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

[Arthur Mann]

Isn't electric sun just part of plasma cosmology?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1948MNRAS.108..163G/0000163.000.html

This is another relevant/related paper by the way.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r51v538631610x8j/

 

[Arthur Mann]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r51v538631610x8j/

It looks like this paper is trying to describe exploding double layers but doesn't have a suitable vocabulary to do so.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n4mhn3uu5647r536/fulltext.pdf

 

[Reality Check]

Chromospheric Flares (1948)

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1948MNRAS.108..163G/0000163.000.html

This is another relevant/related paper by the way.

Chromospheric Flares (1948) by Giovanelli, R. G
Yet another failure, Michael Mozina: No mention of electrical discharges.
Plenty of electric fields, currents, current densities (and magnetic fields!) are mentioned - in other words standard physics.

 

[nvidiot]

See this is what I don't understand. Any scientist who developed a working and detailed electric universe/electric sun/electric something-or-other model that both explained what we see now, and predicted correctly what the consequences of such a model would be, would instantly win acclaim and nobel prizes.

Why can't any of these EU proponents point to a single, solitary, quantitative prediction? Why can't they show any kind of mathematical description?

If it was a real physics based effect that could be quantified, it would have been.

 

[Reality Check]

Energy build-up and release mechanisms in solar and auroral flares

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r51v538631610x8j/

Energy build-up and release mechanisms in solar and auroral flares (1975)

Flare phenomena in the solar atmosphere and in the terrestrial magnetosphere exhibit many similarities. The mechanical energy of enhanced photospheric motion is converted and stored in the form of magnetic potential energy in sunspot fields, which is analogous to the case of the growth phase of magnetospheric substorms. The energy release during the explosive phase is initiated by a sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology and the X-type magnetic neutral point is created in the corona. Subsequent electrical discharge takes place in the form of an intense electrojet current flowing in the base of the chromosphere at the altitude where the Cowling conductivity is a maximum. It is suggested that the acceleration of particles by field-aligned electric fields and the Ohmic heating in the chromosphere result in major features of solar flares.

Yet another failure, Michael Mozina. But not as bad as the last one!

The abstract does have the term "electrical discharge".
But the paper in fact just has 2 instances of the word discharge. It is clear that this is the discharge of current from the sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology. See page 202.

 

[Arthur Mann]

No mention of electrical discharges.
Plenty of electric fields, currents, current densities (and magnetic fields!) are mentioned - in other words standard physics.

I only briefly looked at that paper, but how can you say it doesn't mention electric discharges if it mentions electric fields, electric currents, electric current densities and magnetic fields? Are you aware that electric discharge is the only known way to produce a magnetic field? Mentioning a magnetic field is implicitly mentioning the electric field driving it. A field isn't an infinite plane like the geometrical construct, it's electricity in motion, electricity discharging. There are several modes of electric discharge, not all of it produces visible light, but every electric discharge consists of a specific current, and a specific current density. You can't have this current and current density without the discharge. If you're finding yourself in conflict over this specific issue a lot, perhaps it's time to reexamine some of your basic assumptions.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Any scientist who developed a working and detailed electric universe/electric sun/electric something-or-other model that both explained what we see now, and predicted correctly what the consequences of such a model would be, would instantly win acclaim and nobel prizes.

Are you suggesting that by virtue of being right it's possible to also be convincing to people who have radically different beliefs? Is this what history shows us is typical for new discoveries? Was Galileo showered with accolades and treasures for his contributions to the sum of human knowledge?

Why can't any of these EU proponents point to a single, solitary, quantitative prediction?

Kristian Birkeland predicted in 1913 that plasma was ubiquitous in space, this has been confirmed by every probe launched with the capability to measure. None have ever left a plasma environment. Birkeland also correctly predicted that "solar wind" particles would be found to behave exactly like all charged particles do when subjected to an electric field. You asked for one, now you have two, I could have given you dozens if you'd asked.

 

[Arthur Mann]

The abstract does have the term "electrical discharge".
But the paper in fact just has 2 instances of the word discharge. It is clear that this is the discharge of current from the sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology. See page 202.

Are you reading these papers fully or just doing word searches to get word counts?

Can you explain what you mean by "discharge of current from a sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology"?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Now, above Mozina tells us "*INDUCTION* does that just fine", despite being informed nearly a year ago that induction will not do that just fine and in fact, cannot do that at all.

Timmy, what do you mean? Are you saying induction can't transfer energy (aka momentum) to a charge particle? if that's the case then how do linear induction charged particle accelerators work? They aren't just theoretical, there are many working examples.

Why does he do that?

Because he's right and you're being obtuse?

It is not physically possible for induction to be at the root of any process that results in the fast release of magnetic energy.

Timmy, can you define the nature of "magnetic energy" so that it accords with your claim that induction can't possibly result in the "release" of it? How does one release magnetic energy? Can you story it as well? Presumably, since you think it can be release. How is the storage accomplished?

There is in fact one and only one process known to physics which can do that, and that process s magnetic reconnection.

That process is metaphysical at best, Timmy. In grade school physics they teach that every magnetic field line must begin and end at the magnet. What you're suggesting is that this can be suspended for the purposes of explaining things like CME's and solar flares. We don't have to invoke special rules that don't apply elsewhere, we can take advantage of our knowledge of electrical engineering and of plasmas. CME's and solar flares are exploding double layers in plasma.

Timmy, plasmas form double layers spontaneously in the presence of electric fields. The entire voltage difference is expressed across that double layer. If the current density becomes too high at the double layer, it can explode violently. We see this in the lab and it mimics CME's and solar flares precisely, even down to the radiation and streams of particles they hurl off. It's cut and dried, these phenomena are electrical in nature. This absurd and untestable fantasy about "magnetic reconnection" is mooted by an adequate explanation.

Mozina always ignores anything, real physics included, even bona fide controlled laboratory experiments, that does not fit his prejudice and there is nothing intellectually honest about that.

I wish you'd spend less time talking about your fantasies involving other posters and more time discussing the subject at hand. I find this topic fascinating, when people actually stay on it.

 

[nvidiot]

Are you suggesting that by virtue of being right it's possible to also be convincing to people who have radically different beliefs? Is this what history shows us is typical for new discoveries? Was Galileo showered with accolades and treasures for his contributions to the sum of human knowledge?

If you can show why you're right and prove it then yes. Gallileo isn't exactly the modern definition of a scientist. Einstein would be a better example.

And he was right, and he was showered with accolades, (not so much the treasures, but that's your strawman not mine). His contributions to science are standard text now. If the electric universe theory could come up with one, quantifiable prediction that it got even within an order of magnitude right, then the sciences would look at it.

What possible reason would any scientist worth the title not want to investigate it if it was a real and quantifiable effect?

Kristian Birkeland predicted in 1913 that plasma was ubiquitous in space, this has been confirmed by every probe launched with the capability to measure. None have ever left a plasma environment. Birkeland also correctly predicted that "solar wind" particles would be found to behave exactly like all charged particles do when subjected to an electric field. You asked for one, now you have two, I could have given you dozens if you'd asked.

Again with Birkeland. You think maybe we understand things a bit better since we have had opportunities to send craft into space and around solar bodies? You think maybe if there was a massive electric current supplying the sun with energy that we may have noticed it frying out sattelites left right and center?

 

[Reality Check]

I only briefly looked at that paper, but how can you say it doesn't mention electric discharges if it mentions electric fields, electric currents, electric current densities and magnetic fields?

I read the paper. It does not contain the term electrical discharge.

Are you aware that electric discharge is the only known way to produce a magnetic field?

Magnetic fields are basically created by moving charges.
An electrical discharge is one example of moving charges and produces a magnetic field.
A current in a wire is another example and produces a magnetic field.
A current in a plasma is another example and produces a magnetic field.

 

[nvidiot]

I read the paper. It does not contain the term electrical discharge.


Magnetic fields are basically created by moving charges.
An electrical discharge is one example of moving charges and produces a magnetic field.
A current in a wire is another example and produces a magnetic field.
A current in a plasma is another example and produces a magnetic field.

It's almost as if they don't actually have a definition for the term "electrical discharge".

 

[Reality Check]

Are you reading these papers fully or just doing word searches to get word counts?

I am skimming through them rather than analyzing them word by word.
Michael Mozina has a track record of bad citations (see my last post about his citations). I am not going to waste much of my time in his assertions.

Can you explain what you mean by "discharge of current from a sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology"?

I mean whatever the author meant .

But Maxwell's equations (the basis of electromagnetism) state that changing magnetic fields exert forces on charges. That is how dynamos work.
A "sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology" is a changing magnetic field. This will exert force on charges. These forces will make the charges move faster, especially electrons. The charges that move faster form a discharge of current.

 

[Arthur Mann]

(like the one I cited above, ...)

It's funny you should cite this book. Out of the hundreds of pages, and the dozens of times the authors use the term "magnetic energy", they never once define the term, just as you haven't defined it. They use this term dozens of times without ever putting forth a working definition of the term. What is "magnetic energy", Timmy-Thom?

 

[Reality Check]

Timmy, what do you mean? Are you saying induction can't transfer energy (aka momentum) to a charge particle? if that's the case then how do linear induction charged particle accelerators work? They aren't just theoretical, there are many working examples.

You need to read the quoted post.

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Why not induction?
Now, Mozina insists that what we are really seeing is induction. Is this a reasonable assertion? At the level of real physics it appears to be unrealistic. We know that induction is invariably constrained (or unconstrained) by the characteristic diffusion time for the magnetic field in a given environment. Remember that in the process of induction, the magnetic field move with respect to the charged particles, and it is that relative motion between field & particle that determines the transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the particles. Let me quote once again from Priest & Forbes, this time from section 1.1 ("The Origins of Reconnection Theory"), pages 6-7: "For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 105 km is of the order of 106 yrs. Typically, phenomena like the solar flare and the substorm require a significant fraction of the stored magnetic energy to be converted within a few Alfven time-scales. Such rapid time-scales are easily achieved in ideal MHD processes, but not in non-ideal ones. Although ideal MHD processes can release energy quickly, they rarely release a significant amount because of the topological constraints which exist in the absence of dissipation. In contrast, magnetic reconnection is not topologically constrained, and therefore it can release much greater amounts of energy (Kivelson and Russell, 1995)."

The time scale of solar flares means that induction cannot be causing the energy release. Solar flares last for 100 seconds. Their scale means that it would take 1,000,000 years for induction to release the same amount of energy.

Because he's right and you're being obtuse?

No because Tim Thompson is presenting the science.
Micheal Mozina has been persistently ignoring the science.

That process is metaphysical at best, Timmy.
...

You need to research the observations of magnetic reconnection and experimental research into magnetic reconnection.
And maybe learn what it is: Magnetic reconnection.

Timmy, plasmas form double layers spontaneously in the presence of electric fields.
...

Plasmas also form double layers spontaneously when 2 different plasmas are close.
I seem to recall that double layers can account for the energy released in solar flares. The problem is that they cannot explain much much else. But Tim Thompson knows more about this than me.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Michael Mozina has a track record of bad citations (see my last post about his citations).

So you're just skimming (word-searching) his sources and then announcing his failure to do what you have demanded? I'm not getting it. Where is the skepticism? You seem to be engaged in wholesale bias against this individual, as evidenced by your own statements. If his "track record" consists of allegations put forth by you, I'd say it's safe to discard it as irrelevant.

I am not going to waste much of my time in his assertions.

You seem to have wasted a lot of time on it so far, and accomplished nothing, to my estimation.

A "sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology" is a changing magnetic field.

What can cause such a collapse of the "topology" of a magnetic field? Is this a physical topology or just a mathematical topology? Do magnetic fields have a physical topology? If it's a mathematical topology, how can an abstract topology "collapse" or have any effect on reality?

This will exert force on charges. These forces will make the charges move faster, especially electrons. The charges that move faster form a discharge of current.

Plasmas are conductive and magnetic, they spontaneously self-organize in the presence of electric or magnetic fields. Magnetic fields in a plasma generate electric fields, Electric fields generate magnetic fields. You can't really have one without the other. For example, if you propose a process "magnetic reconnection" you are implying there is some "electric reconnection". In other words you're saying the phenomenon is electrically driven.

I'm arbitrarily choosing electricity as the driving force because we can generate it readily without resorting to fumbling around with magnets and wires. We can do it with magnets and wires, or chemically, photovoltaically, transducing, etcetera. We can't do the same with magnetic fields, those only come from electric fields. What I'm saying is you can divorce magnetic causes from electric fields but you can't divorce electric causes from magnetic fields. Crying "magnetic reconnection, not electricity!" is the fool's game, if you look at it that way.

 

[tusenfem]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1948MNRAS.108..163G/0000163.000.html

This is another relevant/related paper by the way.

Sheesh, can you please go further back in prehistoric solar physics?
You don't really think things have evolved since 1948???????