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

[Reality Check]

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.

I suspect that tusenfem has read those papers. After all he worked with Alfven (or at least in the same building!).

On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection (1976)
Let see - a paper published 30 years before the Cluster mission. I think that people have been making progress on plasma physics since then and extending the "limited cases" he mentions to the observed magnetic reconnection in the magnetosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Doesn't matter. It's a plasma.

Really? Neon is a plasma (ionized) at 5700K at the pressure of the photophere?

 

[Ziggurat]

Really? Neon is a plasma (ionized) at 5700K at the pressure of the photophere?

I don't know or care if pure neon is, because you won't find pure neon in the sun. You will find a mixture of elements dominated by hydrogen. And that mixture is indeed a plasma at 5700K at the pressure of the photosphere.

But I note that your question suggests even your definition of plasma doesn't match the standard definition, which is not in terms of the degree of ionization. Given that once of your central contentions is that physicists under-appreciate the role of plasma physics in astronomy and cosmology, it's more than a little ironic that you keep screwing up the basic properties of plasmas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't know or care if pure neon is, because you won't find pure neon in the sun. You will find a mixture of elements dominated by hydrogen.

How about Carbon at 5700K at the pressure at the surface of the photosphere?

I realize that you believe that hydrogen dominates that surface and all, but that whole concept is based upon an *ASSUMPTION* that all elements stay "mixed", wispy hydrogen atoms mixed with *MUCH* heavier elements like iron and nickel, not to mention everything heavier than nickel. I don't want to belabor the point other than to point out that only *SOME* elements are "ionized" to any great degree at 5700K at photosphere surface pressures and temperatures. Iron certainly isn't ionized to a +20 state at photosphere surface pressures and temperatures!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh dear. I could have sworn you wrote this:

There are "currents' that form inside the plasma that 'reconnect' and reorient themselves. No "magnetic line (reconnection)s" are involved!

There, happier now? You certainly are a stickler when it comes to verbiage, aren't you Mr. Spock?

 

[Reality Check]

I realize that you believe that hydrogen dominates that surface and all, but that whole concept is based upon an *ASSUMPTION* that all elements stay "mixed", wispy hydrogen atoms mixed with *MUCH* heavier elements like iron and nickel, not to mention everything heavier than nickel.

There is no *ASSUMPTION*.
There are the physical facts that

• the photosphere is observed to be continuously mixed by convection.
• we measure the photosphere to be comprised of mostly hydrogen.
• the photosphere is made of plasma, i.e. really hot and continuously mixing ions and electrons.

 

[Reality Check]

There are "currents' that form inside the plasma that 'reconnect' and reorient themselves. No "magnetic line (reconnection)s" are involved!

You are right. Currents in plasma can separate and rejoin. This has nothing to do with magnetic reconnection.

See Magnetic reconnection and physical processes
​

It also has nothing to do with the quasi-neutrality of plasmas. That is a consequence of change distribution. Currents are charge movement

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't want to belabor the point other than to point out that only *SOME* elements are "ionized" to any great degree at 5700K at photosphere surface pressures and temperatures. Iron certainly isn't ionized to a +20 state at photosphere surface pressures and temperatures!

That's nice. It's also irrelevant. So I'm glad you won't belabor an irrelevant point that no one actually contradicted, but I'm at a loss as to why you brought it up in the first place. Unless you still haven't figured out what a plasma is.

 

[GeeMack]

There is no *ASSUMPTION*.
There are the physical facts that

• the photosphere is observed to be continuously mixed by convection.
• we measure the photosphere to be comprised of mostly hydrogen.
• the photosphere is made of plasma, i.e. really hot and continuously mixing ions and electrons.

Unless you live in Oliver Manuel la-la land where the Sun is like a giant jawbreaker, layer upon layer of very precisely separated elements surrounding an iron core. Of course such a ridiculous construction is physically impossible given our current understanding of physics and our accumulated knowledge about the properties of the Sun. And, on topic for this thread, it would require the same kind of complete rewrite of plasma physics and the physics of electricity for that kind of silly construction to work with electrical discharges dancing all over the surface making flares and CMEs, too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Actually it is the "current flow" through your physical atoms that kills you.

I guess the issue comes back to the fact that every "electric sun" concept (including Alfven's version and Birkeland's cathode) involved 'current flow' from the solar surface to the heliosphere, and you refuse to accept that basic premise. Every other basic objection is related to that single issue.

 

[GeeMack]

Actually it is the "current flow" through your physical atoms that kills you.

I guess the issue comes back to the fact that every "electric sun" concept (including Alfven's version and Birkeland's cathode) involved 'current flow' from the solar surface to the heliosphere, and you refuse to accept that basic premise. Every other basic objection is related to that single issue.

Birkeland's cathode was a brass ball with an electromagnet inside. It was mounted on a pole in a large glass box, the walls of which were at a distance of somewhere between about one and five diameters of the ball. We're pretty sure the Sun isn't in such a box, isn't made from brass, nor does it sit atop or hang from a pole of any kind. And there are certainly no wires connected to it. We'd see them. To compare the actual Sun with such a ridiculous contraption is ludicrous.

 

[tusenfem]

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"?

than come on MM, present your circuit reconnection model, show us how it works in detail, show us how in this circuit reconnection the observed demanetization of ions and electrons happens, how the topology of the magnetic field changes, how the plasma is accelerated perpendicular to the magnetic field direction .....

I know I will never even get an answer, because you don't have this model, there is no such model, I will just get to hear Alfvén talked about circuits and called MRx pseudoscience. Then my answer is SO WHAT, show me the money! Show me your model.

 

[tusenfem]

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"!

That is about the worse press release ever, which I have mentioned before actually. The strong aurora is one event on 23 march, the flux transfer event is another event on 20 may, it is written so stupidly (for which I blame Vassilis and Dave, for not reading the rubbish that they want to put on the NASA website). The one is not linked to the other.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's nice. It's also irrelevant.

It is *NOT* irrelevant, you just don't want to deal with it. You think I didn't notice that you didn't respond to either the neon or the carbon questions? The ionization state of a gas is not simply related to temperature and pressure but also the element(s) in question, the molecules in question, etc, etc, etc.

A single loop emits 193A light, sometimes 94A light. It emits x-rays, sometimes even gamma rays are observed around the bases of these structures. Not at all coincidentally we observe gamma rays from "current flows" in the Earth's atmosphere, and in fact we observe more massive current flows around objects in the solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field. The sun hold 98 percent of the mass of the solar system. Don't you think the "current flows' are more massive in the solar atmosphere?

Why in the UNIVERSE would you "dumb down" a pinched "current flow" and refer to it as a "magnetic line"? That's like calling a "current flow" in the Earth's atmosphere a "magnetic line".

 

[Ziggurat]

It is *NOT* irrelevant, you just don't want to deal with it.

It IS irrelevant to the fact that you can't get a discharge through plasma since plasma is already conducting. No dielectric breakdown, no first-order transition from an insulating to a conducting state, no discharge.

You think I didn't notice that you didn't respond to either the neon or the carbon questions?

Because the answer would be redundant: it's likewise irrelevant.

The ionization state of a gas is not simply related to temperature and pressure but also the element(s) in question, the molecules in question, etc, etc, etc.

So the plasma cosmology advocate is now arguing that the sun isn't made of plasma. Do I have that right? I want to make sure I get this right.

The sun hold 98 percent of the mass of the solar system. Don't you think the "current flows' are more massive in the solar atmosphere?

I'm sure they are. I'm also sure that none of those current are discharges, since those currents are flowing through a plasma which is already conducting.

Why in the UNIVERSE would you "dumb down" a pinched "current flow" and refer to it as a "magnetic line"? That's like calling a "current flow" in the Earth's atmosphere a "magnetic line".

You must have me confused with someone else, because I said nothing about magnetic field lines in any of my recent posts.

 

[tusenfem]

I suspect that tusenfem has read those papers. After all he worked with Alfven (or at least in the same building!).

On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection (1976)
Let see - a paper published 30 years before the Cluster mission. I think that people have been making progress on plasma physics since then and extending the "limited cases" he mentions to the observed magnetic reconnection in the magnetosphere.

And how quaint, one really has to search very hard in e.g. the Cluster data to actually find a break down of the frozen in concept (links to papers where these break downs were found have been posted, one by Lui et al)

Also, magnetic reconnection cannot occur in MHD, os in that way Alfven was right, however, real life is not MHD nor is it a circuit.

 

[tusenfem]

How about Carbon at 5700K at the pressure at the surface of the photosphere?

I realize that you believe that hydrogen dominates that surface and all, but that whole concept is based upon an *ASSUMPTION* that all elements stay "mixed", wispy hydrogen atoms mixed with *MUCH* heavier elements like iron and nickel, not to mention everything heavier than nickel. I don't want to belabor the point other than to point out that only *SOME* elements are "ionized" to any great degree at 5700K at photosphere surface pressures and temperatures. Iron certainly isn't ionized to a +20 state at photosphere surface pressures and temperatures!

Mikey, baby, anything you want to know about this is given by the Saha equation, which I have told you several times already. So you can calculate yourself how much ionized any species is at a temperature of 5700 K. Have fun, doing the math.

 

[Ziggurat]

Have fun, doing the math.

That's really not fair of you. You know he can't.

 

[Reality Check]

Actually it is the "current flow" through your physical atoms that kills you.

Since 'current flow' is in quotes it is obvious that you are wrong .
It is the curent that kills you, i.e. the lightning, not the plasma that the lighting generates.

I guess the issue comes back to the fact that every "electric sun" concept (including Alfven's version and Birkeland's cathode) involved 'current flow' from the solar surface to the heliosphere, and you refuse to accept that basic premise. Every other basic objection is related to that single issue.

What basic premise?
You refuse to cite where Alfven states that there is a current from the sun to the heliosphere.
You refuse to cite where Birkeland states that there is a current from the sun to the heliosphere.

There is a mass flow from the photosphere to the heliosphere called the solar wind. This is not a current because it is contains equal numbers of positive and negative charges moving in the same direction (out from teh sun).
But you have been told this time and time again and have not yet been able to understand it yet. Maybe you can understand it this time.

But lets say that every electric sun concept involves a current from the sun to the heliosphere. This has the nasty consequence that the sun explodes!

On the global electrostatic charge of stars
​

Of course the current may just stop before the sun explodes. But then there is no current. what use is it? what does the non-existent current do?

Or maybe you are thinking about the electric sun theory where the sun is powered by an electric current from other stars. That has been addressed elsewhere, e.g. see W.T Brigfman's The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited (PDF) and the Electric universe theories here. thread

This thread should be about your assertion that solar flares are electrical discharges. Otherwise it should be merged with the
Electric universe theories here. thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It IS irrelevant to the fact that you can't get a discharge through plasma since plasma is already conducting.

So what? Filamentary shapes (AKA PINCHES) form in that conducting medium! It's not a homogeneous 'current flow' once you crank up the current.

No dielectric breakdown,

Says who? Neon must certainly "break down". At 5700K it's not ionized to a PLUS 7 state! Something sure must be ionizing the neon.

no first-order transition from an insulating to a conducting state, no discharge.

I've explained this now so many times in this thread I've lost count.

The pinched filaments form inside the plasma. They EVACUATE the areas directly around the filament and PINCH that material into the filament creating an area of high mass concentration (conductor) and low mass concentration (relative insulator). When two of these high mass "circuits" come into close proximity, they form a double layer that eventually "explodes" according to Alfven. You don't have to have a complete insulator, just high and low mass concentrations. I've quoted Alfven on this a ton of times, but here it is again:

"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."