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

[Arthur Mann]

Ok. If Bruce's beliefs rely on electrical discharges in a conductive medium then his ideas are wrong though.

The repeated insistence that electric discharge can not occur in a conductive medium is utter nonsense. Electric discharge can ONLY occur in a conductive medium, by definition.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ok. If Bruce's beliefs rely on electrical discharges in a conductive medium then his ideas are wrong though.

No, he's right. I already explained to you that your "emotional need" for a dialectic breakdown is irrelevant to plasma physics. It doesn't apply to plasma because plasma is already a "conductor". A 'conductor" can still experience a "discharge" (as described by Peratt and Dungey) and a conductor can experience a "pinch" as that copper pipe demonstrates.

 

[Reality Check]

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges

Besides that fact that it's *DISCHARGING* charged particles at high velocity? It's the *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge in a plasma.

Once again: Stop *CHERRY PICKING* Peratt's defintion:

1 .5 Electrίcal 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, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.

• "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."

The subject of the second sentence is the "this" in the first sentence, i.e. an electrical discharge. Thus Peratt is stating that

• an electrical discharge is a sudden release of energy
• and this sudden release of energy generally occurs because of the breakdown of a medium.

Perrat is an electrical engineer specializing in plasma. In electrical engineering "breakdown" is a term for the transition of an insulating medium to a conducting medium.

So we are back to the standard definition of an electrical discharge that rules them out within a plasma.

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?

 

[Tubbythin]

This specious claim is based on the false premise that "magnetic reconnection", a phenomenon that is poorly understood at best and utter metaphysical gibberish in any case, is responsible for solar flares. As I pointed out to you already, plasma effects are scalable, and the experiments in the lab mirror the effects we see on the sun precisely, even down to scale. The 100 second interval is a very nicely scaled match with exploding double layers in the lab, which persist for fractions of a second only. Your arbitrary figure of "1,000,000 years" seems to have been pulled from somebody's behind, not from any rational process of discovery.



Repeating it over and over again won't make it true. Perhaps you can demonstrate your mathematical analysis of this problem, by showing that these laboratory double layers exploding don't nicely conform to the same phenomenon we observe in the sun, with scale being the only significant difference? This will involve more than simply throwing out a large number and saying "you must be at least this old to ride this ride". That may work for carnies but no scientist would ever impose such an arbitrary condition.

Timmy-Thom just needs to come to grips with the fact that he's been wrong about many things for many decades. The right move for him now is to admit he made (many) a mistake, prove he can learn, and move on.

Arthur Arthur Arthur. You need to learn about something called the burden of proof. As the proponent of the model, the burden of proof is on you to supply the calculations. It is up to you to show what the relevant quantities are in both cases, derive how they scale and show that the corresponding quantities together match when combined with derived scaling factors. In is not up to Reality Check or anyone else to do that for you. If you cannot do that, and I've asked several times for you to do this, then you have no basis for the claim that these phenomena scale.

 

[Tubbythin]

The repeated insistence that electric discharge can not occur in a conductive medium is utter nonsense. Electric discharge can ONLY occur in a conductive medium, by definition.

Nope. Electric discharges only occur when a dielectric medium breaks down and momentarily causes the medium to become conductive.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Once again: Stop *CHERRY PICKING* Peratt's defintion:

Am I to understand that you don't have faith in Peratt's work but you want to cite it as evidence of an imagined conflict between scientists?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Nope. Electric discharges only occur when a dielectric medium breaks down and momentarily causes the medium to become conductive.

As Michael Mozina recently mentioned, many people in this thread seem to have an emotional need for this to be the case, but of course it's rubbish. Using a boutique definition of a word to semantically "disprove" an idea is fallacious.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. Electric discharges only occur when a dielectric medium breaks down and momentarily causes the medium to become conductive.

No that's not the case when you get to PLASMA PHYSICS. You're already talking about a "PLASMA". That does not mean it cannot still experience a violent, explosive "discharge" as DEFINED by Peratt! Just because it's a plasma doesn't mean it cannot experience large voltage and/or current spikes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Note the complete and utter lack of rebuttal in your post.

Note your continued refusal to actually provide any quantitative details about any electric sun model.

No wonder we're so woefully ignorant about electric sun models: even the advocates won't actually tell anyone what they are.

Perhaps after you've familiarized yourself with the model, then you can try to refute it.

Perhaps you can help familiarize us. I've asked repeatedly. Since you believe that model is correct, why won't you tell us about it? Why do you insist on keeping us in the dark?

 

[Arthur Mann]

As the proponent of the model, the burden of proof is on you to supply the calculations.

I'm not sure what "calculations" you're talking about. Michael Mozina has presented numerous papers supporting these ideas, including one paper demonstrating that CME's and solar flares can be simulated precisely using electric discharges here on Earth. You can't get much more firmly grounded in experimental verification that that.

The burden of proof has been satisfied. Of course, that doesn't mean everyone is compelled to believe it. Just look at the percentage of people who believe in imaginary deities. Is the majority always right?

 

[Tubbythin]

As Michael Mozina recently mentioned, many people in this thread seem to have an emotional need for this to be the case, but of course it's rubbish. Using a boutique definition of a word to semantically "disprove" an idea is fallacious.

This isn't a boutique definition. This is the standard definition that agrees with both my source and Michaels. The fact that you do not have the slightest idea about the difference between current and discharge is quite amusing for someone claiming the mainstream ignores electromagnetism.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope, see countless posts by myself and others that explain this.

That pinched copper pipe demonstrates that you're wrong. It's a "conductor". It experience a "current flow" that was "abnormal". That "large" current flow "pinched" the pipe. That same "abnormally large" current condition can still apply to a plasma just as it can apply to ANY conductor.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This isn't a boutique definition. This is the standard definition that agrees with both my source and Michaels. The fact that you do not have the slightest idea about the difference between current and discharge is quite amusing for someone claiming the mainstream ignores electromagnetism.

Woah! This is Peratt's definition, Dungey's definition too, but it's not MY definition.

 

[Arthur Mann]

No wonder we're so woefully ignorant about electric sun models: even the advocates won't actually tell anyone what they are.

This is untrue, but even if it were true, you can't blame your own ignorance on others, it's your inability or unwillingness to do the research.

That said, I'd recommend Donald Scott's book, Electric Sun.

I have a hard copy of it, it's quite a spectacular read.

 

[GeeMack]

So you still profess ignorance of the model, and yet you have no problem saying:



So not only do you claim 100% ignorance of the model, you also claim that people discussing the model are "electric Sun crackpots". Note the complete and utter lack of rebuttal in your post. All you've done is characterize scientists studying this issue as "crackpots", because you have nothing else to offer. Perhaps after you've familiarized yourself with the model, then you can try to refute it.

Yet after all these declarations that an electric solar model exists, and given the multitude of requests to point it out, the proponents choose to ignore the requests then continue to make the unsupported assertion that it does exist. Interesting. Not science. But interesting.

 

[Reality Check]

This is really quite simple, any movement of electric current is an electric discharge. I don't know what other people (particularly some people in this thread) mean when they say electric discharge, but I know what I mean, and that's it. Any time you have electricity discharging, you have electric discharge. It couldn't be simpler, and I don't understand why it's confusing so many people.

This is really quite simple:

The defintion of electrical discharge is that it is the passage of electrical current through a material which normally does not conduct electricity.
​

That is what people (other than you and Micheal Mozina in this thread) mean when they say electric discharge. I know what I mean and that it is what I mean. Any time you have electricity discharging theough a medium that was non-conducting, you have electric discharge.
It couldn't be simpler, and I don't understand why it's confusing a couple of people.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This isn't a boutique definition. This is the standard definition that agrees with both my source and Michaels. The fact that you do not have the slightest idea about the difference between current and discharge is quite amusing for someone claiming the mainstream ignores electromagnetism.

Actually T, it's your side of the aisle that's at fault here. You are *ARBITRARILY* assigning a *NEED* for a dialectic breakdown and then trying to claim the moral high ground because a plasma is already *LIGHTLY* ionized. You're ignoring the whole possibility of large voltage and or current changes that can FURTHER ionize the plasma, create PINCHES inside the plasma, HEAT the plasma, etc. That's not how it works. A "discharge" can still occur in a plasma. Read Dungey's paper again.

 

[Arthur Mann]

This is the standard definition that agrees with both my source and Michaels.

Tell that to Sandia, they routinely express electric discharges through conductors (wires, in fact) in their "Z machine" to study the z pinch effect.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is untrue, but even if it were true, you can't blame your own ignorance on others, it's your inability or unwillingness to do the research.

I've tried in the past, and come up almost empty. The only numbers I could find were off by many orders of magnitude from what's physically possible.

That said, I'd recommend Donald Scott's book, Electric Sun.

I have a hard copy of it, it's quite a spectacular read.

And does this book describe how the model can account for the total power output of the sun? If so, can you give us a short summary of the relevant numbers? If not, then it doesn't really solve the problem.

Edit: I think you might have the title wrong, my google searches keep turning up "The Electric Sky".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

When scaled up from laboratory plasmas simulating them, this is a good fit, the tiny laboratory plasmas last for fractions of a second, the solar flares are 1000's of times larger.

Please show, in detail, how the Sun produces ~3.9x10^26 W, according to the Electric Sun model.

The fact that it can even be accurately modeled physically in the lab is astonishing in itself, so much of astronomy isn't practiced as a science the way plasma cosmology is.

Please show, in detail, how the Sun produces ~3.9x10^26 W, according to the Electric Sun model.

It's okay for you to have this opinion, but I don't share it. How does that make you feel?

Please show, in detail, how the Sun produces ~3.9x10^26 W, according to the Electric Sun model.

I understand the claims involved, I'm not convinced they have any merit, since they offer nothing in the way of predictability or really any coherent explanation of the phenomena.

Please show, in detail, how the Sun produces ~3.9x10^26 W, according to the Electric Sun model.