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

[Tubbythin]

I'm not sure what "calculations" you're talking about.

Its really quite straightforward. If you think phenomenon X in the Sun is the same as phenomenon Y on Earth barring a scale factor then you should be able to support this quantitatively. All you need to do is determine the appropriate quantities in X and Y and derive the scale factors. Does quantity a scale linearlly with size for example? Or does it scale quadratically? Or something else? Then if the quantities of Y when scaled by the relevant scale factors give the quantities of X you have evidence. If they do not do this you need to reject or refine your model. If you do not have the scale factors then you have no model at all. The principle is extremely straightforward.

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.

Did he? Then please tell me, what were the scale factors?

The burden of proof has been satisfied.

Nope. Not in the slightest. I want to see a derivation of the scaling factors. Until then, the lab results are nothing more than pretty pictures. Because science is quantitative.

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?

Nope, it isn't. But science uses quantitative analysis to determine the most accurate and precise theories. Religion does no such evaluations and, so far, neither have you.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

It experienced a current flow because it was hit by lightining

 

[Arthur Mann]

Its really quite straightforward. If you think phenomenon X in the Sun is the same as phenomenon Y on Earth barring a scale factor then you should be able to support this quantitatively.

That's already been done, see the paper cited by Michael Mozina.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.​

It's not only "simple", it's "oversimplified" and *INAPPLICABLE* to a "plasma".

Here is the definition that applies to plasmas from the lips of a plasma physicist:

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.

Note that there is NO NEED of a dialectic breakdown. There's no need for a dialectic breakdown in Dungey's use of "electrical discharge".​

 

[DeiRenDopa]

If you haven't seen a model it's because you're willfully ignoring it. Your claim that these ideas don't offer a cogent explanation for (at the very least) CME's and solar flares seems to be based solely on your own imagination in the absence of facts. Your repeated insistence that electricity in space behaves in some way that violates the known laws of physics is ridiculous.

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

 

[Arthur Mann]

It experienced a current flow because it was hit by lightining

How does that change the fact that it was a conductor that was subjected to an electric discharge, a notion that falsifies your boutique definition of "electrical discharge" that you and others seem to have a strong emotional need to protect.

Don't answer, rhetorical question.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

Nope. You still haven't got this burden of proof thing have you? It is up to the proponent of the theory to provide the evidence to support their case.

 

[dasmiller]

If you haven't even examined the models, how can you pretend to refute them?

Again, I don't claim to have refuted them. No pretense is needed.

If you're not trying to refute it, then why do you keep saying it's wrong?

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it wasn't appropriate to post speculations about what the model would say.

Bear in mind you confess complete and utter ignorance of the model.

I'll try.

Being unobservable generally means it's not real.

You're conflating "directly observable" with "having an observable impact on the universe."

Can we observe atoms? Yes, because they're real. Everything that is real can be observed, by definition.

and we directly observe electrons?

But since you raised the question, what sort of observation would falsify EU?

The "EU", as you call it, is based on the notion that space everywhere is filled with plasma. This is directly supported by direct observations, not "indirectly supported" by speculations + observations. There is also experimental verification of plasma, as far out as we've managed to send probes capable of identifying it, space is filled with plasma. This moots most "modern" cosmological ideas, who frequently refer to these electrical phenomena in inappropriate terms like "bow shock" or "fountains" or "jets". Electrical engineers would laugh if these people came into their labs and announced some of the things they claim "explain" these electrical effects in terms of "magnetic reconnection" or "dark matter" or "singularity".

So, you can't suggest an observation that would falsify EU?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's already been done, see the paper cited by Michael Mozina.

By all means do not let them play games over the quantification that has *ALREADY* been provided.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Which electric sun model? How was Bruce's model any different from yours? Dungey?

 

[Tubbythin]

How does that change the fact that it was a conductor that was subjected to an electric discharge, a notion that falsifies your boutique definition of "electrical discharge" that you and others seem to have a strong emotional need to protect.

The electrical discharge occurred because of the break down of the dielectric medium (the air). This is extremely straightforward to understand. Therefore this is clearly not evidence that electrical discharges can happen without a dielectric medium.
This is not a boutique definition. The fact that you think a current is the same as an electrical discharge is bewildering.

Don't answer, rhetorical question.

If you don't want me to answer, don't ask.

 

[Arthur Mann]

So, you can't suggest an observation that would falsify EU?

I certainly can, though it should have been obvious. You may falsify plasma cosmology by proving that, somewhere in space, there is no plasma, or that the plasma behaves differently there than it does here on Earth, or that electromagnetic forces are imaginary, or that gravity can in fact dominate electromagnetic forces in plasmas. All of the ideas presented by plasma cosmology already have strong verification in the form of experimental evidence. This can not be said of "standard" cosmology, which is utterly bereft of empirical referent, resting solely on dogmatic recitation of pseudofactoids and hero worship.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I repeat:

There does *NOT* need to be a "dialectic breakdown" for an "electrical discharge" to occur in plasma!

 

[Arthur Mann]

Therefore this is clearly not evidence that electrical discharges can happen without a dielectric medium.

Where is the dielectric medium in your toaster? Describe how it breaks down when an electric discharge toasts your bread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The electrical discharge occurred because of the break down of the dielectric medium (the air).

How does Dungey's electrical discharge occur?

 

[Tubbythin]

The proof exists, but you continue to deny it. I can't force you to believe it, to be sure. Even if I could, I wouldn't, as I enjoy the sense of superiority gained from being right when most people are wrong.

So the proof exists but you won't show it. Funny that. I have the secret to eternal life you know. Don't believe me? Well I can't force you to. Even if I could, I wouldn't as I enjoy the sense of superiority.

 

[D'rok]

It's not only "simple", it's "oversimplified" and *INAPPLICABLE* to a "plasma".

Here is the definition that applies to plasmas from the lips of a plasma physicist:



Note that there is NO NEED of a dialectic breakdown. There's no need for a dialectic breakdown in Dungey's use of "electrical discharge".

I note, as has been pointed out to you, that the word "breakdown" occurs in the very next sentence.

Can you please explain what you think Peratt means by that sentence?

 

[Tubbythin]

Where is the dielectric medium in your toaster? Describe how it breaks down when an electric discharge toasts your bread.

An electrical discharge doesn't toast my bread. Current is run through the wire filaments which heat them which in turn leads to the cooking of the bread in close proximity.

 

[Tubbythin]

That's already been done, see the paper cited by Michael Mozina.

So you'll have no problem telling me what the scale factors are and how they were derived.

 

[GeeMack]

See a previous post of mine where I refer another poster to Donald Scott's book, Electric Sun. It's a good read, if you have decent reading comprehension. If one is generally uneducated, however, most of it won't make any sense.

Where in the book does it discuss the implications of the solid iron surface on the Sun?