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

[Reality Check]

It doesn't *IMPLY* anything. It clearly *STATES* that it's an "electrical discharge". You're intentionally "interpreting" whatever you want to hear now, and not addressing the words written in the paper. How exactly can I deal with pure denial?

That is pure ignorance:
The standard definition of an electrical discharge in physics involves the breakdown of a dielectric medium.
Dungey clearly *WRITES* the words "electrical discharge" but never defines the term. The context where he *WRITES* the term is current densities.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no such thing as a circuit interruption in plasma.

D. Solar Prominence Circuit. Solar Flares

The circuit consists of a magnetic flux tube above the photosphere and part of photosphere (see Fig. 10). The generator is in the photosphere and is due to a whirl motion in sunspot magnetic field. Generator output increases circuit energy which can be dissipated in two different ways: ( 1 ) When current density surpasses critical value, an exploding DL is produced in which most of the circuit energy is released. This causes a solar flare. Hénoux (1985) has recently given an interesting study of solar flares and concludes that a current disruption by DL's is an appealing explanation of solar flares. (2) Under certain circumstances the electromagnetic pressure of the current loop may produce a motor which gives rise to a rising prominence (Alfvén and Carlqvist, 1967; Carlqvist, 1982b).

So whom shall I believe, the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics, or the guy that's never read (at at least not commented much) on his work related to this topic?

 

[Reality Check]

Which statement do you disagree with RC?

1) Electrical discharges happen in plasma
2) Dungey (and others) wrote about them in relationship to solar flares

What defintion of electrical discharge are you using?

Electrical discharge has a standard definition used generally in physics but as has been pointed out many times this excludes electrical discharges from plasma.

If you mean the standard definition then I disagree with both statements.
If you mean the definition as used by Alfven and Dungey (a large current) then I agree with both statements.

 

[Tubbythin]

What does your personal need for a "dielectric breakdown" have to do with anything?

You talked about a system where the release of energy was caused by the breakdown of a dialectric medium. Systems where there is no dialectric medium to break down are not analogous.

Which claim are we discussing now? The one I was trying to support was the claim that flares *ARE* electrical discharges.

We are discussing the fact that you tried to argue that a discharge through a dialectric medium was the same as a discharge through a conducting medium despite the fact the definitions of discharge in each case are different.

That is just silly. They are both related by "powerful current flows' and "sudden releases of stored EM energy". One release of energy occurs in a gas, the other occurs in plasma. Other than that they are still EM processes were stored EM energy is released "suddenly' into the medium.

It is just silly, I agree. You are trying to say that the properties observed specifically when a dielectric medium breaks down are also observed in the Sun, despite the fact this has completely opposing properties and the same kind of break down cannot possibly happen.

ETA: Breakdown of a dialectric media refers to an insulator becoming a conductor.
Breakdown of a conductur usually means the conductive properties have worsened.

 

[GeeMack]

Which statement do you disagree with RC?

1) Electrical discharges happen in plasma
2) Dungey (and others) wrote about them in relationship to solar flares

The complete lack of honesty in the current line of argument here is despicable. The claim is...

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

All the lying and bending definitions and arguing semantics and trying to claim a point by contorting what Peratt and Alfvén and Dungey wrote and what they meant is a complete sham. There is nothing whatsoever in this line of argument that could even remotely be considered scientific... or honest.

That claim is...

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

If it can't be supported without fishing for individual words and phrases in 50 years old documents and replies to other people's research, then it can't be supported. No dishonest redefining of terms and cherry picking phrases is going to make it happen. None of this dishonest semantics game playing is going to support it. Something that might be called a discharge only by bending and stretching and reaching for definitions is absolutely not the same as saying "a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge." It simply is not. And it would be a lie, another in a long string of repeated arguments which have been shown to be lies, or the epitome of stupidity to claim it is.

There is no quantitative objective support for this claim...

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

Abandon it already. Every single attempt to support it has failed.

 

[Reality Check]

So whom shall I believe, the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics, or the guy that's never read (at at least not commented much) on his work related to this topic?

I believe the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics as in your quote

D. Solar Prominence Circuit. Solar Flares

The circuit consists of a magnetic flux tube above the photosphere and part of photosphere (see Fig. 10). The generator is in the photosphere and is due to a whirl motion in sunspot magnetic field. Generator output increases circuit energy which can be dissipated in two different ways: ( 1 ) When current density surpasses critical value, an exploding DL is produced in which most of the circuit energy is released. This causes a solar flare. Hénoux (1985) has recently given an interesting study of solar flares and concludes that a current disruption by DL's is an appealing explanation of solar flares. (2) Under certain circumstances the electromagnetic pressure of the current loop may produce a motor which gives rise to a rising prominence (Alfvén and Carlqvist, 1967; Carlqvist, 1982b).

and

• Does not use your imaginary "circuit interruption" term.
• Does use the term "current disruption".

You do know that the words "current" and "circuit" are different ?

• Different spelling.
• Different meanings.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You talked about a system where the release of energy was caused by the breakdown of a dialectric medium. Systems where there is no dialectric medium to break down are not analogous.

But I can't even just "assume" that *NO* dielectric breakdown occurs. Notice how Bruce defines the process. It requires *SOLIDS* and such. I can't be certain that no dielectric breakdowns occur during such events.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

 

[Michael Mozina]

The complete lack of honesty in the current line of argument here is despicable. The claim is...

The complete lack of honesty among PC/EU haters is despicable. They never comment on Alfven's use of circuits, circuit energy or flares more than just to handwave at it. They use ad homs in post after post. They ignore their own false claims, deny everything they read, lather rinse repeat. They're just like haters of evolutionary theory. It's a belief system based on pure ignorance protected by the human defense mechanism of denial. Yawn.

 

[Reality Check]

Solar flares are *NOT ARE CAUSED BY* electrical discharges

Which claim are we discussing now? The one I was trying to support was the claim that flares *ARE* electrical discharges.

I will butt in here to point out some things yet again:

• Solar flares are *NOT ARE* electrical discharges. They are large expolsions in stellar atmospheres.
• Solar flares are *NOT ARE CAUSED BY* electrical discharges.
  Standard electrical discharges need the breakdown of a dielectric medium.
  The "electrical discharges" (large currents) in plasmas used by some authors to explain flares have underlying causes, e.g.
  • exploding double layers (Alfven).
  • magnetic reconnection (Dungey).

Thus flares are caused by

• exploding double layers and/or
• magnetic reconnection (the currently supported cause) and/or
• something else that creates large currents.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What defintion of electrical discharge are you using?

What difference does it make?

 

[GeeMack]

The complete lack of honesty among PC/EU haters is despicable. They never comment on Alfven's use of circuits, circuit energy or flares more than just to handwave at it. They use ad homs in post after post. They ignore their own false claims, deny everything they read, lather rinse repeat. They're just like haters of evolutionary theory. It's a belief system based on pure ignorance protected by the human defense mechanism of denial. Yawn.

Another 75 words spent complaining about those who recognize the complete failure to support the crackpot electric Sun claims, but not a single speck of supporting argument for this claim...

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

Apparently there is no objective quantitative support.

 

[Reality Check]

But I can't even just "assume" that *NO* dielectric breakdown occurs. Notice how Bruce defines the process. It requires *SOLIDS* and such. I can't be certain that no dielectric breakdowns occur during such events.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

You can assume" that *NO* dielectric breakdown occurs on the Sun because it is made of plasma. The simple fact is that plasmas are already broken down dielectrics. Thus they cannot break down! They sustain currents not standard electrical discharges.
Bruce's theory is ruled out because

1. "It requires *SOLIDS* and such."
2. *SOLIDS* cannot exist at the temperatures of the Sun's surface (~5700 K).

 

[Reality Check]

What difference does it make?

Electrical discharge has a standard definition used generally in physics but as has been pointed out many times this excludes electrical discharges from plasma.

If you mean the standard definition then I disagree with both statements.
If you mean the definition as used by Alfven and Dungey (a large current) then I agree with both statements.

See the difference?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I believe the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics as in your quote
and

Does not use your imaginary "circuit interruption" term.
Does use the term "current disruption".

Oy Vey. The denial thing is just getting old now. Nitpick much? Do you really think that's a clever argument?

You do know that the words "current" and "circuit" are different ?

What does he mean by "circuit energy" being suddenly released, and how does that *NOT* fit Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma and/or Dungey's use of the term "discharge"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Electrical discharge has a standard definition used generally in physics but as has been pointed out many times this excludes electrical discharges from plasma.

No. You're simply in denial of Peratt's DEFINITION and Dungey's use of the term "electrical discharge" *IN* (INSIDE OF) a plasma. PERIOD.

 

[Tubbythin]

But I can't even just "assume" that *NO* dielectric breakdown occurs. Notice how Bruce defines the process. It requires *SOLIDS* and such. I can't be certain that no dielectric breakdowns occur during such events.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

Michael you're claiming:

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.

and then picking and choosing inconsistent definitions of "discharge" and "breakdown" and then comparing completely different media with different properties and saying they must be the same things. And then you're saying that the break down of an insulating medium leading to conduction is the same as an exploding double layer where a conductor refuses to carry any current.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Another 75 words spent complaining about those who recognize the complete failure to support the crackpot electric Sun claims, but not a single speck of supporting argument for this claim...

This statement just demonstrates the lies you repeat, and the pathological nature (denial based nature) of those repetitious lies. The fact you refuse to comment on or deal with Alfven's use of circuits and Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma does not mean the information has not been presented to you. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Tubbythin]

The complete lack of honesty among PC/EU haters is despicable. They never comment on Alfven's use of circuits, circuit energy or flares more than just to handwave at it. They use ad homs in post after post. They ignore their own false claims, deny everything they read, lather rinse repeat. They're just like haters of evolutionary theory. It's a belief system based on pure ignorance protected by the human defense mechanism of denial. Yawn.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Apparently there is no objective quantitative support.

Apparently you haven't read any of the papers I have posted to this thread and the flare thread. What's new?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael you're claiming:


and then picking and choosing inconsistent definitions of "discharge" and "breakdown" and then comparing completely different media with different properties and saying they must be the same things. And then you're saying that the break down of an insulating medium leading to conduction is the same as an exploding double layer where a conductor refuses to carry any current.

I would urge you to reread Bruce's work. It's entirely possible that a dielectric breakdown *DOES* occur. The definition that Peratt provided is an *EXCELLENT* definition. The only reason it's being ignored/rejected is because it absolutely includes "magnetic reconnection" and therefore there's no "out", no "escape" and no way to avoid the inevitable.