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

[Michael Mozina]

Ah yes, her you have been caught in another lie.

No, you didn't understand what I meant and now you're trying to stuff words into my mouth (as usual).

 

[GeeMack]

You never comment on the "real" science. "Circuits? What circuits? Exploding double layers? What double layers? Electrical discharge in plasma? What discharge?" Sheesh.

Failed argument by wasting another 23 words with irrelevant chatter noted. Argument by lying, dishonestly misrepresenting my position also noted. And all the while the crackpot claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges remains unsupported.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Failed argument by wasting another 23 words with irrelevant chatter noted. Argument by lying,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6733089&postcount=1367

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your whole game is argument by denial.....

You and RC are in *DENIAL* that it is even physically possible to have an "electrical discharge" in a plasma!

 

[GeeMack]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6733089&postcount=1367

Argument by link spamming noted. But the topic is the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges. And no support for that claim has yet been provided.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Argument by link spamming noted.

Your argument by denial is noted.

 

[GeeMack]

Your whole game is argument by denial.....

You and RC are in *DENIAL* that it is even physically possible to have an "electrical discharge" in a plasma!

Argument by irrelevant personal attack and by lying about my position and Reality Check's position is, as always, noted. The thread is about the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges. That claim has yet to be supported in any honest, objective, and quantitative way.

 

[Ziggurat]

Woah, let's not get carried away. I said *SOME* fusion occurred in the atmosphere, I didn't say a significant fraction of the sun's fusion occurred in the atmosphere.

You implied that it's a large enough fraction to be observable. And it wouldn't be, not even close, because any such fusion is going to be vanishingly small compared to core fusion. Hell, the variation in neutrino flux from any surface fusion that occurs is going to be small compared to the seasonal oscillations due to the earth being closer to or father from the sun (you did know that that's what the oscillations in dasmiller's graph represented, didn't you?). And even that oscillation is hard to pick out (the curve is a prediction, not a fit) because of the size of the error bars.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You implied that it's a large enough fraction to be observable.

Sure, in terms of *TOTAL* energy output, but remember, this is an INTERNALLY powered system. If the exterior is variable, then that must also apply to the interior as well. I believe coronal loops come up and *THROUGH* the photophere in the "discharge" mode, meaning the *ENTIRE* loop is lit (to whatever depth) and is PINCHING things together over the *entire* length of the loop, not just the part we observe in the atmosphere.

The power for all that excess energy must also come from somewhere, and that somewhere is presumably the core, where we BOTH believe an electric field exists. That field must also be variable, it must PINCH plasma there as well as on the exterior, and it will emit neutrinos *EVERYWHERE* at a variable rate, not only the atmosphere.

 

[tusenfem]

The only loose definition of discharge that I can find in Dungey's paper is the following on page 136:

The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density. The electrons must reach at least relativistic energies ...

Most likely Dungey gave some better description in the original paper.

Next to that, Dungey is the father or reconnection and the Dungey cycle of magnetospheric convection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That claim has yet to be supported in any honest, objective, and quantitative way.

That is absolutely false. You *REFUSE* to acknowledge, comment on, or deal with Alfven's (or Calqvist's) use of circuits. You refuse to address Alfven's *QUANTIFIED* explanations of exploding double layers. You *REFUSE* to acknowledge Peratt's definition of a discharge. You *REFUSE* to explain why Alfven's exploding double layer is *NOT* an example of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma. You *REFUSE* to retract your own false statements even *AFTER* reading Dungey's paper and handwaving at it in a purely trivial manner. The fact you *REFUSE* to acknowledge, comment on, or deal with Alfven's QUANTIFIED work, doesn't mean it hasn't been handed to you on silver platter. If you refuse to deal with it, and simply deny it exists, there's nothing more for us to discuss, except the pathological self defense mechanism called "denial".

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure, in terms of *TOTAL* energy output, but remember, this is an INTERNALLY powered system. If the exterior is variable, then that must also apply to the interior as well.

Why would the core vary the same way as the surface, if the fusion mechanism isn't the same?

I believe coronal loops come up and *THROUGH* the photophere in the "discharge" mode, meaning the *ENTIRE* loop is lit (to whatever depth) and is PINCHING things together over the *entire* length of the loop, not just the part we observe in the atmosphere.

You can believe whatever you want to, you have no evidence it's happening. In fact, even under your own model we shouldn't expect that. The kinetic energy that protons will reach is going to scale inversely with their mean free path, and since that will be far smaller below the photosphere than above it (because densities are much higher), fusion rates under your own model should drop precipitously.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why would the core vary the same way as the surface, if the fusion mechanism isn't the same?

How do you know the mechanism (pinch) isn't he same? FYI, I assume hydrogen fusion occurs in those same pinches, not ONLY CNO fusion, in fact the bulk of it is likely to be hydrogen fusion IMO.

You can believe whatever you want to, you have no evidence it's happening. In fact, even under your own model we shouldn't expect that. The kinetic energy that protons will reach is going to scale inversely with their mean free path, and since that will be far smaller below the photosphere than above it (because densities are much higher), fusion rates under your own model should drop precipitously.

Not if the electric field increases significantly, particularly in places like the core. The "pinch" effect could be enormous in the core.

 

[Ziggurat]

How do you know the mechanism (pinch) isn't he same?

I already told you why: because there's no way to get the mechanism to work (no startup mechanism, no positive feedback to ramp up, no negative feedback to stabilize). But the standard model for core fusion does work. In fact, you have to invent all sorts of absurdities to PREVENT the appropriate conditions for pressure-catalyzed core fusion from forming.

Not if the electric field increases significantly, particularly in places like the core.

But you have no mechanism to do that, and no way to account for the power output of such a "model".

The "pinch" effect could be enormous in the core.

No, actually, it couldn't.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But you have no mechanism to do that, and no way to account for the power output of such a "model".

Do you have a way to account for such a wide variation in neutrino emissions over a cycle?

 

[Michael Mozina]

For argument sake, would you agree or disagree that coronal loops come and and through the photosphere and are you comfortable referring to them as "pinched" filaments/ropes?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Argument by irrelevant personal attack

FYI, that *IS NOT* a "personal attack", it's a statement of fact. Do you agree that a discharge DOES occur in a flare, yes or no?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Do you agree that a discharge DOES occur in a flare, yes or no?

Why are you asking that since it was you who said, "For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge." That comment is the one under contention here. Your "slight of hand" attempt to deflect your unscientific assertion is obvious to everyone here (apparently) except you.

 

[Tubbythin]

Do you have a way to account for such a wide variation in neutrino emissions over a cycle?

He's already told you that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why are you asking that since it was you who said, "For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge." That comment is the one under contention here.

It's not the *ONLY* comment under contention here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

Your "slight of hand" attempt to deflect your unscientific assertion is obvious to everyone here (apparently) except you.

What slight of hand? If I can't get you folks to agree that electrical discharges *CAN EVEN OCCUR* inside of a plasma, what is there to discuss?