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

[tusenfem]

Did someone post the link to his original paper? It's been busy at work, so I may have missed it. Where did you get that definition?

Figures that MM would miss such an important link, like in this message.

And then when D'rok asked MM a question:

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.

MM answered:

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.

 

[nvidiot]

So what is the reason the solar sciences have ignored EU theory Michael? Ignorance? Conspiracy? Do you seriously contend that the many, many physicists and astronomers who study and model the sun are engaged in either of those options? These people do this for a living, and if they were in any way convinced that the EU hypothesis was even close to correct they would immediately publish to great acclaim.

I'm not a physicist. Heck I'm not even a scientist. I have no qualifications aside from high school and a burning interest in the world around me. I'm a skeptic, sometimes a cynic, and a half decent gardener. But even someone like me can tell when someone is shoveling bovine excrement. And mate, you're doing it like cows are soon to be an endangered species.

If you want anyone here to take you even half seriously Michael, here's what you have to do: first, make a quantitative prediction about a feature of the sun. Preferably one which would confirm the hypothesis of an electric sun, and simultaneously disproves the standard solar model. If it just does the former but not the latter it's not as good, but it's a start at least. Once you make this quantitative prediction, you need to make observations of the feature in question and see if your hypothesis is supported.

Here's the thing: if your hypothesis says we should see "X" but in the observation you see "Y", then your hypothesis is wrong. Full stop.

Do you think you, personally and in your own words, can make a quantitative prediction about the sun which can be tested?

 

[tusenfem]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Let is be known that this paper was discussed this post (quick look) in the "magnetic reconnection and phyiscal processes" (MM did not like my quick look comment).

So in the next post I elaborated on that paper a bit.

And then there was a large discussion about ... surprise! circuit reconnection, and never ever a model was presented.

But clearer are MM's misconceptions about what a circuit approximation means

Well, I'll stop there (that was page 7), you can read the next 16 pages if you feel like wading through a swamp.

 

[tusenfem]

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).

Hey Tubbythin, in the paper by Foukal & Hinata (1991) there is a good explanation why it will not come to an exploding double layer. (Too bad I did not know that paper when I was doing my Phd, but at that time there was no ADS.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what is the reason the solar sciences have ignored EU theory Michael? Ignorance?

Absolutely! If the last five years of debating these ideas in cyberspace has taught me anything, it's taught me that most astronomers are completely unfamiliar with Alfven's work, and I've yet to meet any astronomer who knew that Birkeland proposed a cathode solar model *BEFORE* I showed them the NY Times article.

It's very clear that it's a bias born or pure ignorance, and sometimes (in a very small number of cases in my experience) propped up with pure denial. This happens sometimes, for instance RC's denial that Peratt and Dungey started with ionized plasma in their "definition" of an electrical discharge. It's unbelievable to me in fact that *NOBODY* besides me has corrected him on it, and none of the so called 'skeptics' have pointed out his error. The ignorance issue is really the core issue IMO, but it's a widespread, wide reaching sort of ignorance IMO.

Debating "skeptics" of EU theory is much like debating evolutionary theory with self proclaimed "skeptics" of evolutionary theory IMO. None of them ever provide any evidence to support their own beliefs in a way that falsifies EU/evolutionary theory. Instead it's all about ignorance and denial, particularly with the real "haters".

FYI, there are a number of "skeptics" participating in this thread that simply don't have the knowledge to make an 'educated' decision, particularly and specifically in terms of Alfven's work, Calqvist's work, Birkeland's work, and Bruce's work. IMO those are the four most important figures in PC/EU theory and most astronomers have read very little if any of their actual writings in my experience. Even very knowledgeable, *EXTREMELY* intelligent, *HIGHLY* educated individuals like Mr. Spock for instance simply are unfamiliar with Alfven's real work. I know this for a fact because Mr. Spock accused me of misrepresenting Alfven's position on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" theory, and I know for a fact that that is not the case. I know this because I have taken the time to read Alfven's books, I've read hundreds of his papers and I've literally been through everything I could find on that topic. Alfven rejected MR theory as "pseudoscience" till the day that he died. It took "balls" to stand up in front of a room full of plasma physicists in 1986 and call MR theory "pseudoscience" at least a half dozen times in a single opening speech at that conference. That was late in his career. He'd certainly been exposed to MR theory for virtually his entire physics career, starting with Dungey and Sweet and Parkers work. I don't believe he would have rejected Dungey's definition as defined in Dungey's paper that I posted, because Dungey makes it clear that it is an *ELECTROmagnetic* reconnection,not simply a 'magnetic line' that "reconnects". Alfven however was very "hard line" about MR theory, very hard core, and completely unwilling to compromise, unless of course it was a double layer transaction involving moving particles, and then he still went right back to his favorite E oriented approach to describing the energy transaction. I find myself to personally be uncomfortable with that position. I simply think the proponents of MR theory gave the "process" a horrible title. It should be called "electromagnetic reconnection", or "circuit reconnection" since magnetic lines form as a complete and full continuum, without the ability for lines to "disconnect" or reconnect". Only particles and circuits "reconnect". Dungey makes it clear that "particles" do the "reconnecting" since he calls it a "discharge" process. The "reconnection" process takes place between plasma particles in motion, not simply "magnetic lines".

Most "skeptics" seem to simply be 'unaware' of the actual writings that I believe are most important to EU/PC theory.

Conspiracy?

Pfft. It would have to be the single most inept, single most ignorant conspiracy ever devised by human beings. "Circuits in plasma? What circuits? Discharges in plasma? What discharges?"

 

[Michael Mozina]

Perrat does not discuss electrical discharges within plasma, which you have been ignoring for a month now:

RC, I just don't know how to be polite about his anymore with you. That is pure, unadulterated DENIAL. Peratt specifically defines an electrical discharge IN plasma. Dungey specifically begin with an "ionized gas". Neither "definition" requires a dielectric breakdown and both definitions *BEGIN* in plasma!

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?

They are in his book which I'm sure you haven't read.

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.

There is a "breakdown" of the "circuit" in the "exploding double layer" RC. Since you are so fixated on a "dielectric breakdown" you refuse to consider any other type of plasma breakdown, circuit breakdown or anything of the sort. You're fixated on a fallacy. No dielectric breakdown is necessary. Both definitions *BEGIN* in an ionized medium ("plasma(Peratt)/"ionized gas"(Dungey).

 

[Perpetual Student]

Let me remind all participants here that:

Solar physics is the study of our Sun. It is a branch of astrophysics that specializes in exploiting and explaining the detailed measurements that are possible only for our closest star. It intersects with many disciplines of pure physics, astrophysics, and computer science, including fluid dynamics, plasma physics including magnetohydrodynamics, seismology, particle physics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, stellar evolution, space physics, spectroscopy, radiative transfer, applied optics, signal processing, computer vision, and computational physics.

LINK

The very idea that some dilettante crackpot understands solar physics better than the thousands of brilliant hard working specialists around the world is the height of absurdity and arrogance!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let me remind all participants here that:

LINK

The very idea that some dilettante crackpot understands solar physics better than the thousands of brilliant hard working specialists around the world is the height of absurdity and arrogance!

I'm simply presenting work that you *REFUSE* to even read or comment on. What did Alfven mean by "circuit energy", and what happened to that "circuit energy" when the double layer "explodes" PS? Ignorance is not bliss.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Dude, you're cherry picking the definition, not me. The work "dielectric" does not appear in his definition. The phrase *IN* plasma does appear in that definition.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

What they have been trying to "claim" (not explain) is that a "dielectric breakdown" is necessary, and that "discharges" cannot happen in "conductors", neither of which is true.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] Both definitions *BEGIN* in an ionized medium ("plasma(Peratt)/"ionized gas"(Dungey).

Both definitions are vague, don't agree with each other, and are contrary to the stupid notion that solar flares are some kind of electrical discharge analogous to lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball.

And so far, nobody has been willing or able to offer an unambiguous, objective definition for the term "electrical discharge" that is consistent with the claims of the electric Sun nutters.

 

[D'rok]

What they have been trying to "claim" (not explain) is that a "dielectric breakdown" is necessary, and that "discharges" cannot happen in "conductors", neither which is true.

And so we're back to you claiming that discharges are currents and currents are discharges. Useless.

 

[GeeMack]

And so we're back to you claiming that discharges are currents and currents are discharges. Useless.

It's actually more dishonest and ridiculous than that. The argument seems to be built on the premise that solar flares are electrical discharges if we all agree that solar flares are electrical discharges. And until we all agree on that, the crackpots can't actually bring in any quantitative objective support for their silly notions.

 

[D'rok]

It's actually more dishonest and ridiculous than that. The argument seems to be built on the premise that solar flares are electrical discharges if we all agree that solar flares are electrical discharges. And until we all agree on that, the crackpots can't actually bring in any quantitative objective support for their silly notions.

Well obviously. A lone software developer on the Internet has definitively exposed the vast ignorance of the plasma physics community. If we don't agree with that lone software developer's boutique interpretation of reality, then we are obviously ignorant too. Why would that lone software developer on the Internet actually do any science, when the entire scientific community and interested laypersons are so obviously ignorant of real science?

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm simply presenting work that you *REFUSE* to even read or comment on. What did Alfven mean by "circuit energy", and what happened to that "circuit energy" when the double layer "explodes" PS? Ignorance is not bliss.

What does it take to get through to you? There are thousands (millions?) of scientific papers that I have not read. Given my relatively short life expectancy, I have no choice but to be selective given my broad interests in all areas of science. If I were to become passionate about some finite area within the sciences (like solar physics), I would not waste my time with the outdated texts of the likes of Alfven any more than I would read Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, présentant les caractères généraux et particuliers de ces animaux for an understanding of evolutionary biology. I am a layman! I rely on the wisdom of professionals in those areas that are beyond my grasp. I do not pay attention to crackpots -- other than for some occasional amusement.

It is very clear to me that you are out of your element in this area. Until and unless you have seriously studied mainstream physics and (yes) mathematics and specifically modern solar physics, you have NO standing in any discussion about solar physics.

 

[GeeMack]

Dude, you're cherry picking the definition, not me. The work "dielectric" does not appear in his definition. The phrase *IN* plasma does appear in that definition.

No, it doesn't. The word "in" appears in the heading. It does not appear in the body of that section. And nowhere in the quoted section does it say anything about being a definition. It would be a seriously stupid and dishonest misrepresentation of the actual words and phrases used to suggest it does.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And so we're back to you claiming that discharges are currents and currents are discharges. Useless.

How can a statement of fact be "useless"? Is it somehow my personal fault that a "discharge" involves "current flow"?

Keep two things in mind here:

A) A dielectric breakdown is irrelevant in plasma. An electrical discharge can still happen in a 'plasma' or an "ionized gas". Since it's already ionized, the dielectric breakdown argument is moot. Neither Dungey, nor Peratt make any such claim in their *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge in a plasma. You were lied to, but not by me.

B) A discharge can *ONLY* happen in a 'conductor'. The dielectric breakdown *ALLOWS* for the discharge to take place down the ionized filament channel. That conductivity aspect is then REQUIRED for the actual discharge/AKA current flow to occur.

Neither of their claims were true, and nobody corrected them. That's how little your side understands plasma physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well obviously. A lone software developer on the Internet has definitively exposed the vast ignorance of the plasma physics community.

No, but Alfven did and Peratt did, and Dungey did but of course they were both plasma physicists unlike anyone else participating in this thread, and unlike most astrophysicists.

 

[GeeMack]

How can a statement of fact be "useless"? Is it somehow my personal fault that a "discharge" involves "current flow"?

Keep two things in mind here:

A) A dielectric breakdown is irrelevant in plasma. An electrical discharge can still happen in a 'plasma' or an "ionized gas". Since it's already ionized, the dielectric breakdown argument is moot. Neither Dungey, nor Peratt make any such claim in their *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge in a plasma. You were lied to, but not by me.

B) A discharge can *ONLY* happen in a 'conductor'. The dielectric breakdown *ALLOWS* for the discharge to take place down the ionized filament channel. That conductivity aspect is then REQUIRED for the actual discharge/AKA current flow to occur.

Neither of their claims were true, and nobody corrected them. That's how little your side understands plasma physics.

Actually when the term is used by contemporary physicists, not by dead scientists from half a century or more ago, an electrical discharge requires the breakdown of the insulating properties of a dielectric medium. Therefore an electrical discharge cannot occur within a conductor.

Now if there's an objective, unambiguous definition other than that used by contemporary physicists, it has not been provided yet in this discussion. What has been provided is a dung heap of conflicting cherry picked one-liners from disjointed sections of papers by dead scientists, contradictory, vague, and ever changing, but nothing that could be accepted by sane intelligent English speaking people as an understandable definition.

Consequently, no quantitative objective support has yet been offered for the wacky claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges because none of the electric Sun crackpots are willing or able to even define the terms of the claim.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection VIII

I know this for a fact because Mr. Spock accused me of misrepresenting Alfven's position on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" theory, and I know for a fact that that is not the case.

I know for a fact that it is the case, although I doubt you know enough about plasma physics to realize it. Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is based on ideal MHD, which deals with plasmas that have zero resistivity. In fact magnetic reconnection cannot occur in such plasmas, so he was correct as far as he went. However, as far as I know, Alfven dealt little with non ideal MHD, which was not well developed during his lifetime in any case. Non ideal MHD deals with plasmas that have a finite resistivity and in that case magnetic reconnection is not only possible, but actually a necessary consequence (i.e., the physics requires and demands it). So to that extent, Alfven was in fact wrong. While you have your head firmly stuck in the 1950's & 1960's, the rest of us are dealing with real physics the way it really is, not the way you wish it were. The ignorance is yours, not ours; the denial is yours, not ours. You will continue in the grip of both unless you get out of the past and into the present and talk about real physics the way it really is, which you have never yet done even once that I have seen in all your years of arguing.

... Dungey makes it clear that it is an *ELECTROmagnetic* reconnection, not simply a 'magnetic line' that "reconnects". ... Dungey makes it clear that "particles" do the "reconnecting" since he calls it a "discharge" process.

Let us look at what the very same Dungey actually says, in his own words.

See The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, J.W. Dungey, 1958 (this is the paper that Mozina's "Dungey" comment above refers to).

"Certain other features of flares may be accounted for by the bulk motion resulting from a discharge at a neutral point. The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly. The 'reconnection' upsets the mechanical equilibrium in the neighborhood in a way that can be visualized, if the lines of force are seen as strings. Then the mechanical disturbance will spread from the neutral point and may have energy comparable to the energy of the spot field in the solar atmosphere."
Dungey, 1958, page 139
​

So Mozina tells us that Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent but also tells us that magnetic reconnection is 100% pseudoscience. But Mozina overlooks that Dungey's 100% consistent explanation includes the 100% pseudoscience of magnetic reconnection. I will leave it as an exercise for the attentive reader to decide what impact this will have on the general credibility of Mozina's arguments.

Notice that Dungey says, "'reconnect' the lines of force ... if the lines of force are seen as strings". The statement that the reconnecting is being done by lines of force could hardly be more explicit. And yet Mozina insists that Dungey actually says currents and ions and electrons and particles.

What Dungey is describing is magnetic reconnection, not ELECTROmagnetic reconnection.

IMO those are the four most important figures in PC/EU theory and most astronomers have read very little if any of their actual writings in my experience.

Actually, most of the astronomers who work in the relevant field most certainly have read Alfven. But since you are in the habit of constantly complaining that people don't read what you think they should be reading, it is only fair to point out that you are yourself subject to exactly the same complaint. Lest we forget ...

This is nearly a year old now, from 20 January 2010. As far as I know you never responded.

How about a quick show of hands, how many of the following individuals have actually read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven? ... Tim Thompson

You have asked this question about a bazillion times, keep getting the same answers, and then just ask it again like it's the first time. How many times do I have to tell you ... YES ... I have read the book and I have two copies of it in my physics library. I used the book as a reference when I was a graduate student.

So, how about a show of hands from Michael Mozina:
Have you read Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Practice by Priest & Forbes?
Have you read Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics by Deiter Biskamp?
Have you read Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan?
Have you read The Physics of Plasmas by T.J.M. Boyd & J.J. Sanderson?
Have you read Plasma Physics for Astrophysics by Russell Kulsrud?
Have you read Plasma Astrophysics by Toshiki Tajima & Kazunari Shibata?
Have you read Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos by Eugene Parker?

If you have not read any of these, can you tell us what plasma physics books, other than Alfven, you actually have read?
How many plasma physics classes have you taken?
How many plasma physics laboratory experiments have you performed yourself, or assisted with?

Well? Have you read any of these books?