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

[Michael Mozina]

The uncivil personal attack is, as always, noted.

To stay on topic...

Considering every single one of your posts includes loaded language, like "crackpot", "crazy", "nutters", etc, you have no right to accuse me of anything. I have been far more "civil' than any of my detractors.

.. the question was: Supposedly the electric Sun crackpots

Case in point. The term "crackpot" is a pure personal attack. In fact every response you post includes such personal attacks.

As I have stated a number of times now, Birkeland's solar model did *NOT* require *ANY* external energy sources. Aren't you paying any attention at all? What is even the point of you engaging in these conversations since you refuse to address the actual points being raised? Alfven's use of "circuits" is an important first step in understanding PC theory, but not one of you is willing to openly and honestly discuss these ideas. You all sort of handwave at it a little and you go right back to the personal attacks. Yawn.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dishonest argument by attempting to deflect the burden of proof noted.

No, you are DISHONESTLY IGNORING the information, the issues, and the maths that you don't like. That is the only blatantly and overtly dishonest behavior going on here. I can't even get you personally to acknowledge a *STANDARD PHYSICS DEFINITION* of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma! It's therefore *IMPOSSIBLE* to have a "scientific" conversation about an "electrical discharge" and you remain in hard core denial that flare *IS* an electrical discharge!

 

[GeeMack]

As I have stated a number of times now, Birkeland's solar model did *NOT* require *ANY* external energy sources. Aren't you paying any attention at all?

I'm paying attention. Birkeland's "model" was a brass ball with an electromagnet inside, and it absolutely required an external energy source. To suggest otherwise would be a lie, ignorant, or just plain stupid. It could not have worked without wires connected to a power supply outside of his "Universe", a Universe which was a glass box with a steel frame.

What is even the point of you engaging in these conversations since you refuse to address the actual points being raised?

The point would be to support the wacky claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs. That would be the point. And in over 1000 posts in this thread not one solitary legitimate piece of evidence or any valid scientific support has been offered to that end. The point would be some electric Sun cranks have made some ridiculous claims that generally violate the laws of physics as we know them, and yet are unable to demonstrate that their claims are even remotely true. The point would be we're still waiting after 1000 posts for a shred of evidence. Mostly we're waiting for that rewrite of physics that would be required to make the electric Sun conjecture possible.

I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

And if this is, as has been claimed, simply Birkeland's or Alfvén's or Bruce's "model", where do they specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were their thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did they fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm paying attention. Birkeland's "model" was a brass ball with an electromagnet inside, and it absolutely required an external energy source.

Are you confused between the terms "solar model" and "lab/scale model"?

To suggest otherwise would be a lie, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Notice how you *always* rely upon loaded (aka uncivil) language in your posts? Why do you do that?

The point would be to support the wacky claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

Did you read Alfven's exploding double layer paper, yes or no? If so, where is the flaw in that paper?

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.

The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2). On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

Do you accept Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in a plasma, yes or no?

 

[GeeMack]

No, you are DISHONESTLY IGNORING the information, the issues, and the maths that you don't like. That is the only blatantly and overtly dishonest behavior going on here. I can't even get you personally to acknowledge a *STANDARD PHYSICS DEFINITION* of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma!

There is no '*STANDARD PHYSICS DEFINITION* of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma!', and with no regard to exclamation points, quote marks, or font size. Plasma is a conductor. For an electrical discharge to occur there must be an insulator, or more precisely a dielectric medium, and the insulating properties of that medium must breakdown to the extent that it allows the passage of current. Again, plasma is a conductor not a dielectric medium, so regardless of argument by tantrum, freestyle application of punctuation, or otherwise, there is no standard physics definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma.

It's therefore *IMPOSSIBLE* to have a "scientific" conversation about an "electrical discharge" and you remain in hard core denial that flare *IS* an electrical discharge!

I'm not in denial of that, the persistent lie to that effect notwithstanding. I'm waiting for that to be demonstrated by way of legitimate science. And since we're over 1000 posts into this thread with no valid evidence presented yet to support the nutty claim that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs, it looks like it might be a very long wait.

 

[GeeMack]

Do you accept Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in a plasma, yes or no?

See post #405 for a resoned response to this persistent argument by spamming Peratt.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

But with the exception of T, *none* of you did! Worse yet, some of you evidently have no intention of *ever* reading his materials for yourselves. How sad is that?

What's sad are your pathetic/dishonest denials of what we have read. I, for example, have read Alfvén's article on "Cosmology -- Myth or Science?", and have commented upon it in a thread that was split by the moderators from the thread that contains my original comments on that paper. Here's the split thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6219538#post6219538

Having read that paper, I already know Alfvén is uninformed about cosmology and does not understand the relevant mathematics. I don't need to confirm those conclusions by reading his book.

So please point out the mistakes in any of the papers or books of Alfven that I have cited.

In the paper mentioned above, Alfvén argues as though there were only one Friedmann-style solution for Einstein's field equations. That's a mistake.

That mistake has been pointed out to you on several occasions, but you continue to pretend we have not identified any of Alfvén's mistakes. Your argument is dishonest.

How are you more qualified to judge the application of Maxwell's equations in MHD theory than Hannes Alfven?

The only thing I've said about the application of Maxwell's equations to MHD theory is that you need to understand Maxwell's equations before you try to understand MHD theory.

I have also pointed out that Maxwell's equations imply magnetic reconnection even in the absence of plasmas or MHD. That's a fact. If Alfvén denied that fact, then he was just as wrong about magnetic reconnection as he was about general relativity and the Friedmann solutions.

As I have repeated several times now, I think it's more likely that you are misrepresenting Alfvén's views on magnetic reconnection. I am certainly more qualified to judge Alfvén's technical opinions than you are, and I have noted several times that the only citation you have offered for Alfvén's rejection of the fact of magnetic reconnection (as opposed to its relevance) is an informal keynote address in which he appears to be criticizing uncritical use of a pedagogical simplification he himself had promoted.

So take the next logical step Mr. Spock. If my personal opinions and mathematical skills have nothing to do with any branches of "science", why haven't your read Alfven's book for yourself and picked out the actual "flaws" in his work? FYI, there are some flaws IMO, but they are not mathematical in nature.

Because I have already identified enough "flaws" in Alfvén's papers on cosmology to know his book is rubbish.

He spoke of "discharges" that "reconnect"! Where did he say "magnetic reconnection"?

Dungey speaks of "magnetic lines" that reconnect, and of "lines of force" that reconnect.

Are you lying about what Dungey wrote, or were you lying when you said you had read Dungey's paper? Those seem to be the only two possibilities here.

No, not at all. I'm saying they have *EVERYTHING* to do with what is today called "magnetic" reconnection, but it can also be seen as a "discharge" in plasma!

No. You can recreate the magnetic reconnection shown in Dungey's Figure 1 even if there is no plasma. Dungey himself alludes to that fact. Since the magnetic reconnection can occur even without plasma, your insistence that magnetic reconnection is really a "discharge" in plasma is nonsense---and obvious nonsense, at that.

No, actually *your* argument is purely 'semantic'. A particle collision in plasma is not "magnetic reconnection". Induction already has a proper scientific name too. What you're essentially doing is mislabeling a "discharge" as a "magnetic reconnection" event and Dungey clearly shows the connection better than any other author I've ever read, including Birn's paper that convinced me your talking about "circuit reconnection" many years ago.

As explained above, your argument is nonsense. The magnetic reconnection described by Dungey occurs even if there is no plasma.

You don't seem to get it. I don't have any problem with anyone's "numbers". I have a "problem" with you mislabeling "induction" and "exploding double layers" as "magnetic reconnection". So did Alfven and he certainly could "run the numbers" just as well as you can.

Show us, then, where Alfvén ran the numbers.

What's going on here is that you know you are incapable of countering our calculations with a scientific argument (because you yourself don't know how to run the numbers), so you're just pretending/hoping that one of your heroes had run the numbers and that they had come out in your favor. That's pathetic/dishonest.

Alfven understood math better than any of you.

Unlikely.

Alfvén's interests and academic training were roughly comparable to those of a modern PhD in electrical engineering, and that assessment is confirmed by his technical writings. Why do you think someone whose PhD is in electrical engineering would understand math better than someone with a PhD in mathematics?

I have known and still work with quite a few EE PhDs. Many of them understand some particular subarea of mathematics, such as differential equations, better than I do, but it would be quite unusual for someone with a PhD in EE to have a better understanding of the broad field of mathematics. I've read enough of Alfvén's work to know he is not an exception to that rule.

Care to pick out the mathematical error in *ANY* of the papers or books by Alfven that I have cited?

Yes, and we've done so several times. Alfvén's belief that there is only one Friedmann-style solution to Einstein's field equations was a mathematical error.

If Alfvén really denied the reality of magnetic reconnection, as you continue to allege, then that too would have been a mathematical error, but I think you're wrong about that. I suspect Alfvén was merely denying the relevance of magnetic reconnection to certain physical processes; he was probably wrong about that, too, but being wrong about the physical relevance would be a scientific error, not a mathematical error.

I've yet to see you pick out any flaws in Alfven's work. Care to?

This whole conversation is a little surreal since most of the participants haven't even read the materials and *none* of *US* has found any mathematical flaws in any of Alfven's papers or books.

Your argument is dishonest. We have cited fundamental flaws in Alfvén's work, including mathematical errors.

There's no shifting of anything. I have been presenting a steady stream of evidence, and you remain in hard core denial of that same evidence.

No, you are DISHONESTLY IGNORING the information, the issues, and the maths that you don't like. That is the only blatantly and overtly dishonest behavior going on here.

 

[Michael Mozina]

See post #405 for a resoned response to this persistent argument by spamming Peratt.

I did not ask you anything other than *Do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma?" Yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Where is the flaw in Alfven's exploding double layer paper gentlemen?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What's sad are your pathetic/dishonest denials of what we have read.

You have *not* read his book. Period. You are therefore mostly arguing from a place of pure ignorance based on one 'issue' you took with one sentence from the paper evidently.

I, for example, have read Alfvén's article on "Cosmology -- Myth or Science?", and have commented upon it in a thread that was split by the moderators from the thread that contains my original comments on that paper. Here's the split thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6219538#post6219538

Having read that paper, I already know Alfvén is uninformed about cosmology and does not understand the relevant mathematics. I don't need to confirm those conclusions by reading his book.


In the paper mentioned above, Alfvén argues as though there were only one Friedmann-style solution for Einstein's field equations. That's a mistake.

That's it?!?!?!?!? That's the *BEST* criticism you have?

That mistake has been pointed out to you on several occasions, but you continue to pretend we have not identified any of Alfvén's mistakes. Your argument is dishonest.

That one "mistake" as you call it hardly warrant's tossing out his *entire life's work*! Holy cow!

The only thing I've said about the application of Maxwell's equations to MHD theory is that you need to understand Maxwell's equations before you try to understand MHD theory.

Don't you figure Alfven did that?

I have also pointed out that Maxwell's equations imply magnetic reconnection even in the absence of plasmas or MHD.

Now *THAT* is a physical demonstration I would *LOVE* to see. In other words if you could demonstrate "magnetic reconnection' in the absence of a plasma, I'd love to see it. I'd love to see it produce million degree temps in a lab too.

That's a fact. If Alfvén denied that fact, then he was just as wrong about magnetic reconnection as he was about general relativity and the Friedmann solutions.

I'm still waiting to you to quote Alfven where he claimed it a was a good idea.

As I have repeated several times now, I think it's more likely that you are misrepresenting Alfvén's views on magnetic reconnection.

So please demonstrate that for us from Alfven's writings.

Because I have already identified enough "flaws" in Alfvén's papers on cosmology to know his book is rubbish.

Give me a break! You found *ONE* flaw in *ONE SENTENCE* of ONE paper. How exactly that does that translate to "all his work is rubbish" in your mind?

I'll respond to the the Dungey issues in a separate post.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, your so called "criticism" of Alfven's *ONE* solution claim is really nothing more than him "oversimplifying" things to point out the fact that the mainstream has *FIXATED* on *ONE* "bang" theory to the *UTTER EXCLUSION* of *all* other cosmology theories. That is still true today.

 

[GeeMack]

I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

So it has been claimed that this electric Sun nonsense is simply Birkeland's or Alfvén's or Bruce's "model". Where do they specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were their thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did they fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? I'm particularly interested in how Birkeland felt about nuclear fusion being one of the two alleged power sources for the Sun and specifically where he discussed the matter.

 

[GeeMack]

Do you accept Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in a plasma, yes or no?

This has been addressed. See post #405 and post #1105 for reasoned responses to the incessant and dishonest argument by spamming Peratt.

The claim was made that electrical discharges are or are the cause of CMEs and solar flares. No valid scientific support for that claim has been provided yet. If there is any such support, now would be a good time to post it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You have *not* read his book. Period. You are therefore mostly arguing from a place of pure ignorance based on one 'issue' you took with one sentence from the paper evidently.

No, Michael. You wouldn't understand this, because you don't understand general relativity or mainstream cosmology, but Alfvén's mathematical error undermines a substantial fraction of his paper. In reality, empirical evidence was used to select mainstream cosmology's preferred Friedmann-style solution. That directly contradicts Alfvén's claim that mainstream cosmology has been ignoring the empirical evidence.

That one "mistake" as you call it hardly warrant's tossing out his *entire life's work*! Holy cow!

It's dishonest of you to pretend I am "tossing out his *entire life's work*!"

Alfvén's main contribution was magnetohydrodynamics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in physics. By any rational assessment, MHD was Alfvén's life's work.

I have not rejected MHD at all, and it is outrageously dishonest for you to pretend I have. The only things I have rejected are

• Alfvén's proposed plasma cosmology as an alternative to general relativity and mainstream cosmology
• Michael Mozina's interpretation of Alfvén's alleged rejection of magnetic reconnection

As I have noted several times, I believe Michael Mozina has been misrepresenting Alfvén's position on magnetic reconnection, so that second item is more likely to be a rejection of Michael Mozina's theory than Alfvén's.

I have also pointed out that Maxwell's equations imply magnetic reconnection even in the absence of plasmas or MHD.

Now *THAT* is a physical demonstration I would *LOVE* to see. In other words if you could demonstrate "magnetic reconnection' in the absence of a plasma, I'd love to see it.

Then run the experiment in your lab. Here are the parts you'll need:

• two DC power supplies
• two power rheostats
• four current-limiting resistors
• four conducting rods or stiff wires
• clamps to position those four rods/wires
• enough heavy-duty wire to complete the circuit
• a magnetometer

I'd love to see it produce million degree temps in a lab too.

The equipment required for that would be substantially more expensive.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, Michael. You wouldn't understand this, because you don't understand general relativity or mainstream cosmology,

I understand that you keep stuffing invisible entities into a GR formula and you keep calling it "GR" anyway. I know that the mainstream "cosmology" theory is dependent on three invisible entities that are in no way related to GR theory in the sense that GR is in no way dependent upon your invisible friends. Alfven didn't watch you stuff GR theory full of "dark energy", but that was just the latest invisible ad hoc ad on.

but Alfvén's mathematical error undermines a substantial fraction of his paper.

It wasn't a "mathematical" error in the first place, it was an "oversimplification" error if anything! You (the mainstream) are the ones that keep fixating on *ONE* bang theory.

In reality, empirical evidence was used to select mainstream cosmology's preferred Friedmann-style solution. That directly contradicts Alfvén's claim that mainstream cosmology has been ignoring the empirical evidence.

You didn't read Alfven's own "bang/expansion" theories I presume?

It's dishonest of you to pretend I am "tossing out his *entire life's work*!"

Where the flaw in his exploding double layer papers, or any of his papers related to events *INSIDE* this solar system?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This has been addressed. See post #405 and post #1105[/url

All I asked for was *YES* or *NO* answer to a very simple question. I did not ask for a rant. I still want a straight answer. Yes or no do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma? Yes or no?

 

[GeeMack]

If a crackpot throws a tantrum because legitimate scientific concerns are allegedly being ignored, then persistently and intentionally ignores legitimate scientific concerns, would that ignorance be irony, hypocrisy, or dishonesty?

I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

The claim has been made that this electric Sun craziness is Birkeland's, Alfvén's, and/or Bruce's "model", or perhaps some bastardized amalgamation thereof. So the above quote more or less forces the question, where do those guys specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were their thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did that fit their idea that solar flares and CMEs are caused by electrical discharges? I'm particularly interested in how Birkeland felt about nuclear fusion being one of the two alleged power sources for the Sun and specifically where he discussed the matter.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I understand that you keep stuffing invisible entities into a GR formula and you keep calling it "GR" anyway.

Albert Einstein did that.

You have been corrected on that many times. It is dishonest for you to continue to pretend that we have altered Einstein's field equations.

 

[GeeMack]

All I asked for was *YES* or *NO* answer to a very simple question. I did not ask for a rant. I still want a straight answer. Yes or no do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma? Yes or no?

Apparently my comments are not being understood. If there is some specific part of post #405 or post #1105 that isn't clear, please let me know and I'll try to reword them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI Mr. Spock,

I am still waiting for a quote from Alfven that demonstrates that I have in any way misrepresented his position on "reconnection/merging" theories.

I provided quotes to support my statements. I think you own me the same, particularly since you are accusing me of misrepresenting his position on this topic!