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

[Michael Mozina]

You know what might be a good contribution to this discussion? If somebody combed through all the threads in which TT makes his always substantial posts and then combines them into one reference thread. Maybe I'll get off my ass and do that one of these days.

That way, you could try actually reading them instead of shamelessly pretending that he hasn't fully explained himself.

FYI T (not TT) to my knowledge is the *ONLY* one to have read the appropriate materials. I feel bad that he and I haven't taken the conversation to a higher level quite frankly. There's been enough "consensus" between the two of us to do that. Unfortunately the "haters" are still stuck in denial and it's hard to move forward with the lies still being spewed by a few.

A) Discharges happen in plasma
B) Dungey and many others wrote about them in reference to solar flares.

PERIOD.

False claims I've heard (and keep hearing)

Discharges cannot happen in plasma because there is no dielectric breakdown
Discharges cannot happen in plasma because plasma is a conductor

 

[Michael Mozina]

In one you are claiming breakdown occurs, in the other you are claiming it does not.

A *CIRCUIT* breakdown occurs in one. A dielectric breakdown is irrelevant in a plasma. "Dusty" plasma typically become *MORE* ionized but a plasma *BEGINS* in an ionized state, at least some of it is already ionized.

 

[D'rok]

A) Discharges happen in plasma
B) Dungey and many others wrote about them in reference to solar flares.

PERIOD.

True only if discharge = current. Which is more or less how Dungey defines the term

False claims I've heard (and keep hearing)

Discharges cannot happen in plasma because there is no dielectric breakdown
Discharges cannot happen in plasma because plasma is a conductor

False only if discharge = current.

Tusenfem gave that concession (discharge = current in plasma) to you pages and pages ago, but you still wouldn't take that olive branch and talk to him about it.

You are only in this for the attention you get by being unreasonably argumentative.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I don't want anyone to take *ME* seriously, I want you to take *ALFVEN* (the guy with the Nobel Prize) seriously and read his work. Is that really too much to ask?

I am taking Alfvén seriously, and I did read the one and only citation you have offered in support of your claim.

The problem here (with respect to magnetic reconnection) is that it's impossible for us to take both you and Alfvén seriously. If you're right, then Alfvén's wrong. If Alfvén's right, then you've been misrepresenting him.

I have admitted that both of you could be wrong. I suspect, however, that you're wrong and Tim Thompson's explanation of Alfvén's opinions was correct.

And since no plasma in the universe has "zero" resistivity, he pretty much *ALWAYS* rejected it with the afformentioned items I listed to Mr. Spock involving INDUCTION at the point of PARTICLE reconnection.

Completely missed TT's point there Michael. TT's point is that Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is valid only wrt ideal MDH.

Indeed.

Michael Mozina's response to D'rok removed all doubt:

No, that's not true. He rejected it *ANY TIME THAT THERE WERE CURRENTS INVOLVED* in favor of his double layer approach. He specifically and intentionally and repetitiously refers to the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy as "induction".

If Alfvén rejected magnetic reconnection whenever currents were involved, then Alfvén rejected Maxwell's equations, in which case Alfvén's opinions are worthless and should be ignored. I think it's more likely that Michael Mozina doesn't understand that Alfvén's dismissal of magnetic reconnection was limited to ideal plasmas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

True only if discharge = current. Which is more or less how Dungey defines the term

Well, in real life, a "discharge" process involves current flows, so you could insist on dumbing it down if you must. The "discharge" Peratt describes however includes a number of "key features/predictions" that are "typical" in a "discharge", like high temperatures, high energy photons, etc.

False only if discharge = current.

No. Both statement are false in reference to a plasma. PERIOD.

Tusenfem gave that concession (discharge = current in plasma) to you pages and pages ago, but you still wouldn't take that olive branch and talk to him about it.

For my own sanity, I think I need to stop responding to the most pathological of the pack and communicate more with T. I agree that it would probably be a good idea to do that.

You are only in this for the attention you get by being unreasonably argumentative.

Oh boloney. GM does his ad hom show in every post. I can't deal with pure denial. I can't "reason" with pure denial either, nor make any compromises with anyone operating from a place of pure denial.

 

[Tubbythin]

A *CIRCUIT* breakdown occurs in one. A dielectric breakdown is irrelevant in a plasma. "Dusty" plasma typically become *MORE* ionized but a plasma *BEGINS* in an ionized state, at least some of it is already ionized.

Right, then you appear to be using the fallacy of equivocation for "breakdown" as well as for "discharge".

 

[Tubbythin]

Well, in real life, a "discharge" process involves current flows, so you could insist on dumbing it down if you must. The "discharge" Peratt describes however includes a number of "key features/predictions" that are "typical" in a "discharge", like high temperatures, high energy photons, etc.

Again, what is a "current flow"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think it's more likely that Michael Mozina doesn't understand that Alfvén's dismissal of magnetic reconnection was limited to ideal plasmas.

I think it is much more likely that since neither of you have read his book that neither of you understands that he rejected MR theory in *ANY* current carrying plasma, which "oh by the way" includes *ALL* cosmic plasma because all cosmic plasma is "current carrying" plasma according to Alfven.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Right, then you appear to be using the fallacy of equivocation for "breakdown" as well as for "discharge".

No. Alfven describes a coronal loop as a "circuit" as a "Bennett Pinch" of current carrying plasma. When the current flow reaches a critically high state, it *PINCHES* the current flow so hard it creates a 'breakdown" of the entire circuit and most if not all of the circuit energy is released. Nothing about the "Breakdown" involves a dielectric breakdown. That was a red herring introduced by the haters that has nothing to do with PC/EU theory.

 

[Tubbythin]

Nothing about the "Breakdown" involves a dielectric breakdown. That was a red herring introduced by the haters that has nothing to do with PC/EU theory.

Which was exactly my point.

 

[Tubbythin]

No. Alfven describes a coronal loop as a "circuit" as a "Bennett Pinch" of current carrying plasma. When the current flow reaches a critically high state, it *PINCHES* the current flow so hard it creates a 'breakdown" of the entire circuit and most if not all of the circuit energy is released.

All of which is nothing like lightning.

 

[D'rok]

I can't deal with pure denial. I can't "reason" with pure denial either, nor make any compromises with anyone operating from a place of pure denial.

So says the flat-earther to the geologists. I can't decide if the irony is comic or tragic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Which was exactly my point.

Huh? Now I'm just confused. There are too many conversations going to follow any nuances. Just spit it out. What point are you making?

 

[Michael Mozina]

All of which is nothing like lightning.

That's not true! The only thing "different" about lightning is that it "ionizes" the PLASMA and *THEN* the conductive process begins. Once that ionization process is done, they are *EXACTLY* alike.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Again, what is a "current flow"?

In the case of solids, it typically refers to the movement of electrons through a medium. In the case of plasma, the medium itself moves and it too can become a "current flow" since it's composed of moving charged particles.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Completely missed TT's point there Michael. TT's point is that Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is valid only wrt ideal MDH.

FYI, that is actually not the case. Alfven rejected MR theory in *ALL* current carrying plasmas. He also claims currents flow in all cosmic plasmas. The only exception he makes is when it's called "current sheet acceleration', and it properly uses the term "induction' to describe the transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy. I can't imagine the balls it took to stand there in front a room full of plasma physicists and call it 'pseudosciece" a half dozen or more times. He felt VERY strongly about it, and he used a completely different approach. He consistently uses the "particle/circuit" approach in *ALL* current carrying plasmas and spends a good deal of the first chapters of his book explaining that, and why it's necessary.

 

[GeeMack]

That's not true! The only thing "different" about lightning is that it "ionizes" the PLASMA and *THEN* the conductive process begins. Once that ionization process is done, they are *EXACTLY* alike.

Lightning is an electrical discharge, by the contemporary physics definition of the term. It requires the breakdown of the insulating properties of a dielectric medium. This is the claim made about solar flares...

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

If in that claim that the electrical discharge is allegedly the same kind of discharge as lightning right here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball, then that claim is demonstrably wrong at the most fundamental level. That sort of electrical discharge cannot occur in a plasma because plasma is a conductor not a dielectric medium, all the contorted semantics, intentional prevarication, and spitting on dead scientists' graves notwithstanding.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lightning is an electrical discharge, by the contemporary physics definition of the term.

No, it is an example of an electrical discharge in a "gas" where a dielectric breakdown occurs as the *CURRENTS* ionize them and flow through the atoms that turn into plasma. From that moment on, it's a "plasma" that *CONTINUES* to experience a "discharge" through the plasma.

In a plasma, the "dielectric breakdown" aspect is not necessary or relevant, but the "discharge process" that follows is still exactly the same in a plasma, in fact both ARE plasmas once that ionization process is complete.

Where did Peratt use the term "dielectric'? Where did Dungey use that term when defining a discharge in a flare?

 

[Tubbythin]

In the case of solids, it typically refers to the movement of electrons through a medium. In the case of plasma, the medium itself moves and it too can become a "current flow" since it's composed of moving charged particles.

So a current flow is, in fact, a current.

 

[Tubbythin]

That's not true! The only thing "different" about lightning is that it "ionizes" the PLASMA and *THEN* the conductive process begins. Once that ionization process is done, they are *EXACTLY* alike.

No they're not. The properties of lightning depend on the properties of the dielectric medium. So they cannot possibly be exactly alike. And does a breakdown of a circuit not mean it ceases to be a circuit?