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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Do you think that all "discharge" processes magically stop the moment *SOME* material is ionized by an arc discharge?
Click to expand...

Solar plasma isn't ionized by an arc discharge. It's already ionized, and so no discharge is possible. Current flowing through it is just that: current, not a discharge.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Let's try again then:



Which part in yellow do you *NOW* not understand?
Click to expand...


I see a heading, "1 .5 Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma," and an opening line, "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy," which when read together or apart do not say anything about electrical discharges being or causing CMEs and solar flares. It would be a lie, ignorant, or downright stupid for anyone with elementary English speaking skills to argue that it does.

Most of us are intelligent adults here. I think we've had enough of this argument by trolling, this argument by incessant and uncivil badgering, this argument by dishonestly demanding other people support one's crackpot claim, and this argument by spamming irrelevant quotes from Peratt's material.

So we have advanced (and I use the word very loosely) to this point in the conversation: The electric Sun nutters apparently only have a couple of paragraphs by Peratt to quote, and only something like three irrelevant sentences to highlight, and none of it actually seems to objectively support the idiotic claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, CMEs and solar flares. Obviously posting the same crap again and again, then taunting and badgering people to interpret it some stupid subjective way is not working. I take the position that no sane, rational human being would keep at it.

This is post #405. We may refer back to it if this inane argument by spamming Peratt continues.​

Now... The claim is that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs. The claim hasn't been supported yet in a scientific, objective way, regardless of the many, many arguments from ignorance, unqualified opinions, unsupported assertions, lies, and otherwise failed attempts to do so. Apparently everything the electric Sun proponents have to offer has been provided. If there's anything else, anything new that hasn't been brought up, that would be grand. If not, I think we can all agree the claim is unsupportable.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Are you ready to rescind this false claim yet?
Click to expand...


Argument by badgering and dishonestly* attempting to deflect the burden of proof is noted. The claim, the subject of this thread, is that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares. Until and unless that claim is objectively and scientifically supported, the reasonable default position to take is that it is not true. Since the crackpot claim has not been objectively, quantitatively, and scientifically supported, not even remotely, most of us here obviously take the default position. It is not a claim. It is simply where we start. And it is where we are bound to stay if the electric Sun cranks can't support their claim.

Again, the responsibility** for supporting a claim falls to the claimant. The default position, in lieu of the claim being objectively supported, is that it is not true.

We may refer back here to post #406 if this childish argument by irresponsibility continues.​

Now where were we? Oh, yes. Apparently everything the electric Sun proponents have to offer has been provided. If there's nothing else, I think we can all agree the claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges is unsupported and likely unsupportable.

* Recurring theme in crackpots' arguments.

** A sort of scientific concept which is all too often neglected by crackpots.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Second question:

Do you think that all "discharge" processes magically stop the moment *SOME* material is ionized by an arc discharge?

Third question:

Have you ever used an arc welder before?

Forth question:

What *DO* you do for a living that somehow makes you an "expert" on the proper application of MHD theory *WITHOUT* having to have even bothered to read Alfven's work, or Peratt's work?

Fifth question:

What did Alfven mean by the term "circuit" in reference to events in space?
Click to expand...


See post #406: Childish argument by irresponsibility. Dishonestly* attempting to shift the burden of proof.

It seems everything the electric Sun proponents have to offer has been provided. Anything new?

* Recurring theme in crackpots' arguments.
 
Ziggurat said:
Dungey is using a rather odd definition of discharge. See p 136: all he means is a large current density.
Click to expand...

That's all Peratt meant too. :)

I love how this crew sort of handwaves at the basic evidence. It's so cute. It's just the kind of thing you see while talking to creationists. They handwave at everything and consistently refuse to provide *ANYTHING* to scientifically validate their own position.

Note that Alfven *REJECTED* all types of "magnetic reconnection" theories when *CURRENT FLOWS* were involved. In the presence of large and small current densities, no sort of "magnetic reconnection" is necessary, nor does it warrant consideration. Those are Alfven's statements.

All you're basically doing here is attempting to deny the presence of both large and small current flows *THROUGH* the plasma. Just as a lightening discharge sustained by a large current density, any sort of "pinch/Birkeland current/DL/Rope/Coronal Loop" is also sustained by a large current density running through the filament.

Any time that Alfven observed such conditions, he automatically used a "circuit" approach.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
See post #406: Childish argument by irresponsibility. Dishonestly* attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Nobody is 'shifting' anything. This is your (false) statement:

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
Click to expand...

Do you rescind it, yes or no?

It seems everything the electric Sun proponents have to offer has been provided. Anything new?
Click to expand...

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000138.000.html

Why do you require anything new? You haven't even handwaved yet at all the papers I've already provided you with. What's wrong with Dungey's explanation of a "discharge"? A running theme with creationists (and anyone in denial) is the handwave theme. You see it consistently. They handwave away anything and everything that disagrees with their position, and they villianize anyone and everyone they disagree with. Yawn.

Another consistent thing one observes from a person stuck in denial is a consistent refusal to support their own beliefs, and a complete unwillingness to accept evidence that undermines their position.
 
Last edited:
FYI, Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent with the visual evidence observable in white light images of the solar atmosphere:

15%20April%202001%20WL.gif
 
Ziggurat said:
Solar plasma isn't ionized by an arc discharge. It's already ionized,
Click to expand...

Iron isn't ionized to a FEXX state at 5700K at surface of the photosphere pressures Zig. Something is ionizing elements like neon, carbon, iron and Nickel atoms to very high ionization states. The easiest way to explain that is with a sustained arc discharge through plasma.

and so no discharge is possible.
Click to expand...

Dungey's definition of a discharge" is not only "possible" it's "confirmed" by satellite and ground based telescopes at virtually *EVERY* wavelength, including gamma rays and x-rays galore!

Current flowing through it is just that: current, not a discharge.
Click to expand...

That "current" that is flowing down the filament is ionizing the elements inside the filament to *MUCH* higher ionization states than the plasmas *OUTSIDE* of the filament. The 'pinch' caused by magnetic field around the "current flow' creates gamma rays. All of this is documented and demonstrated in the lab. There is *ABSOLUTELY* no scientific need for "magnetic reconnection" to explain high energy solar events, when large currents flows easily do the trick.
 
GeeMack said:
Now... The claim is that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs.
Click to expand...

Nope. Your claim was the following:

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
Click to expand...

Your claim hasn't been supported yet in a scientific, objective way, regardless of the many, many arguments from ignorance, unqualified opinions, unsupported assertions, lies, and otherwise failed attempts to do so.
 
Obviously the crackpot argument by persistent badgering, argument by complaining, argument by abandoning responsibility, and repeated unqualified and dishonest misinterpretations of the various sources presented isn't working. So to try to steer this back to the topic, can we expect any legitimately scientific, objective support for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...

Actually, your position doesn't even undermine my position in this case because by Peratt's definition, what you're calling 'magnetic reconnection' is in fact a "discharge". I like Dungey's paper because it basically explains the same process in terms of a standard discharge.

The biggest problem you face IMO is explaining how these models do not fail Alfven's "smell test". Basically anything and everything that involves "current flow" puts a nail in the reconnection coffin, and according to Alfven all the interplanetary medium is a "current carrying" medium! You're pretty much toast in terms of Alfven's views.

Worse IMO is that all the lab tests done to date make it extremely clear that you're running two "current carrying filaments" together and calling it "magnetic reconnection". Either way you look at it, even *IF* we accept the B orientation of events, it still doesn't negate the E orientation of those exact same events.
 
GeeMack said:
Obviously the crackpot argument by persistent badgering, argument by complaining, argument by abandoning responsibility, and repeated unqualified and dishonest misinterpretations of the various sources presented isn't working. So to try to steer this back to the topic, can we expect any legitimately scientific, objective support for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares?
Click to expand...

We're you even going to handwave at Dungey's work or was it too scary for you to even look at?

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000138.000.html
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually, your position doesn't even undermine my position in this case because by Peratt's definition, what you're calling 'magnetic reconnection' is in fact a "discharge". I like Dungey's paper because it basically explains the same process in terms of a standard discharge.

The biggest problem you face IMO is explaining how these models [...]
Click to expand...


I ran post #406 through a grammar analysis, and it turns out it should be understandable by pretty much any English speaker with a 9th grade education. Since obviously some people don't have the reading skills of a typical 9th grader, maybe some specific questions about the burden of proof and how crackpots dishonestly try to bail out on their responsibility to support their claims are in order.

Meanwhile, to keep this on topic and moving forward, can we expect any legitimately scientific, objective support for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares?
 
Michael Mozina explains what (he thinks) we mean by magnetic reconnection:

Michael Mozina said:
Actually, your position doesn't even undermine my position in this case because by Peratt's definition, what you're calling 'magnetic reconnection' is in fact a "discharge".
Click to expand...
Uh, no.

Michael Mozina said:
Basically anything and everything that involves "current flow" puts a nail in the reconnection coffin,
Click to expand...
Uh, no.

Michael Mozina said:
Worse IMO is that all the lab tests done to date make it extremely clear that you're running two "current carrying filaments" together and calling it "magnetic reconnection".
Click to expand...
Uh, no.

What's extremely clear is that you don't have any idea of what the papers I have cited mean by "magnetic reconnection".
 
W.D.Clinger said:
What's extremely clear is that you don't have any idea of what the papers I have cited mean by "magnetic reconnection".
Click to expand...

Every physical experiment done in a lab to date on the topic of 'magnetic reconnection' involves current flows, and in fact arc or glow discharges through plasmas. In all such events, Alfven simply looked at it in terms of 'circuits', "circuit energy" and "exploding double layers". He simply preferred the E orientation. You can try to spin reality all you like, but I lost count how many time Alfven called "magnetic reconnection" a "pseudoscience" particularly inside of a "current carrying" plasma or double layer.

None of the papers related to lab experiments cited to date work without a "cathode" and an "anode" and a lot of "current flow" through the plasma. Alfven called that a "nail" in the magnetic reconnection coffin.

No matter how you slice it or dice it Mr. Spock, the best you can *EVER* hope for is a "draw'. The E orientation is always going to be equally valid to any B orientation, and ultimately you need "current flows" to make any of this work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom