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

[Reality Check]

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

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

Wrong yet again, Michael Mozina !

Nice paper on the production of high velocity particles using the possible mechanism of double layers.
Did you read or understand it?
It is obvious that you did not read because you would have noted the absence of electrical discharges.

 

[Reality Check]

I have shown you Bruce's work, which you simply handwaved at.

He does not have to look at Bruce's work. It is invalid so he does not need to bother as anyone who knows anything about the Sun can see:

• 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.

I have shown you other papers that show the similarities between laboratory discharges and solar flare events.

You are lying: There is only one paper in the list of papers that you cannot understand which is about "similarities between laboratory plasma discharges and solar flare events":

Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena (1974)
No mention of electrical discharges.
Just plasma discharges and the discharge currents used to create the plasma.
​

 

[Michael Mozina]

He does not have to look at Bruce's work.

Except it directly refutes *HIS* claim! I guess denial is real big with both of you. When you don't want to address any materials presented, you just handwave at them a bit and pretend they don't exist.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6594859&postcount=30

Neither one of you has answered any relevant questions on this topic.

It is invalid so he does not need to bother as anyone who knows anything about the Sun can see:

Translation: I'm the only authority figure that matters, so as anyone who knows anything about how much of an authority figure *I* am can see.....

What makes you the only human being capable of properly 'interpreting' the data?

There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun.

That's a false statement. How ionized is neon at 5700K?

FYI, MM this is ~5700K.

And? Are you claiming that *NO* gases, liquids or solids are present?

Even sunspots have a temperature of ~3100K.

Carbon can be a *SOLID* at 3100K RC, not to mention a liquid or a gas.

There is no dielectric medium to breakdown and allow electrical discharges.

Ions can become more ionized. Notice how we observe almost *NO* neon at at a +1 ionization state, but we see a TON of emissions from neon at higher ionization states? Why?

Electrical discharges emit narrow band X-rays that have never been observed from the Sun.

The sun's x-rays have been observed for something like 40 years. Gamma rays have been detected from discharges here in the Earth's atmosphere and in the solar atmosphere as well. I've provided you with relevant materials that I'm sure you never read.

Also: 50 years of observing the Sun has never detected the dust.

Except those dark filaments?

I have a ton of work to do between now and Christmas, and frankly the two of you just are not worth my time. We already know GM hasn't read Alfven's book, or even any of his materials. We know he's arguing from ignorance and can't find a single flaw in Alfven's work. How about you? Have you ever bothered to read Cosmic Plasma, and/or found any flaws in his work, or are you two just the worlds *WORST SKEPTICS*, completely incapable of pointing out a single flaw in Alfven's work?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The temperature is higher above the photosphere.

You've never demonstrated that claim. In fact it's based on ASSUMPTIONS galore. Coronal loops are hotter than the photosphere and Thompson scattering happens. That's all you "know". Of course Alfven talks about the fact that the filamentary part is likely to be at a completely different temperature than the non filamentary part, but you simply ignored him and Bruce.

The temperature is still high in sunspots (~3100 K) but that does not matter because flares do not just happen in sunspots.

They happen a lot near sunspots, and oh ya, they are cooler (and hotter) than the rest of the photosphere.

The 94 A passband detects light from Fe XVIII. SDO never detects this as a temperature of 6000K.

Of course the easiest way to create these types of ions is with "discharges" and "z-pinches" in current carrying plasma.

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

That's a non answer. Something *HEATS* the single loop to many millions of degrees. That's clearly addressed by Alfven who treats them as independent, current carrying "Bennett Pinch" currents in plasma. The individual filaments are "hot" due to the pinch, the current and the resistive aspects of even the least resistive plasma.

Your whole show is based on bogus (pseudoscientific) concepts that Alfven himself rejected for his entire physics career. Instead he promoted a *CIRCUIT* orientation to MHD theory in light atmospheric, and space plasma. What you won't do is recognize the legitimacy of that approach in spite of the fact that you folks handed the guy a Nobel Prize on MHD theory! Why would he know anything about how it's *SUPPOSED* to work?

 

[tusenfem]

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

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

Oh I have read it, and I can comment that real strong double layers have a short life time, as I have shown in this paper in ApJ. The strong beam exiting the DL will heat the surrounding plasma and the Bohm criterion will be violated and the DL will be destroyed.

 

[Reality Check]

You've never demonstrated that claim.

You are lying. I have pointed out the science used to measure the sun's tempertaure quite often.

In fact it's based on ASSUMPTIONS galore.

No it is not - it is based on one ASSUMPTION - bodies that act like black bodies are ... black bodies!

Coronal loops are hotter than the photosphere and Thompson scattering happens.

Yes, I know.
What delusion makes you think that this has something to so with the temperature of the photosphere?

That's all you "know". Of course Alfven talks about the fact that the filamentary part is likely to be at a completely different temperature than the non filamentary part, but you simply ignored him and Bruce.

You are lying again.
I have never ignored either Alfven or Bruce. Read this thread.

They happen a lot near sunspots, and oh ya, they are cooler (and hotter) than the rest of the photosphere.
...snipped usual Alfven rant...

So what?

 

[Reality Check]

Neither one of you has answered any relevant questions on this topic.

You are lying. I have answered the relevant questions on Bruces's work: It is invalid because

• 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

Translation: I'm the only authority figure that matters, so as anyone who knows anything about how much of an authority figure *I* am can see.....

What makes you the only human being capable of properly 'interpreting' the data?

Translation: total ignorance of solar physics.
I have never interpreted the data. I am not an astronomer. I do understand the physics and can interpret that.

That's a false statement. How ionized is neon at 5700K?

That's a ignorant statement. Neon is not dust.

And? Are you claiming that *NO* gases, liquids or solids are present?

Yes. The Sun is a ball of plasma. By defintion there is NO gases, liquids or solids there.

Carbon can be a *SOLID* at 3100K RC, not to mention a liquid or a gas.

Cite the observation of solid carbon on the Sun.

Ions can become more ionized. Notice how we observe almost *NO* neon at at a +1 ionization state, but we see a TON of emissions from neon at higher ionization states? Why?

It is obvious that ions can becone more ionized, if you supply more energy!
Citations for "almost *NO* neon at at a +1 ionization state"?

The sun's x-rays have been observed for something like 40 years. Gamma rays have been detected from discharges here in the Earth's atmosphere and in the solar atmosphere as well. I've provided you with relevant materials that I'm sure you never read.

You are lying - I have read your references.
Here is the list of the obvious flaws in Bruce's theory again with the appropriate emphasis

• 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

Except those dark filaments?

Oh please tell me that you are not so ignorant that you think the filments can be dark because thay have dust in them!

Have you ever bothered to read Cosmic Plasma, and/or found any flaws in his work, or are you two just the worlds *WORST SKEPTICS*, completely incapable of pointing out a single flaw in Alfven's work?

I have not read Cosmic Plasma. Why should I read a 30 year old textbook when there are modern textbooks that include 30 years more progress in science?


The only "flaw in Alfven's work" is you and your inability to understand what you read such as:

• 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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are lying. I have pointed out the science used to measure the sun's tempertaure quite often.

The sun isn't *ONE* temperature!

No it is not - it is based on one ASSUMPTION - bodies that act like black bodies are ... black bodies!

But the sun *ISN'T* a "black body", and those MILLION DEGREE LOOPS act *NOTHING* like a 'black body' from a 5700K surface.

Before we go on step further, at what temperatures do carbon and neon become a "plasma" in the absence of electrical current?

Neither one of you have dealt openly and honestly with Bruce's work. You keep handwaving at it with "5700K black body" baloney that clearly doesn't apply!

Alfven noted that the plasma above the photosphere was likely to be MIXED TEMPERATURES, with filamentary regions being a different (higher) temperature than the non filamentary regions. You've oversimplified the whole process in an attempt to "dumb it down" to the point of absurdity.

Carbon can became a *SOLID* at sunspot temperatures RC, not to mention a liquid or a gas. Please tell me when Carbon and Neon form "plasmas" rather than just "dusty gases".

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's a ignorant statement. Neon is not dust.

What constitutes a "dust" or a 'non ionized' state?

Yes. The Sun is a ball of plasma. By defintion there is NO gases, liquids or solids there.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SoPh....7...17P

Sorry to break it to you but there is at least a 40 year history of studying various molecules (dust) in the solar photosphere.

 

[Tubbythin]

What constitutes a "dust" or a 'non ionized' state?

Dust is solid particulates. Typical size ~micrometres.

Sorry to break it to you but there is at least a 40 year history of studying various molecules (dust) in the solar photosphere.

Are you suggesting dust and molecules are synonyms? IF you are you are very wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

The sun isn't *ONE* temperature!

Indeed: it gets hotter the deeper you go into the photosphere. Which is a problem for your model.

But the sun *ISN'T* a "black body"

It radiates close enough to a black body that we know it must absorb close to a black body as well. The observed deviation from absolute blackbody emission aren't enough to rescue your theories.

and those MILLION DEGREE LOOPS act *NOTHING* like a 'black body' from a 5700K surface.

Nobody claimed they did. In fact, the very un-blackbody characteristics of the corona are precisely why the corona can be hotter than the photosphere without violating thermodynamics. But since the photosphere is close to a blackbody, whatever is under it must be hotter, or thermydnamics would be violated.

Before we go on step further, at what temperatures do carbon and neon become a "plasma" in the absence of electrical current?

And here I thought you knew something about plasmas.

The answer depends not only on pressure but also on density. If you don't specify the density, then nobody can give you an answer for the temperature.

Neither one of you have dealt openly and honestly with Bruce's work. You keep handwaving at it with "5700K black body" baloney that clearly doesn't apply!

It doesn't apply to the extent that 5700K is really a minimum temperature. But since dust isn't going to form at higher temperatures either, well...

Carbon can became a *SOLID* at sunspot temperatures RC, not to mention a liquid or a gas. Please tell me when Carbon and Neon form "plasmas" rather than just "dusty gases".

And water freezes at 0 C. Yet somehow, it can still vaporize at even lower temperatures. Do you know why, Michael?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh I have read it, and I can comment that real strong double layers have a short life time,...

All of them?
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/30/21/71/PDF/npg-10-45-2003.pdf

 

[kmortis]

Ok, bickering snipped. Any more and yellow cards will be visited upon this thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Reality Check]

The sun isn't *ONE* temperature!

Yes: The sun isn't *ONE* temperature!
I "NEVER* claimed that it is! The ~ part of ~5700K means approximate. In this case it is an characteristic temperature derived from the roughly black body spectrum of the Sun. Any body that has a roughly black body spectrum is (roughly) at a temperature that emits that spectrum.

But the sun *ISN'T* a "black body", and those MILLION DEGREE LOOPS act *NOTHING* like a 'black body' from a 5700K surface.

BUt the Sun *HAS* a spectrum that is roughly a a "black body". That means that it has a characteristic temperture of ~5700K.

Those MILLION DEGREE LOOPS act *NOTHING* like a 'black body' from a 5700K surface because they are NOT A BLACK BODY! They do *NOT* have the spectra of BLACK BODIES "as far as I know".

Before we go on step further, at what temperatures do carbon and neon become a "plasma" in the absence of electrical current?

I do not know. Why dont you tell me..

Neither one of you have dealt openly and honestly with Bruce's work. You keep handwaving at it with "5700K black body" baloney that clearly doesn't apply!

As I openly and honestly stated, Bruce's theory is obviously flawed:

• 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. IN fact no solids at all have ever been observed on the Sun.

The observed temperture of the Sun does matter because it rules out Bruce's theory. It is even worse - solar flares and prominences happen above the photosphere where the temperature is higher.
ETA
Just to emphasis this: His theory is that solar prominences are essentially lightning caused by charges building up in dust in the solar atmosphere. Prominences are not restricted to sunspots. They happen all over the solar surface. So the temperature of the entire solar surface is a factor. That temperature is ~5700K which rules out dust.
But the real killer for his theory is the point that you have not addressed Michael Mozina:

There is no dielectric medium to breakdown and allow electrical discharges. That is a basic requirement for an electrical discharge or lightning.
​

And I will add another flaw:

• Let us say that there is dust within the plasma of the Sun's atmosphere.
  What happens to any charge that this hypothetical dust acquires when it rubs together in a conducting plasma?
  The answer is that the charge goes away! The mobile electrons and ions in the plasma neutralize it.

So Bruce's theory requires that the Sun have no plasma !

Alfven noted that the plasma above the photosphere was likely to be MIXED TEMPERATURES, with filamentary regions being a different (higher) temperature than the non filamentary regions. You've oversimplified the whole process in an attempt to "dumb it down" to the point of absurdity.

No - I have simplified to process to cater for your level of knowledge of physics. I know that the Sun has various temperatures, the ~13 million K in the core, the ~5700K average of the photosphere, the ~3100K of sunspots, millions of K in the corona, etc.

Why cite Alfven? It is almost as if you have never read any modern textbook on solar physics !
The plasma above the photosphere is measured to have MIXED TEMPERATURES. And as you stated - *HIGHER* in filaments.

Carbon can became a *SOLID* at sunspot temperatures RC, not to mention a liquid or a gas. Please tell me when Carbon and Neon form "plasmas" rather than just "dusty gases".

That is correct: At ~3100K, carbon can became a *SOLID* . So what?
Flares (Bruce's lightning and your electricsl discharges) are not exclusive to sunspots.

Carbon and Neon form plasmas when their degree of ionization is significant (~1% or better).

 

[GeeMack]

Yes: The sun isn't *ONE* temperature!
I "NEVER* claimed that it is! The ~ part of ~5700K means approximate. In this case it is an characteristic temperature derived from the roughly black body spectrum of the Sun. Any body that has a roughly black body spectrum is (roughly) at a temperature that emits that spectrum.


BUt the Sun *HAS* a spectrum that is roughly a a "black body". That means that it has a characteristic temperture of ~5700K.

Those MILLION DEGREE LOOPS act *NOTHING* like a 'black body' from a 5700K surface because they are NOT A BLACK BODY! They do *NOT* have the spectra of BLACK BODIES "as far as I know".


I do not know. Why dont you tell me..



As I openly and honestly stated, Bruce's theory is obviously flawed:

• 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. IN fact no solids at all have ever been observed on the Sun.

The observed temperture of the Sun does matter because it rules out Bruce's theory. It is even worse - solar flares and prominences happen above the photosphere where the temperature is higher.
ETA
Just to emphasis this: His theory is that solar prominences are essentially lightning caused by charges building up in dust in the solar atmosphere. Prominences are not restricted to sunspots. They happen all over the solar surface. So the temperature of the entire solar surface is a factor. That temperature is ~5700K which rules out dust.
But the real killer for his theory is the point that you have not addressed Michael Mozina:

There is no dielectric medium to breakdown and allow electrical discharges. That is a basic requirement for an electrical discharge or lightning.
​

And I will add another flaw:

• Let us say that there is dust within the plasma of the Sun's atmosphere.
  What happens to any charge that this hypothetical dust acquires when it rubs together in a conducting plasma?
  The answer is that the charge goes away! The mobile electrons and ions in the plasma neutralize it.

So Bruce's theory requires that the Sun have no plasma !


No - I have simplified to process to cater for your level of knowledge of physics. I know that the Sun has various temperatures, the ~13 million K in the core, the ~5700K average of the photosphere, the ~3100K of sunspots, millions of K in the corona, etc.

Why cite Alfven? It is almost as if you have never read any modern textbook on solar physics !
The plasma above the photosphere is measured to have MIXED TEMPERATURES. And as you stated - *HIGHER* in filaments.


That is correct: At ~3100K, carbon can became a *SOLID* . So what?
Flares (Bruce's lightning and your electricsl discharges) are not exclusive to sunspots.

Carbon and Neon form plasmas when their degree of ionization is significant (~1% or better).

So as I said in my first posting in this thread, plasma is a conductor, and since a discharge requires an insulator and subsequent breakdown, there is no electrical discharge happening in the plasma of the solar atmosphere. To support a claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs would require an entire re-write of the physics of plasma and/or electricity. It would need to be thoroughly described quantitatively and objectively, pretty much from scratch. No such explanation has ever been offered in the world of science, not reasonably, scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively. Certainly no such explanation has been provided in this thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So as I said in my first posting in this thread, plasma is a conductor,

That really does not matter. Flowing electrons will still follow the path of least resistance, they "create" filamentary shapes and channels in the plasma, and they form "double layers' within the plasma. Alfven and other authors refer to these filaments as "circuits" of energy. The electrical currents form filaments that evacuate the areas directly around the filament creating low density "insulators" within the dusty plasma, and yes, virtually *ALL* (including the photosphere) plasmas are "dusty" to some extent.

and since a discharge requires an insulator and subsequent breakdown,

The insulator is the evacuated area around the filament, and the subsequent "breakdown" (and circuit topology change) takes place inside the 'explosive double layer" that forms between the filaments/circuits.

there is no electrical discharge happening in the plasma of the solar atmosphere.

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

We have already discussed the pathological nature of your denial process. It's based upon NOT reading the papers I've provided and NOT commenting on them at all.

To support a claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs would require an entire re-write of the physics of plasma and/or electricity.

No, it just requires that you do a little reading from Alfven about "circuits" that form in 'current carrying plasmas". Since you refuse to read his material and/or cite any flaw in his papers or books, we're going around in circles (of pure denial).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Alfven:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents. A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research. As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes'. This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1). This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

The Bennett Pinch *IS* a "discharge" process related to the flow of "current" through the plasma. The filament itself is directly related to that "current flow", and it is formed by that "current flow". The areas directly around the filament are evacuated of all matter and act to insulate the "current carrying rope/filament" from the rest of the plasma. It's just like the process that happens inside of an ordinary plasma ball. The fact that *SOME* of the plasma "lights up" due to the current flow through the plasma does not mean that *ALL* of the plasma inside the plasma ball operate at the same temperatures.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Notice too that comment about the accumulation of matter inside the filament GM? That directly relates back to the dark filament eruption discussion. Of course your statement was "Mass flow? What mass flow"?

Edited by kmortis: 

Address the issue, not the poster.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is correct: At ~3100K, carbon can became a *SOLID* . So what?

So all photosphere plasmas are 'dusty' (they contain non ionized elements and molecules).

Flares (Bruce's lightning and your electricsl discharges) are not exclusive to sunspots.

They don't have to be. In *REALITY* the non filamentary parts of the atmosphere above the photosphere don't have to radiate at millions of degrees just because some filaments do. That seems to be the basic nature of *YOUR* error.

 

[Ziggurat]

So all photosphere plasmas are 'dusty' (they contain non ionized elements and molecules).

You have a very peculiar definition of "dust". Apparently, almost our entire atmosphere is made of dust.