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

[Tubbythin]

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.

Make your mind up:

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

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

Change the record Michael.

 

[D'rok]

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!

If Peratt's definition is the same as Dungey's (it isn't), then we're back to the "a discharge is just a current" crap.

 

[Tubbythin]

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

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

I fail to see how that disproves my point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Peratt's definition of the term "electrical discharge" is not Dungey's definition,....

So what? By DEFINITION both/ALL DEFINITIONS demonstrate that your *IGNORANT* statements were false, but you will continue to deny any and all responsibility for supporting them or rescinding them, just like you will continue to deny everything else I present.

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

 

[Michael Mozina]

I fail to see how that disproves my point.

It demonstrates that *I* wasn't the first one to make the claim/connection, and it's been supported with maths since the time of Dungey and Bruce.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, that would be the term "magnetic reconnection"

Really, Michael, put some effort into it. As a euphemism, that's about as tame as "getting intimate". You could at least have come up with something like "twisted flux lines".

(See? I can't help it!)

 

[Michael Mozina]

If Peratt's definition is the same as Dungey's (it isn't),

You mean it wasn't worded the same. Whereas Dungey used the term "ionized gas", Peratt used the term "plasma". So what? Neither one insisted upon a dielectric breakdown and both associate flares with "electrical discharges".

then we're back to the "a discharge is just a current" crap.

Only in your mind, and only because you REFUSE to simply accept Peratt's definition. Either definition falsifies GM's false claim.

There really isn't any significant difference between Dungey and Peratt. The only difference was "phrasing', not physics. There are still high speed, high energy "current flows" involved and "electrical discharges' involved.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Really, Michael, put some effort into it. As a euphemism, that's about as tame as "getting intimate". You could at least have come up with something like "twisted flux lines".

(See? I can't help it!)

You're right, I really wasn't very creative. My bad. Hehehehe....

 

[D'rok]

You mean it wasn't worded the same. Whereas Dungey used the term "ionized gas", Peratt used the term "plasma". So what? Neither one insisted upon a dielectric breakdown and both associate flares with "electrical discharges".



Only in your mind, and only because you REFUSE to simply accept Peratt's definition. Either definition falsifies GM's false claim.

There really isn't any significant difference between Dungey and Peratt. The only difference was "phrasing', no physics. There are still high speed, high energy "current flows" involved and "electrical discharges' involved.

Sigh.

 

[Tubbythin]

It demonstrates that *I* wasn't the first one to make the claim/connection,

I never said you had.

and it's been supported with maths since the time of Dungey and Bruce.

Err. That was an article by Bruce.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I never said you had.


Err. That was an article by Bruce.

I guess we're talking past each other. Bruce got it right IMO. He and many other authors have demonstrated the similarities between electrical discharges and solar flares. It's not like the idea has never been quantified before, or written about before. I personally think Calqvist does the best job mathematically in terms of explaining the whole process of induction and circuit energy, etc. All of them talk about "electrical discharges", and the rapid transfer of magnetic field energy into charged particles. In fact all "magnetic reconnection" papers are based on exactly that same physical premise, the transfer of magnetic field energy into charged particle kinetic energy. A 'discharge" is still a "discharge", is still a 'discharge", no matter how you transfer the magnetic field energy into the plasma. All papers on flares ultimately describe "electrical discharges' in plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sigh.

Other than the words they used, *what* (physically) is different between Peratt's definition and Dungey's definition? In other words, what is the PHYSICAL difference between them?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Make your mind up:

FYI, I still can't figure out what makes you think these are not congruent statements?

 

[GeeMack]

That argument has failed.

Of course. Denial can conquer anything.

It's not about me. That argument has failed to convince anyone that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges, except maybe a few electric Sun cranks. (Flesch-Kinkaid readability level: Grade 7.5)

It will continue to fail.

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

It's not about me. The argument will continue to fail. It is constructed from dishonest cherry picking, goalpost moving, and misrepresenting the work of real scientists. (Flesch-Kinkaid readability level: Grade 7.7)

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's not about me. But the personal attack is, as always, noted. Also noted is the lack of support for the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges. The lack of a concise definition for the term "electrical discharge" is noted, too. It should also be noted that in 10+ years of cyberspace debates, nobody has ever convinced any real scientist that solar flares are electrical discharges. Or that the Sun has a solid surface. (Flesch-Kinkaid readability level: Grade 8.0)

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.

It's not about me. Whether or not I comment on or explain some crackpot claim to the satisfaction of the cranks is irrelevant. I'm not responsible for supporting the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges. It would be just plain stupid to suggest I am. It would be an act of abject dishonesty to suggest I should. (Flesch-Kinkaid readability level: Grade 6.6)

So what? By DEFINITION both/ALL DEFINITIONS demonstrate that your *IGNORANT* statements were false, but you will continue to deny any and all responsibility for supporting them or rescinding them, just like you will continue to deny everything else I present.

(Bolding mine.) It's not about me. It's about the claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. It's not my fault no quantitative objective support has been provided for that claim. It's about the electric Sun proponents refusing to offer a clear, objective definition of the term "electrical discharges". That definition hasn't been provided. That's not my fault either. The electric Sun crackpots have a lot of work to do. (Flesch-Kinkaid readability level: Grade 6.9)

I kept it simple. I trust I've made myself clear. If anyone doesn't understand, let me know. I can probably take it down another notch.

 

[GeeMack]

Other than the words they used, *what* (physically) is different between Peratt's definition and Dungey's definition? In other words, what is the PHYSICAL difference between them?

That argument is, again, dishonestly fleeing responsibility for the burden of proof. It is not other people's responsibility to explain the terms of the claim in a way that is understandable to the cranks. It is the responsibility of the electric Sun adherents to define the terms of their claims in an unambiguous objective way. This is, as has been mentioned many times in these threads, a grade school science concept.

Go ahead. Define "electrical discharge" in a clear, unambiguous, and objective way.

 

[D'rok]

Other than the words they used, *what* (physically) is different between Peratt's definition and Dungey's definition? In other words, what is the PHYSICAL difference between them?

It's almost as if there hasn't been page after page of folks trying to explain this to you.

Oh well. I guess we get to practice our typing.

 

[Reality Check]

Hey cool, pure denial on your part:

Hey cool, pure denial on your part, along with cherry picking from the defintion.

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.

 

[Reality Check]

Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different

Courtesy of D'rok (from Dungey's 1953 paper)

And here is Dungey's definition again:

Originally Posted by Dungey
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.

and Peratt's defintion from his book Cosmic Plasma:

Originally Posted by Peratt
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.

Anyone who can read will see they are different, e.g. Dungey ignores any release of energy.

 

[Reality Check]

Solar flares are not caused by electrical discharges

*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?

Dugney and Alven are the people who "dumbed it down" to a current. We have merely quoted them.

You started by

• Stating that solar flares are electrical discharges.
  Defining electrical discharges as lightning by posting pictures of a pipe compressed by by lightning.
• Quoting Peratt's definition which matches the usual defintion. That page even goes onto mention lightning!
  Perrat does not discuss electrical discharges within plasma, which you have been ignoring for a month now:
  Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
  First asked 7 December 2010

Peratt's definition is also incomplete. He states that electrical discharges generally needs the breakdown of a medium. But he does not state what the exceptions are.

Your assertion is obviously wrong because solar flares are observed to not be electrical dicharges. They are explosions, not lightning.

But maybe you mean: Solar flares are caused by electrical discharges'

That assertion is also wrong because plasmas cannot have electrical discharges as you (Micheal Mozina) used the term.

But some authors used to call a large current density in plasma, a "electrical discharge". This practice seems to be no longer used because of the confusion with the usual definition.

The cause of the large current density (and so the flare) was attributed to exploding double layers by Alfven and others some decades ago. Since then evidence has been collected that supports the cause being magnetic reconnection. That is the current situation with solar flares.

This doe not help your assertion because now we have that solar flares are caused by either

• exploding double layers (Alfven) or
• magnetic reconnection

That is: Solar flares are not (caused by) electrical discharges.

Alfven stated that solar flares are caused by exploding double layers, i.e. not (caused by) electric dicharges. Is Alfven wrong?