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

[tusenfem]

Hmmm. Is that really true actually? Keep in mind that Alfven described a magnetic rope as a Bennett Pinch. It seems like the whole interplanetary medium is a "current carrying" medium. Part of the Earth's atmosphere is "conductive" (aurora), and some parts are less conductive.

No, a magnetic rope is a magnetic rope, a Bennett pinch is a Bennett pinch, the latter can take place in the former, but need not necessarily. Mikey, what is the specific requirement for a Bennett pinch?

The only part of the Earth that is really conductive (what do you mean with those quotes around conductive, Mikey?) is the path of a lightning stroke. Note that the aurora is usually at a few hundred kilometers height, whereas the atmosphere sort of ends after a few tens of kilometers. So, this whole paragraph of yours is bunk.

Keep in mind that virtually every "electric sun" theory *assumes* a charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. The charge separation that was achieved in Birkeland's model (only working model I've seen) was created with the powerful electromagnetic fields he used inside the sphere to concentrate the current flows along the magnetic field lines.

Birkeland achieved a strong electric field because his sphere was an anode and somewhere in his box he had a cathode. Inside the sphere was an electromagnet, and that did nothing of the kind as you claim. It just made the electrons follow the magnetic field, it did nothing to create a charge separtation, which was also not there, there was just a cathode and an anode in the Terrella box.

For the rest, this supposed electric field has still not been found in space, how quaint, nor has the current that is needed to keep the Sun in a perpetual "discharge mode" whatever that may be.

 

[GeeMack]

Note Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge *IN* plasma:

1.5 Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Xrays, and microwaves. Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3. This energy is then transferred to a discharge region, located many meters from the source, via a transmission line.

Care to rescind your pathologically false statement yet?

I have responded to this inane argument several times...

... in post #380...

I see the words "electrical" and "discharge". I also see an explanation of a discharge, but it appears that Peratt may be a crappy communicator and mangled the title of the comment, because nothing in the quote specifies that any electrical discharges are going through any plasma. I'm certainly not responsible for Peratt's deficient language skills and/or the apparent inability of the electric Sun wackos to understand what they read. I'm not responsible for the oversights, the ignorance, the misinterpretations, or the dishonest quote mining that crackpots might do to try to support their otherwise unsupportable claims. The burden of proof is on the folks making the ridiculous claims, and when they fail at that responsibility, the arguments have failed.

... in post #383...

The quote provided does not make a solar flare an electrical discharge. Reality Check just pointed out within the quote, "The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space [...]". A few cubic centimeters of space? A solar flare? Really? As with Lee's paper, it would be ignorance, stupidity, or a lie to suggest those comments objectively support the claim that electrical discharges are or are the cause of CMEs and solar flares.

... in post #386...

Nowhere in there does it say anything about solar or flares of any sort, and nothing but a single word in the heading mentions plasma. So no, it doesn't mention solar flares at all, so it can't possibly mean a solar flare is an example of anything. It would be ignorance, stupidity, or a lie to suggest that comment objectively supports the claim that electrical discharges are or are the cause of CMEs and solar flares.

... in post #393...

No part in yellow says anything about "electrical discharges *IN* cosmic plasmas". Nothing. I've read it several times and it still says: "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy." That's all it says, thirteen words, no cosmic, no plasma. It would be a lie, ignorant, insane, or just plain stupid for anyone with elementary English speaking skills to argue that it suggests electrical discharges cause solar flares and CMEs.

... and in post #405...

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.​

... and I have concluded that the argument is persistent, uncivil, badgering spam. It was spam the second time it was posted, and the third, and the fourth... and it's still spam. Some would certainly consider it a violation of rule 6 in the JREF forum membership agreement. It is also true that other people have addressed this spam, and nobody else interprets it to mean electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares. Furthermore, contradictions have been pointed out which were, in fact, summarily ignored by the crackpots.

So it looks as though the spam doesn't objectively support the claim, or possibly the electric Sun crackpots' argument-by-spamming-Peratt is being presented so poorly that it simply isn't cogent. But the obvious conclusion when electric Sun proponents resort to spamming the forum is, of course, that everything they have to offer has been provided. Apparently the claim that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares simply can't be scientifically and objectively supported.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

"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."
Dungey, 1958, page 139

Notice that Dungey is talking about a "reconnection" of "currents" of *IONS* and *ELECTRONS* ... I can comprehend *DUNGEY's* concept of RECONNECTION of *PARTICLES* ...

Notice that Dungey says, "'reconnect' the lines of force ... if the lines of force are seen as strings". The statement that the reconnecting is being done by lines of force could hardly be more explicit. And yet Mozina insists that Dungey actually says currents and ions and electrons and particles.

It should show the reader that my credibility is very good.

Need I say more?

Attentive readers will not be surprised that, once again, Tim Thompson is right and Michael Mozina is wrong.

All he is describing are *BENNETT PINCHES* of PINCHED PLASMA FILAMENTS of "current flow". There's nothing magical about the "lines of force". Those "LINES" are in fact *DISCHARGE CHANNELS* and PINCHED circuits.

No, Michael. He's talking about the lines of force in figure 1. Here's the caption for figure 1:

Fig. 1. The direction of the magnetic force, [latex]\(\hbox{{\bf f}} = \frac{1}{c}\hbox{{\bf j}} \times \hbox{{\bf H}}\)[/latex].

Dungey was pretty explicit about the magnetic force throughout the paper you've been touting:

....neutral point of a magnetic field...[latex]\(c \, \hbox{curl}\,\hbox{{\bf H}} \approx 4 \pi j\)[/latex]....H = 300 gauss....magnetic force....

Consider a neutral point N, where the lines of force in one plane have the form shown in Fig. 1....The magnetic force therefore has the direction of the short arrows....

That Dungey was writing about lines of magnetic force would have been more evident to you had you understood his notations and units, but I have highlighted enough of the above to show he is talking about the neutral point of a magnetic field, where that magnetic field's lines of force have the form shown in Dungey's figure 1.

If you compare Dungey's figure 1 with the figure shown in the current Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection^WP, you will see that those two figures display exactly the same situation; rotating Dungey's figure 1 counterclockwise by 90 degrees will give you Wikipedia's figure.

Need I say more?

You need to write less. By writing less, and by making at least some effort to understand the science before you write about it, you will say more.

 

[dasmiller]

Keep in mind that virtually every "electric sun" theory *assumes* a charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere.

But doesn't the classic flare start as an arc between two points on the photosphere? If the charge separation is photosphere:heliosphere, shouldn't the flare look more like a lightning bolt?

You're essentially asking me why incredibly conductive plasmas and somewhat conductive fluids behave different in vastly different environments.

Because the sun's plasma is more conductive than seawater (from my quick googling), it should be more difficult to have a large charge separations on the sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But doesn't the classic flare start as an arc between two points on the photosphere? If the charge separation is photosphere:heliosphere, shouldn't the flare look more like a lightning bolt?

No. It should basically look like an arc discharge. Birkeland's terrella produced similar "loops" in the atmosphere above the sphere that joined various points on the surface which were joined *ELECTRO*magnetically.

Because the sun's plasma is more conductive than seawater (from my quick googling), it should be more difficult to have a large charge separations on the sun.

Difficult or not, it's clearly not impossible. Whenever it occurs, a 'discharge' also occurs that ionizes neon, carbon, nickel and iron to very high ionization states. The fact that iron *IS* ionized to a +20 state demonstrates that there is an 'arc discharge' involved.

 

[GeeMack]

Difficult or not, it's clearly not impossible. Whenever it occurs, a 'discharge' also occurs that ionizes neon, carbon, nickel and iron to very high ionization states. The fact that iron *IS* ionized to a +20 state demonstrates that there is an 'arc discharge' involved.

An arc discharge, eh? Okay, it sounds like the claim that an electrical discharge is or is the cause of solar flares and CMEs has been abandoned.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Attentive readers will not be surprised that, once again, Tim Thompson is right and Michael Mozina is wrong.

Actually no, in this case Tim is correct and I am also correct. Tim is right that he describes *ALL* the circuit energy, *INCLUDING* (but not limited to) the magnetic field. Note that the transfer of kinetic energy from the magnetic field (via photons) to charged particles is called 'induction" and it already has a proper scientific name. Please do not confuse *INDUCTION* with anything else.

When Dungey talks about "reconnection", he also mentions that plasma thread you folks keep ignoring. He mentions that *DISCHARGE* taking place at the ELECTROmagnetically neutral point.

I really like Dungey's paper because it does in fact "bridge the gap" between *DISCHARGE/Particle/Circuit* theory, and what you are calling "magnetic reconnection". It's clear that a *STREAM OF CHARGED PARTICLES* actually 'reconnect', not intangible 'magnetic lines".

You've essentially got two huge problems on your hands now. Not only is MR theory not a threat to my beliefs, it *CONFIRMS* Peratt's definition to a tee. In other words, the transfer of magnetic field energy to charged particles is by *DEFINITION* an 'electrical discharge" in plasma according to Peratt.

The second major problem you have on your hands now relates to that *CURRENT FLOW* which automatically disqualifies any concept of "magnetic reconnection" from even applying to *THESE SPECIFIC* circumstances according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory.

Even *IF* I decide to disagree with Alfven about MR theory being "pseudoscience", the sudden release of magnetic energy means that *BY DEFINITION* the flare *IS* an 'electrical discharge'.

I'm in a "no lose' scenario. I can keep leaning on you over the fact it's a "current carrying' plasma, and therefore Alfven's *NAILS* apply. I could also simply 'go with the plasma flow' now since Dungey makes it *EXTREMELY* clear that "reconnection' occurs between two "discharge streams". I have absolutely nothing to lose either way you look at it.

In *REALITY* what makes Dungey's definition something OTHER THAN "pseudoscience' is the fact that he *EXPLAINS* that the PHYSICAL CHARGED PARTICLES are involved in a kinetic energy transfer between two 'discharge currents". He's essentially describing a discharge through a double layer through two pinched current streams. In other words he demonstrated that what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than "circuit reconnection" with a "dumbed down" name.

 

[Michael Mozina]

... and I have concluded that the argument is persistent, uncivil, badgering spam.

Your conclusions are incorrect.

You are essentially *IN DENIAL* of Peratt's *DEFINITION*. He *CLEARLY* defines what an "electrical discharge in plasma" *IS*. You evidently don't like it, and therefore you're denying it exists, or denying the scientific validity of that definition of an electrical discharge in plasma, one or the other. Either way, it's denial.

Assuming it's the latter form of denial, I am forced to now ask what exactly it is that you do for a living? Normally I don't care about a person's age or occupation and it's typically not relevant, but in this case it is. Peratt is(was?) a professional *PLASMA PHYSICIST* by trade. He understands plasma. I have no evidence to support the conclusion that you have either read his work, or understand anything at all about electrical discharges in plasma.

What is it that you do for a living that allows you to simply DENY the scientific DEFINITION provided by a professional on this topic?

 

[Michael Mozina]

An arc discharge, eh? Okay, it sounds like the claim that an electrical discharge is or is the cause of solar flares and CMEs has been abandoned.

No, it just sounds like you are still in DENIAL of the scientific *DEFINITION* of an 'electrical discharge' in a plasma which was provided by a professional plasma physicist.

 

[dasmiller]

No. It should basically look like an arc discharge. Birkeland's terrella produced similar "loops" in the atmosphere above the sphere that joined various points on the surface which were joined *ELECTRO*magnetically.

The terrella pictures I've seen showed more linear discharges between the terrella and the plates, but I don't doubt that there are other pictures showing loops. But how do loops relate to the potential difference between the photosphere and the heliosphere? They wouldn't seem to involve the heliosphere at all.

Difficult or not, it's clearly not impossible. Whenever it occurs, a 'discharge' also occurs that ionizes neon, carbon, nickel and iron to very high ionization states. The fact that iron *IS* ionized to a +20 state demonstrates that there is an 'arc discharge' involved.

Is Fe+20 created only in arc discharges?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, a magnetic rope is a magnetic rope, a Bennett pinch is a Bennett pinch, the latter can take place in the former, but need not necessarily. Mikey, what is the specific requirement for a Bennett pinch?

Current flow and typically *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES* in plasmas (as defined by Peratt).

The only part of the Earth that is really conductive (what do you mean with those quotes around conductive, Mikey?) is the path of a lightning stroke. Note that the aurora is usually at a few hundred kilometers height, whereas the atmosphere sort of ends after a few tens of kilometers.

I think the operative phrase in your statement is "sort of ends'. It doesn't actually "end" it simply becomes less dense, so you're "sort of" wrong.

Birkeland achieved a strong electric field because his sphere was an anode and somewhere in his box he had a cathode.

Actually he did several experiments (including the one you mentioned) but opted to bombard a neutral sphere with a cathode and an anode in some experiments too. You might read through his whole set of experiments some time. It's actually very interesting.

Inside the sphere was an electromagnet, and that did nothing of the kind as you claim. It just made the electrons follow the magnetic field, it did nothing to create a charge separtation, which was also not there, there was just a cathode and an anode in the Terrella box.

If we're going to talk about solar events, the terella was a CATHODE and the box was the ANODE. The LOOPS he created did indeed follow the ELECTROmagnetic field lines, but the DISCHARGE between the cathode sphere and anode box was continuous. Turn off the "electricity" to the device and the party is over.

For the rest, this supposed electric field has still not been found in space, how quaint, nor has the current that is needed to keep the Sun in a perpetual "discharge mode" whatever that may be.

IMO Birkeland's "cathode in space" model more correctly describes the "flow pattern" of charged particles than any "externally powered" solar model I've seen to date, save perhaps a scalar wave model. In either case, the discharge between the surface and the heliosphere is CONTINUOUS and the surface acts as the cathode in a continuous discharge process.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The terrella pictures I've seen showed more linear discharges between the terrella and the plates, but I don't doubt that there are other pictures showing loops. But how do loops relate to the potential difference between the photosphere and the heliosphere? They wouldn't seem to involve the heliosphere at all.

It may not "seem" that way, but the discharge between the cathode terella and the anode box was part of what made the whole thing work.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

The B&W image is from Birkelands experiments. You'll notice he created distinct "loops" in the atmosphere.

Is Fe+20 created only in arc discharges?

I don't know *WHAT ELSE* might ionize iron to those high energy states, but I know from Lee's work that iron will become highly ionized in a standard discharge. I know that even gamma rays are produced in discharges and I know that neutrons are pinched from plasma in discharges. All of these processes are observed in solar flares. Unless you have a "simpler" answer, I go with an answer that I know works in nature.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Which part in yellow do you NOT understand, MM?

It all sounds perfectly correct to me.

 

[dasmiller]

It may not "seem" that way, but the discharge between the cathode terella and the anode box was part of what made the whole thing work.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

The B&W image is from Birkelands experiments. You'll notice he created distinct "loops" in the atmosphere.

Actually, I haven't yet noticed that. I see a lot of curved discharges, but I don't see any that appear to have both ends on the surface of the terrella.

I don't know *WHAT ELSE* might ionize iron to those high energy states, but I know from Lee's work that iron will become highly ionized in a standard discharge. I know that even gamma rays are produced in discharges and I know that neutrons are pinched from plasma in discharges. All of these processes are observed in solar flares. Unless you have a "simpler" answer, I go with an answer that I know works in nature.

Your assertion that presence of Fe+20 demonstrates that an arc discharge is valid only if there's no other way for Fe+20 to be created. Nobody's denying that there's a lot of energy being released in the heliosphere.

 

[GeeMack]

Your conclusions are incorrect.

You are essentially *IN DENIAL* of Peratt's *DEFINITION*. He *CLEARLY* defines what an "electrical discharge in plasma" *IS*. You evidently don't like it, and therefore you're denying it exists, or denying the scientific validity of that definition of an electrical discharge in plasma, one or the other. Either way, it's denial.

Assuming it's the latter form of denial, I am forced to now ask what exactly it is that you do for a living? Normally I don't care about a person's age or occupation and it's typically not relevant, but in this case it is. Peratt is(was?) a professional *PLASMA PHYSICIST* by trade. He understands plasma. I have no evidence to support the conclusion that you have either read his work, or understand anything at all about electrical discharges in plasma.

What is it that you do for a living that allows you to simply DENY the scientific DEFINITION provided by a professional on this topic?

Obviously my qualifications are not the issue here. I have not made any glaringly stupid arguments, any wholly contradictory statements, or dishonestly attempted to misrepresent decades of various scientific research in order to try to demonstrate the truth of some cockamamie claim. I'm simply pointing out the lies, the logical fallacies, the blunders, the miscommunication, and the misrepresentations in the arguments. I've already shown that one wouldn't need to possess more than 9th grade reading skills and 5th grade science skills to catch some of the idiocy that gets passed off as "science" by various cranks.

Peratt did not provide the scientific definition of an electrical discharge, certainly not one that is commonly used. It is a lie to suggest that he did. If the electric Sun wackos are liars, and/or if they have some unusual definition for the term "electrical discharge", it is their responsibility to provide that definition in a clear, objective, and unambiguous way. No such definition has yet been provided. If failure to communicate effectively is behind the inability of the crackpots to present a cogent, successful argument, it is their responsibility alone to rectify that problem.

The point should also be made here that using terms differently than their contemporary accepted usage is wholly unscientific, and when used in an unconventional way in order to demand that some argument must be valid, it is dishonest. It does seems that crackpots who pretend to engage in various scientific discussions have more than their share of liars.

Now to try as always, to keep this discussion on topic: Apparently everything the electric Sun proponents have to offer has been provided, and the claim that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares simply can't be scientifically and objectively supported.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, I haven't yet noticed that. I see a lot of curved discharges, but I don't see any that appear to have both ends on the surface of the terrella.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/fig-252.jpg

Here's the best closeup I could find on the web.

Your assertion that presence of Fe+20 demonstrates that an arc discharge is valid only if there's no other way for Fe+20 to be created. Nobody's denying that there's a lot of energy being released in the heliosphere.

Actually I don't have to assert anything other than the fact that an arc discharge does explain higher energy wavelengths of light, not only highly ionized iron, but x-rays and even gamma rays. A pinch can even explain neutron capture signatures that are observed during flare activity. All of these events are consistent with electrical discharges in plasma. Whatever *ELSE* might work is something I cannot answer, I simply know one thing that DOES work.

 

[dasmiller]

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/fig-252.jpg

Here's the best closeup I could find on the web.

It's true that that figure 252 strongly resembles a solar prominence. This shouldn't be surprising; it strongly resembles a prominence because it is a picture of a prominence.

From the source document:

Fig. 252 is a reproduction of one of Prof. HALE's earliest prominence photographs taken at KENWOOD's Observatory.

So, I really can't count that as an example of a terrella making loops.

Actually I don't have to assert anything other than the fact that an arc discharge does explain higher energy wavelengths of light, not only highly ionized iron, but x-rays and even gamma rays. A pinch can even explain neutron capture signatures that are observed during flare activity. All of these events are consistent with electrical discharges in plasma. Whatever *ELSE* might work is something I cannot answer, I simply know one thing that DOES work.

I don't dispute that the presence of Fe+20 is consistent with arc discharges, I'm disputing that the presence of Fe+20 demonstrates that arc discharges must be occurring. If there are other possible sources of Fe+20, then your conclusion did not follow.

Doesn't Fe+20 occur any time Fe gets sufficiently hot?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Obviously my qualifications are not the issue here.

Actually, yes, in this case they are the issue here.

I have not made any glaringly stupid arguments,

Yes you did. Allow me to demonstrate:

Peratt did not provide the scientific definition of an electrical discharge,

This is a patently false (and demonstrably false) statement. Peratt from his book (ISBN number previously listed):

1.5 Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.

It's a very simple, very easy to understand definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma. It's only two sentences long. What can *POSSIBLY* be difficult to understand about that definition?

certainly not one that is commonly used.

This is where your qualifications become an issue. This *IS* a commonly used definition in the *FIELD OF PLASMA PHYSICS*. Peratt is a professional plasma physicist, whereas I have absolutely no idea what you do for a living or what makes you qualified to decide what is a "commonly used" definition of a discharge in the field of plasma physics. Peratt's definition of a discharge is also 100 percent consistent with Dungey's definition.

What makes you an "expert" on plasma physics? Have you read Peratt's work?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's true that that figure 252 strongly resembles a solar prominence. This shouldn't be surprising; it strongly resembles a prominence because it is a picture of a prominence.

From the source document:


So, I really can't count that as an example of a terrella making loops.

Grrr, Sorry, my bad. I'll keep looking for a good image. Notice however the "arc discharge" like appearance of that prominence?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't dispute that the presence of Fe+20 is consistent with arc discharges, I'm disputing that the presence of Fe+20 demonstrates that arc discharges must be occurring. If there are other possible sources of Fe+20, then your conclusion did not follow.

I'm not denying that OTHER options might exist, I simply know of a SIMPLE way to explain such emissions that requires "nothing new under the sun" so to speak.

Doesn't Fe+20 occur any time Fe gets sufficiently hot?

Sure but a discharge explains *WHY* it might get hot. Even though plasma is an "excellent" conductor, it's not a "perfect" conductor. In a pinch/discharge scenario, even ONE SINGLE loop might reach millions of degrees. How does a SINGLE loop do that with 'magnetic reconnection"?