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

[Ziggurat]

So what cools all that plasma *UNDER* the supposedly "opaque" photosphere? What prevents the "opaque photosphere" from distributing heat evenly again?

Sunspots aren't under the photosphere. And all you need for a section of the photosphere to cool more than its surroundings is something to impede convection, which is a more significant method of heat transfer than radiation in...

(wait for it)...

... an opaque system!

I'm sorry, but when did you demonstrate that a mostly *HYDROGEN* plasma could act like a black body again?

I'm sorry, but when did my argument ever depend on the sun's composition?

Regardless of what the sun is made of, it's got an opaque outer layer with a temperature of approximately 5700 K. Anything under that must be at least as hot. That argument has exactly ZERO dependence on the composition.

How does that demonstrate any sort of depth involved in the process?

The depth issue is demonstrated by limb darkening, but we don't even need to consider that in order to dismiss your fantasy solid surface as impossible. That's just icing on the cake.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm sorry, but when did my argument ever depend on the sun's composition?

The moment you claimed it was "opaque". Let's see your evidence.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm sorry, but when did my argument ever depend on the sun's composition?

The moment you claimed it was "opaque". Let's see your evidence.

Evidence:

• If the sun were not opaque, you could see stuff on the other side of it by looking through the center of it.
• You can't see stuff on the other side of the sun by looking through the center of the sun.
• So the sun is not opaque.
• So you may be able to see partway into the sun, but you can't see all the way through it.
• So the sun contains an approximately ball-shaped interior region into which you can't see.
• The surface of that ball is defined as the photosphere.
• By definition, the photosphere is opaque: you can't see through it into the interior of the opaque ball.

We understand that some crackpot somewhere may deny the opacity of the photosphere. We also understand that, if there is such a crackpot, we can probably find him/her somewhere on the Internet. The really important thing to understand is that, if there really is such a crackpot who denies the opacity of the photosphere, he's wrong. By definition.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Evidence:

• If the sun were not opaque, you could see stuff on the other side of it by looking through the center of it.

• 
  
  I'm looking for evidence it's "opaque" at all wavelengths at a depth of 4800KM. Got some? Nobody denied the *WHOLE SUN* was opaque.

 

[Michael Mozina]

By definition.

So "by definition" an "electrical discharge" can also occur in a plasma, correct? You're consistent with the definition thing, right?

 

[GeeMack]

So "by definition" an "electrical discharge" can also occur in a plasma, correct? You're consistent with the definition thing, right?

So apparently all the dishonest cherry picking of definitions to shoehorn the term "electrical discharge" into something sort of a little bit related to plasma and/or the Sun means the claim that it's like the observed-right-here-on-Earth-lightning has been abandoned. The claim that solar flares are electrical discharges isn't about some kind of lightning-like electrical discharge, and all the previous talk about how it's the same as lightning and the sparks in a toy plasma ball was all wrong. That could have been explained 1500 posts ago.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm looking for evidence it's "opaque" at all wavelengths at a depth of 4800KM. Got some? Nobody denied the *WHOLE SUN* was opaque.

You must have missed this bit back in post #1511:

By the observation that the sun is very close to a blackbody radiator. Hence, it has an opaque layer. That opaque layer is defined as the photosphere.

How can you continue to get such basic information completely wrong? How can you persist in your ignorance, when this has all been explained to you before? Are you like that guy from Memento?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So apparently all the dishonest cherry picking of definitions.....

Wow. Denial *AND* projection! Do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma provided by a plasma physicist, or are you cherry picking which definitions suit you personally?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6739412&postcount=1525

I sure hope you didn't miss my question Mr. Spock.

 

[GeeMack]

Wow. Denial *AND* projection! Do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma provided by a plasma physicist, or are you cherry picking which definitions suit you personally?

(Bolding mine.) It's not about me. I'm not the one making a claim or defending a particular conjecture here. But the personal attack and dishonest argument by attempting to shift the burden of proof is, as always, noted.

Interesting that after 1500 posts, almost every argument by the electric Sun proponents comes down to a lie or dishonest misrepresentation of someone's position.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Derailing one of his own derails:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6739412&postcount=1525

I sure hope you didn't miss my question Mr. Spock.

tusenfem's post should have been the final word on that subject.

His concluding words:

And so we can go on and on and on.

So some want to define loosely, like Alfven just a "current through a gas" others in electronics want a dielectric to "feel completly under electric stress."

Because the word is used so differently by different authors, an intelligent reader would make some effort to understand how the word is being used by some particular author whose words are being quoted or cited.

I have seen no such evidence for different authors using different definitions of "photosphere". Excepting perhaps a few crackpots, everyone is using the same definition.

Excepting perhaps a few crackpots, everyone acknowledges that the sun's radiation is approximated very well by the known laws of blackbody radiation.

I'm looking for evidence it's "opaque" at all wavelengths at a depth of 4800KM. Got some? Nobody denied the *WHOLE SUN* was opaque.

You must have missed this bit back in post #1511:

By the observation that the sun is very close to a blackbody radiator. Hence, it has an opaque layer. That opaque layer is defined as the photosphere.

How can you continue to get such basic information completely wrong? How can you persist in your ignorance, when this has all been explained to you before? Are you like that guy from Memento?

 

[Michael Mozina]

(Bolding mine.) It's not about me.

I never claimed it was about you. If however I (as a person) am going to be able to communicate with *YOU* (as a person) we (collectively) have to agree on terms. Yes or no, do you agree with Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma? Yes or no? Quit dodging.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because the word is used so differently by different authors, an intelligent reader would make some effort to understand how the word is being used by some particular author whose words are being quoted or cited.

Ya, but since none of you have read Peratt's book or Alfven's book or commented much on Alfven's papers (t excluded), that's not possible. I'll settle for what I can get at this point. Yes or no do *YOU* agree with Peratt's definition?

 

[GeeMack]

I never claimed it was about you. If however I (as a person) am going to be able to communicate with *YOU* (as a person) we (collectively) have to agree on terms. Yes or no, do you agree with Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma? Yes or no? Quit dodging.

It's the responsibility of the crackpots making the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges to define the terms, clearly, objectively, and quantitatively. If it's not electrical discharges like lightning right here on Earth and the sparks inside a toy plasma ball, as has been claimed so often in the past, and if the dishonest redefining and goal post shifting actually has some relevance aside from avoiding supporting the claim, it's still not up to other people to clarify the claimants' position. The dishonest attempt to evade responsibility for supporting the claim is, as always, noted.

Ya, but since none of you have read Peratt's book or Alfven's book or commented much on Alfven's papers (t excluded), that's not possible. I'll settle for what I can get at this point. Yes or no do *YOU* agree with Peratt's definition?

And once more, the argument that people have not commented on Alfvén's work is plainly and unequivocally a flat out lie, and is noted.

 

[Perpetual Student]

So, Mozina's inevitable dodge is to hide behind an obscure usage of an otherwise well established definition within the physics community. I have lost count of the times his refuge has been semantics when all else fails in supporting his delusional version of physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, Mozina's inevitable dodge is to hide behind an obscure usage of an otherwise well established definition within the physics community.

Excuse me? I'm the one that cited the PLASMA PHYSICIST. You're the one DENYING it's valid. What are your qualifications in plasma physics PS?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is an *EXCELLENT* (classic) demonstration of the human self defense mechanism called denial. Tusenfem is the ONLY one to have "conditionally" accepted a METHOD of communication about "discharges" in plasma. The rest of you are stuck in *PURE DENIAL*, specifically you all *DENY* the *FACT* that a "discharge" can occur in a plasma! Unbelievable.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Ya, but since none of you have read Peratt's book or Alfven's book or commented much on Alfven's papers (t excluded), that's not possible. I'll settle for what I can get at this point. Yes or no do *YOU* agree with Peratt's definition?

Before I agree with Peratt's definition, you tell us whether you agree with this excerpt from Peratt's definition:

An electrical discharge...generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

After you have agreed that Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge generally involves a breakdown of some medium, perhaps we can move on to debating Peratt's claim that the genitalia of some prehistoric petroglyphs represent electrical discharges:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=1228570
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=1228571
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4198483
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4346239
http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/2008/T131/014048

 

[GeeMack]

So, Mozina's inevitable dodge is to hide behind an obscure usage of an otherwise well established definition within the physics community. I have lost count of the times his refuge has been semantics when all else fails in supporting his delusional version of physics.

It clearly does demonstrate that the crackpot electric Sun conjecture isn't actually supportable in any legitimately scientific way. Picking out the lies, logical fallacies, and dishonest arguments has been extremely easy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Before I agree with Peratt's definition, you tell us whether you agree with this excerpt from Peratt's definition:

I've got no problem with it. Do you?

After you have agreed that Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge generally involves a breakdown of some medium, perhaps we can move on

The discharge occurs *IN* an existing PLASMA Mr. Spock. It probably will result in *ADDITIONAL* ionization, but the fact it's a plasma to begin with is irrelevant.

Do you now agree to Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, yes or no?