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

[Michael Mozina]

Tusenfem discussed this in detail in a number of posts on page 41 and 42.
In summary - how I understand it at least - there are (at least) two completely different definitions of discharge flying around. One which involves the breakdown of a dielectric medium

Only your side is discussing such a requirement. Dungey and Peratt imposed no such requirement.

 

[GeeMack]

No. People in denial continue to believe anything they want.

The persistent personal attacks are noted.

More ad homs?

Nope. An ad hom would be like if someone said solar flares aren't electrical discharges because electric Sun proponents don't have the brains god gave a flea. Nobody is saying anything like that. What we're all saying is that nobody has provided quantitative objective support for the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges, yet there are apparently people who, in the face of that complete and total lack of supporting evidence, would steadfastly maintain the position that it is true. That, by definition, makes them crackpots. And once again, that's what puts the "E" in JREF.

And we're still waiting for the objective quantitative evidence to support this silly claim...

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

... yet it doesn't appear to be forthcoming. Maybe a good place to start would be defining the term "electrical discharge" in an objective, unambiguous way, since that hasn't been done yet, either.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But there is no evidence that you have actually understood anything that you have linked to.

What kind of an argument is that? None of you have commented much on Alfven's "circuit" of the sudden release of "circuit energy" from that "circuit", or how it relates to Peratt's definition. I haven't seen the slightest evidence that your side of the aisle has even *READ* the materials presented, let alone *UNDERSTOOD* them. Wake me up when you're ready to talk about the sudden release of "circuit energy" like Calqvist, and Alfven and Peratt and many, many, many others who's work I have linked to this thread and the flare thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The persistent personal attacks are noted.

The persistent lies are noted. The persistent denial of responsibility to support one's own claims is noted (again):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

 

[D'rok]

I told you it had been years since I read it. I never in my wildest expectations thought his *DEFINITION* would become such a hot topic,

Then you shouldn't have misrepresented it.

so I'd like to see the actual verbiage again if you don't mind.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6752170#post6752170
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6752708#post6752708
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6757512#post6757512

Where did you get that quote then?

The original paper.

They sure look to be referring to a high speed current flow through a plasma that would heat plasma, create pinches, etc in a LOCALIZED event, all the same things Peratt discusses. How are they radically different concepts on your mind? Wouldn't the "electron flow' tend to "pinch' the plasma in to filaments and such?

Where does Dungey refer to plasma specifically? Where does Dungey talk about a breakdown of the medium? How is Dungey's definition distinguished from a current? Why does Peratt use lightning as an example?

Actually, everybody else is doing a much better job of pointing out the differences. I refer you to Tubbythin 's post, for example.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6757773#post6757773

 

[Tubbythin]

Only your side is discussing such a requirement. Dungey and Peratt imposed no such requirement.

You were trying to use the properties of thunderstorms to support your case. You remember thunderstorms, those things with lightning. Lightning that occurs due to dialectric breakdown of the air. If dialectric breakdown is not relevant then neither are thunderstorms.

 

[Tubbythin]

What kind of an argument is that?

Michael it is up to you to make your argument not us to make it for you.

None of you have commented much on Alfven's "circuit" of the sudden release of "circuit energy" from that "circuit", or how it relates to Peratt's definition. I haven't seen the slightest evidence that your side of the aisle has even *READ* the materials presented, let alone *UNDERSTOOD* them. Wake me up when you're ready to talk about the sudden release of "circuit energy" like Calqvist, and Alfven and Peratt and many, many, many others who's work I have linked to this thread and the flare thread.

I've commented about your claims about Alfven and exploding double layers. I may be a bit confused in this respect, perhaps you could iron it all out for me?

 

[GeeMack]

You were trying to use the properties of thunderstorms to support your case. You remember thunderstorms, those things with lightning. Lightning that occurs due to dialectric breakdown of the air. If dialectric breakdown is not relevant then neither are thunderstorms.

... or toy plasma balls, another laughable comparison that has been made numerous times by proponents of the unsupported claim that solar flares are electrical discharges.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then you shouldn't have misrepresented it.

I haven't.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6752170#post6752170
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6752708#post6752708
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6757512#post6757512

The original paper.

I found you quoting him, but I never saw a link to the source of that quote. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be sure I understand where that definition came from (which paper), and at the moment I'm not clear.

For discussion purposes however:

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.

Where does Dungey refer to plasma specifically?

In the yellow part specifically.

Where does Dungey talk about a breakdown of the medium?

Where does Peratt claim that the medium *MUST* break down every single time?

How is Dungey's definition distinguished from a current?

I don't really know how to answer that since ultimately a "discharge" is a "current flow" as well. It's more a questions of "how much". It's like asking when does a pond become a "small lake"?

Why does Peratt use lightning as an example?

Because it's an example of a discharge.

Actually, everybody else is doing a much better job of pointing out the differences. I refer you to Tubbythin 's post, for example.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6757773#post6757773

IMO that is only because you *WANT* to find "differences" rather than trying to see them as the same. The *INTENT* makes all the difference in the world. It's called "conformational bias."

 

[Michael Mozina]

You were trying to use the properties of thunderstorms to support your case. You remember thunderstorms, those things with lightning. Lightning that occurs due to dialectric breakdown of the air. If dialectric breakdown is not relevant then neither are thunderstorms.

The dielectric breakdown requirement doesn't apply to plasma! Why? Because it's *ALREADY A PLASMA*! Grrr.

In every other way it's still a "discharge' and that "discharge" continues on *THROUGH* the plasma, even *AFTER* the dielectric breakdown! Oy.

 

[Tubbythin]

I don't really know how to answer that since ultimately a "discharge" is a "current flow" as well.

What is a "current flow"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael it is up to you to make your argument not us to make it for you.

I have. No one wants to address it! "Circuit energy? What circuit energy?" Rapid release of EM energy? What rapid release of energy?" The whole conversation is surreal IMO

I've commented about your claims about Alfven and exploding double layers. I may be a bit confused in this respect, perhaps you could iron it all out for me?

The basic concept is that Alfven describes a coronal loop as a "circuit" of energy. He talks about the "circuit energy", and the sudden and rapid release of all that EM energy. In terms of the magnetic field to particle kinetic energy transfer process, he refers to it as 'induction", but in every other respect, it's just a rapid release of the magnetic field energy into the plasma, just like "reconnection' theory. All such theories *REQUIRE* a rapid transfer of magnetic field energy into the plasma, which is by *DEFINITION* an 'electrical discharge" in a plasma.

 

[D'rok]

I haven't.

Yes, you have.

I found you quoting him, but I never saw a link to the source of that quote. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be sure I understand where that definition came from (which paper), and at the moment I'm not clear.

You would be clear if you read my posts. The title of the paper is there. Besides, there's no need to prevaricate; you know precisely which paper we're talking about.

In the yellow part specifically.

How interesting. That wasn't what you said the first time you read this definition.

That definition fits with these sorts of observations, but a plasma is a plasma not a gas.

Why have you changed your mind?

Where does Peratt claim that the medium *MUST* break down every single time?

Oh, so that's just an optional part of the definition, eh? This is getting quite loosey goosey, isn't it?

I don't really know how to answer that since ultimately a "discharge" is a "current flow" as well. It's more a questions of "how much". It's like asking when does a pond become a "small lake"?

Discharge = current. Current = discharge. Kind of useless. Still, tusenfem granted this to you, but you still wouldn't talk to him about it. That is just petulance.

Because it's an example of a discharge.

Is it the same type of discharge that you claim happens in plasma? Does it require a dielectric breakdown? Does it fit Dungey's definition? Is it the same as a current?

IMO that is only because you *WANT* to find "differences" rather than trying to see them as the same. The *INTENT* makes all the difference in the world. It's called "conformational bias."

Good grief. The differences are plainly evident in the text. We can't help you if you won't deal with them.

 

[Tubbythin]

The dielectric breakdown requirement doesn't apply to plasma! Why? Because it's *ALREADY A PLASMA*! Grrr.

I gather that a plasma doesn't need to break down.

In every other way it's still a "discharge' and that "discharge" continues on *THROUGH* the plasma, even *AFTER* the dielectric breakdown! Oy.

The observed properties of lightning are what they are precisely because there is a dielectric breakdown of an insulator! If there was no dielectric breakdown there would be no lightning. Do you understand this?

 

[Tubbythin]

I have. No one wants to address it! "Circuit energy? What circuit energy?" Rapid release of EM energy? What rapid release of energy?" The whole conversation is surreal IMO

I'm sorry. Show me the post in which you showed us all how calculation of circuit energy matched with observed data.

The basic concept is that Alfven describes a coronal loop as a "circuit" of energy. He talks about the "circuit energy", and the sudden and rapid release of all that EM energy. In terms of the magnetic field to particle kinetic energy transfer process, he refers to it as 'induction", but in every other respect, it's just a rapid release of the magnetic field energy into the plasma, just like "reconnection' theory. All such theories *REQUIRE* a rapid transfer of magnetic field energy into the plasma, which is by *DEFINITION* an 'electrical discharge" in a plasma.

I asked about exploding double layers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

...unsupported claim that solar flares are electrical discharges.

That is a lie and it is pure denial on your part. Speaking of "unsupported claims", and the persistent denial of responsibility for supporting one's own statements:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

Are you ever going to rescind that lie?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm sorry. Show me the post in which you showed us all how calculation of circuit energy matched with observed data.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Was there any particular problem with this paper that Haig provided earlier?

I asked about exploding double layers.

I would of course refer you to his paper, but I'm sure that's not what you're looking for. I'm fuzzy however on what exactly you ARE looking for. Could you be more specific?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I gather that a plasma doesn't need to break down.

And the other shoe is that "discharges" can still occur in plasma *without* any such dielectric breakdown requirement.

The observed properties of lightning are what they are precisely because there is a dielectric breakdown of an insulator! If there was no dielectric breakdown there would be no lightning. Do you understand this?

In the sense that if there wasn't an insulating process involved somewhere, it wouldn't happen, yes. In the sense that a strong electrical current continues to run through that ionized "lightning bolt", it keeps heating the plasma for some time, it pinches the plasma, it causes the plasma to emit high energy photons, etc, the breakdown is irrelevant. It's the 'current flow' that drives the bright light show and sustains that light show. The moment the current stops flowing, the show is over.

 

[Tubbythin]

And the other shoe is that "discharges" can still occur in plasma *without* any such dielectric breakdown requirement.

Well that depends on your definition of breakdown.

In the sense that if there wasn't an insulating process involved somewhere, it wouldn't happen, yes. In the sense that a strong electrical current continues to run through that ionized "lightning bolt", it keeps heating the plasma for some time, it pinches the plasma, it causes the plasma to emit high energy photons, etc, the breakdown is irrelevant. It's the 'current flow' that drives the bright light show and sustains that light show. The moment the current stops flowing, the show is over.

The breakdown is entirely relevant. Without it there would quite simply be no lightning. It is only because the air is an insulator that we can have such a big potential difference. Without it there would be no lightning. And the maximum size of the potential difference depends on the nature of the dialectric medium in question. How then can you conclude that this is irrelevant when it controls the fundamental properties of the discharge?

 

[Tubbythin]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
Was there any particular problem with this paper that Haig provided earlier?

The main problem is that you haven't as you claimed, presented it.

I would of course refer you to his paper, but I'm sure that's not what you're looking for. I'm fuzzy however on what exactly you ARE looking for. Could you be more specific?

Well, it is my (extremely limited I'll admit) understanding of exploding double layers that such events lead to 'bits' of plasma that cease to conduct (and this is one reason why they are interesting). This seems to be the exact opposite of what you want for your argument. Have I got this completely wrong (I'm quite willing to believe I have).