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

[tusenfem]

I am not going to repeat post number 1636 on page 41

I don't even know how to deal with your first sentence:


That is the whole section. So, basically, Peratt does not discuss any discharges in cosmic plasma as defined in the first paragraph in this section.

How about the rest of the book?!?

The first sentence means that I copied the whole section 1.5.
And that, as explained in the sentences below the first sentence, what Peratt is actually discussing. Read further.

And if you read on, you will see that searched the book for the word discharge, and quickly described in what way it was used.

Let's stop this stupid discussion about discharges, because it is of no use whatsover for the whole discussion, as we have seen that different people have attached different meanings to discharge. So, that stops here.

Yes, I understand that. I was simply posting it as a handy visual reference. Would you agree that each one of the loops contains "stored magnetic energy" in the 'circuit"?

No, I don't think you understand. Giving your post the title "reconnection simulation" and then put in a link of a pretty moving picture, is frakkin dishonesty! Especially when you said earlier that you could not prove Joachim Birn's simulation wrong (and I would be very very surprised if you could, knowing Joachim's work intimitely). So instead of doing the work you go for the pretty pictures again.

There are magnetic tubes there in the picture, and there is most likely current flowing, so if you go to a circuit description of that then there is energy of the circuit, yes. If you look at the magnetoplasma then there is magnetic energy and tension. Please do not mix the two views, because they cannot be mixed. A circuit description is only valid on large scales (on the order of the whole tube length), whereas magnetic energy and tension can be located in a small region, if necessary. I sincerely hope that you understand the difference between plasma/MHD physics, and circuit approximations.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's stop this stupid discussion about discharges, because it is of no use whatsover for the whole discussion, as we have seen that different people have attached different meanings to discharge. So, that stops here.

Well, believe me when I say I too am tired of whipping a dead horse, but if we can't agree on scientific terms, there's no possible way to have a rational discussion about plasma physics. Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma is written by a professional plasma physicist, and we both have his book.. It seems like a natural place to start. Why do you personally have on objection to a definition pulled from a physics book we both own?

No, I don't think you understand. Giving your post the title "reconnection simulation" and then put in a link of a pretty moving picture, is frakkin dishonesty!

Did you wake up in a bad mood or what? Why do you do that? Everytime I try to have a scientific conversation with you, you go postal at the first opportunity over a pretty picture! Did I do that when you posted your pretty pictures? When I mention the pretty maths related to this topic, all I get are "Circuits, what circuits"? (actually they run like hell and I get dead silence). Sometimes pictures make it easier for lurkers to understand the maths and I happened to like that artist rendering the process! Holy Cow! Stop going postal over my pictures, I certainly didn't go postal over yours.

Especially when you said earlier that you could not prove Joachim Birn's simulation wrong (and I would be very very surprised if you could, knowing Joachim's work intimitely). So instead of doing the work you go for the pretty pictures again.

Oh for crying out loud! I told you it was a busy day for me, I've answered 20+ calls so far today, and I've *STILL* tried to ask you some relevant questions and I've spent time rounding up some "visual aids". Chill out.

There are magnetic tubes there in the picture, and there is most likely current flowing,

There has to be current flowing or you wouldn't see million degree plasmas in them and Alfven specifically refers to them as "Bennett pinches".

so if you go to a circuit description of that then there is energy of the circuit, yes.

Great. We have stored circuit energy that can be suddenly released if the circuit is broken, or any *PART/PIECE/LOOP" of it is cut off from any other part of the circuit.

If you look at the magnetoplasma then there is magnetic energy and tension. Please do not mix the two views, because they cannot be mixed. A circuit description is only valid on large scales (on the order of the whole tube length), whereas magnetic energy and tension can be located in a small region, if necessary. I sincerely hope that you understand the difference between plasma/MHD physics, and circuit approximations.

I don't think it's necessary to even go there yet. All I want to agree to first is that we have stored magnetic and particle kinetic energy in the "Magnetic Flux tube/Bennett Pinch/Circuit". I assume that is true.

Now of course all we have to agree to next is Peratt's one line definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma and I think that at least you and I can effectively communicate on this topic.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm ready for the conversation to move forward, believe me, and I agree that T is making a concerted effort at a real scientific discussion.

Good. So we're all in agreement then that it was ridiculous to claim that solar flares or CMEs are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. Obviously that idiocy is unsupportable and should have been abandoned on Page 1, then this whole thing could have moved forward a lot sooner.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Good. So we're all in agreement then that it was ridiculous to claim that solar flares or CMEs are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. Obviously that idiocy is unsupportable and should have been abandoned on Page 1, then this whole thing could have moved forward a lot sooner.

Do you intend to dodge every direct question put to you? I've seen creationists dodge direct questions about evolutionary theory before, but WOW, that's one fancy denial/dodge dance.

 

[GeeMack]

Do you intend to dodge every direct question put to you? I've seen creationists dodge direct questions about evolutionary theory before, but WOW, that's one fancy denial/dodge dance.

It's not about me. I'm not the one who made the silly claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges, and I have no responsibility to support it, the persistent and dishonest effort on the part of electric Sun adherents to deflect their burden of proof notwithstanding. I learn a lot in these discussions, and frankly I'm glad we've finally gotten past that crazy notion that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. Electrical discharges, the way the term is used in contemporary physics, can't happen in a plasma. That particular stupidity should have been dropped on Page 1.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not about me..

No, it's about "claims" people make. Nobody is allowed to deny responsibility to support or rescind their *OWN* claims, regardless of what other claims remain in contention. Do you ever intend to take responsibility for your *OWN* claims?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

 

[Michael Mozina]

Fyi t,

Somewhere in my response to you what got lost in translation is my acknowledgment of sloppy verbiage in terms, specifically 'simulation", vs. "artist rendering". If that offended you, I'm sorry. Keep in mind it's an *EXTREMELY* busy day at work today. It was a sloppy statement on my part, and I acknowledge that point.

 

[tusenfem]

Did you wake up in a bad mood or what? Why do you do that? Everytime I try to have a scientific conversation with you, you go postal at the first opportunity over a pretty picture! Did I do that when you posted your pretty pictures? When I mention the pretty maths related to this topic, all I get are "Circuits, what circuits"? (actually they run like hell and I get dead silence). Sometimes pictures make it easier for lurkers to understand the maths and I happened to like that artist rendering the process! Holy Cow! Stop going postal over my pictures, I certainly didn't go postal over yours.

It is about clarity and honesty. How am I supposed to be able to judge what you know and do not know when you say you present a "reconnection simulation" (after having talked about real computer simulations earlier) and what you show it a pretty picture.

I have never ever shied away from scientific discussion. Heck, I have presented more real science in about 1% of the number of posts that you have written.

At least my pretty pictures had a complete description with them how they should be looked at and how I am using them.

Oh for crying out loud! I told you it was a busy day for me, I've answered 20+ calls so far today, and I've *STILL* tried to ask you some relevant questions and I've spent time rounding up some "visual aids". Chill out.

And I have a nerving boss nagging about the annual report, I have to correct my student's paper before I can submit it to a journal, etc. etc. You're not the only one with a job.

There has to be current flowing or you wouldn't see million degree plasmas in them and Alfven specifically refers to them as "Bennett pinches".

What the frak is that even supposed to mean"Alfven specifically refers to them as Bennet pinches" . This is your standard sentence, that you probably saved under F6 or something. It is only a pinch if a certain criterion is fulfilled (or broken depending on how you look at it), can you tell me which criterion?

We are not even talking yet about million degree plasma, we are just talking about currents in loops, that you want to describe with circuits, because you want to do circuit reconnection. Temperature does not come in a circuit description.

Great. We have stored circuit energy that can be suddenly released if the circuit is broken, or any *PART/PIECE/LOOP" of it is cut off from any other part of the circuit.

No, that is the problem. If you have a circuit description of a process, you cannot "cut off any part." That is why I asked you if you really understand what is meant by a circuit approximation of plasma physics. That is one of the limitations of this whole stuff.

I don't think it's necessary to even go there yet. All I want to agree to first is that we have stored magnetic and particle kinetic energy in the "Magnetic Flux tube/Bennett Pinch/Circuit". I assume that is true.

But particle kinetic energy does not appear in a circuit. You keep on mixing the two models, either plasma physics or circuit model. Bennet pinches do not exist in a circuit model, there you only have current I, resistivity R, capacitance C, inductance L, a battery V and possibly a double layer DL (which basically acts as a kind of battery in the circuit).

Now of course all we have to agree to next is Peratt's one line definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma and I think that at least you and I can effectively communicate on this topic.

No, we don't have to agree on the D word at all, because it is not important at all. We can have magnetic tension that can be released (pretty hard to describe in a circuit description), or we can have an EMF that gets generated (easier to describe in a circuit) etc. etc. We don't need the D word, we can just say what happens.

Like the A&C flare model, you can insist on saying there is D, but everything is much better explained through saying that the twisted flux tube gets unwound through the presence of a double layer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is about clarity and honesty.

I'm going to assume our last posts crossed in transit and just move on. Since the haters have and always will continue to attack my character with with terms like liar, dishonesty, crackpot, crank, yada, yada yada on daily basis, no actually a post by post basis, you can relax. You and I should stay focused on the topic, and again if I offended you earlier, I'm sorry.

What the frak is that even supposed to mean"Alfven specifically refers to them as Bennet pinches" . This is your standard sentence, that you probably saved under F6 or something. It is only a pinch if a certain criterion is fulfilled (or broken depending on how you look at it), can you tell me which criterion?

Well, specifically in all all coronal loop activity based on his books and papers. Anytime strong current was involved (in fact any current AFAIK) he simply used a circuit and circuit energy orientation.

We are not even talking yet about million degree plasma, we are just talking about currents in loops,

Ya, loops filled with *MILLION* degree plasmas, even *before* any two of them touch. How did that plasma get that hot, and where did it get that hot?

that you want to describe with circuits, because you want to do circuit reconnection.

How is it my fault that Alfven referred to a coronal loop as a Bennett Pinch and as a "circuit" and you want to dumb it down to a "magnetic line"? Sorry, you can't blame me for history.

Temperature does not come in a circuit description.

No, but something ionizes neon to +7 states, iron to +20 (and beyond?) ionization state, and those loops are filled with million degree plasma. We have to 'explain" that high temp plasma somehow, *EVEN BEFORE THEY TOUCH*.

No, that is the problem. If you have a circuit description of a process, you cannot "cut off any part."

I think in most cases Alfven assumed a full circuit disruption and the release of the whole (or most) of the circuit energy in one singular event. IF you wish to discuss what happens when to "circuits" come into close contact, and what happens, that seems like the next logical step.

That is why I asked you if you really understand what is meant by a circuit approximation of plasma physics. That is one of the limitations of this whole stuff.

Ya, and IMO that's what the whole double layer paper was for. I do think it's pretty clear he expected the entire circuit to erupt in one giant explosive (induction driven) event.

But particle kinetic energy does not appear in a circuit.

Yes, but it's a real physical process we will have to account for (in that double layer paper).

You keep on mixing the two models, either plasma physics or circuit model.

Sorry. Alfven started it.

Bennet pinches do not exist in a circuit model,

They do exist in Alfven's coronal loops, in fact he specifically describes a magnetic rope as a Bennett Pinch. He also specifically calls it a "circuit". I'll look it up for you again if you like, or you can go to my blog page (not F6 ) and find a copy of his relevant statements.

I'll try to pick up the rest of your post after this call....

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, we don't have to agree on the D word at all, because it is not important at all.

We'll, you and I will at least have to agree on what *I* mean by an electrical discharge. IMO it is defined by Peratt's definition which we have both posted to this thread.

IMO it's a pity you don't take note (use) of his definition because it describes cause/effect relationships that might be helpful in understanding the *PHYSICS* of what is going on inside the plasma.

We can have magnetic tension that can be released (pretty hard to describe in a circuit description), or we can have an EMF that gets generated (easier to describe in a circuit) etc. etc. We don't need the D word, we can just say what happens.

Well, according to authors as far back as Calqvist and Alfven, the vast major of the circuit energy, mostly "magnetic energy" is released (via induction, not magnetic reconnection of course) in one giant cataclysmic event.

Like the A&C flare model, you can insist on saying there is D, but everything is much better explained through saying that the twisted flux tube gets unwound through the presence of a double layer.

That's not particularly useful in explaining how the plasma in the filament is millions degrees *BEFORE* two magnetic ropes touch and experience reconnection.

 

[GeeMack]

We'll, you and I will at least have to agree on what *I* mean by an electrical discharge. IMO it is defined by Peratt's definition which we have both posted to this thread.

So okay, an "electrical discharge", for purposes of this discussion, has nothing to do with lightning on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. We've gotten that far already. It's good that ludicrous comparison has been abandoned, because that kind of electrical discharge, the way contemporary physicists use the term, cannot occur within a plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So okay, an "electrical discharge", for purposes of this discussion, has nothing to do with lightning on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. We've gotten that far already. It's good that ludicrous comparison has been abandoned, because that kind of electrical discharge, the way contemporary physicists use the term, cannot occur within a plasma.

It's abundantly clear that you don't have any clue about plasma physics, nor any desire to have an honest conversation about it, starting by responding to this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6765450&postcount=1945

Are you going to keep dodging that post forever too?

How about this false statement? Are you going to deny responsibility for rescinding or supporting this (false) statement too?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6607542&postcount=64

The solar atmosphere is plasma. Plasma is a conductor. A discharge cannot occur within a conductor.

So whom shall I believe a guy with a PhD in plasma physics from Los Alamos, or you? Both of you can't be correct. Do you have PhD in plasma physics? Yes or no?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It's abundantly clear that you don't have any clue about plasma physics, nor any desire to have an honest conversation about it,

Someone's been posting without a clue? How shocking.

So whom shall I believe a guy with a PhD in plasma physics from Los Alamos, or you? Both of you can't be correct. Do you have PhD in plasma physics? Yes or no?

No and no. Anthony L Peratt does not have a PhD in plasma physics from Los Alamos or anywhere else. Peratt's PhD is in electrical engineering, USC, 1971.

Not that it matters. GeeMack hasn't been arguing with Peratt, but with Michael Mozina's interpretation of Peratt's definition, whose "lack of clarity" has been admitted even by Mr Mozina.

 

[Tubbythin]

I thought about it last night, I'm still not completely clear why it seems that way to you at the moment. I think perhaps the best way for me to respond would be for me to answer T's questions, talk about the circuits, the point of reconnection, the explosive double layer that forms, the 'reconnection' (of particles) and such. I think once that conversation is complete you will have a much better handle on what I mean. For the time being my time is quite limited, and I think it might just be better for both of us, to let me focus on T's questions, and I think all your questions will be addressed in that same process. Does that sound good?

Well I don't have much free time of my own right now so I'm not going to be putting up much of an argument in the next couple of days.

 

[Perpetual Student]

No, it's about "claims" people make. Nobody is allowed to deny responsibility to support or rescind their *OWN* claims, regardless of what other claims remain in contention. Do you ever intend to take responsibility for your *OWN* claims?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

This is a typical crackpot ploy: Put an antagonist on the defensive by attempting to deflect the burden of proof using endless entanglements with semantics.

As I tune into this thread from time to time, I observe Mozina twisting, dodging, deflecting and distorting the comments made by others to win ficticious debating points. There is not one iota of quantitative analysis to support his fanciful notions. We get nothing more than endless links to supposed authorities, whether or not these links are indeed supportive or have any bearing on his crackpot claims.

 

[D'rok]

This is a typical crackpot ploy: Put an antagonist on the defensive by attempting to deflect the burden of proof using endless entanglements with semantics.

As I tune into this thread from time to time, I observe Mozina twisting, dodging, deflecting and distorting the comments made by others to win ficticious debating points. There is not one iota of quantitative analysis to support his fanciful notions. We get nothing more than endless links to supposed authorities, whether or not these links are indeed supportive or have any bearing on his crackpot claims.

Yup. And it is painfully obvious that he is not equipped to even understand tusenfem's circuit reconnection post. He's just regurgitating his own bizarre talking points in response.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6764190#post6764190

That single post does more of Michael's work for him than all of Michael's posts combined in every thread of his I have ever on this forum or others. Epic failure doesn't begin to cover it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yup. And it is painfully obvious that he is not equipped to even understand tusenfem's circuit reconnection post. He's just regurgitating his own bizarre talking points in response.

To have a meaningful discussion about solar physics, first, one must have studied and understood physics (and the required mathematics); second, one must seriously study solar physics, which would include:

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._Wikipedia

Mozina has done none of these things. He has pretend discussions about things he cannot come close to understanding.

 

[tusenfem]

Well, specifically in all all coronal loop activity based on his books and papers. Anytime strong current was involved (in fact any current AFAIK) he simply used a circuit and circuit energy orientation.

Liessen closely, I vill only zay dis wence!

Many a plasma physical process can be decribed by a circuit representation. Basically, a circuit representation is the long wavelength approximation of the plasma physical equations, and this means an even further approximation of the plasma physics equation than the MHD approximation is already doing. Basically, nothing at a scale smaller than the whole loop can be described in the circuit approximation, therefore, anything that happens in the solar loop is averaged out into large scale properties. To go into details:

A magnetic loop of of L length and R radius, with B Tesla field strength, with current denstity of j Amperes per square meters flowing through a plasma plasma of density N and temperrature T, and there are instabilities and particle (coulomb) collisions etc. etc.

How does that translate into a circuit description? Length and magnetic field strength translate to an induction L, the current density with the radius translates to a current I, the temperature and density and collisions and instabilities translate into a resistivity R. And thus you get your circuit in the way I showed in my diagram. There is nothing left anymore of the loop, there is just a diagram describing the grand properties of the loop.

These are two quite different concepts.

Ya, loops filled with *MILLION* degree plasmas, even *before* any two of them touch. How did that plasma get that hot, and where did it get that hot?

Clearly, as I have said before and again and again, there are currents flowing through the loops and they can heat the plasma, which you can either calculate through the particle (coulomb) collisions in plasma physcs, or if you take the circuit approach it can be calculates with I²R.

But then, this is unimportant for the whole reconnection (magnetic or circuit) process.

How is it my fault that Alfven referred to a coronal loop as a Bennett Pinch and as a "circuit" and you want to dumb it down to a "magnetic line"? Sorry, you can't blame me for history.

I don't have his books here at home, but I am sure Alfven knew that for the loops to be a Bennett pinch, there needs to be a threshhold crossed. Do you know what threshold?

And NO I am not dumbing it down to a magnetic line, if you look in Alfven's papers and books, you will see that the magnetic field lines act as cable.

However, I am getting more and more the impression that once more your own definitions are different from what mainstream is using. Please tell me exactly what you mean with a circuit, because I get the impression that at one time you mean like in the paper (I forgot who wrote it and I am not going to search) about electric fields at the sun, and another time you just want to say that the magnetic loop with currents flowing etc. is the circuit.

No, but something ionizes neon to +7 states, iron to +20 (and beyond?) ionization state, and those loops are filled with million degree plasma. We have to 'explain" that high temp plasma somehow, *EVEN BEFORE THEY TOUCH*.

Oh my, like that is important for the whole discussion on reconnection.

I think in most cases Alfven assumed a full circuit disruption and the release of the whole (or most) of the circuit energy in one singular event. IF you wish to discuss what happens when to "circuits" come into close contact, and what happens, that seems like the next logical step.

Yes, Alfven used circuits to get the specifics of the situation. Indeed, then you can easier estimate the energy that is in a circuit. And like I have claimed in my "OP" the release of that stuff, the place where the reconnection takes place cannot be described by circuit theory.

In the example that I was discussing in my "OP" there are no circuits coming into close contact. It is just a loop, of which two points get close together, but it is still the same loop, still the same circuit, and as that cannot happen in circuit theory (the circuits getting into close contact) I needed to go 3D (lower diagram), splitting up the circuit into to parallel circuits in parallel with a third circuit. And I was already at that logical step, had you taken the effort of reading my "OP."

Ya, and IMO that's what the whole double layer paper was for. I do think it's pretty clear he expected the entire circuit to erupt in one giant explosive (induction driven) event.

Yes, but it's a real physical process we will have to account for (in that double layer paper).

Sorry. Alfven started it.

Yes, but Alfven at least understood the difference between the two approaches, which you quite obviously do not.

This is once more a quite futile discussion. I try to explain something to you, quite generously spending a large amount of time on it, and the only thing I get back it misconceptions, and useless comments like "Alfven started it"

You need to take responsibility for yourself. You cannot hide behing Alfven and Peratt all the time, because one is dead, so we cannot check wheter he agrees with you and the other you would have to ask whether or not he agrees with you.

But when someone says "this is magnetic reconnection"
we used to get the claim that "Alfven called that pseudoscience"
now we get the same, but with the addendum "but I think it can happen, but it should be electromagnetic reconnection or circuit reconnection"

Now, against my better knowledge, I tried to make a circuit reconnection, and placed it on the table, because after asking you dozens and dozens of times over the last three four years (if not longer) your only response was read Alfven or read Birkeland.

That is not going to cut it anymore, I gave you the start, now YOU finish it, don't stall with stupid comments, trying to get "concensus" on whatever new debatable term you can find for another four pages of discussion. Take to the drawing board and start working on what you claim is "circuit reconnection" and please read up on what the circuit approximation of plasma physics actually is and whether or not that this the thing that you want to use.

 

[Michael Mozina]

To have a meaningful discussion about solar physics, first, one must have studied and understood physics (and the required mathematics);

But since you never read or commented on Alfven's math's, his use of circuits, the release of circuit energy, etc, that let's you out of the discussion. Did you ever read Cosmic Plasma PS, or is this another episode of the clairvoyant physicist? If so, what did Alfven mean by a rapid release of magnetic field energy caused by the disruption of the circuit?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is a typical crackpot ploy: Put an antagonist on the defensive by attempting to deflect the burden of proof using endless entanglements with semantics.

The only reason that is necessary is because your side is in pure denial. I've provided a legitimate, easy to understand definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma. The problem is that not one of you is willing to "accept" it. The reason for that footdragging is because the moment you do 'accept' Peratt's definition, the debate is over, and you have to admit this was an erroneous claim:

The solar atmosphere is plasma. Plasma is a conductor. A discharge cannot occur within a conductor.

Since not a single one of you is willing to admit the yellow part is erroneous, we're on a denial-go-round. Round and round and round we go, where it will stop, nobody knows.