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

[Perpetual Student]

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?

So are you conceding that your comment, "For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge." was an unscientific assertion made by an uninformed dilettante pretending to have an understanding of solar physics?

 

[Ziggurat]

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

What makes you think the variation needs any explanation beyond the seasonal earth-sun distance variation? In dasmiller's plot, most of the data points fall within one standard deviation of the line. And we should expect some of them (almost a third, in fact) to fall outside of one standard deviation. While some additional variability might exist, we sure don't need it to explain the data so far.

 

[Tubbythin]

Good news, after nearly 10 minutes of effort, I was able to find data on both sunspot activity and solar neutrino output for the period of Jan 1996 to June 1999. I overlaid the two so that the correlation would be easily visible. The neutrino counts are in black, the sunspot counts are in red.

So . . . what sort of correlation should we be seeing here, and how does it support Electric Sun?

Possibly a slightly stupid question but... where are the errors in x from for the neutrino data?

 

[Michael Mozina]

He's already told you that.

He did? I must have missed that somewhere. It's been busy at work today. I'll have to go back and do some reading.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What makes you think the variation needs any explanation beyond the seasonal earth-sun distance variation? In dasmiller's plot, most of the data points fall within one standard deviation of the line. And we should expect some of them (almost a third, in fact) to fall outside of one standard deviation. While some additional variability might exist, we sure don't need it to explain the data so far.

I need some more info on his graph. This conversation is premature IMO. I need to so some reading, but I would expect variation in the numbers based on the solar cycle and I would expect it to track with the visible external activity level of the sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So are you conceding that your comment, "For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge." was an unscientific assertion made by an uninformed dilettante pretending to have an understanding of solar physics?

No. I'm saying that you, like GM, have yet to comment on *ANY* of the relevant materials. When can I expect you to do that?

 

[Reality Check]

Where are Peratt's many pages on electrical discharges within plasma

Notice the word "IN" RC? Do you not understand the word IN?

I did and I do.
Notice that this is one word in the TITLE of a section. You do understand that a title is not a definition?

Notice that the title could also mean the role of electric discharges in "cosmic plasma"?

Notice that the section never mentions electrical discharges within plasma?


Notice that the page goes onto

• the generation of particle beams, X-rays and microwaves
• lightning is noted as "the discharge mechanism at work"!
• aurora

Notice that Peratt defines an electrical discharge as:

• "a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy" and
• "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".
  reakdown in electrical engineering means the transition of an insulating medium to a conducting medium. Conductive medium like plasma cannot break down since they are already broken!

Notice that Peratt ignores your idea of electrrical discharges within plasma?
Or do you have an answer to:
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

Notice
You are utterly ignoring the WORDS that Dungey used. He did not call it an electrical current RC. He called it an "ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE"! Why?

Because he is using a shorter term for "large change in current density caused by a change in magnetic fields".

I love how this delusion thing works. You simply *IGNORE* the words you don't like, change the words you don't like and make false claims about the words the author used! That is pathetic.

 

[Ziggurat]

I need some more info on his graph. This conversation is premature IMO. I need to so some reading, but I would expect variation in the numbers based on the solar cycle and I would expect it to track with the visible external activity level of the sun.

It's not premature. The data match the curve as well as can be expected given the size of the error bars. While this does not preclude the possibility of additional variation, if there is any additional variation it cannot be resolved at this point, and it can't be larger than the expected variation due to seasonal earth-sun distance variation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because he is using a shorter term for "large change in current density caused by a change in magnetic fields".

And how is that any different from a flare again?

 

[Tubbythin]

I need some more info on his graph. This conversation is premature IMO. I need to so some reading, but I would expect variation in the numbers based on the solar cycle and I would expect it to track with the visible external activity level of the sun.

Can I suggest you:
1) Find the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun, m.
2) Find the distance at perihelion, p.
3) Find the distance at aphelion, a.
4) Estimate from the graph the mid-point of the oscillation on the vertical axis, y. If there is only seasonal oscillation then this is roughly speaking the rate at the mean distance.
5) Calculate the values of y*(p²/m²) (call it max) and y*(a²/m²) (call it min).
6) Then see if the data is consistent with an oscillation between max and min.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not premature. The data match the curve as well as can be expected given the size of the error bars. While this does not preclude the possibility of additional variation, if there is any additional variation it cannot be resolved at this point, and it can't be larger than the expected variation due to seasonal earth-sun distance variation.

It may not be premature to you to discuss it, but I need to do some reading. I haven't really spent a lot of time studying the variations in neutrino output. I would certainly expect an annual cycle changes as well as 11 year cyclical changes that relate directly back to the sun's active cycle.

 

[Reality Check]

Now which is it RC? Can a plasma have a discharge in it, or do discharges not occur in plasma? Make up your mind! I can't believe you're attempting to change Dungey's paper to suit yourself and that you are putting words in Dungey's mouth. That's just bizarre. He used the term "electrical discharge", not "electrical current" RC.

Lets try to make this clear for the simple minded yet again.


The standard definition of electrical discharge means that it is impossible for them to happen in plasma because it requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium and plasma is conductive, e.g read Peratt's definition:

1. "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy" and the next sentence
2. "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."

That means that plasmas have electrical currents not electrical discharges.

But...
Dungey's 1953 paper and 1958 presentation are about the currents in magnetic fields that have a neutral point. He calls the large current density that that neutralize the charge around the neutral point, electrical discharges. The cause of the induced current is changing magnetic fields.
This is a case of the same words being used to describe 2 different things..The term "electrical discharge" as used by Dungey is an effect of what we now call magnetic reconnection (look at his figures for the X shaped magnetic field typical of magnetic reconnection).

Thus if you want to use Dungey's "electrical discharge" then you will be stating that the cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection.
Is that what you want?

 

[GeeMack]

Bolding mine...

That is absolutely false. You *REFUSE* to acknowledge, comment on, or deal with Alfven's (or Calqvist's) use of circuits.

It's not my claim, not my burden of proof. Argument by dishonestly attempting to deflect the burden of proof noted.

You refuse to address Alfven's *QUANTIFIED* explanations of exploding double layers.

Again, not my claim. Not my burden of proof. And again, argument by dishonestly attempting to deflect the burden of proof noted.

You *REFUSE* to acknowledge Peratt's definition of a discharge.

Since I don't refuse to acknowledge Peratt's definition, that argument is another lie. Peratt's definition has nothing to do with the crackpot claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. That issue has been addressed several times in this thread.

You *REFUSE* to explain why Alfven's exploding double layer is *NOT* an example of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma.

Me? Again? I should be explaining? Nope. Argument by dishonestly attempting to deflect the burden of proof is noted, again.

You *REFUSE* to retract your own false statements even *AFTER* reading Dungey's paper and handwaving at it in a purely trivial manner.

Dungey's paper doesn't support the crackpot claim that solar flares are electrical discharges. It actually supports the standard solar model in that it describes magnetic reconnection. And since I didn't hand wave it, that argument is yet another lie.

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.

Since I haven't refused to acknowledge Alfvén's work, that argument is another lie.

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".

I haven't refused to deal with it, and I certainly don't deny that it exists, but it's an interesting argument that there's nothing more to discuss except something that has no relevance to the topic of this thread. It sounds suspiciously like a wholesale abandonment of the crackpot claims and a backhanded admission that there isn't and never was any valid scientific support for them. But if that's not it, if somehow it's an attempt to support the electric Sun conjecture, it's another of the most ridiculous, convoluted, and stupid arguments I've seen in any discussion about any crackpot claim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lets try to make this clear for the simple minded yet again.

The personal assault around here is non stop. I guess if you don't actually read or respond to the materials, what else is there to do eh?

The standard definition of electrical discharge means that it is impossible for them to happen in plasma

Pure denial on your part. Both Dungey and Peratt both claimed you're wrong. Peratt's definition *BEGINS* in plasma. Dungey's use of the term "electrical discharge" is completely consistent with Peratt's definition. You're taking Dungey's term "discharge" and "dumbing it down" again and calling it a "current flow". That's not how Peratt defined an electrical discharge and it's not the word Dungey actually used. What makes you an "expert" on plasma physics again?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not my claim, not my burden of proof. Argument by dishonestly attempting to deflect the burden of proof noted.

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

Your claim, your burden of proof. Where is it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thus if you want to use Dungey's "electrical discharge" then you will be stating that the cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection.
Is that what you want?

As long as you add the term "electro" to the term "magnetic reconnection", or call it "circuit reconnection" (my preference), I'm fine with that.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not sure I can speak for every EU advocate, but I would "predict" that neutrino counts would be "somewhat" cyclical, since I (personally) believe that fusion occurs in solar atmospheric "pinches".

Your belief is not backed up by the observations. Fusion creates gamma rays as well as neutrinos. The required flux of neutrinos to account for the Sun's energy output is observed. The required flux of gamma rays to account for the Sun's energy output is not observed.
The conclusion is that the gamma rays are converted to other wavelengths. This requres they pass through a large amount of matter, i.e. that the fusion has to happen at the core of the Sun.

There may be a few pinches happening in the solar atmosphere but the rate is so small that we cannot detect the gamma rays from them. I do not know what this means for the rate of these pinches but given the difficulty of producing them in the lab I would guess very low (once a year? once a million years or even never).

As for that paper, Tim Thompson's post back in April 2010 is relevant:
Surface Fusion? Not Likely.

The second link is for the paper by Mozina, Ratcliffe & Manuel, and is entitled "Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle". The title is a sham, as the paper in fact does no such thing, and in fact presents no evidence at all related to the CNO cycle. Rather, the authors use the observation of electron-positron annihilation (511 kev line emission) and neutron capture (2.2 Mev line emission) to infer, without justification, that unseen CNO fusion created the positrons and neutrons. it is an insipid paper, which is why nobody ever paid it any mind besides the authors. How it ever got published in any journal is a mystery to me.

Neither of these links is worth spit. I am aware of no evidence for any nuclear fusion taking place anywhere near the surface of the sun. Produce more informative & reliable sources and we will have something to talk about.

 

[Reality Check]

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

What is your evidence for a wide variation in neutrino emissions over a cycle?
How much is the variation?
How long is the cycle?

The graph that was posted before was cited as evidence for no cyclic variation in the neutrino flux other than the expected orbital variation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What is your evidence for a wide variation in neutrino emissions over a cycle?
How much is the variation?

I don't know which is why I need to do some reading. Unlike some folks, I actually prefer to *READ* about a topic, and comment on the relevant materials. At the moment I feel like a babe in the woods on that specific topic because quite honestly I've never really studied it. Considering what a small sampling of neutrinos that we actually observe, and the current state of affairs in neutrino detection in terms of tracking a whole 22 year cycle, I really don't know how to even begin to answer that question.

How long is the cycle?

The solar cycle is 22 years.

The graph that was posted before was cited as evidence for no cyclic variation in the neutrino flux.

Like I said, I have some reading to do, I need to understand the margins of error and how they are calculated and I need more information about that specific graph to really say much.

I would however expect there to be a cyclical flux. I have no idea how large it might be, and clearly I misinterpreted the graph the first time through. I think I'll do some reading.

 

[Reality Check]

As long as you add the term "electro" to the term "magnetic reconnection", or call it "circuit reconnection" (my preference), I'm fine with that.

So you are retracting your claim the solar flares are electric discharges?
They are now caused by magnetic reconnections (the standard term).