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

[GeeMack]

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?

Read this: The claim that solar flares are electrical discharges has not been objectively and quantitatively supported. Until it is, the reasonable, intelligent, and sane position to take is that it is not true. That is the position I maintain, reasonably, intelligently, and sanely, and it is the same position that all the other not-crackpots in this discussion maintain.

The incessant and desperate attempt to portray me as a liar, without any demonstrable support for that accusation, is a personal attack and a violation of the JREF forum rules. But most of all it's a laughably pathetic argument, dishonest in the attempt to bail out on the responsibility for burden of proof and to avoid the actual topic of the discussion, which is, by the way, the wholly unsupported claim that...

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

So define "electrical discharge" in a concise, unambiguous, and objective way.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, you have.

Not at all. That's been the haters doing the misrepresenting. Neither Dungey's definition of an 'electrical discharge' in "ionized gases", or Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma required a dielectric breakdown. That was an *ARBITRARY* claim made by the PC/EU haters.

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.

Found it. FYI, I typically try to at least post a link to the paper, and preferable a link to a readable PDF.

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

Why have you changed your mind?

Huh? A plasma is an "ionized gas". A gas (non ionized) is not a "plasma." It that confusing in some way?

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

The "loosy-goosey" part is all the arbitrary requirements being tossed into the definition that aren't actually *IN* the definition, like the term "dielectric" and the INSISTENCE of a breakdown, neither of which is a listed requirement in Peratt's definition or in Dungey's use of that term.

I'll try to catch the rest of your post in a bit. I'm getting swamped at work at the moment.

 

[Tubbythin]

The "loosy-goosey" part is all the arbitrary requirements being tossed into the definition that aren't actually *IN* the definition, like the term "dielectric" and the INSISTENCE of a breakdown, neither of which is a listed requirement in Peratt's definition or in Dungey's use of that term.

I'll try and explain this again. You brought up the observed properties of lightning in an attempt to support your case. The observed properties of lightning are dependent on the potential difference sustainable in air before breakdown occurs. If air were made of only oxygen or only carbon dioxide or whatever then breakdown would occur at a different potential and give different observations. It is therefore... how shall we put it... bizarre that somebody should claim discharges in the Sun (whatever they may be) are the same as discharges in the atmosphere when in the former case there is no medium to breakdown.

Or in short form:
1) The properties of discharges in a dialectric are strongly dependent on the properties of the dialectric.
2) Conductors are not dialectrics and therefore discharges (whatever they may be) in conductors cannot be dependent on such properties.
3) Therefore discharges in conductors must be very different to discharges in dialectrics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Read this: The claim that solar flares are electrical discharges has not been objectively and quantitatively supported.

Read this: Pure denial.

So define "electrical discharge" in a concise, unambiguous, and objective way.

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.

Deny it all you like, it won't go away.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The incessant and desperate attempt to portray me as a liar, without any demonstrable support for that accusation, is a personal attack and a violation of the JREF forum rules.

Don't worry, I've demonstrated it many time now, starting with the fact you deny any type of responsibility for defending or rescinding your own (false) statements like this one:

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

 

[GeeMack]

Not at all. That's been the haters doing the misrepresenting. Neither Dungey's definition of an 'electrical discharge' in "ionized gases", or Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma required a dielectric breakdown. That was an *ARBITRARY* claim made by the PC/EU haters.

There are no EU/PC haters. The feigned indignation isn't flying. Nobody's persecuting the crackpots. Ridiculing their ridiculous claims and silly arguments perhaps, but not persecuting.

And as far as arbitrary claims, no, the contemporary use of the term "electrical discharge" is when a breakdown occurs in the insulating properties of a dielectric medium. Nothing arbitrary about it at all. It's all simply sane and intelligent use of contemporary terminology. If there's some other definition for the term, the onus is on those insisting on the non-standard usage to define "electrical discharge" in a concise, unambiguous, and objective way. That hasn't been done yet. Certainly not in this thread.

 

[D'rok]

Don't worry, I've demonstrated it many time now, starting with the fact you deny any type of responsibility for defending or rescinding your own (false) statements like this one:

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

The only way that is a false statement is if someone dishonestly calls everything involving currents in plasma a "discharge" despite all sorts of historically differing uses of the term and despite the well-understood contemporary use of the term.

The person doing that is not GeeMack.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The only way that is a false statement is if someone dishonestly calls everything involving currents in plasma a "discharge"

*I* did not do that. YOUR SIDE keeps trying to "dumb it down" to a "current flow". *I* provided a *DEFINITION* from a "plasma physicist". Are any of you plasma physicists? What's wrong with Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma?

 

[GeeMack]

Read this: Pure denial.

Deny it all you like, it won't go away.

That argument has failed. It will continue to fail. Nobody accepts it other than the electric Sun cranks. It is not rational to simply repeat a failed argument and expect it to eventually succeed.

 

[D'rok]

*I* did not do that. YOUR SIDE keeps trying to "dumb it down" to a "current flow". *I* provided a *DEFINITION* from a "plasma physicist". Are any of you plasma physicists? What's wrong with Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma?

It can't happen in plasma because there is no relevant breakdown.

And you have shown over and over that you accept any definition of "discharge" other than the accepted one, despite the mutually contradictory nature of those definitions.

Please read Tubbythin's post.

I'll try and explain this again. You brought up the observed properties of lightning in an attempt to support your case. The observed properties of lightning are dependent on the potential difference sustainable in air before breakdown occurs. If air were made of only oxygen or only carbon dioxide or whatever then breakdown would occur at a different potential and give different observations. It is therefore... how shall we put it... bizarre that somebody should claim discharges in the Sun (whatever they may be) are the same as discharges in the atmosphere when in the former case there is no medium to breakdown.

Or in short form:
1) The properties of discharges in a dialectric are strongly dependent on the properties of the dialectric.
2) Conductors are not dialectrics and therefore discharges (whatever they may be) in conductors cannot be dependent on such properties.
3) Therefore discharges in conductors must be very different to discharges in dialectrics.

 

[GeeMack]

*I* did not do that. YOUR SIDE keeps trying to "dumb it down" to a "current flow". *I* provided a *DEFINITION* from a "plasma physicist". Are any of you plasma physicists? What's wrong with Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma?

Peratt's definition of the term "electrical discharge" is not Dungey's definition, which is not Alfvén's definition, which is not the contemporary definition which is well accepted among legitimate physicists and entails the breakdown of a dielectric medium. If it's Peratt's definition (which has been shown to not actually be a definition, but to put dishonesty aside for a moment...), then Dungey's comments can't be used to support it. And if it's Dungey's, then Alfvén's comments are wrong. And if it's allegedly Alfvén's definition, then Peratt's can't be used.

They aren't the same thing, not even close, and they are all virtually irrelevant to contemporary physics, what we have learned in the past 50 years about how the Sun operates. A solar flare is not, by any contemporary understanding of the term "electrical discharge", an electrical discharge. It would be dishonest and/or ignorant to claim it is. And if there's an unambiguous and objective alternative definition for the term, it surely hasn't been provided in this thread yet.

 

[D'rok]

A quick summary from my layperson's perspective.

1. Dungey thinks discharges are increases in current density at neutral points of the magnetic field in astrophysical systems. He thinks they cause the aurorae and occur in solar flares.
2. Alfven thinks discharges are simply currents in plasma and he thinks exploding double layers cause solar flares .
3. Peratt thinks discharges are releases of magnetic or electric stored energy caused by breakdown of a medium. About solar flares he thinks...who the hell knows? The cosmic penis did it, maybe

The above are not all equivalent. They are mutually contradictory.

And, of course:

4. Contemporary plasma physicists think magnetic reconnection causes solar flares.

Some clarification on exactly what the current usage of the term "electric discharge" is in plasma physics would be appreciated.

 

[Haig]

It is therefore... how shall we put it... bizarre that somebody should claim discharges in the Sun (whatever they may be) are the same as discharges in the atmosphere when in the former case there is no medium to breakdown.

Bruce says they are the "same effect" as he compares them here: (my hilite)

Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution. by C. E. R. Bruce

(2.5) Solar Discharge Temperature
We see the same effect in a lightning flash. The electrical energy is generated five to ten kilometres up in the thundercloud, but the leaderstroke short circuits the field between cloud and earth, and the largest current flows just outside the earth's surface. Just so, in these stellar atmospheric discharges the leaderstroke short circuits the electric field so that energy generated lower down in regions of higher density in the star's atmosphere is liberated further out in regions of lower density and longer mean free path. It is, therefore, to be expected that the discharge temperature will increase as the discharge is propagated outwards. The 6,000°K of the photospheric arcs becomes the 10,000°K to 20,000°K of the chromospheric glow discharges and this in turn becomes the 1,000,000°K or 2,000,000°K of the discharges of the corona. It was, therefore, not altogether surprising when the conclusion already mentioned(2.22) had to he drawn that the discharges associated with solar flares actually reach temperatures of over 100,000,000°K.

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

 

[Ziggurat]

3. Peratt thinks discharges are releases of magnetic or electric stored energy caused by breakdown of a medium. About solar flares he thinks...who the hell knows? The cosmic penis did it, maybe

<Butthead>He he... you said cosmic. He he.</Butthead>

(Sorry. I'll be good now.)

 

[D'rok]

<Butthead>He he... you said cosmic. He he.</Butthead>

(Sorry. I'll be good now.)

I don't even want to think about the Beavis and Butthead "discharge" sketch, but there'd have to be a bunghole in there somewhere.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't even want to think about the Beavis and Butthead "discharge" sketch, but there'd have to be a bunghole in there somewhere.

And "exploding double layer" would definitely have to be a euphemism for something really foul.

(damn it! I promised to be good. I guess I just can't be trusted.)

 

[D'rok]

And "exploding double layer" would definitely have to be a euphemism for something really foul.

(damn it! I promised to be good. I guess I just can't be trusted.)

Ewww...

 

[Michael Mozina]

That argument has failed.

Of course. Denial can conquer anything.

It will continue to fail.

In your case I'm absolutely certain that is true because denial tends to be a persistent process.

Nobody accepts it other than the electric Sun cranks.

Ya, like Alfven and Peratt, Bruce, Dungey, Calqvist and many many other "cranks". Ad hom much? OMG. In 10+ years of cyberspace debates, I've *NEVER* seen anyone post an ad-hom in every post. What pathetic, unscientific behavior.

It is not rational to simply repeat a failed argument and expect it to eventually succeed.

In your case I do not expect it to succeed because never once have you commented on Calqvist's use of circuits, his maths or anything about his work. Why would I expect you to actually respond now to something you've never responded to in the past? If you deny all responsibility for supporting your own false statements, I'm sure you can deny just about anything and everything I might throw at you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It can't happen in plasma because there is no relevant breakdown.

Of course there is. There is a breakdown of the circuit and the circuit energy is passed into the plasma via induction according to Alfven. The "breakdown" occurs inside the explosive double layer.

And you have shown over and over that you accept any definition of "discharge" other than the accepted one,

What "accepted" one? Not one of you have provided a *DEFINITION* of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma by a plasma physicist other than by authors that *CLAIM IT HAPPENS IN PLASMA AND IN FLARES*. Instead, you keep INSISTING on a definition that *ONLY* applies to a gas! Holy smokes!

despite the mutually contradictory nature of those definitions.

What?!?!? There's nothing "mutually exclusive' about Dungey's definition and Peratt's definition. Neither one of them insisted upon a "dielectric breakdown" as you keep insisting!

 

[Michael Mozina]

And "exploding double layer" would definitely have to be a euphemism for something really foul.

No, that would be the term "magnetic reconnection" according to Alfven. In fact it was so foul according to him, he called it pseudoscience a half dozen or more times in one of his final public speeches at a plasma physics convention.

(damn it! I promised to be good. I guess I just can't be trusted.)