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

[Michael Mozina]

Breakdown in a plasma

Alfven's double layer paper describes a "breakdown" of plasma. That is the only term that Peratt actually used. Peratt's definition of an "electrical discharge *IN* a plasma makes NO mention of a breakdown of the dielectric medium. PERIOD. Persistent denial isn't going to change that fact. Dungey's use of the term electrical discharge in association with flare events in no way required a breakdown of any dielectric medium, and it all occurs in a "conductor".

 

[Michael Mozina]

He never defines what an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma is in that section.

I"m afraid that's a classic case of pure denial on your part. The whole paragraph is a *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge *IN* (INSIDE OF) a plasma. It is 100 percent consistent with Dungey's use of exactly that same term.

 

[Tubbythin]

I"m afraid that's a classic case of pure denial on your part. The whole paragraph is a *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge *IN* (INSIDE OF) a plasma. It is 100 percent consistent with Dungey's use of exactly that same term.

Except he isn't because plasmas can't break down.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Except he isn't because plasmas can't break down.

Yes they can. That's what Alfven's whole exploding double layer paper is all about.

 

[GeeMack]

Er, no. EU haters keep lying about the actual words that Dungey and Peratt used. They argue from pure and extreme ignorance of the material and never comment on it more than to handwave at it. They argue with nothing but logical fallacies, specifically ad homs galore, and they shift the burden of proof whenever they feel like it. All the while they refuse to read the materials, or at least rationally respond to the materials like Calqvist's use of circuits. They refuse to deal with the discharge aspects of any of the materials or even *ACKNOWLEDGE* Dungey's *USE* of the term 'electrical discharge in a plasma. The whole thing is argument by pure denial. EU haters are exactly like haters of evolutionary theory. They argue from exactly the same place, (ignorance) and with exactly the same primary defense mechanism, AKA *DENIAL*.

Argument by ranting gibberish, feigned indignation, and personal attack noted.

Recall that tusenfem said this...

So from your comments I see you want to use the idea that a discharge is "a current in a plasma." I could live with that, if you would just have the balls to make a stand and say, I think it is this, which you will not do.

So the "electrical discharge" has been defined for purposes of this discussion, unless this was a lie...

Does he? It seems as though he and I are both comfortable with the terms "discharge" in a plasma at this point. What does tusenfem mean by that which is somehow different from my position?

And the agreement to that definition, unless that expression of agreement was a lie, excludes any stupid notions about solar flares being the kind of electrical discharges like lightning or the sparks in a toy plasma ball.

Is anyone here willing to step beyond denial and have a rational conversation on this topic? Right now this conversation is simply not worth my time.

Tim Thompson, W.D.Clinger, D'rok, Perpetual Student, Ziggurat, dasmiller, Tubbythin, Skwinty, DeiRenDopa, The Man, nvidiot, Reality Check, sol invictus, and I have been far beyond denial here in a sane, intelligent world free of delusional thinking, and have been involved in a rational conversation, in a manner of speaking, since at least mid-November. Those who don't understand or who haven't been involved rationally are encouraged to catch up.

 

[dasmiller]

They refuse to deal with the discharge aspects of any of the materials or even *ACKNOWLEDGE* Dungey's *USE* of the term 'electrical discharge in a plasma.

Since you brought up Dungey again, I've read through that paper a couple of times and I'm still not seeing anything compelling about it. As others have pointed out, it's a rebuttal to a criticism of a previous paper, so without the previous papers, it's hard to take it too seriously. Are we supposed to simply assume that Dungey sufficiently refuted Cowling? Doesn't Cowling get a say in the matter?

As for the content of the paper, Dungey may (or may not; I don't know enough about plasma physics to really say) have shown that some aspects of observed flare behaviour may not have been inconsistent with an electric flare model, but even Dungey used the phrases "might be explained by," "may be accounted for," "could result from," "may have energy comparable to," etc. He evidently didn't consider the data to be compelling.

The thing that could have made his paper compelling would have been some nice, quantified predictions that could have been verified/falsified by subsequent observations. Unfortunately, there aren't any. (He tacitly acknowledged that the single quantifiable prediction - the 1 meter thickness - was difficult to reconcile with the observations of the day).

So all we have is few pages from the middle of a debate, stating that the observations available in 1958 were not definitely inconsistent an electric discharge flare theory.

Are you seeing something stronger?

 

[Perpetual Student]

So all we have is few pages from the middle of a debate, stating that the observations available in 1958 were not definitely inconsistent an electric discharge flare theory.

So, nothing of importance has been said about this question since 1958?

 

[tusenfem]

Man, I have seen denial in a debate before, but never this bad, never in such numbers, and never to the exclusion of common sense and logic to this sort of an extreme.

Ah well the nile is more that a river in Egypt.

Peratt's whole paragraph is a "definition" of an "electrical discharge* *IN* a plasma. It relates *TO* plasma. It's all *ABOUT* plasma. It's *ENTIRELY* consistent with Dungey's use of an "electrical discharge IN a plasma.

The first paragraph is the definition and then, apart from the lightning, he discusses nothing about the generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

Really, go through the bloody text and show the how and what in full explanation.

Though I do agree that all the other things he discusses are Dungey's definition (from his reply to comment paper) that a discharge is just a current in a plasma, but that was not Peratt's own definition!!!!!

I guess the whole problem is that the moment you agree to Peratt's definition the debate is over. You'd rather live in pure denial of a "definition", and Dungey's consistent use of that very same term. Wow!

Has nothing reached your gray matter, Mikey? I say I can live with any definition of a discharge, if one holds to it. If Peratt defines it in that first part of the first paragraph of section 1.5, and then just a few lines further down in that section perfectly deviates from his own definition, than it is not workable at all.

FYI, the IRS made *REALLY* bizarre payroll changes this year and since I sell an accounting program, it effects many hundreds (thousands?) of my payroll users. The updates are financially lucrative, but exhausting and time consuming. I'm not going to waste much more of my breath around here until we can all agree that:

I don't care a frak what the IRS does or does not do. That basically means you will have to take some more time before you answer any questions or start a discussion.

A) electrical discharges occur in plasma
B) Dungey and others wrote about them
C) They have been associated with flares by Dungey and other authors.

Is anyone here willing to step beyond denial and have a rational conversation on this topic? Right now this conversation is simply not worth my time.

Ah I am so glad I am in your positive list of people you might consider to discuss with, even tho I am in the nile.

If you would be so kind as to state which definition you want to use for discharges, then finally there could be a discussion. However, it does not really matter if you call it a discharge or not. Especially in the Dungey definition (that you seem to want to move to now, instead of the Peratt definition) it is really so what of unimportant if you call it a discharge or a current, because basically Dungey wants to have a current.

So, fine I will state from now on a discharge is to be considered a current in a plasma.

So now you can start discussing Dungey, but please start with the original paper, to which the comment was made, to which the reply was written, so we know what the context of the whole discussion is.

Please, take it away Mr. Mozina, the stages is yours.

 

[tusenfem]

So, nothing of importance has been said about this question since 1958?

Well, the more modern papers will not call it a discharge, therefore MM needs to go to the 50s of the last century to get his right. And he received it, in my last post I gave the penultimate definition of discharge for this thread.

In all my 20 or so modern books on space plasma physics there is no mention of discharges, but there is lots and lots about currents, reconnection, circuits, particle acceleration, instabilities etc. etc. etc.

 

[tusenfem]

Here is the original paper by Dungey. I will see if I can get a colleague to download this.

 

[Haig]

Just a reminder what the "Electric Sun Theory" is all about and what your debating. Apologies to those who have already seen this 2006 video but I've viewed it for the first time today and find it stunning.

Brilliant Noise

The visual noise in the images is caused by natural and man made interferences. The white noise is cosmic rays impacting the CCD of the satellite camera, we also see frame dropouts and one frame taken from a ground based observatory which shows the silhouette of a plane as it crosses the path of the observatory. We wanted to leave these flaws in as they reveal something about the tools man uses to capture these images and makes them more tangible. These disturbances are routinely removed by NASA to create a cleaner image, they then go on to colourise them.
The sound is derived from solar natural radio and controlled via digitally sampling the intensity of the brightness of the image. The sound is intrinsically born from the image, creating a symphony by the Sun.
By doing this we wanted to enhance the sun as natural phenomena. Working with a documentary approach, we wanted to indulge in the raw material that is our Sun, using the image to control the fluctuation of the sound would emphasize the transitions and processes taking place

http://www.semiconductorfilms.com/root/Brilliant_Noise/BNoise.htm

 

[Reality Check]

Do you know the difference between a title and a definition

I"m afraid that's a classic case of pure denial on your part. The whole paragraph is a *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge *IN* (INSIDE OF) a plasma. It is 100 percent consistent with Dungey's use of exactly that same term.

I"m know that's a classic case of pure denial and the inability to understand what you read on your part.
The only mention of *IN* is in the title.
The whole paragraph is a *DEFINITION* of electrical discharge:

Originally Posted by Peratt
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 detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiatiοη.

as

• a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy that
• generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown

i.e. the standard usage of electrical discharge that rules it out in plamas which are already broken down.

What Peratt neglects to mention is that some authors refer to large current densities (e.g. caused by magnetic reconnection) as electrical discharges, e.g. Dungey.

Peratt's definition is different here is from Dungey's use of exactly that same term which he uses in context of a large current density.
See Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma which points out that Peratt's book ignores the physics and mathematics of "electrical discharges" *IN* (INSIDE OF) plasma.


Michael Mozina
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?

Or do you think that the entire titled section is the defintion of "electrical discharges in cosmic plasma"? In that case lightning is an electrical discharge and air is "cosmic plasma"

 

[Reality Check]

Just a reminder what the "Electric Sun Theory" is all about and what your debating. Apologies to those who have already seen this 2006 video but I've viewed it for the first time today and find it stunning.

Brilliant Noise

http://www.semiconductorfilms.com/root/Brilliant_Noise/BNoise.htm

You are totally mistaken, Haig: That video has nothing to do with the "Electric Sun Theory".

It is a good video showing activity on the Sun. You can really see the plasma erupting from the photosphere and flowing along magnetic fields. The coronal loop arcade about a minute in is especially impressive.

 

[Haig]

You are totally mistaken, Haig: That video has nothing to do with the "Electric Sun Theory".

You've misunderstood me RC. I'm not trying to score points here but the thread is about the "Electric Sun Theory" and this video shows the Sun in really close up action.

It is a good video showing activity on the Sun. You can really see the plasma erupting from the photosphere and flowing along magnetic fields. The coronal loop arcade about a minute in is especially impressive.

Yes, I agree it's a good video for those interested in the Sun

 

[D'rok]

Hey Michael, what do you think of this as a definition for electric discharge in plasma:

A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.

Sounds kind of like current to me, but this is all above my pay grade.

 

[Haig]

Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits - Hakan Önel, Gottfried J. Mann (Submitted on 6 Aug 2009)

abstract
A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Full PDF is here http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.0813v1.pdf

 

[Perpetual Student]

The physical processes that occur in and on the sun do not depend on what someone meant by the word "discharge" in 1958.
Real physicists discuss and debate such questions using the body of knowledge gained within the disciplines of "astrophysics, and computer science, including fluid dynamics, plasma physics including magnetohydrodynamics, seismology, particle physics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, stellar evolution, space physics, spectroscopy, radiative transfer, applied optics, signal processing, computer vision, and computational physics." (from Wikipedia)
A real discussion about this subject would involve mathematical models, something of which we know Mozina is not capable.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The physical processes that occur in and on the sun do not depend on what someone meant by the word "discharge" in 1958.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32448

Of course not. Then again all those *ELECTROmagnetic reconnection papers still completely conform to Peratt's definition and Dungey's use of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma. Of course the denial quotient around here is so high anyway, what difference does that make to any of you anyway?

A real discussion about this subject would involve mathematical models, something of which we know Mozina is not capable.

OMG. Since you *REFUSE* to comment on Alfven's or Calqvist's use of "circuits" and none of the "haters" will accept the concept that discharges *CAN* occur in plasma, the whole conversation turns into one giant personal attack, as though *ANY* scientific theory rises or falls on my personal math skills. What did Alfven mean by the use of "circuits" in reference to coronal loops PS? What did he mean by an exploding double layer? How does not *NOT* fit the definition of a discharge in plasma provided by Peratt? Do you haters intend to dodge the math's presented forever and ever?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hey Michael, what do you think of this as a definition for electric discharge in plasma:



Sounds kind of like current to me, but this is all above my pay grade.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32448

IMO you're underpaid.

That definition fits with these sorts of observations, but a plasma is a plasma not a gas. We can still "discharge" electromagnetic energy through a plasma, just like we do it through a gas. It's still the same physical process, we simply begin with a plasma. I'm open, but I must say I'm pretty bored around here right now. I'm so busy at work, this conversation is simply not a high priority. Once we can agree that "discharges happen", even in a plasma, the conversation might be able to move forward. I know that you and several others are willing to do that, but some of the hard core "haters" with previously false statements to worry about are continuing to drag their feet. At this point the conversation simply isn't moving forward simply because a few haters are in hardcore denial that discharges happen, even inside a plasma. Oh well....

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, the more modern papers will not call it a discharge,

You're right. Today they "pseudoscientifically" refer to the process as a "magnetic reconnection" event. Then again we all know Alfven rejected that concept in current carrying plasma in favor of an E oriented "exploding double layer" event.

therefore MM needs to go to the 50s of the last century to get his right.

No, I can demonstrate a *50 YEAR HISTORY* of "discharge theory" which none of you can or will touch with a ten foot poll. I can also demonstrate a 50 year history of where "discharge" theory and "reconnection" theory have been directly associated, and associated by the very individuals that championed "reconnection" theory.

As long as you all remain in hard core denial of that 50+ year history of the association between "discharges" and "reconnection", we're just stuck in denialville and this conversation is hopeless.

Note that "reconnection" theory fits Peratt's definition of a 'discharge' and it will forever fit Peratt's definition of a "discharge". You can't erase Dungey's beliefs from history. You can't remove that "connection" between 'reconnection" and "discharge" theory, no matter how much denial you try to heap upon the pile.

Man I'm bored. Yawn.