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

[D'rok]

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....

I think we've pretty much settled on the fact that you are using a definition of discharge that simply means current. As tusenfem said:

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

If you can confirm that this is what you mean, then we can move on.

BTW: The definition I posted is Dungey's. His definition looks indistinguishable from a current to me, but what do I know? It is from his paper Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems and, in full, is this:

In the following no particular system is discussed, but any system of interest can be described for our purposes as a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion. A 'discharge' will be a region 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.

It's a general astrophysical definition and does not refer to plasma specifically.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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?

Your "personal math skills" have everything to do with your ability to understand all these favorite authors you continually mention and your "personal math skills" have everything to do with your ability to understand the responses made to you by those posters who have some knowledge about solar physics.
Your "personal math skills" are also a measure of your depth of understanding of physics and your overall credibility here as well as other discussions concerning physics and cosmology.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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?

Of course. In fact Dungey gave him a say in the matter and addressed his concerns. The primary point of having you start with Dungey is for you to notice that 50+ year history of the association between what Dungey calls a "reconnection" event and what he also refers to as an "electrical discharge' events. Dungey was an early champion of BOTH reconnection theory *AND* discharge theory and he personally and directly associated these two events.

There is a direct correlation between what Dungey calls "reconnection" event and the formation of a "discharge" in plasma.

I'll get you some more papers to read. I think I'll get Calqvist's work into the discussion. He approaches the process from a "circuit" orientation, and treats the flare as an "induction" event. The whole "reconnection" concept is in fact "induction" with a very stupid name IMO. We'll get there, but again, you'll need to be a bit patient with me this week, it's my busiest month of the year, and unusually busy due to the social security tax table changes.

 

[D'rok]

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.

Wow.

Hey Mike. It was W.D. Clinger that pointed out that Dungey is really talking about magnetic recognition, not you. Now, you have somehow internalized that bit of analysis into your own portfolio as if it was something you came up with and you are now trying to throw it back into our faces as something we are ignoring/denying.

Pathetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your "personal math skills" have everything to do with your ability to understand all these favorite authors you continually mention and your "personal math skills" have everything to do with your ability to understand the responses made to you by those posters who have some knowledge about solar physics.

What "knowledge"? When I tried to start a discussion on that RD image, all I ever got was "Flying stuff? What flying stuff"? When I started a conversation about 'discharge" theory, I get "discharge theory"? What "discharges" in plasma?" When I talked about dark filament eruption CME, I got "dark filament? What dark filament"? The "knowledge' of solar physics presented by the "haters" of EU/PC theory are zero. They/you all argue from a place of complete ignorance, none of you touch the circuit orientation of plasma physics, more than to handwave at it. None of you have presented a *SINGLE FLAW* in the actual written materials that have been presented. In fact all the haters seem to be able to do is spew their hate at the *INDIVIDUAL* rather than the topic. How sad.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow.

Hey Mike. It was W.D. Clinger that pointed out that Dungey is really talking about magnetic recognition, not you. Now, you have somehow internalized that bit of analysis into your own portfolio as if it was something you came up with and you are now trying to throw it back into our faces as something we are ignoring/denying.

Pathetic.

FYI, this conversation has actually spanned about 4 or 5 boards, and prior to this conversation, the last one was at space.com. At space.com I was introduced to several papers on "reconnection" theory. I rejected at least one of them based on a violation of a *LAW* of physics. I was however introduced to a paper by Birn which I could not reject on any such grounds. His presentation was physically and mathematically correct. He did however make it quite clear that there were "current flows" inside the "magnetic lines' and therefore he directly associated it right back to Alfven's "circuit" orientation to coronal loops. I realized then that what they were talking about was "circuit reconnection" and that is what I have called it for the last several years, even before debating these ideas on this particular website.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow.

Hey Mike. It was W.D. Clinger that pointed out that Dungey is really talking about magnetic recognition, not you.

Actually Dungey is talking about *ELECTROmagnetic reconnection", not simply "magnetic lines". There's a "particle flow" involved in that process, not just the transfer of magnetic field energy to kinetic energy of charged particles (properly called induction).

 

[D'rok]

FYI, this conversation has actually spanned about 4 or 5 boards, and prior to this conversation, the last one was at space.com. At space.com I was introduced to several papers on "reconnection" theory. I rejected at least one of them based on a violation of a *LAW* of physics. I was however introduced to a paper by Birn which I could not reject on any such grounds. His presentation was physically and mathematically correct. He did however make it quite clear that there were "current flows" inside the "magnetic lines' and therefore he directly associated it right back to Alfven's "circuit" orientation to coronal loops. I realized then that what they were talking about was "circuit reconnection" and that is what I have called it for the last several years, even before debating these ideas on this particular website.

Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with W.D. Clinger's posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6637486&postcount=499
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6628028&postcount=349
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6654184&postcount=339

 

[D'rok]

Actually Dungey is talking about *ELECTROmagnetic reconnection", not simply "magnetic lines". There's a "particle flow" involved in that process, not just the transfer of magnetic field energy to kinetic energy of charged particles (properly called induction).

Have you read this paper by Dungey: Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems

You know, the one on which you are hanging your hat so confidently these days.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with W.D. Clinger's posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6637486&postcount=499
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6628028&postcount=349
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6654184&postcount=339

What do you expect me to say about it? I had to explain to our dear Mr. Spock that unlike Alfven, I don't personally reject "reconnection' theory as "pseudoscience", I simply refer to it as "circuit reconnection" (my preference) or "electromagnetic reconnection". I don't actually outright "reject" it the way Alfven did, and I haven't now for many years.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Have you read this paper by Dungey: Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems

You know, the one on which you are hanging your hat so confidently these days.

Yes, but it was many years ago. I can't can't find my original copy or I would have posted it here instead of that paper. Since I can't find the original, I simply posted his response to criticisms that were bound to be raised sooner or later anyway.

 

[D'rok]

What do you expect me to say about it? I had to explain to our dear Mr. Spock that unlike Alfven, I don't personally reject "reconnection' theory as "pseudoscience", I simply refer to it as "circuit reconnection" (my preference) or "electromagnetic reconnection". I don't actually outright "reject" it the way Alfven did, and I haven't now for many years.

I expect you to have the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty and not falsely accuse your interlocutors like this:

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.

It would also be nice if you had the intellectual honesty to admit that your analysis boils down to boutique or ill-defined versions of terms rather than actual science, but I'm not optimistic about that.

 

[D'rok]

Yes, but it was many years ago. I can't can't find my original copy or I would have posted it here instead of that paper. Since I can't find the original, I simply posted his response to criticisms that were bound to be raised sooner or later anyway.

Are you confident that that paper supports your case in the way that you have claimed?

 

[Tubbythin]

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

Was it? Could we please have a precise definition of what you think breakdown means then? Just so we're all clear.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

Fine, then I can put you on ignore, and save myself a lot of time.
Your chance for a real discussion that you so longed for, that I was willing to give to you, a scientific discussion, is over.

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.

I would have actually asked you to show that reconnection fits with Peratt's definition of a discharge, but the point is moot, as you would have to do some real science here, and actually think and I would never ever have gotten an answer from you anyway, you prefer other people to do the work for you.

Bye bye loser.

 

[tusenfem]

What do you expect me to say about it? I had to explain to our dear Mr. Spock that unlike Alfven, I don't personally reject "reconnection' theory as "pseudoscience", I simply refer to it as "circuit reconnection" (my preference) or "electromagnetic reconnection". I don't actually outright "reject" it the way Alfven did, and I haven't now for many years.

To anyone else but MM.
But then, whenever someone talks about magnetic reconnection, MM starts yelling that Alfven called is pseudoscience, and thus we are wrong to think about reconnect.

Then he paddles back and then says the process happens, but I prefer to call it circuit reconnection (also because now he read a paper by Joachim, who says there are currents associated with reconnection, but appartently he never read real reconnection paper, because the all have associated currents).

Not that he is ever going to present an actual model for this laughable circuit reconnection (for one thing, circuit representation of plasma processes is a long wavelength approximation, and thus inherently cannot describe the meso and micro scale processes in the plasma).

Well, I heard it all before here, and there, the same old same old, yawn.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I expect you to have the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty and not falsely accuse your interlocutors like this:



It would also be nice if you had the intellectual honesty to admit that your analysis boils down to boutique or ill-defined versions of terms rather than actual science, but I'm not optimistic about that.

Well, since you brought up the topic, let's talk about intellectual honesty.

An intellectually honest individual can recognize that induction or an electric discharge can and does happen in an existing plasma. An intellectually honest person can observe a *SIMPLE* definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma and they will go with it for purposes of a conversation. Since none of that is happening here, what exactly do you expect me to do?

I can't make anyone *accept* a "definition" of an "electrical discharge'. I can't *MAKE* anyone accept that Dungey used the term in reference to flares as did other authors like Bruce. I can't MAKE you folks accept their work. I can't MAKE you folks comment on their work. About all I can do is present *EVIDENCE*, "statements", "definitions" and HOPE that individuals deal with that information in an intellectually honest manner. Since I see nobody really more than handwaving at Alfven's use of circuits and double layers, I see no evidence that this is an intellectually honest conversation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I would have actually asked you to show that reconnection fits with Peratt's definition of a discharge, but the point is moot,

It's only moot because you *REFUSE* to address it:

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.

But of course somehow "magnetic reconnection" isn't a sudden release of stored magnetic energy in your mind somehow? Give me a break.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

As long as we're talking about intellectual honesty, let's talk cause/effect relationships established here on Earth. Here on Earth we observe that "discharges" occur in our atmosphere. Such "discharges' emit gamma rays, x-rays, high energy photons galore. They heat plasma to millions of degrees in the lab. They ionize iron to high states of ionization. They do *ALL* the things we observe in flares. An intellectually honest person would simply note that when we observe gamma rays, x-rays, and other high energy photon emissions from *ANY* atmosphere from any body in space, it's most like a "discharge" process involved.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are you confident that that paper supports your case in the way that you have claimed?

Yep. It's pretty much the same presentation. There has been a 50+ year association between "electrical discharges' and "reconnection" theory (ELECTROmagnetic reconnection), and 50+ year association between "discharges" and flares.