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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000138.000.html

Dungey says otherwise. :)

I've yet to see anyone address this work by the way. Did I miss it?
Click to expand...
You did and you are wrong:
Where is your scientific evidence for electrical discharges on the Sun?
Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...
Note the second sentence in the presentation mentions an accelerating layer. These do not exist in electrical discharges. He is talking about the acceleration of charges by the magnetic fields around a neutral point. He calls this an electrical discharge. That is a bit sloppy even for a conference presentation.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
RC, please explain the first sentence of the introduction of Dungey's paper.
Click to expand...


Obviously communication is critical to any exchange of information about science, or any other topic for that matter. There's a communication issue here that, if it were resolved, might make this discussion more productive. I ran post #406 through a grammar analysis, and it appears it should be understandable by pretty much any English speaker with a 9th grade education. Bottom line for those with less than 9th grade reading skills, it's dishonest to ask other people, people who didn't make the claim, to support it. Oh, and I'm sure we can all agree it's lazy, too.

So here's where we are: No legitimately scientific, objective support has been provided yet for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares.
 
Oy Vey

Michael Mozina said:
RC, please explain the first sentence of the introduction of Dungey's paper.
Click to expand...
It is him (wrongly) labeling the acceleration of charges near the neutral point an electrical discharge.
This is obviously wrong - plasma is conductive. By definition any net movement of charges in a conductor is called a current.

But this is understandable since this is just a conference presentation.

ETA
MM, please explain the second sentence of the abstract of Dungey's presentation
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
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.
...usual ignorance about Alfven snipped...
Click to expand...
Every experiment on plasma involves current flows. Labatories tend to be connected to the power grid :jaw-dropp!
Many experiments on plasma involve "arc or glow discharges" - that is how they create the plasma :jaw-dropp!
Any plasma can have "current flows" in them (they conduct) and currents are expected in magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
You continue to be wrong:
Magnetic reconnection and plasma dynamics in two-beam laser-solid interactions.
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.
Click to expand...

You continue to have an inability to understand that you ideas about magnetic reconnection have been shown to be false. See Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection II
Tim Thompson said:
Evidently you have a flawed & highly selective memory. See Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection I and links therein. Specifically, I showed you the laboratory experiments more than once. For instance Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III from last March (that's 9 months ago now). I posted Comments on Magnetic Reconnection on 13 February 2009, nearly 2 years ago, specifically demonstrating confirmed laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection.

Your response has been consistent. Not once have you ever actually looked at or considered any of these laboratory experiments. You reject them without examination out of pure and unadulterated prejudice. So nobody cares about your dishonest wailing about the lack of laboratory experiments; we recognize it for what it really is, a pure sham. You don't care, and never will care about actual laboratory experiments, and you will not ever look at the data or any paper describing laboratory experiments. I have myself pointed out books that describe the state of laboratory experience, and you always have (and always will) ignore them all.

So everything you are so "disappointed" about not seeing has in fact been shown to you for nearly 2 years, and probably longer considering your numerous discussion boards. You are not now, and have never have been interested in anything that any normal person would consider an "honest" discussion, so answering you directly is a waste of effort. The only reason I bother to post at all is that other people actually do care, and maybe somebody will learn something, even if it's never going to be you.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wrong: Electrical discharges do not happen through conductors. It is the hardest way to explain the ionization.
It is the easiest way to create plasmas in a lab though - all you do is create an electrical discharge in a gas (not a plasma), atoms get ionized and then you have a plasma.

What ionizes atoms in solar plasma is photons.

Another bit of your speculation about electrical discharges on the Sun is that you have no source for the required difference in electrical potential that electrical discharges need. Flares and CME are have scales of many kilometers. Solar plasma has Debye lengths of less than 10 meters. According to Alfven, plasma cannot develop an imbalance of charge over more than a few 10's of Debye lengths.
Thus Alfven implies that your electrical discharges are physically impossible just from the scales involved.
 
GeeMack said:
So here's where we are: No legitimately scientific, objective support has been provided yet for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares.
Click to expand...

NO, here was *YOUR* claim.

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

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958IAUS....6..135D
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

No, you are simply *IN DENIAL* of the information presented. You aren't even going to handwave at it GM? How long did you intend to avoid the circuit question?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
NO, here was *YOUR* claim.



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958IAUS....6..135D
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

No, you are simply *IN DENIAL* of the information presented. You aren't even going to handwave at it GM? How long did you intend to avoid the circuit question?
Click to expand...


I refer to post #406 for an explanation of the concept of burden of proof.

Also, the uncivil badgering personal attack is, as always, noted.

To bring it back on topic from the attempted argument by intentional, dishonest, and disrespectful derail: No legitimately scientific, objective support has been provided yet for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares. We are still awaiting the support or the admission that the claim is unsupportable.
 
Dungey's paper concluded that neither Lenz's law nor the pressure gradient would suffice to refute a discharge-based explanation, and that other features of flares were not necessarily incompatible with a discharge-based explanation.

If that is sufficient to prove that flares are, in fact, discharged-based, then by the same line of reasoning, we may safely conclude that the animal I occasionally see in my back yard is, in fact, a walrus because its skin covering (fur) and number of eyes (2) are not necessarily incompatible with the known characteristics of walruses.
 
Last edited:
Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection III

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent with the visual evidence observable in white light images of the solar atmosphere ...
Click to expand...
See The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, J.W. Dungey, 1958 (this is the paper that Mozina's "Dungey" comment above refers to).

"Certain other features of flares may be accounted for by the bulk motion resulting from a discharge at a neutral point. The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly. The 'reconnection' upsets the mechanical equilibrium in the neighborhood in a way that can be visualized, if the lines of force are seen as strings. Then the mechanical disturbance will spread from the neutral point and may have energy comparable to the energy of the spot field in the solar atmosphere."
Dungey, 1958, page 139
​
So Mozina tells us that Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent but also tells us that magnetic reconnection is 100% pseudoscience. But Mozina overlooks that Dungey's 100% consistent explanation includes the 100% pseudoscience of magnetic reconnection. I will leave it as an exercise for the attentive reader to decide what impact this will have on the general credibility of Mozina's arguments.
 
Electric Sun and Electric Currents I

See The Electric Sun from Don Scott's Electric Cosmos webpages. Near the top of the page, under heading "The Basics", we find this: "The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies."

OK, all you fans of the electric sun, where is that current? This is the foundational feature of the electric sun hypothesis, the claim that the sun is powered entirely by an electric current flowing into the sun from outside. Electric currents are not invisible magic dark currents. Yet decades of spacecraft cruising the solar system in situ have not detected any sign of this electric current. Hence, the direct evidence from current measuring devices situated within what should be the alleged electric current, is that the current is not there. If the current is not there, then there is no basis in science for the electric sun hypothesis.

How do the electric sun champions explain this?
 
Electric Sun, not science, needs to moved somewhere below Bigfoot in the anti-intellectual spectrum.
 
Tim Thompson said:
OK, all you fans of the electric sun, where is that current? This is the foundational feature of the electric sun hypothesis, the claim that the sun is powered entirely by an electric current flowing into the sun from outside. Electric currents are not invisible magic dark currents. Yet decades of spacecraft cruising the solar system in situ have not detected any sign of this electric current.
Click to expand...

If I may run a bit further with that thought, assuming that all stars are powered the same way:

1) Does the consistent stellar mass/luminosity relationship mean that the galactic currents have consistent strength throughout the galaxy, rather than being weaker as one gets farther from the center of the galaxy?

2) Why does the mass/luminosity relationship work so well for binary stars? Wouldn't they be sharing their portion of the galactic current?

3) What powers extragalactic stars?

4) Most stars, including the sun, are in elliptical orbits about the center of the galaxy. Shouldn't the sun have a tail like a huge comet? (in the interest of completeness, I can't rule out the possibility that we're at one of the apses).

5) Do these galactic currents light up any nebulae?

More as I think of them.
 
Tim Thompson said:
So Mozina tells us that Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent but also tells us that magnetic reconnection is 100% pseudoscience. But Mozina overlooks that Dungey's 100% consistent explanation includes the 100% pseudoscience of magnetic reconnection. I will leave it as an exercise for the attentive reader to decide what impact this will have on the general credibility of Mozina's arguments.
Click to expand...


Yep. Plasma discharges, not electrical. Magnetic reconnection. And the plasma discharge is occurring above the chromosphere. None of it is support for, and all of it contradicts the idea of an electrical discharge from/to some physically impossible iron surface below the photosphere. If someone wanted to select a reference source that is particularly damning to the combined crackpot electric Sun, solid iron surface, and electrical discharge CMEs claims, Dungey's explanation couldn't be better.
 
dasmiller said:
If I may run a bit further with that thought, assuming that all stars are powered the same way:

1) Does the consistent stellar mass/luminosity relationship mean that the galactic currents have consistent strength throughout the galaxy, rather than being weaker as one gets farther from the center of the galaxy?
Click to expand...
There is a "peer-reviewed paper" published by a journal under the IEEE's auspices which sets out to show that the H-R (or colour-magnitude) diagram is a consequence of the currents which power each star.

For example, the spectral class (or colour) - which is usually plotted on the x-axis - is proportional to the current density (amps per square metre) at the surface of the star (photosphere).

If you should get your hands on a copy of that "paper", you are in for some surprises.
2) Why does the mass/luminosity relationship work so well for binary stars? Wouldn't they be sharing their portion of the galactic current?
Click to expand...
AFAIK, no EU/ES proponent has ever answered that question! :jaw-dropp

As you can imagine, it's not for want of being asked it ...
3) What powers extragalactic stars?
Click to expand...
Easy question; each galaxy has its own set of giant Birkeland currents, and there are also lots of these (even bigger ones) connecting galaxies.

You see, plasma laws scale ...
4) Most stars, including the sun, are in elliptical orbits about the center of the galaxy. Shouldn't the sun have a tail like a huge comet? (in the interest of completeness, I can't rule out the possibility that we're at one of the apses).
Click to expand...
There are several different answers to this; some EU/ES proponents say that it does indeed have one; others point to some recent astronomical observations showing that at least one star does have what they call a tail.
5) Do these galactic currents light up any nebulae?
Click to expand...
Sure they do!

You'll get, when you ask this question, dozens of links to images in various press releases, together with statements to the effect of "Look! See there! That's a Birkeland current!!"

And why are they so sure what they see is such a thing? Because of its shape! You know, all cats are black Birkeland currents are filamentary, this animal is black this thing is filamentary, therefore this animal is a cat therefore this thing is a Birkeland current.

It should be noted that, again AFAIK, no EU/ES proponent has ever provided any numbers to go with any of this - such as how many amps a particular current is carrying, or what current density corresponds to what spectral class - nor what powers the currents, nor where the circuits close.

It should also be noted that PC proponents - the ones who are not also EU/ES proponents - generally try to avoid being associated with EU/ES proponents.
 
Tim Thompson said:
See The Electric Sun from Don Scott's Electric Cosmos webpages. Near the top of the page, under heading "The Basics", we find this: "The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies."

OK, all you fans of the electric sun, where is that current? This is the foundational feature of the electric sun hypothesis, the claim that the sun is powered entirely by an electric current flowing into the sun from outside. Electric currents are not invisible magic dark currents. Yet decades of spacecraft cruising the solar system in situ have not detected any sign of this electric current. Hence, the direct evidence from current measuring devices situated within what should be the alleged electric current, is that the current is not there. If the current is not there, then there is no basis in science for the electric sun hypothesis.

How do the electric sun champions explain this?
Click to expand...
Easy.

The sorts of electrical discharge which power the Sun (and stars) are "dynamic" and along most of their path they are in "dark mode". The behaviour is too complicated to be modelled or described by any math (sometimes "non-linear equations" are mentioned).

In the regions of interplanetary space that spacecraft equipped with suitable detectors have been, the current is in "drift mode", so the electrons (or charge carriers, proponents try to avoid being pinned down as to whether they are electrons or not) are travelling too slowly to be detected.

Alternatively, the currents could indeed be easily detected, but no space probe has been to high latitudes (more or less over the Sun's poles), where the currents are to be found, so none has yet been found. Of course, the suppressors-of-science in NASA have been actively working to ensure no space probe ever does visit that part of space, because they know the truth, and are in cahoots with the energy multinational companies. And how do ES proponents know this? Because NASA suppressed Birkeland's research for more than half a century, preferring to tout Chapman's math-based hocus-pocus!

(OK, that last para may contain a couple of slight exaggerations)

I think Don Scott is on record as saying that a voltage drop of some billion volts can take place Sun-ward of where any space probe has been to date, which explains why no currents have yet been detected (this was a response to one of Tom Bridgman's blogs - I think Zeuzzzz can supply the reference).
 
DeiRenDopa said:
There is a "peer-reviewed paper" published by a journal under the IEEE's auspices which sets out to show that the H-R (or colour-magnitude) diagram is a consequence of the currents which power each star.

For example, the spectral class (or colour) - which is usually plotted on the x-axis - is proportional to the current density (amps per square metre) at the surface of the star (photosphere).

If you should get your hands on a copy of that "paper", you are in for some surprises.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing not the nice kind of surprises, like when they said it was healthy to have a glass of red wine every day.

I found a page that goes on at some length about the H-R diagram, but it doesn't discuss why the H-R diagram looks the same for stars near the galactic core as it does for stars out here in the boonies. That would mean that the E-field strength would have to drop linearly (constant volts/meter) throughout the galaxy, which would be an . . umm . . odd . . . shape for a 3D field.

I perused Dr. Scott's Electric Cosmos site and was somewhat surprised (notice that I didn't say shocked? I try to avoid bad puns) to learn that the Grand Canyon was actually formed by an electrical discharge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom