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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
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 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.
Click to expand...


The solar atmosphere is plasma. Plasma is a conductor. A discharge cannot occur within a conductor. For a discharge to occur there must be a dielectric medium, an insulator, whose insulating properties break down to the extent that it becomes a conducting path. As Reality Check accurately explained, because of the thermal conditions there is no dust in the plasma of the solar atmosphere that could create such an insulating medium, certainly not on the scale necessary to cause electrical discharges claimed to be, or to be the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

The insulator is the evacuated area around the filament, [...]
Click to expand...


This is an unevidenced, unsupported assertion for which there has been no quantitative objective support provided.

[...] and the subsequent "breakdown" (and circuit topology change) takes place inside the 'explosive double layer" that forms between the filaments/circuits.
Click to expand...


Reference to terminology which is apparently exclusive Hannes Alfvén and has become buzzwords for EU cranks and crackpots does not support the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

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


This material is almost 40 years old. Apparently contemporary solar scientists do not find it compelling enough to accept the premise for inclusion in current solar physics research.

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.
Click to expand...


Physics didn't stop moving forward in 1917 when Kristian Birkeland died. It didn't stop progressing in 1979 when Charles Bruce died. It didn't cease in 1995 when Hannes Alfvén died. Much more contemporary reference material exists, but none has been provided to support the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

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).
Click to expand...


The suggestion that I refuse to read Alfvén's material is a lie.

Apparently there is some disagreement on the interpretation and/or the relevance of Alfvén's research. Interestingly the groups that disagree are, on one side, a tiny handful of EU/PC cranks and crackpots who seem to believe Alfvén's PC ideas are worthy of inclusion in contemporary solar science, and on the other, tens of thousands of professional physicists, educators, graduate students, and interested amateur scientists who have studied Alfvén's ideas and thirty years worth of more current research and who don't find Alfvén's crackpot PC ideas worthy of serious consideration.

It could be that the EU/PC crackpots are simply unable to present their position in a quantitative, objective way that makes it understandable to contemporary legitimate scientists. Or it could be something in that thirty years worth of more contemporary research has shown Alfvén's PC notions to be obsolete.
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, as the plasma is magnetized, the electrons cannot follow the path of least resistance, because they are stuck to the magnetic field, and thus must follow the magnetic field, they have no choice.

Alfvén and others do not refer to them as "circuits of energy" (and now quotes are needed as this whole expression makes no sense) but what they do is that they model the plasma with a circuit representation, which means that they take the long wavelength approximation of the MDH equations. I have explained this to you lots of times, but I think you don't really want to hear it, nor want to really understand what Alfvén means with his circuit representations of plasma physical phenomena.

What exactly does "dusty" (between quotes) mean? What is your definition of dusty?
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

So the Bennett Pinch is a "discharge" which means it is not a discharge in the regular sense. And indeed it is not, because a discharge is a sudden equilibration of stored charge after the breakdown electric field has been exceeded and in the dielectric medium a conducting path is created.

Now if we have a current along a magnetic field and the current exceeds a limit, then the attractive force between the currents can overcome the plasma pressure and a pinch is created, i.e. the current path is squeezed together and gets narrow, thus increasing the current density in that region (at constant total current). Thus the only thing that a Bennett Pinch has in common with a discharge is that there is an increase in current density, in one case dramatcally from zero to maximum in very little time (discharge) and in the other case a gradual increase from a certain existing current density to an increased current density (pinch).

Ah well, gotta watch my #9 Blu Ray now.
 
Michael Mozina said:
So all photosphere plasmas are 'dusty' (they contain non ionized elements and molecules).
Click to expand...
No. There is no evidence that any photosphere plasma is a dusty plasma.
The fact that

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
The basic nature of *YOUR* error is that you cannot understand that I know that filaments have various temperatures!
You really cannot understand:
  • Prominences as per Bruce's lightning have to be in regions where dust could exist.
  • Sunspots are the only place where there is the possibility of dust existing due to their temperature of ~3100K.
  • Thus Bruce's theory products that prominences will only happen over sunspots.
  • They do not so Bruce's theory is wrong.
But that is only one of the problems with Bruces's theory:
  1. There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun. FYI, MM this is ~5700K.
    Even sunspots have a temperature of ~3100K.
  2. There is no dielectric medium to breakdown and allow electrical discharges.
  3. Electrical discharges emit narrow band X-rays that have never been observed from the Sun.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
 
tusenfem said:
Oh please, Micheal, think before you post something, I am talking about STRONG double layers, not those whimpy things that Bob is discussing in that paper (no matter how interesting they are). The kind of STRONG double layers that have kiloVolt or more voltage drops, that you find in solar magnetic loops.
Click to expand...

Alright, I was just trying to clarify and understand what you meant. Wouldn't their longevity be related to the source and stability of the current flow to some degree?
 
tusenfem said:
No, as the plasma is magnetized, the electrons cannot follow the path of least resistance, because they are stuck to the magnetic field, and thus must follow the magnetic field, they have no choice.
Click to expand...

Um, essentially what you're saying is that the path of least resistance is to "go with the flow" (of the filament).

Alfvén and others do not refer to them as "circuits of energy" (and now quotes are needed as this whole expression makes no sense) but what they do is that they model the plasma with a circuit representation, which means that they take the long wavelength approximation of the MDH equations. I have explained this to you lots of times, but I think you don't really want to hear it, nor want to really understand what Alfvén means with his circuit representations of plasma physical phenomena.
Click to expand...

Ok, but when Alfven discusses and quantifies the energy transfer process he discusses and includes the energy of the whole circuit(s).

What exactly does "dusty" (between quotes) mean? What is your definition of dusty?
Click to expand...

Not every element or molecule is ionized in the solar atmosphere. That's all I meant. Then again that filament is "dark" for a reason. :)
 
Um, T, you seem to be suggesting that something *OTHER THAN* current flow creates filaments and double layers in plasma. What?
 
GeeMack said:
The solar atmosphere is plasma. Plasma is a conductor.
Click to expand...

I have already explained to you why that doesn't make a darn bit of difference.

A discharge cannot occur within a conductor.
Click to expand...

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

The first creation of a z-pinch in the laboratory may have occurred in 1790 in Holland when Martinus van Marum created an explosion by discharging 100 Leyden jars into a wire.[26]
Click to expand...

Actually "current flow" z-pinches "solid conductors" too.

The phenomenon was not understood until 1905, when Pollock and Barraclough[10] investigated a compressed and distorted length of copper tube from a lightning rod after it had been struck by lightning. Their analysis showed that the forces due to the interaction of the large current flow with its own magnetic field could have caused the compression and distortion.[27] A similar, and apparently independent, theoretical analysis of the pinch effect in liquid metals was published by Northrupp in 1907.[28].
Click to expand...

128px-Crushed_rod_pollock_barraclough.jpg


For a discharge to occur there must be a dielectric medium, an insulator,
Click to expand...

Been there and done that too. The filament is the discharge channel and the current "pinches" the plasma. The pinch effect evacuates the plasma around the filament created a low pressure "insulator" between the filament and the rest of the plasma.

whose insulating properties break down to the extent that it becomes a conducting path.
Click to expand...

And as two filaments come into contact the conductive path becomes the double layer that forms between the two filaments. Wabam, the double layer 'explodes' and the circuits reorient themselves accordingly.

As long as you never study the circuit approach to MHD theory, you will keep misrepresenting it.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Not every element or molecule is ionized in the solar atmosphere. That's all I meant. Then again that filament is "dark" for a reason. :)
Click to expand...
That is not right. The fact is that not every atom on any plasma is ionized. The majority of atoms in a plasma are not ionized.

A dusty plasma though is a plasma that contains dust. Dust is not an atom or even a molecule. It is a set of clumps of billions of atoms or molecules.
A dusty plasma is a plasma containing nanometer or micrometer-sized particles suspended in it. Dust particles may be charged and the plasma and particles behave as a plasma,[1][2] following electromagnetic laws for particles up to about 10 nm (or 100 nm if large charges are present). Dust particles may form larger particles resulting in "grain plasmas".
Click to expand...

And you still do not understand why dark filaments are dark: They are dark because they are imaged against a brighter background.
It is quite ignorant to think that they are dark because they contain dust for the simple reason that filaments are at temperatures where dust cannot exist. They have a similar composition to the chromosphere with temperatures of about 4500 K to as high as 20,000 K.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have already explained to you why that doesn't make a darn bit of difference.
Click to expand...


Since a discharge can not occur in a conductor, and since plasma is a conductor, it certainly does make a difference, the protestations of the PC/EU cranks notwithstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_pinch
Click to expand...


Nothing in that article supports the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

Actually "current flow" z-pinches "solid conductors" too.
Click to expand...


Whether or not z-pinches occur in discharges has no bearing on supporting the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/Crushed_rod_pollock_barraclough.jpg/128px-Crushed_rod_pollock_barraclough.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Completely irrelevant to the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

Been there and done that too. The filament is the discharge channel and the current "pinches" the plasma. The pinch effect evacuates the plasma around the filament created a low pressure "insulator" between the filament and the rest of the plasma.
Click to expand...


This is gibberish, an unevidenced, unsupported assertion for which there has been no quantitative objective support provided.

And as two filaments come into contact the conductive path becomes the double layer that forms between the two filaments. Wabam, the double layer 'explodes' and the circuits reorient themselves accordingly.
Click to expand...


This is also gibberish, another unevidenced, unsupported assertion for which there has been no quantitative objective support provided.

As long as you never study the circuit approach to MHD theory, you will keep misrepresenting it.
Click to expand...


I am not responsible for supporting the crackpot claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs. That is the claim that was made, and that is the claim that has not been remotely supported.
 
GeeMack said:
Nothing in that article supports the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.
Click to expand...

Again, this is your own strawman. It is *YOUR* claim that *NO* discharge processes occur in solar flares. You are wrong.

Pinches occur naturally in electrical discharges such as lightning bolts,[6] the aurora,[7] current sheets,[8] and solar flares.[9]
Click to expand...
 
Bruce Refuted

Bruce refuted: Bruce, Discharge, gamma rays, solar electric and magnetic fields, dated 24 June 2009. None of these electric sun / electric universe / electric comet / electric anything threads have any content that is not a rehash of a rehash of stuff refuted and dealt with ages ago and so they are really boring and time wasting. Somebody wake me up if Mozina, or any of the other electric / plasma / whatever fans ever actually come up with a new idea.
 
Last edited:
Where is your scientific evidence for electrical discharges on the Sun

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would say that "pathological nature of your denial process" is over the top MM.
It could be even a case of the pot calling the kettle black since it is obvious that you have either not read or read and not understood the paper:
Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena (1974)
No mention of electrical discharges.
Just plasma discharges and the discharge currents used to create the plasma.
The abstract mentions discharges.
The introduction makes it clear that they are talking about plasma discharges
As reported here, a simple laboratory plasma discharge, which is believed to have a number of phenomenological similarities with solar flares, has been studied in order to demonstrate that some of the physical processes involved could be common to both cases.
Click to expand...
A continued insistence on thinking that this paper is about electrical discharges is evidence of a "denial process".

GeeMack may not want to read this paper now - he can read what the authors state they are looking at (plasma discharges) and see that you are mistaken when you state that they are looking at electrical discharges. Of course he may have already read it and just dismissed it. On the other hand given your track record in this thread of misrepresenting citations in as supporting your ideas, he may have decided not to waste his time.

I am getting close to that point. The papers you cite are sometimes interesting in their own right even if you are wrong about their contents. But soon I will get to the point where I will ignore any citations from you unless you quote supporting text, e.g. for that list of citations I would expect a quote mentioning electrical discharges on the Sun.

So MM: So far we have 9 citations.
One to Bruce's invalid theory.
One to a 1958 symposium presentation - The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism. I believe that the author's electric discharge is not an electrical discharge. He seems to be talking about a high density electric current, i.e. one that neutralizes charges when magnetic fields change configuration. This is confirmed by a literature search, e.g. Neutral Point Discharge Experiment.

The others are not about electrical discharges on the Sun. As I noted above - not an impressive track record.
Where is your scientific evidence for electrical discharges on the Sun?
Citations to papers published recently would be best since our knowledge of the Sun has increased dramatically over the last 50 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom