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

[GeeMack]

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?

It's not my responsibility to support the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges. When 911 Truthers try that dishonest method of arguing by asking questions in an effort to deflect or evade the burden of proof, it's called JAQing off. It's a logical fallacy and an attempt at deception. It's dishonest, and does nothing to support their claims, and it's not working for the electric Sun adherents here either. Take a lesson. Read it twice. This is the kind of stuff that puts the "E" in JREF.

The point is, as I said before, a solar flare can't be the same kind of electrical discharge as lightning right here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. The solar atmosphere is plasma, a conductor, not a dielectric medium. No amount of conflating cause with effect or vice versa, no amount of stalling by screwing around with semantics, and no amount of arguing by lying and spitting on dead scientists' graves will change that.

So how about any proponent of this claim...

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

... define the term "electrical discharge" in a concise, unambiguous way. Then go to the next step which would be to provide objective quantitative evidence that shows there's some legitimately scientific basis for the claim. Here we are almost up to post 1900 in this thread with absolutely no progress made by the electric Sun adherents since post 1. None. Not a single word of compelling support has been offered.

 

[Tubbythin]

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?

My point was you're talking about two "discharge" in two different contexts and "breakdown" in two different contexts and pretending they're the same thing.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No they're not. The properties of lightning depend on the properties of the dielectric medium.

Hmmm, Which properties, lightning or thunder? In terms of the dielectric breakdown, you might not get as much "thunder" out of a plasma, but you'll definitely get just as bright of a light show.

Once the gas is ionized, what's the difference?

And does a breakdown of a circuit not mean it ceases to be a circuit?

Sure, once the current flow *ENDS* or is "disrupted" in some way. The discharge filament will continue to "light up" until the current flow ceases.

 

[Michael Mozina]

My point was you're talking about two "discharge" in two different contexts and "breakdown" in two different contexts and pretending they're the same thing.

I think we're talking past one another again. *MY* point was to demonstrate that a "breakdown" wasn't necessarily a "dielectric breakdown", but rather a current interruption of a "circuit".

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not my responsibility to support the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges.

I didn't ask you to. I asked you to support or rescind your false statement:

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

The more you keep denying responsibility to support your own statements, the more you demonstrate the pathological nature of your position and the more you demonstrate your own "projection" in terms of your claims about "dishonesty" as well.

 

[Tubbythin]

Hmmm, Which properties, lightning or thunder? In terms of the dielectric breakdown, you might not get as much "thunder" out of a plasma, but you'll definitely get just as bright of a light show.

Once the gas is ionized, what's the difference?

Lightning only occurs because we have a large potential difference separated by a dialectric. The dialectric strength determines how big the potential can get and the size of the potential (at least in part) determines how much energy is released in a strike. So I don't really understand the claim that the light show ill be just as big.

Sure, once the current flow *ENDS* or is "disrupted" in some way. The discharge filament will continue to "light up" until the current flow ceases.

So lightning occurs when an insulating medium becomes conductive and these discharges you assign to Alfven occur when a conductor ceases to conduct?

 

[Tubbythin]

I think we're talking past one another again. *MY* point was to demonstrate that a "breakdown" wasn't necessarily a "dielectric breakdown", but rather a current interruption of a "circuit".

It has to be one or the other. It can't be both otherwise you are equivocating.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lightning only occurs because we have a large potential difference separated by a dialectric.

The buildup of charges is possible because of the insulating properties of the dielectric. Once the dielectric properties break down the 'current flow" heats the plasma, creates and *SUSTAINS* the light show for as long as the currents flow. Only when the currents stop flowing does the plasma cool off and return to a gas state.

The light show is dependent upon the lifetime of the current flow, not the dielectric breakdown itself. The dielectric breakdown happens fast, but the light show will continue until the current subsides.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It has to be one or the other. It can't be both otherwise you are equivocating.

I was suggesting it was *NOT* a dielectric breakdown, but rather the breakdown Peratt refers to can be (and is) a "breakdown" of a "circuit" and the release of energy is directly related to the circuit energy of the filament.

 

[Tubbythin]

The buildup of charges is possible because of the insulating properties of the dielectric. Once the dielectric properties break down the 'current flow" heats the plasma, creates and *SUSTAINS* the light show for as long as the currents flow. Only when the currents stop flowing does the plasma cool off and return to a gas state.

The light show is dependent upon the lifetime of the current flow, not the dielectric breakdown itself. The dielectric breakdown happens fast, but the light show will continue until the current subsides.

So you're telling me that the properties of lightning do not depend on the potential difference involved when breakdown occurs?

 

[Tubbythin]

I was suggesting it was *NOT* a dielectric breakdown, but rather the breakdown Peratt refers to can be (and is) a "breakdown" of a "circuit" and the release of energy is directly related to the circuit energy of the filament.

In which case Peratt is not talking about lightning.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you're telling me that the properties of lightning do not depend on the potential difference involved when breakdown occurs?

No. I'm saying once the gas becomes ionized, it's still just a "strong current flow through plasma" that sustains the light show. As soon as the current stops, the light show ends. As long as the current continues to flow through the ionized particles, the plasma continues to be heated and it continues to emit high energy photons. The "current" does the work, the magnetic field is along for the ride.

 

[Tubbythin]

No. I'm saying once the gas becomes ionized, it's still just a "strong current flow through plasma" that sustains the light show. As soon as the current stops, the light show ends. As long as the current continues to flow through the ionized particles, the plasma continues to be heated and it continues to emit high energy photons. The "current" does the work, the magnetic field is along for the ride.

But the amount of energy there is to produce photons depends on the potential difference at breakdown which depends on the dialectric.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

You are showing a lot of ignorance there.
Lightning happens in a gas like air. Air is not a PLASMA. There is no PLASMA before the lightning happens. The lightning generates the PLASMA.

 

[Reality Check]

I think we're talking past one another again. *MY* point was to demonstrate that a "breakdown" wasn't necessarily a "dielectric breakdown", but rather a current interruption of a "circuit".

What is a "circuit" and why is the word in quotes?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But the amount of energy there is to produce photons depends on the potential difference at breakdown which depends on the dialectric.

IMO you're too fixated on the concept of ionization. Peratt specifically *INCLUDES* a transfer of MAGNETIC stored energy, not simply "electric stored energy". I think you're trying too hard. It's all about "current flow" and the lifetime of the current flow. Keep in mind coronal loops last for HOURS, not seconds.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What is a "circuit" and why is the word in quotes?

Oy Vey.

 

[Tubbythin]

IMO you're too fixated on the concept of ionization. Peratt specifically *INCLUDES* a transfer of MAGNETIC stored energy, not simply "electric stored energy". I think you're trying too hard. It's all about "current flow" and the lifetime of the current flow. Keep in mind coronal loops last for HOURS, not seconds.

With lightning, is it or is it not true that the amount of energy there is to produce photons depends on the potential difference at breakdown which depends on the dialectric?

 

[Michael Mozina]

With lightning, is it or is it not true that the amount of energy there is to produce photons depends on the potential difference at breakdown which depends on the dialectric?

Just "suppose" we need to sustain a plasma at a thousand plus degrees for a few milliseconds or a few hours. How would you suggest that we go about doing that if *NOT* using "current flow" to heat the plasma, and sustain the plasma at those temperatures for as long as we need it to stay at those temperatures? Let's up that requirement into the millions of degrees now, and how would you go about it? I'll let you have all the electricity you need in our thought experiment.

 

[Reality Check]

Even more crazy quotation, made up terms and simple mistakes in

The buildup of charges is possible because of the insulating properties of the dielectric. Once the dielectric properties break down the 'current flow" heats the plasma, creates and *SUSTAINS* the light show for as long as the currents flow. Only when the currents stop flowing does the plasma cool off and return to a gas state.

I will fix it for you:
The buildup of charges is possible because of the insulating properties of the dielectric. Once the dielectric properties breaks down the current flow heats the plasma air and creates plasma, creates and *SUSTAINS* the light show for as long as the currents flow. A little of the plasma cools off and returns to a gas throughout the process. Only when the currents stop flowing does the rest of the plasma cool off and return to a gas state.