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

[Reality Check]

If there were a "photosphere", that "persistent" shape under the wave would not be visible in Kosovichev's Doppler image. Care to explain that shape I circled in this image and why it is "persistent" (if you don't like "rigid')?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/tsunami1.JPG

He does not need to: Kosovichev did.
the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy* shown by the Kosovichev movie

The only good part of his web site is that he acknowledged this:

In a recent email from Dr. Kosovichev, he explained these features in the following quote:
"The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."

Note that the actual data contridicts Michael Mozina's fantasy* in 2 aspects:

1. The movie is displaying measurements from the top of the photosphere not his iron crust fantasy* 4800 kilometres below the photosphere.
2. It measures the Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A. This means that it is not:
   1. Not his iron crust fantasy*.
   2. Not his "mostly neon" photosphere fantasy*.

* the fantasy is MM's idea that the sun has an iron surface/crust below the photosphere.

But you have selected to ignore Kosovichev. Do you think that he is lying to you? Or just incompetent? Or something else?
You do know the difference betwen nickel (Ni) and iron (Fe)?

 

[tusenfem]

The ion temp of the plasma at the photosphere is measured in the thousands. Something needs to sustain *million* degree temps and keep the iron ionized to a +20 state. That's going to take quite a bit more energy than exists at the photosphere surface. What is sustaining million degree temps *INSIDE A SINGLE LOOP* if not "current flow/discharge currents"?

Something besides the heat from the photosphere is going to be required to sustain that +20 ionization state for several hours inside a stable "pinch".

A&F (no not the cloths store) say: where the ionization is mainly produced by the discharge itself.. That is not the case in the Sun.

In the loop there is plasma from the Sun proper (as the loop comes out of the Sun and the Sun allegedly is a big ball of plasma created by heat under gravity and fusion) which means that the stuff is already ionized.

The discharges that A&F are talking about are between electrodes and through air. As apparently you have the A&F book and have read it, look up the context in which they make this statement.

Therefore, the discharge (actually only a strong current along the loop, which may or may not agree with Alfven's definition of discharge as a current through a gas, as a plasma is also a gas, however, Alfven meant a neutral gas, i.e. not ionized) heats the plasma to high temperature, may create some higher ionization states, but ... there is no initial ionization happening in the loop as everything was already ionized from the beginning.

 

[tusenfem]

No, I simply don't *AGREE* that it's "opaque".

Then you are just (as usual) making up a new definition for the photosphere. The photosphere is defined as the region of last scattering, from which the photons can escape (and will be slightly frequency dependent). Therefore, per definition the photosphere is opaque, as in you cannot see through it.

If you reject this definition then please do so, but stop talking then about the photosphere, but talk about the mozisphere and give an appropriate definition of that.

Furthermore, I think you need to start doing something real. Discuss the paper I linked to where it was shown that the exploding double layer model does not work. Or do something else qualitative and quantitative to support your views. Work out your so called circuit reconnection or particle reconnection, show how in those cases plasma is accelerated in directions perpendicular to the magnetic field direction.

Just ignore the boring long teethed "you lie" comments by Geemack (which are about as useful now as rainfall in eastern Belgium) and this thread would be 20 pages shorter.

 

[tusenfem]

Can an electrical discharge happen in a plasma, yes or no? Stop dodging and answer the question like an HONEST person would do.

That apparently depends on what kind of loose or stringent definition you take for the word discharge. So, unless you specify this, the questions is useless.

 

[tusenfem]

If there were a "photosphere", that "persistent" shape under the wave would not be visible in Kosovichev's Doppler image. Care to explain that shape I circled in this image and why it is "persistent" (if you don't like "rigid')?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/tsunami1.JPG[/qimg]

If it would be rigid then the image would not be bright white but would be orange, which IMHO is the zero level of the dopplergram

 

[tusenfem]

Yes. I keep providing you with quantified papers and books to read, none of you read them, you (collectively) handwave at them, never comment on them, ignore them, ignore Peratt's *DEFINITION* so we have no starting point, lather, rinse, repeat. (tusenfem is the only exception).

Are you ever going to discuss Alfven's actual maths?

Are you ever going to discsuss Alfven's maths (or anyone elses from the papers you quote)? I have see not one single math message from you in the last 2 years, if not longer.

You can't make demands on other people, when you don't deliver yourself.
You say: I give you the books and the papers etc. etc.
I say: So what, most of the time you don't explain what part one has to look at ("it's in Birkeland's book").

If you link to stuff, than give an actual interpretetion of the stuff that it presented. Sure that may take more time, but at least it will reduce the same messages that have been repeated here on this board umpteen times already.

This thread needs a real science boost, otherwise, the mods might better close it. (Heck, I would have closed it long before were this on BAUT)

 

[Perpetual Student]

That apparently depends on what kind of loose or stringent definition you take for the word discharge. So, unless you specify this, the questions is useless.

Exactly, but we have been through this so many times before:

Mozina says, "For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge."

Then, when it is demonstrated that the science does not support his contention, he plays semantic games with the term "discharge."

We have seen this same ploy with words like:
pressure
cosmological constant
photosphere
dark energy
inflation
current

There is no satisfactory conclusion to these discussions. There is no science being discussed. It all revolves around unconventional usage of standard terminology twisted to "win" the argument. It's a game, with no substance, no meaning and of no value.

 

[Perpetual Student]

This thread needs a real science boost, otherwise, the mods might better close it. (Heck, I would have closed it long before were this on BAUT)

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-fermi-large-area-telescope-flares.html

Hey look! It turns out that flares/discharges happen around neutron stars too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How may times have we seen this ploy?

Mozina says, "For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge."

Er, no. Dungey's original paper on "electrical discharges" in flares *PRECEDES* my birth. Peratt's definition precedes my personal involvement in EU theory, as does *ALL* of Alfven's work, ALL of Birkeland's work, all of Bruce's work, etc.

This denial thing seems to go hand in hand with projection. Whereas I have provided you with a definition from a plasma physicist, none of you (t "perhaps" excluded) are willing to accept it. Do any of you have degrees in plasma physics?

When did you intend to comment on Calqvist's use of circuits, or Alfven's use of circuits, or Peratt's use of circuits, etc?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow! Talk about draconian measures! Instead of any of you (other than t) commenting on Dungey's description of an "electrical discharge" in flares, dealing with Peratt's definition of a flare, and discussing various authors use of the concept of "circuits", you'd rather the thread be closed? Wow!

Proud of yourself?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That apparently depends on what kind of loose or stringent definition you take for the word discharge. So, unless you specify this, the questions is useless.

Ok, let's get more specific. According to Dungey, can an "electrical discharge" occur in a flare? If so, where would we expect to find evidence of that "discharge"? Would Peratt's definition of what a "discharge" does to plasma be helpful in locating the "discharge" in terms of locating it in satellite imagery?

 

[GeeMack]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-fermi-large-area-telescope-flares.html

Hey look! It turns out that flares/discharges happen around neutron stars too.

Yet neither of the words "electrical" or "discharge" appear anywhere on that page. Seems like another attempt at dishonestly representing what a source is saying.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But you have selected to ignore Kosovichev. Do you think that he is lying to you?

No, actually I know for a fact he told me the truth in that quote because we both agreed on that point actually. The discussion then became about what held those mass flows in such persistent angular shapes, and there was no resolution to that difference of opinion.

You do know the difference betwen nickel (Ni) and iron (Fe)?

Ya. How is it relevant in terms of what we see in the image?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yet neither of the words "electrical" or "discharge" appear anywhere on that page. Seems like another attempt at dishonestly representing what a source is saying.

It includes the word "flare" and according to Dungey, discharges happen in flares.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then you are just (as usual) making up a new definition for the photosphere.

No, I'm just trying to use terms that allow me to communicate. It's not my fault you created a term that *ASSUMES* something none of you seem to be willing to demonstrate to a depth of 4800KM, the distance in question.

The photosphere is defined as the region of last scattering, from which the photons can escape (and will be slightly frequency dependent). Therefore, per definition the photosphere is opaque, as in you cannot see through it.

I understand how it's "defined", I just don't agree with it, much like RC and GM seem to DENY the definition provided by Peratt of a discharge in a plasma.

If you reject this definition then please do so, but stop talking then about the photosphere, but talk about the mozisphere and give an appropriate definition of that.

I tend to simply select a common reference point for purposes of communication, and the "surface of the photosphere" is a term that anyone can relate to. Keep in mind that even in Birkeland model, the sun is "opaque" at 4800KM. It's only 4800KM in debate.

Furthermore, I think you need to start doing something real. Discuss the paper I linked to where it was shown that the exploding double layer model does not work.

First you will have to explain to me why it "won't work" when two "circuits" "reconnect" and a double layer forms between them?

Or do something else qualitative and quantitative to support your views.

Oh for crying out loud. I can't get anyone but you to even comment on the work I've already provided. What's the point of continuing down denial alley if none of us can agree on what an "electrical discharge in plasma" is, and nobody besides you is willing to address Alfven's/Calqvist's work on circuits?

 

[GeeMack]

Wow! Talk about draconian measures! Instead of any of you (other than t) commenting on Dungey's description of an "electrical discharge" in flares, dealing with Peratt's definition of a flare, and discussing various authors use of the concept of "circuits", you'd rather the thread be closed? Wow!

Nobody is being persecuted. On the BAUT forum, if someone with an against-the-mainstream conjecture refuses to answer direct questions about their idea, displays repeated and intentional dishonesty, plays stupid semantics games, and/or continuously attempts to dishonestly deflect the burden of proof, not only does the thread get closed, the crackpot also gets banned. Which is, of course, as it should be.

Dungey's description of a flare was a poorly worded way to describe magnetic reconnection. And Peratt's discharge certainly isn't explaining solar flares to be like lightning here on Earth or like the sparks in a toy plasma ball as the electric Sun crackpots have so often described their harebrained notion. Nothing about Peratt's description could be interpreted, by any reasonably skilled English speaking person anyway, to mean "a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge." There. Dealt with it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by GeeMack
Yet neither of the words "electrical" or "discharge" appear anywhere on that page. Seems like another attempt at dishonestly representing what a source is saying.

It includes the word "flare" and according to Dungey, discharges happen in flares.

Busted again! How long can this kind of dishonest debate continue?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Busted again! How long can this kind of dishonest debate continue?

I don't know. How long do I have to wait for you to address Calqvist's use of circuits, or Alfven's use of circuits, or Peratt's use of circuits and his definition of a discharge in plasma? How long do I have to way for you to address Dungey's paper on electrical discharges in flares?

 

[Michael Mozina]

....refuses to answer direct questions ....

Evidently you're talking about yourself since you have yet to explain Alfven's use of circuits, or Dungey's paper. As the saying goes, 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink".