that it is prejudice that counts over science with you, so naturally you summarily reject all of the controlled laboratory experiments that disagree with your personal preconceptions. You didn't even consider any of them, just dismissed them with a wave.

You evidently do *NOT* understand my position on MR theory very well Tim. I don't "dismiss" anything. Birn's paper on MR theory (discussed on space.com) convinced me that the math related to the theory was fine, the approach is "ok" from the standpoint of physical descriptions, but there is no way to physically determine if the this is a "unique" form of energy exchange. How is it physically different (at the point of energy release) than say "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", or induction or an ordinary discharge process in plasma? I don't see how you (or anyone else) can determine in any of these "experiments" if the magnetic fields are themselves doing anything, or the particles and charge attraction is doing the work.

It is the transition of the magnetic field to a lower energy configuration, so energy is transferred from the magnetic field to the kinetic energy of the particles.

How exactly would that be a unique energy release process and not "induction"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Welcome back, Sol88 and thanks for quoting this drivel from holocrap.
I hope you understand that holocrap is claiming the exact opposite from what Michael Mozina is claiming.

It's actually different theory for several key reasons. The principle is similar in that in involves charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere and it involves electrical flow. It's evidently wired in reverse. The other key difference is that in I believe that the solar atmosphere is layered by the element and the photosphere emits white light due to it's elemental composition (neon) not because it is in a unique electrical state from any of the other layers.

Sheesh, even the EU proponents among each other cannot get their stories straight.

Sheesh, imagine that! People can actually have a difference of opinion and it's "ok" not to all think alike.

 

[Reality Check]

You evidently do *NOT* understand my position on MR theory very well Tim. I don't "dismiss" anything. Birn's paper on MR theory (discussed on space.com) convinced me that the math related to the theory was fine, the approach is "ok" from the standpoint of physical descriptions, but there is no way to physically determine if the this is a "unique" form of energy exchange. How is it physically different (at the point of energy release) than say "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", or induction or an ordinary discharge process in plasma? I don't see how you (or anyone else) can determine in any of these "experiments" if the magnetic fields are themselves doing anything, or the particles and charge attraction is doing the work.

How exactly would that be a unique energy release process and not "induction"?

MM: Tim Thompson is talking about magnetic reconnection and thus any energy release he refers to is "unique" to magnetic reconnection.

Of course there are other processes occurring in plasmas. I can not see anywhere that Tim Thompson states that only magnetic reconnection releases energy in plasmas. But perhaps you can provide a quote to this effect.

What Tim Thompson states is that magnetic reconnection has been shown to release energy in theory and in empirical measurements in controlled experiments in laboratories here on Earth.

Can you define "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection" for us?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well you have to admit it would be difficult for Sol88 to figure out what the Mozina model is, since Michael hasn't actually specified his crazy notion in terms of a solar model.

You are either incapable of comprehending the English language, or you really are the single most unethical individual I know of. All of these theories relate directly back to Birkeland's original experiments. It's not *MY* solar model. Wake up already.

He doesn't know where the electricity comes from that powers his glowing orb,

I've explained to you several times now that I personally lean towards Birkeland's original power source, specifically fission. *YES* he did mention radioactive elements by name as the power source.

For God sake, talking to you is like talking to brick wall. You do not listen. You do not comprehend what I tell you and you misrepresented everything I've said to you. You irrationally claim that because I don't bark math for you on command that I am incapable of doing any math. That is pure unethical BS. You have no ethics at all.

 

[Reality Check]

You are either incapable of comprehending the English language, or you really are the single most unethical individual I know of. All of these theories relate directly back to Birkeland's original experiments. It's not *MY* solar model. Wake up already.

Then why is the Sun's surface not made of brass as in "Birkeland's original experiments" of 100 years ago?

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM: Tim Thompson is talking about magnetic reconnection and thus any energy release he refers to is "unique" to magnetic reconnection.

At the level of actual *PHYSICS* what is physically unique about this process that is demonstrated to be different from

A) particle collisions, aka "reconnections" in plasma.
B) Circuit reconnect where the circuit energy determines the reconnection rate?
C) plain ol' "induction".

Of course there are other processes occurring in plasmas. I can not see anywhere that Tim Thompson states that only magnetic reconnection releases energy in plasmas. But perhaps you can provide a quote to this effect.

I'm not blaming Tim for claiming that *ONLY* MR can release energy in plasma, I'm blaming him for chosing something that *DOES NOT* occur in nature under natural circumstances when *NATURAL* explanations can and do release these forms of energy in plasma.

What Tim Thompson states is that magnetic reconnection has been shown to release energy in theory and in empirical measurements in controlled experiments in laboratories here on Earth.

I'd like to know how you, they, Tim, or anyone else eliminated the other 3 items on my list when deciding that this experiment released energy in a "unique" physical way. I don't see how you could isolate any of the other three afforementioned items from consideration during such experiments when the very movement of ions is a form of "current flow".

Can you define "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection" for us?

Sure. It's all the *NATURAL* things that happen in an ordinary electrical discharge here on Earth.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then why is the Sun's surface not made of brass as in "Birkeland's original experiments" of 100 years ago?

Because the SERTS data show us lots of photons from many different ions of Nickel and Iron and the coronal loops emit light from heavily ionized iron, not copper and zinc.

 

[Ziggurat]

The other key difference is that in I believe that the solar atmosphere is layered by the element and the photosphere emits white light due to it's elemental composition (neon) not because it is in a unique electrical state from any of the other layers.

Why do you think neon gives off white light? I've asked you about this before, and you avoided the question.

 

[Reality Check]

Because the SERTS data show us lots of photons from many different ions of Nickel and Iron and the coronal loops emit light from heavily ionized iron, not copper and zinc.

What is the % of Nickel and Iron?
What is the % of heavily ionized iron in the coronal loops?
Are these close to 100% and if not why not?

Why do expeiments with brass spheres have anything to do with the Sun if it is not made of brass?

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure. It's all the *NATURAL* things that happen in an ordinary electrical discharge here on Earth.

You've provided one statement covering two terms. Are we then to assume that these two terms are interchangeable? If so, why are you using two terms? If not, what's the difference?

Your "definition" is not really a definition at all. But then, you've had trouble before coming up with a definition for standard physics terms, I guess I shouldn't expect any better when it comes to non-standard terms.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For goodness sake, this is standard solar plasma physics. Strong currents are driven through the coronal loops (magnetic field lines coming out of the Sun,

So they are essentially a "current carrying" thread?

turning over and going into the Sun again),

How do they "go in" exactly, and where do they "go in" again? I only observe them as partial loops just as in Birkeland's experiments. You folks seem to think we can't even see them until they reach the corona.

through the shearing motion of the foot points of these loops.

Where are the "footprints" in your opinion, and how much "shearing" must it take to heat plasma to millions of degrees?

The strong currents HEAT the plasma that is in the loops. There are NO discharges here that heat the plasma.

These two statements are at odds. If the strong currents heat the plasma then there is a discharge process in the plasma.

Naturally, the hot plasma emits radiation, THAT IS WHAT PLASMAS DO!

But the photosphere plasma is only 6 thousand Kelvin. It's not that "hot". Something is causing it to jump several OOMS in temperature. Here on Earth that happens in "discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere.

Unless you want to call the current flowing in the coronal loop a "discharge", which would be rather ridiculous.

Why would it be ridiculous in your opinion to go with the one known force of nature that does this in the Earth's atmosphere?

The fact that the loops emit radiation is NOT an enigma for solar plasma physics, IT IS WHAT HOT PLASMAS DO (not that you would know about that MM).

It's not originally that hot. Something has to heat the plasma, and that something is *ELECTRICITY*. It happens all the time here on Earth in electrical storms. Why would you need to look to any other form of energy if all you need to do is explain high temperature plasma? Electrical discharges and a do cause these sorts of emissions.

Yes, the loops can get very hot and has NOTHING to do with reconnection.

How does it get hot then?

That does not just happen, reconnection in such a loop, there have to be certain conditions fulfilled before a loop can flare.

"Reconnection" as it describe on WIKI requires the loops to actually "cross" in order for MR to occur. The problem for your theory is that the plasma is *ALREADY* over a million degrees in *BOTH LOOPS* even *BEFORE* they cross. How did that happen?

MM you are just obfuscating your lack of knowledge by claiming that others cannot explain things

You haven't personally *EXPLAINED* anything. Start with a single loops and explain how it reaches millions of degrees and sustains those temps.

Science is more than looking at pretty pictures

It's more than looking at pretty math formulas too. Observation and *EXPERIMENTATION* are the cornerstones of science. Math formulas are a dime a dozen. Birkeland's ideas work in a lab. You're idea do not and no terella in a vacuum ever spewed particles from the whole surface due to "magnetic reconnection".

You just try to use the fallacy that "if theory A cannot explain what I think is correct than my theory must be right".

Yet that is exactly the mentality you are applying as it relates to Birkeland's solar theory. Anything you think I can't explain automatically seems to validate a gas model solar theory in your head even though none of you can explain those persistent features, or anything specific about either of those two images. Your theories do not work. They don't explain the observations. They don't explain the heliosiesmology data. They don't explain the RD images. They don't explain continuous solar wind acceleration for a whole sphere. They don't explain any of the key things that Birkeland's model not only "explained' but that he actually "simulated" in a lab with "electricity", something that is "natural" and occurs in nature, here on Earth , and in the solar atmosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You've provided one statement covering two terms. Are we then to assume that these two terms are interchangeable? If so, why are you using two terms? If not, what's the difference?

Your "definition" is not really a definition at all. But then, you've had trouble before coming up with a definition for standard physics terms, I guess I shouldn't expect any better when it comes to non-standard terms.

You're playing "definition games" rather than to deal with the obvious. Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere occur all the time. They are a "natural" event that occurs on other bodies in space too. The only body in space where you seem to reject this process is in the solar atmosphere, an atmosphere that is spewing million mile per hour charged particles from it's entire surface. That is "current flow" you're ignoring and it's staring you in the face. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious solution, in favor of a process that isn't even unique as far as you know and that none of you can actually show to be unique and different from ordinary current sheet transactions.