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

[Michael Mozina]

Quit lying, Michael.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176699

Not a single word from you.

FYI, I was talking about Alfven's use of *CIRCUITS* in space plasmas (solar atmospheric plasmas included), not Birkeland's work.

What exactly did you expect me to say in that particular thread anyway? I think this is probably the applicable quote from Birkeland and it relates directly back to voltages *OBSERVED* in the solar atmosphere:

... that I had the idea that we would have to make very strong cathode rays, that I have called helio-cathode rays; I have calculated that the negative electric tension necessary for the emission of these rays is about 600 million volts.

Oh look, a *PREDICTION* about voltages that *MATCHES OBSERVATIONS*!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Does that paper talk about the net electric charge of the sun?

It describes the processes in terms of volts and amps. Note that the OOM prediction from Birkeland was a *LOT* more reliable than the reference Tim cited. Why?

I am still waiting for any of the critics of Alfven's *circuit/double layer* explanation is incorrect, either quantitatively, or qualitatively. Note the voltages Alfven suggests are pretty much in the same ballpark as Birkeland.

 

[D'rok]

FYI, I was talking about Alfven's use of *CIRCUITS* in space plasmas (solar atmospheric plasmas included), not Birkeland's work.

Then why did you say it in response to tusenfem's comment about Birkeland?

What exactly did you expect me to say in that particular thread anyway?

Something intelligent that demonstrates you understand the material under discussion. Or anything at all that at least acknowledges the effort undertaken to accede to your constant demands to talk about these things - despite your refusal to participate when those demands are met.

 

[D'rok]

It describes the processes in terms of volts and amps. Note that the OOM prediction from Birkeland was a *LOT* more reliable than the reference Tim cited. Why?

The fact that I understand that paper better than you do is really sad. Pay attention to tusenfem, especially the section that begins with this:

This whole discussion of the Wheatfield paper is because of the answer that Tim Thompson gave on the question “Are stars charged” and his answer was “Yes” and indeed there was a paper in 2001 by Neslusan that discusses this (the link was nicely taken out by MM).

MM told TT that: Ooops? You're OOMS off Tim. Now what?, but does MM actually know what he is talking about? Apparently not, because TT was discussion the charged Sun and the voltage that could be created by that, whereas Wheatfield goes into a totally different calculation. Let’s take a look:

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then why did you say it in response to tusenfem's comment about Birkeland?

I have spent so much time in so many threads discussing Birkeland's work that I've simply lost count. I had no idea he was referring to *ONE* (and only one thread). I have a life and I often have to choose which conversations to focus on and which ones to outright ignore. That one evidently didn't catch my attention. So what? Does that somehow negate everything I've said about Birkekand's work over the past five years?

Something intelligent that demonstrates you understand the material under discussion. Or anything at all that at least acknowledges the effort undertaken to accede to your constant demands to talk about these things - despite your refusal to participate when those demands are met.

FYI, let's be clear. AFAIK, T is the *ONLY* PC/EU critic to have actually done his homework on PC theory. The rest have not even read his book or his relevant papers, or at least none of them have commented much on them. Wheatland's observations make it clear that Alfven's "circuit" orientation to flares, and the fact the circuits close *UNDER* the photoshere matches observations very closely, including voltages and amps "predicted" by PC/EU proponents for *over 100 years now*.

Every large body in the solar system with a magnetic field and atmosphere experience "discharges" (as defined by Peratt) in it's atmosphere. What makes you think the sun would be any different in that respect, particularly in light of the volts and amps observed in solar flares?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The fact that I understand that paper better than you do is really sad. Pay attention to tusenfem, especially the section that begins with this:

This whole discussion of the Wheatfield paper is because of the answer that Tim Thompson gave on the question “Are stars charged” and his answer was “Yes” and indeed there was a paper in 2001 by Neslusan that discusses this (the link was nicely taken out by MM).

MM told TT that: Ooops? You're OOMS off Tim. Now what?, but does MM actually know what he is talking about? Apparently not, because TT was discussion the charged Sun and the voltage that could be created by that, whereas Wheatfield goes into a totally different calculation. Let’s take a look:

I don't think you're quite hearing me yet. Birkeland and Eddington approached this issue from completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Birkeland treated the sun as a "cathode". Eddington does not. That's the fundamental difference between a PC/EU oriented theory, and a "standard/mainstream" theory. The atmospheric voltages "predicted" by Birkeland *match observation* whereas a mainstream model from the same basic vintage *DOES NOT*. Notice a pattern here?

Birkeland's team didn't predict an electrostatic charge, they predicted a "cathode" that electrically interacts with space. That's the fundamental difference between these approaches, and only one of them actually matched observations from 100+ years later.

 

[D'rok]

I give up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I give up.

So 100 years ago, Birkeland predicts 10^9-10^10 volts at the surface of the sphere. Eddington's "mainstream" theories predict 10^3 volts. Which model correctly *predicted* the voltages observed 100 years later?

 

[tusenfem]

I would appreciate your side putting in a little effort, noticing that your voltages are off by OOMS at the surface and noticing a "discharge" when you see one. Apparently you believe that if you measure the voltages at both ends of an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere that they are 'neutralized' (apparently even during the discharge process itself) at all times, and you're outright ignoring the fact that your voltages are not even in the ballpark! This is like a trip to the twighlight zone IMO. Whatever you don't like, you simply ignore or sweep under the carpet. It doesn't matter if maths are included, observations are included, etc. The only thing that seems to matter to you is that it doesn't jive with your belief systems, therefore it has to be outright ignored. How do you explain those voltages and amps T? Notice how the *CIRCUIT* closes *UNDER* the photosphere just as Alfven PREDICTED?

Oh for crying out loud, Mikey, just admid that the paper you linked to had nothing, but then really nothing to do with with fact whether stars are charged to a certain degree (see papers quoted by TT).

This is just blah blah to try and find your "right" somewhere.

Just go detailed through the paper like I did, and show that you are right.

This is pathetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh for crying out loud, Mikey, just admid that the paper you linked to had nothing, but then really nothing to do with with fact whether stars are charged to a certain degree (see papers quoted by TT).

Oh for crying out load, just admit Tusenfemy that this whole debate comes back to the validity of the "predictions" made by various models. Birkeland's "cathode sun" model correctly "predicted" (real lab prediction by the way, not your funny number stuff) the actual voltages *OBSERVED* at the surface. Your mainstream theories *FAILED* and they failed miserably. The mainstream model failed by several OOMS to correctly predict the voltages and amps observe in flare events.

This is just blah blah to try and find your "right" somewhere.

*I* don't have anything at all to do with this conversation. Birkeland was right. That's the part that was important.

Just go detailed through the paper like I did, and show that you are right.

Which "paper"? Why? How about all his *PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS* T?

This is pathetic.

What is "pathetic" is the *epic fail" of mainstream theory to correctly "predict" anything. All the mainstream stuff is *POSTDICTED* after the fact and usually after scratching your collective heads for several decades. Birkeland on the other hand used a model that *CORRECTLY PREDICTED* the actual voltages seen in solar flare events. He even tested his concepts around a full sphere in a lab. When was that done with mainstream theory?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Mozina supports math over observation!

This is truly remarkable. Michael Mozina has just argued that Wheatland's mathematical calculations should be believed despite the absence of direct evidence (as of 1999) in support of those calculations.

Alas, Michael Mozina appears to be unaware of what he is doing:

Oh for crying out load, just admit Tusenfemy that this whole debate comes back to the validity of the "predictions" made by various models. Birkeland's "cathode sun" model correctly "predicted" (real lab prediction by the way, not your funny number stuff) the actual voltages *OBSERVED* at the surface. Your mainstream theories *FAILED* and they failed miserably. The mainstream model failed by several OOMS to correctly predict the voltages and amps observe in flare events.

The highlighted words are incorrect. When Wheatland's paper was written, the voltages Michael Mozina is talking about had not been observed:

Assuming the change occurs on a timescale τ, there is an associated electromotive force (EMF) V ∼ LI/τ, where L is the inductance of the circuit. The inductance may be estimated by L ∼ μ₀l ≈100 H for a circuit of length l ≈ 10⁸ m. If the current flowing through the corona (I ≈ 10¹² A) or the inductance changes substantially on the timescale for flux emergence (τ ≈ 10⁵ s), enormous voltages (V ≈ 10⁹ V) are implied. There is no direct evidence for voltages of this order in the solar corona, and it is hard to understand how the coronal plasma could sustain such voltages.

Whether those voltages are actually generated is an interesting question. I do not know whether that question has been answered during the ten years that have passed since the publication of Wheatland's paper.

So 100 years ago, Birkeland predicts 10^9-10^10 volts at the surface of the sphere. Eddington's "mainstream" theories predict 10^3 volts. Which model correctly *predicted* the voltages observed 100 years later?

The mainstream theories would appear to have done a better job of predicting the observed voltages. With Wheatland's paper, the mainstream theories also appear to be predicting some isolated voltages on the order of those predicted by Birkeland.

If Birkeland predicted an average of billions of volts at the sun's surface, then Birkeland's prediction was incorrect.

 

[tusenfem]

I have spent so much time in so many threads discussing Birkeland's work that I've simply lost count. I had no idea he was referring to *ONE* (and only one thread). I have a life and I often have to choose which conversations to focus on and which ones to outright ignore. That one evidently didn't catch my attention. So what? Does that somehow negate everything I've said about Birkekand's work over the past five years?

That ONE and only ONE thread was announced in your threads, I even recall that you looked forward to it (no I am not going to search for that). And then, what happens, I read, analyse and write about Birkeland's work, and after several bumps, also by DeiRenDopa, MM is not interested.

Figures!

FYI here is that thread.

 

[tusenfem]

Oh for crying out load, just admit Tusenfemy that this whole debate comes back to the validity of the "predictions" made by various models. Birkeland's "cathode sun" model correctly "predicted" (real lab prediction by the way, not your funny number stuff) the actual voltages *OBSERVED* at the surface. Your mainstream theories *FAILED* and they failed miserably. The mainstream model failed by several OOMS to correctly predict the voltages and amps observe in flare events.

Sorry, boy, but the currents in the paper by Wheatfield flow "up" in one polarity and the flow "down" in the other polarity, and summed over the whole active region (i.e. over all postive and negative polarities of the active region) it is found that Itot is equal to ZERO (i.e. 0). Try to do that with your solar cathode.

Do you even read the papers that you quote or do you just try to interprete the abstract?

Which "paper"? Why? How about all his *PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS* T?

Hello! Pick up the clue phone! What paper do you think? The Wheatfield paper that YOU cited as in opposition to what TT claimed and which I showed that it had absolutely NOTHING to do with what TT said.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, boy, but the currents in the paper by Wheatfield flow "up" in one polarity and the flow "down" in the other polarity, and summed over the whole active region (i.e. over all postive and negative polarities of the active region) it is found that Itot is equal to ZERO (i.e. 0). Try to do that with your solar cathode.

It has already been done in a lab T. You are 100 years behind the times (and counting).

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is truly remarkable. Michael Mozina has just argued that Wheatland's mathematical calculations should be believed despite the absence of direct evidence (as of 1999) in support of those calculations.

Alas, Michael Mozina appears to be unaware of what he is doing:



The highlighted words are incorrect. When Wheatland's paper was written, the voltages Michael Mozina is talking about had not been observed:




Whether those voltages are actually generated is an interesting question. I do not know whether that question has been answered during the ten years that have passed since the publication of Wheatland's paper.

Unless you think Maxwell's equations go flying out the window, how did you intend to *DENY* the existence of 10^9-10^10 volts in those flare events Mr. Spock?

The mainstream theories would appear to have done a better job of predicting the observed voltages.

No, it didn't. The mainstream theories did *NOT* predict high speed solar wind. They did *NOT* "predict" (maybe postdict with "pseudo-science" perhaps) 10^9 volts THROUGH (another point you're ignoring) the surface of the photosphere as *PREDICTED* in PC theories (plural).

With Wheatland's paper, the mainstream theories also appear to be predicting some isolated voltages on the order of those predicted by Birkeland.

"With" his paper? You mean if you try to usurp PC theory for yourself now based on *HIS OBSERVATION*? He simply 'observed" something "predicted" (real lab predictions) in EU theories as far back as Birkeland's cathode sun model.

If Birkeland predicted an average of billions of volts at the sun's surface, then Birkeland's prediction was incorrect.

It predicts nothing of the sort of the "surface of the photosphere". It simply "predicts" that those coronal loops would have + and - 10^9 volts at the footprints where the loops come up and then back into the photosphere.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The mainstream theories would appear to have done a better job of predicting the observed voltages.

No, it didn't. The mainstream theories did *NOT* predict high speed solar wind. They did *NOT* "predict" (maybe postdict with "pseudo-science" perhaps) 10^9 volts THROUGH (another point you're ignoring) the surface of the photosphere as *PREDICTED* in PC theories (plural).

Although your argument appears to be dishonest, I am willing to assume you simply did not realize that "voltages" are not the same as "high speed solar wind", and did not recognize the hypocrisy of dismissing as "pseudo-science" the very same paper you had recommended to us only twelve hours earlier.

With Wheatland's paper, the mainstream theories also appear to be predicting some isolated voltages on the order of those predicted by Birkeland.

"With" his paper? You mean if you try to usurp PC theory for yourself now based on *HIS OBSERVATION*? He simply 'observed" something "predicted" (real lab predictions) in EU theories as far back as Birkeland's cathode sun model.

No, I meant something sensible. Once again, I will attribute your mangling of what I wrote to ignorance rather than dishonesty.

If Birkeland predicted an average of billions of volts at the sun's surface, then Birkeland's prediction was incorrect.

It predicts nothing of the sort of the "surface of the photosphere". It simply "predicts" that those coronal loops would have + and - 10^9 volts at the footprints where the loops come up and then back into the photosphere.

Citation?

I may have been unfair to Birkeland. After all, I have nothing more than your say-so for the incorrect predictions you've been attributing to Birkeland, and I really should know better than to trust anything you write.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Although your argument appears to be dishonest, I am willing to assume you simply did not realize that "voltages" are not the same as "high speed solar wind", and did not recognize the hypocrisy of dismissing as "pseudo-science" the very same paper you had recommended to us only twelve hours earlier.

I will have to assume you have not read Alfven's work, or Birkeland's work for yourself which is probably why is seems "dishonest" to you. I didn't dismiss anything other than the term the mainstream uses to describe "circuit reconnection". FYI, you seem to be confusing my position with Alfven's position on this topic.

I may have been unfair to Birkeland. After all, I have nothing more than your say-so for the incorrect predictions you've been attributing to Birkeland, and I really should know better than to trust anything you write.

IMO this one quote says volumes. With the exception of T, the entire "PC/EU" haters of the world seem to know very little if anything about what Birkeland and Alfven actually wrote, all they know is "hearsay" from a couple a folks they heard in cyberspace.

 

[GeeMack]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

It has already been done in a lab T. You are 100 years behind the times (and counting).

It has been pointed out dozens of times (and counting) that that particular picture doesn't mean what the electric Sun proponents think it means. It is dishonest to flail it about in an effort to support the silly claim that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun: 4370 Volts

Birkeland treated the sun as a "cathode". Eddington does not. That's the fundamental difference between a PC/EU oriented theory, and a "standard/mainstream" theory. The atmospheric voltages "predicted" by Birkeland *match observation* whereas a mainstream model from the same basic vintage *DOES NOT*. Notice a pattern here?

You make me laugh. Could you be more pathetic? Eddington never made any "prediction" at all (with or without the "" marks) concerning voltages at the sun. He does not discuss electric currents or electric fields or magnetic fields in his book at all. What he did say was that he expected the sun to carry a small net excess positive charge, and that the electrostatic voltage of that excess charge would be about 4370 Volts. But never anywhere in the book did he even hint that this was THE voltage at the surface of the sun, you just made that part up in your fevered imagination. You should try actually reading something before you decide to pontificate from on high about how wrong it is.

No standard model ANYWHERE ever predicted voltages at the sun that are remarkably different than what we observe, so far as I know. If you think otherwise, then cite the source, but try to get it more or less right this time.

 

[GeeMack]

IMO this one quote says volumes. With the exception of T, the entire "PC/EU" haters of the world seem to know very little if anything about what Birkeland and Alfven actually wrote, all they know is "hearsay" from a couple a folks they heard in cyberspace.

Nobody is persecuting the electric Sun conjecture or those who support it, so the appelation "haters" is rather dishonest and uncivil. The truth of the matter is none of the proponents have ever been able to show that Birkeland actually believed what they claim he did. And since they haven't, it is reasonable to accept that either they don't know what Birkeland really meant, or they are unable to articulate Birkeland's position in a cogent way, or that they are being dishonest with the name dropping. The preponderance of the evidence suggests it is a combination of the above.