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

[GeeMack]

Er, then how exactly did you justify this claim again?

The solar atmosphere is a conducting medium. Consequently there are no electrical discharges. That's how. Now whenever you can demonstrate quantitatively and objectively that everything we know about plasma physics is wrong, then you might be onto something. Until then your claim that solar flares and CMEs are, or are caused by electrical discharges is unsupported and all your arguments are a load of manure.

If you don't deny the existence of Bruce's discharge theory, or the legitimacy of Birkeland's cathode sun statements, how do you justify the claim that no discharge processes are involved in solar flares?

The solar atmosphere is a conducting medium. Consequently there are no electrical discharges. That's how. Now whenever you can demonstrate quantitatively and objectively that everything we know about plasma physics is wrong, then you might be onto something. Until then your claim that solar flares and CMEs are, or are caused by electrical discharges is unsupported and all your arguments are a load of manure.

I'm tired of being called a liar [...]

Then stop lying. Duh.

[...] by someone that hasn't even read Alfven's work for themselves. You have no idea what you're talking about and you can't even make up your mind!

I can make up my mind, and I've been very clear about it. Your qualifications to understand solar physics have been challenged, and you have been entirely unable to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. You have made several outrageous claims, many of which are directly contrary to the known laws of physics, and you haven't been able to offer any valid arguments to support any of them.

I'm still waiting for you describe your alleged quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs. Would Birkeland have run away like a coward instead of supporting his claims? Would Alfvén have stuffed his fingers in his ears and pussied out on supporting his claims? Are you going to describe your method, or admit that you don't have one?

 

[GeeMack]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

Virtually nothing you say is true or can be trusted to be entirely accurate and fair. Birkeland even described the voltages related to his cathode sun theories and did lots of maths for you, not that you'll necessarily ever read them.

A solar model is a mathematical description of the Sun which attempts to describe the Sun's thermal characteristics, luminosity, density, material makeup, and physical function. Kristian Birkeland never had a solar model. I'm sure we can agree he dabbled with some looks-like-a-bunny experiments. But your constantly posting links to that article, written by who-the-hell-knows-who, in 1913 for god's sake, does not support your silly claim that he had a solar model.

And if you really don't see how totally unscientific that nonsense is, it leads me to challenge your qualifications to understand science, the process, the methods, the results, the elementary principles and concepts, at any level. So now how about you tell us where you went to grade school. Who were your math and science teachers between fourth and eighth grade? What grades did you get in science and math classes? Can you post copies of your report cards so we can verify that you actually had any science or math education at all before high school?

Then, let's get back to the topic of this thread which you seem intent on derailing. Please describe your supposed quantitative and objective method, the method you claim to have, for "predicting" CMEs. Please describe quantitatively and objectively how dark filament eruptions cause CMEs. Include all relevant math. Thanks.

 

[Reality Check]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

Did either of you two even COMMENT on this paper?

Yes I did.

 

[Reality Check]

That's it? Hello? How exactly did you intend to explain a single coronal loop reaching millions of degrees without a discharge and currents?

That's it! Hello!
I would exactly explain every single coronal loop reaching millions of degrees using valid science, not using physically impossible electrical discharges

 

[Reality Check]

Can MM understand the definition of electrical discharges rules them out in plasmas

GM did NOT claim that he lacked belief that electrical discharge processes occur in flares and CME's. He made a STATEMENT OF FACT about the NONEXISTENCE of discharge processes in flares and CME's.

GM was correct to make a STATEMENT OF FACT about the NONEXISTENCE of discharge processes in flares and CME's.

Michael Mozina
First asked 25 November 2010
Can you understand the definition of electrical discharges rules them out in plasmas?

Here it is: Electrical discharges

A spark is triggered when the electric field strength exceeds approximately 4–30 kV/cm[2] — the dielectric field strength of air. This may cause a very rapid increase in the number of free electrons and ions in the air, temporarily causing the air to abruptly become an electrical conductor in a process called dielectric breakdown.

This is in the context of sparks (electrical discharges) through air. But the requirement is clear:

In order for an electrical discharge to happen, there must be a dielectric medium to break down.
​

Plasmas are highly conducting. They are not dielectric medium. Thus by definition, electrical discharges cannot happen through them.

Of course you can get varying currents (more commonly current sheets) through plasmas. During magnetic reconnection the change in the topology of the magnetic field causes the currents to vary wildly.

There are plenty of authors that have written materials on this topic..

So far your citations to the "plenty of authors" who have written on electrical discharge processes in flares and CME's has been pitiful.

 

[Reality Check]

What pray tell prevents dust from forming above the photosphere and in low temperature sunspots? Do you actually believe that iron is highly ionized and emits lots of light at 94A that SDO might see for instance at 6000K?

The temperature is higher above the photosphere.
The temperature is still high in sunspots (~3100 K) but that does not matter because flares do not just happen in sunspots.
The 94 A passband detects light from Fe XVIII. SDO never detects this as a temperature of 6000K.

What "lights up" a single coronal loop in 94A?

What lights up any coronal loop in 94A is light from the loop!

 

[Reality Check]

Since both of you seem to believe that Alfven's circuit orientation to solar flare events is flawed, please point out a single flaw in any paper on this topic, or anything written on this topic from his book Cosmic Plasma. Ditto on Bruce. Please point out the specific flaw in his work, chapter and verse.

We will not because the flaws have already been addressed in this forum.
If you are too lazy to look for the posts then we are not going to do your work for you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The solar atmosphere is a conducting medium.

Which part of the atmosphere are you referring to? Do you think they all conduct equally including the the umbra, the penumbra, the chrosmosphere and every part of the corona? Keep in mind that your mythical transition region in the sky concept was blown away by the 1700A and 1600A SDO images.

Maybe you should reconsider what Alfven (that Nobel Prize winning physicist you keep ignoring) wrote about this topic specifically?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963IAUS...16...35

More specifically did you notice *WHY* the filaments formed and his use of the term 'circuits'? What does he mean by a "circuit" in that paper?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

FYI, I'm still waiting for some intelligent commentary on this paper. So far the two of you have completely avoided this paper in terms of it's actual scientific content.

In fact neither of you has bothered to point out a *SINGLE* flaw in *ANY* of Alfven's papers or his book on this topic. Why not? If you claim that math is king, and Alfven's theories are wrong, where is his mathematical error? Please be specific (paper, chapter, verse(s)).

 

[GeeMack]

Which part of the atmosphere are you referring to? Do you think they all conduct equally including the the umbra, the penumbra, the chrosmosphere and every part of the corona? Keep in mind that your mythical transition region in the sky concept was blown away by the 1700A and 1600A SDO images.

Maybe you should reconsider what Alfven (that Nobel Prize winning physicist you keep ignoring) wrote about this topic specifically?

I don't keep ignoring Alfvén, so your comment is another lie. Would Birkeland have lied when asked to support his claims? Would Alfvén have lied instead of supporting his claims?

 

[GeeMack]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

FYI, I'm still waiting for some intelligent commentary on this paper. So far the two of you have completely avoided this paper in terms of it's actual scientific content.

In fact neither of you has bothered to point out a *SINGLE* flaw in *ANY* of Alfven's papers or his book on this topic. Why not? If you claim that math is king, and Alfven's theories are wrong, where is his mathematical error? Please be specific (paper, chapter, verse(s)).

You've made an outrageous claim, and you're trying to pass the responsibility for supporting your ridiculous claim onto other people. So again...

And if you really don't see how totally unscientific that nonsense is, it leads me to challenge your qualifications to understand science, the process, the methods, the results, the elementary principles and concepts, at any level. So now how about you tell us where you went to grade school. Who were your math and science teachers between fourth and eighth grade? What grades did you get in science and math classes? Can you post copies of your report cards so we can verify that you actually had any science or math education at all before high school?​

We need to start by verifying your scientific qualifications.

 

[Reality Check]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

FYI, I'm still waiting for some intelligent commentary on this paper. So far the two of you have completely avoided this paper in terms of it's actual scientific content.

The list of my intelligent commentary on all of your citations did not get moved here. So here it is again:

• A 1946 paper by C.E.R. Bruce.
  And links to his other work on the same invalid model.
  His invalid model has been discussed a few times in the forum. He had a physically impossible solar model of dust particles causing "lightning strikes" that are solar prominences
  • There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun.
  • There is no dielectric medium to breakdown.
  • Electrical discharges emit narrow band X-rays that have never been observed from the Sun.
• Current Limitation and Solar Flares by Carlqvist, P.
  currents - not electrical discharges
• Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation by Carlqvist, P.
  currents - not electrical discharges
• Polarization in Gamma-Ray Bursts Produced by Pinch Discharge by Wu, Mei; Chen, Li; Li, Ti-Pei
  This paper is about gamma ray bursts not solar activity.
• The reason for magnetospheric substorms and solar flares (1983).
  currents - not electrical discharges
• The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism (1958).
  Al last you demonstrate that you can read an old outdated paper!
  A pity that you cannot understand that it is outdated and not supported by modern evidence.
• Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena (1974)
  No mention of electrical discharges.
  Just plasma discharges and the discharge currents used to create the plasma.
• On the Filamentary Structure of the Solar Corona (1963) by Alfvén, Hannes
  He never states that there are electrical discharges on the Sun. All he mentions is plasma currents.
• Double layers and circuits in astrophysics (1986) by Alfvén, Hannes. currents & circuits - no electrical discharges mentioned in the abstract.

So you lied - see the bit in red.

In fact neither of you has bothered to point out a *SINGLE* flaw in *ANY* of Alfven's papers or his book on this topic. Why not? If you claim that math is king, and Alfven's theories are wrong, where is his mathematical error? Please be specific (paper, chapter, verse(s)).

You seem to be mistaken (to state it politely) about Alfven's papers and books.

• He never published any work on an electric sun idea.
  Otherwise you would have cited them.
• He never published any work on electrical discharges on the Sun. Otherwise you would have cited them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't keep ignoring Alfvén, so your comment is another lie. Would Birkeland have lied when asked to support his claims? Would Alfvén have lied instead of supporting his claims?

You completely dodged every single relevant question from every single relevant paper. Neither you nor RC can find a single flaw in any relevant paper or book by Alfven on this topic. Neither of you wants to acknowledge or deal with a circuit orientation to solar flares.

You know, *ANY DECENT SKEPTIC* would begin by acknowledging the paper or work (Bruce and Alfven), and point out whatever relevant flaw(s) might apply. You don't do that. You simply *IGNORE* the material entirely, set yourself up as "judge and jury", without even so much as citing a single flaw in the relevant papers on this topic. Alfven attributed solar flares to "circuit disruptions" and exploding double layers. When one of you can cite some flaw in Alfven material, let me know. Until you do, I can can only assume you are both arguing from ignorance at this point and have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't read the relevant material, nor cited any flaw in any of the materials presented to date.

 

[Michael Mozina]

On second thought....

 

[Michael Mozina]

Forget my last comment. I guess I don't care.

 

[Reality Check]

Ummmm.......

Since the whole concept here comes back to a "current carrying" plasma, vs. a "neutral" plasma, there's no way to completely avoid all mention of Alfven and/or Birkeland and/.or Bruce as it relates to solar flares They all discussed them in papers and books. I fail to see the point of splitting the thread arbitrarily since there's no way to completely avoid all concepts related to solar theory in flare theory.

Ummmm.......No.
There is not such thing as a "current carrying" plasma, vs. a "neutral" plasma (with your quotes).

All plasmas carry currents - they are conductive!
All plasmas are quasi-neutral.

Alfven had valid contributions to solar theory.


Birkeland and Bruce had invalid contributions to solar theory.

• Birkeland: The Sun is not a brass ball (containig a magnet) in a glass chamber filled with a thin gas and a big electric field applied.
  There is no plasma in his experiments, just the electrical discharges that we expect from the breakdown of a dielectric medium (the gas).
• Bruce: see above.

The thread was split not because of any concepts related to solar theory in flare theory.
It was split because you mentioned the physically impossible concept of electrical discharges on the Sun contained in the Electric Sun theory. That belongs in a ... Electric Sun theory thread!

Forget this post. MM had second thoughts

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ummmm.......No.
There is not such thing as a "current carrying" plasma, vs. a "neutral" plasma (with your quotes).

Ya RC, ultimately that is the WHOLE debate. There is no such thing as a "neutral" plasma that's moving a million miles an hour! It's a form of "current flow" to any stationary object like the Earth.

All plasmas carry currents - they are conductive!

Ok.

All plasmas are quasi-neutral.

That's like saying that a lightening discharge is "quasi-neutral". I guarantee you it will fry you if you get in it's way.

Alfven had valid contributions to solar theory.

You'll never adequately acknowledge them! Neither of you (nor the mainstream) talks about "circuits" but that is virtually all Alfven ever talked about in space related plasmas!

Birkeland and Bruce had invalid contributions to solar theory.

Boloney. Your strawmen are irrelevant. Thanks to SDO we now know that your magic transition region in the sky doesn't exist and Alfven treated the coronal filaments differently than the interfilamentary regions. In no way can you rule out Bruce's work. In fact you refuse to even acknowledge it. You and GM set yourselves up as judge and juror, and neither one of you has *EVER* pointed out a flaw in any relevant paper or book by Alfven on this topic. Never!

 

[Reality Check]

Ya RC, ultimately that is the WHOLE debate. There is no such thing as a "neutral" plasma that's moving a million miles an hour! It's a form of "current flow" to any stationary object like the Earth.

Ya MM, ultimately that is the WHOLE result of your ignorance of physics. There is such thing as a neutral plasma that's moving a million miles an hour! It is called the solar wind. It is a form of mass flow to any stationary object like the Earth.

That's like saying that a lightening discharge is "quasi-neutral". I guarantee you it will fry you if you get in it's way.

More ignorance: lightning is not plasma. Lightning is an electrical discharge. I guarantee you it will fry you if you get in it's way.

Plasma is quasi-neutral. On scales above the Debye length the chargrges in it are screened.

You'll never adequately acknowledge them! Neither of you (nor the mainstream) talks about "circuits" but that is virtually all Alfven ever talked about in space related plasmas!

That is stupid - I adequately acknowledge them!
The mainstream talks about circuits in solar physics quite often. This has been pointed out to you before but you seem unable to remember anything other than your fantasies about what the mainstream publishes.

Your ignorance about what circuits are has lead to your delusion that Alfven was talking about the pseudo-science that is the electric sun theory.

Boloney. Your strawmen are irrelevant

Boloney. The facts are relevant:

• Birkeland: The Sun is not a brass ball (containig a magnet) in a glass chamber filled with a thin gas and a big electric field applied.
  There is no plasma in his experiments, just the electrical discharges that we expect from the breakdown of a dielectric medium (the gas).
• Bruce: see above and below.

Thanks to SDO we now know that your magic transition region in the sky doesn't exist

That is your unsupported assertion.

• I do not have any "magic transition region in the sky".
• There is a transition region in the solar atmosphere.
• You have presented no scientific evidence from SDO or any other source that the transition region does not exist.

It has just clicked what you mean by "Thanks to SDO": It is your fantasy about the SDO publicity image and the green line processing artifact.
Question 53 in Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked is

Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
​

In no way can you rule out Bruce's work. In fact you refuse to even acknowledge it.

That is stupid, MM: I acknowledge it. It exists! It is trivially wrong! It is ruled out!

• There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun. FYI, MM this is ~5700K.
  Even sunspots have a temperature of ~3100K.
• There is no dielectric medium to breakdown and allow electrical discharges.
• Electrical discharges emit narrow band X-rays that have never been observed from the Sun.
• Also: 50 years of observing the Sun has never detected the dust.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Another good paper on this topic

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n4mhn3uu5647r536/fulltext.pdf

Not that some folks will actually read it or respond to it.

 

[Reality Check]

Do you understand the term "denial", yes or no? Go ahead and handwave away at Bruce's discharge theories all you like, but whatever minuscule amount of credibility you have left is only going to take another hit.

No one is handwaving.
I suspect that GeeMack can read and see the flaws that invalidate Bruce's theory:

• There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun. FYI, MM this is ~5700K.
  Even sunspots have a temperature of ~3100K.
• There is no dielectric medium to breakdown and allow electrical discharges.
• Electrical discharges emit narrow band X-rays that have never been observed from the Sun.
• Also: 50 years of observing the Sun has never detected the dust.