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

[Michael Mozina]

Both.
Plasmas are conductive, i.e. they carry currents.

Yes, they carry them in pinched "current streams". You can see them form in any ordinary plasma ball.

This means that you have electrons moving one way and ions moving another way.

Ya, we have "current flowing" in two directions.

At a large enough scale, plasmas are quasi-neutral.

You can call an ordinary lightening bolt plasma "quasi-neutral" all you want, but you would not live 10 seconds if you got in it's path. Is you body "quasi-neutral" too while acting as a conductor of that kind of "quasi-neutral" plasma?

 

[GeeMack]

When you can tell me what is *PHYSICALLY* unique about "magnetic reconnection", that is unique and different from ordinary particle collisions in plasma, and/or induction, let me know. So far all I've seen are physical experiments where the "current flow topology" changes over time. In no way does that equate to "magnetic reconnection happens".

Of course the claim was that electrical discharges are or are the cause of solar flares and CMEs. There does seem to be a propensity on the part of the EU/PC and electric Sun nutters to dishonestly attempt to shift the burden of proof. Any idiot who passed a high school science class should know that slinking away from one's responsibility to support a claim and dishonestly trying to pass that responsibility to the critics of the claim is a crappy way to go about a scientific endeavor.

Interestingly in this thread there hasn't been a piece of legitimate, quantitative, objective support for the silly notion that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs. That claim has failed.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, they carry them in pinched "current streams". You can see them form in any ordinary plasma ball.

A plasma ball toy is in no way analogous to the plasma on the Sun. This has been explained many times in related threads on these forums. This argument doesn't support the claim that electrical discharges are or are the cause of solar flares and CMEs, and therefore would be a dishonest, ignorant, negligent, or just plain stupid argument to put forth.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, they carry them in pinched "current streams". You can see them form in any ordinary plasma ball.

An "ordinary plasma ball" is not plasma except along those current filaments.

You can call an ordinary lightening bolt plasma "quasi-neutral" all you want, but you would not live 10 seconds if you got in it's path.

Because of the current. Not the charge.

Do you understand the difference? Because you sure aren't acting like you do.

Is you body "quasi-neutral" too while acting as a conductor of that kind of "quasi-neutral" plasma?

Yup. Your body can have almost no net charge, even while conducting massive current flows. Because current and charge are different quantities.

Freshman physics fail here, Michael. Again.

 

[Michael Mozina]

An "ordinary plasma ball" is not plasma except along those current filaments.

It's all about *DEGREES* of ionization. In that case you're right of course but the process is still exactly the same. The filaments are the same.

Because of the current. Not the charge.

The actual "charge" aspect comes in when when talk about the "discharge" process between the cathode surface toward the anode heliosphere. The "current flow" is more important in coronal loop theory.

FYI, you are *ALL* actually closet EU theorists. You too need a dynamo and a "power source" in the core of the sun to create those "magnetic lines" you keep talking about.

Do you understand the difference? Because you sure aren't acting like you do.

I do understand the difference. Tusenfum pointed out the mathematical differences earlier.

Yup. Your body can have almost no net charge, even while conducting massive current flows. Because current and charge are different quantities.

Freshman physics fail here, Michael. Again.

You aren't listening. It doesn't matter whether you call it "quasi-neutral", it's still a "current flow" that will in fact kill you! The "current flow" is being "pinched" into current carrying threads. When those "current flows" reorganize themselves into a different topology, it's not an example of "magnetic reconnection", it an example of "circuit reconnection". Alfven referred to individual ropes as "circuits". When the rope/thread/current topology changes, it's "circuit reconnection". What's hard to understand about that premise?

 

[Michael Mozina]

First of all, there have, as far as I know, been no observations of these exploding double layers. It is an interesting model, but no evidence at all anywhere in nature.

The same can be said for MR theory then. You can't claim the high ground with "plasma pinch reorientations" simply by calling them examples of "magnetic reconnection".

Nor am I explaining double layers and pinches in the absence of currents,

Good.

this is just part of your misconceptions about plasma physics (see previous posts and Alfven's and Peratt's books)

No. Any "misconceptions" I might have about *YOUR* personal position is due to the fact the mainstream has a love hate relationship with MHD theory. You folks *LOVE* the B orientation, and you HATE the E orientation. You'll call them "magnetic lines", but you refuse to acknowledge (not you personally actually) the *CIRCUIT* orientation to such events. When the papers get written 99.99% of them only use the term MAGNETIC and go to great lengths to avoid the terms "ELECTROmagnetic" or "current flow" in any way.

Yes of course you are "re wiring the current" and if you would please read up on modern day observations in space, than you would see how and what and why.

Then "magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than "circuit reconnection" with a useless, confusing name that is not congruent and incompatible with electrical engineering principles. Why do you figure Alfven consistently rejected MR theory in favor of a circuit orientation? Don't you think he understood that Sweet and Parkers "math" was "ok"?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

currents can flow within neutral plasma

Once again, Michael Mozina proves he does not understand the distinction between charge and current:

Yes, I know they can be created in *CURRENT CARRYING* plasmas, but you keep claiming the sun is a "neutral" plasma. Which is it, a current carrying or a neutral plasma?

Neutral conductors can carry currents. If you understood the distinction between charge and current, you wouldn't have asked that question.

As tusenfem explained:

Are we getting to that idiocy again, Michael?
A plasma is called neutral when in a volume equal amounts of positive and negative charge is present, please look that up in Alfvén's or Peratt's book.

Charge = Σ_k n_k q_k

where the index k runs over all species (positive and negative) in a plasma

Current = Σ_k n_k q_k v_k

there is no reason at all to claim that when the scalar charge is equal to zero that the vector quantity current is also equal to zero, nor does the opposite reasoning hold true.

Do you understand the difference? Because you sure aren't acting like you do.

I do understand the difference. Tusenfum pointed out the mathematical differences earlier.

If you understood the difference, your argument wouldn't be failing at the level of freshman physics:

Yup. Your body can have almost no net charge, even while conducting massive current flows. Because current and charge are different quantities.

Freshman physics fail here, Michael. Again.

You aren't listening.

The person who isn't listening is named Michael Mozina.

The sun is (mostly) neutral plasma. Currents can flow within that neutral plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I expect no real answer from you, but I would love to be shown wrong.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c06165

I don't need to show you to be wrong, Alfven has already done so. With your background with Cluster, this paper by Alfven should be right up your alley. Read through this paper and I'll post a link to his circuit orientation of coronal events and then we'll talk.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The sun is (mostly) neutral plasma. Currents can flow within that neutral plasma.

I don't think you even *BEGIN* to understand the implications of what that means Mr. Spock, particularly to your belief in "magnetic reconnection". There are "currents' that form inside the plasma that 'reconnect' and reorient themselves. No "magnetic lines" are involved! The magnetic field is produced by the current flow. The whole reason Alfven rejected MR theory is because he *PREFERRED* a *circuit* orientation to MHD theory in all space plasmas.

When a couple of "circuits" of "current flow" happen to "reorient" themselves, is is *NOT* an example of 'magnetic reconnection". There was a real reason Alfven rejected MR theory till the day he died in favor of a circuit oriented approach. He preferred to treat the ropes as "circuits" and any reorientation of those ropes would have *NOTHING* to do with "magnetic reconnection". Alfven instead referred to them as circuits and an "exploding double layers" that might form between two circuits.

When you guys claim the solar wind is "neutral", it's wrong in two ways. Ya, it might be "neutral" in terms of net charge, but it's a "current carrying" plasma! It can deliver "current flow" at any time *WITHOUT* the need for "magnet reconnection". Cluster has already seen that behavior demonstrated in real time and yet they still claim "magnetic reconnection" is somehow necessary for "current flow' to reach Earth! The whole thing is preposterous. It's a "magnetic rope" (AKA CIRCUIT) that delivers the "current flow" to the Earth.

It's also wrong for as second reason. That *MILLION MILE PER HOUR FLOW* is going to have a direct ELECTROMAGNETIC effect on any stationary object in it's path that might "separate" the charges in some way.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

There's no need for 'magnetic reconnection" to explain this event because the IPM is a "current carrying plasma"!

 

[Ziggurat]

It's all about *DEGREES* of ionization.

Not really. It's about Debye length versus mean free path. And a plasma ball is well on the gas side of that divide, except along those current filaments.

In that case you're right of course but the process is still exactly the same. The filaments are the same.

But what surrounds the filaments is NOT the same. Because in a plasma ball, what surrounds the filaments is an INSULATOR. But even if you get a pinch in a plasma, what surrounds the pinch is still a conductor.

The actual "charge" aspect comes in when when talk about the "discharge" process between the cathode surface toward the anode heliosphere. The "current flow" is more important in coronal loop theory.

Except, of course, there's no discharge, because there's no dielectric breakdown, because (unlike a plasma ball) everything is conducting to begin with, and there are no first-order phase transitions for the system to go through.

You do know what a first-order phase transition is, don't you?

I do understand the difference. Tusenfum pointed out the mathematical differences earlier.

And yet, your question reveals no sign of understanding that difference.

You aren't listening. It doesn't matter whether you call it "quasi-neutral", it's still a "current flow" that will in fact kill you!

Well, duh! I never said it wasn't. But 1) it's not a matter of what I call it, it's a matter of it actually being the case that, even with lightning flowing through me, I have almost zero net charge, and 2) you're now abandoning the very argument that you tried to make when you brought up the example.

Plasmas, even current-carrying plasmas, are quasi-neutral. On large scales, they have almost no net charge. You keep trying to come up with irrelevant examples to disprove this rather simple statement, examples which, even if relevant, still wouldn't actually disprove it. If you DO understand the difference between current and charge, then how on earth did you ever conclude that lightning passing through my body would have any relevance to the question of quasi-neutrality in a plasma? If it's not a freshman physics fail, it's a logic 101 fail.

 

[Ziggurat]

You claimed that *NO* discharges were involved and you have never demonstrated that claim, nor provided any evidence to support that claim.

Not so. The only evidence you need has been provided many times:

Plasmas are conducting, and do not experience first-order phase transitions to more conducting states. Beyond that, all you need is an elementary grasp of the definition of a discharge.

Oh...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The sun is (mostly) neutral plasma. Currents can flow within that neutral plasma.

I don't think you even *BEGIN* to understand the implications of what that means, particularly to your belief in "magnetic reconnection".

There are "currents' that form inside the plasma that 'reconnect' and reorient themselves. No "magnetic lines" are involved! The magnetic field is produced by the current flow.

You're saying the "currents" are not accompanied by "magnetic lines"?

FYI: "Magnetic lines" is just a figure of speech that's used to talk about magnetic fields. As a matter of fact, the proper term is "magnetic field line".

[latex]
\[ \nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}} = \mu_0 \hbox{{\bf J}}
+ \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf E}}}{\partial t} \]
[/latex]

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not so. The only evidence you need has been provided many times:

Plasmas are conducting, and do not experience first-order phase transitions to more conducting states. Beyond that, all you need is an elementary grasp of the definition of a discharge.

Oh...

What is the ionization state of neon at the pressure at the surface of the photosphere at 5700K?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're saying the "currents" are not accompanied by "magnetic lines"?

FYI: "Magnetic lines" is just a figure of speech that's used to talk about magnetic fields. As a matter of fact, the proper term is "magnetic field line".

[latex]
\[ \nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}} = \mu_0 \hbox{{\bf J}}
+ \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf E}}}{\partial t} \]
[/latex]

No, I did *NOT* say that, that is *YOUR* strawman. The magnetic field is CAUSED/CREATED BY the "current flow".

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You're saying the "currents" are not accompanied by "magnetic lines"?

No, I did *NOT* say that, that is *YOUR* strawman.

Oh dear. I could have sworn you wrote this:

There are "currents' that form inside the plasma that 'reconnect' and reorient themselves. No "magnetic lines" are involved!

 

[Ziggurat]

What is the ionization state of neon at the pressure at the surface of the photosphere at 5700K?

Doesn't matter. It's a plasma. That's all we need to know in order to conclude that it cannot experience discharge.

Which you'd know if you knew the definition of discharge.

Damn. We keep running into that problem, and it appears intractable.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, let's see what you found, shall we?

We know that electricity powers lasers.
We know that electricity is used to heat gases to ionize them and create plasmas in which magnetic reconnection is observed.
Is this the trivial point that you are trying to make?

In that case we are all correct - electricity creates plasmas in laboratories !

This has nothing to do with your assertion that it is electric currents in the apparatus that create magnetic reconnection. My citation is an experiment where there are no electric currents creating plasma, no laboratory electric currents to create magnetic reconnection.
Magnetic reconnection and plasma dynamics in two-beam laser-solid interactions.

So we are back to your assertion that it is electric currents in the plasma that create magnetic reconection.
As pointed out to you before, the universe disagrees with you.

All they are doing is taking two streams of photons (created by pulsed (electrically powered) lasers), seeing a pattern of Thompson scattering consistent with those "streams", and calling it "magnetic reconnection'. That's a ridiculous premise!

You are wrong.

We present measurements of a magnetic reconnection in a plasma created by two laser beams (1 ns pulse duration, 1 x 10(15) W cm(-2)) focused in close proximity on a planar solid target. Simultaneous optical probing and proton grid deflectometry reveal two high velocity, collimated outflowing jets and 0.7-1.3 MG magnetic fields at the focal spot edges. Thomson scattering measurements from the reconnection layer are consistent with high electron temperatures in this region.

• The 2 lasers hit a target and create plasma.
• Measurements of Thomson scattering is used to observe that the electrons in that plasma is are hot.

 

[Reality Check]

There are no "magnetic reconnections" that happen in plasma.
..snipped uusal denial....

We have been through your continuous posting of unsupported and physically wrong assertions about physics of magnetic reconnection in another thread so I will just point you there (again)

Magnetic reconnection and physical processes
​

 

[Reality Check]

You can call an ordinary lightening bolt plasma "quasi-neutral" all you want, but you would not live 10 seconds if you got in it's path.

That is ignorant: It is the electric discharge (lightning bolt) that kills you.

That is like asserting that plasma globes kill people ! After all they contain that plasma stuff.

 

[GeeMack]

You claimed that *NO* discharges were involved and you have never demonstrated that claim, nor provided any evidence to support that claim.

If something hasn't been reasonably shown to be true, it may be accepted as false. The claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs hasn't been shown to be true, not even remotely. Consequently it is the default position to take that it is false. Any argument that I have some burden of proof here is a despicably dishonest one. This concept is rudimentary to science, so much so that any adult human being who doesn't understand it can't reasonably be considered a scientist.

But after a dozen such papers on this topic, your position is now simply based on pure denial and handwaving.

My position is based on the simple fact that arguments attempting to support the claim about electrical discharges have failed.

More childish nonsense. Like any good young earth creationist, you simple "handwave' at any and all evidence being presented. Like any creationist you refuse to answer direct questions put to you like why Alfven used a circuit orientation.

I have no responsibility to answer any questions in order to support someone else's claim. The burden of proof falls to the person making the claim. Again, this is grade school kid science, and anyone who doesn't understand it can't reasonably be considered a scientist.

What do you know about being "civil". Are you really so detached from the term 'polite' that you honestly believe that your posts are "civil". They are anything *BUT* civil. You don't make a post without including personal attacks an insults. I've never even met a LESS CIVIL individual in cyberspace.

The off topic and uncivil personal attack here is noted.

I didn't shift anything. I provided you with materials that you handwaved at and refused to acknolowledge in any scientific way. More importantly you won't discuss them at all.

The argument that other people should be required to defend an alternative position is dishonestly shifting the burden of proof. Once more, intelligent grade school kids know this. There are, of course, stupid adults, crackpots, and cranks who don't. The claim was that electrical discharges are the cause of solar flares and CMEs. It is not my job to support it or to defend any alternatives.

Yes you do. You ignored that discharge paper involving iron entirely. You simply handwaved at it as "old" and some unspecified experts don't include it so you can somehow ignore it too.

The argument that I have ignored reference material is another lie. I've explained clearly my reason for not being interested in getting involved in a discussion about the crank elements of solar physics. It isn't generally very productive to indulge the whims of crackpots who aren't qualified to understand science but just want to talk all sciency.

You have no right to question anyone's honesty while you have yet to read Alfven's book, you've refused to comment on his papers and you run like hell from my direct questions.

I hate to break it to you, but Alfven was in fact an "electric sun crank' too.

Sort of like how you responded to my question about Alfven's use of 'circuits"?

Have you? If so, when? If so, why do you refuse to answer any and all questions related to his work?

If and when you answer and direct questions related to Alfven's work, then you won't be a "crackpot". Until you do, you aren't fooling anyone. You never did your homework. You didn't read the material. You're completely out of your league now, and therefore you won't answer any direct questions at all. Like any good creationist, you intend to handwave at everything presented, and in the mean time you'll just spew nonsense and hide from the real "science" questions.

The continued off topic and uncivil personal attacks here are noted.

Now is there any contemporary, scientific, quantitative, and objective support for the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs? Or can we take it this claim has been abandoned?