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

[Michael Mozina]

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.

When did I claim it had a "lack of clarity" related to Peratt's definition itself as opposed to a lack of clarity related to the fact that none of you (other than t) has ever bothered to read the book?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Ya, a "current carrying" cable that he compared to a "Bennett Pinch". From his book:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

In other words, those "cables" are a lot like a "cable" in an ordinary plasma ball. The lit filaments carry the bulk of the current and the stuff between the filaments conducts little or none of it. The resistivity (and heating) aspect is directly related to the collisions in the "pinch". I'll catch the rest of your post after I grab a cup of coffee.

 

[dasmiller]

Maybe I'm missing something, but if we don't have a single definition for "discharge," why do we have to use a single word for it? For the purpose of this discussion (which escapes me at the moment, but I'm sure it'll come back to me), coule we use the terms "DBDischarge" for a dialectric breakdown discharge and "LCDischarge" for the "discharge" that's simply a large current in a plasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Maybe I'm missing something, but if we don't have a single definition for "discharge," why do we have to use a single word for it?

It's not so much why do we have to have a single word for it, it's simply that we do. Some folks label themselves an 'atheist', and define that term as a "lack of belief" in (any) God. Suppose I tried to come along and redefine the same term to mean "belief that God does not exist", and I *REFUSED* to accept any other definition of that term? That would simply be form of bigotry at some point, particularly if I ran around trying to call every single self professed atheist "evil" for believing that God does not exist, and I *REFUSED* to accept *ANY* other definition of that term.

When I said that a flare *IS* an electrical discharge, I was using the term as defined in Peratt's book. I knew I read the definition somewhere but it took some hunting to find the author again, but I did find it. That's the definition of the term "electrical discharge" that I'm using. It's not rational or fair however to *IMPOSE* some *OTHER* definition of the term and then expect me to "prove it" based on a completely different "definition".

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, from a scientific perspective GM's claim is simply false too by the way. A discharge MUST go through a "conductor" for the energy transfer process to occur.

 

[GeeMack]

When I said that a flare *IS* an electrical discharge, I was using the term as defined in Peratt's book. I knew I read the definition somewhere but it took some hunting to find the author again, but I did find it. That's the definition of the term "electrical discharge" that I'm using. It's not rational or fair however to *IMPOSE* some *OTHER* definition of the term and then expect me to "prove it" based on a completely different "definition".

Okay, so the other definition, the common definition of electrical discharge as would be used by contemporary physicists, the one which is the breakdown of the insulating properties of a dielectric medium, is not the definition in use for the crackpot solar flares are electrical discharges claim. Therefore we can all agree it's unreasonable to draw a comparison between solar flares/CMEs and lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. Looks like we're finally getting that idiocy out of the way.

 

[nvidiot]

In what possible way is going from a conducting state to a more conductive state (MM's "electrical discharge" in plasma) the same thing as going from an insulating state to a conducting state? (what everyone else means when they say "electrical discharge".)

Lightning and solar flares are two very different, very specific phenomena. They are not the same thing, and no description of either should ever lead you to think they are.

You know what would help you Michael? Stop using other peoples words. Write down specifically and explicitly what you think is going on, and how you would experimentally or observationally confirm it. Don't quote dead scientists, use your own words to define the terms you use.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In what possible way is going from a conducting state to a more conductive state (MM's "electrical discharge" in plasma) the same thing as going from an insulating state to a conducting state? (what everyone else means when they say "electrical discharge".)

When you say "everyone else', who exactly are you talking about? Dungey's definition of an "electrical discharge" *BEGAN* in an "ionized" gas, and he specifically suggested they may occur in flares. Dungey's definition of an "electrical discharge" also stands in direct opposition to GM's unsupported claim.

Now whom shall I believe, Dungey or GM? What are GM's qualifications anyway, and what definition of an "electrical discharge" *IN A PLASMA* is he using exactly?

 

[GeeMack]

Now whom shall I believe, Dungey or GM? What are GM's qualifications anyway, and what definition of an "electrical discharge" *IN A PLASMA* is he using exactly?

Dungey and Peratt meant two very different things in their use of the terms. It seems it would be a good thing, since the electric Sun cranks are playing semantics games and dishonestly trying to score debate points on this nonsense, it would be a good thing if the cranks would lock in on one or the other of these fellows' meanings.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dungey and Peratt meant two very different things in their use of the terms.

Please specifically list the definition and source of the definition of an electrical discharge *IN A PLASMA* that you are using. Dungey's *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge in a plasma *FALSIFIES* your claim (that part in yellow). You do realize that, right? What exactly are *YOUR* qualifications on the topic of solar physics anyway, and why should I believe you rather than Dungey?

 

[nvidiot]

Your own words Michael. The longer you cling to this ridiculous argument of semantics and comprehension worse you're looking.

Use your own words, not someone elses.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your own words Michael. The longer you cling to this ridiculous argument of semantics and comprehension worse you're looking.

Use your own words, not someone elses.

Why do "my" words matter? I specifically went looking for a definition of a discharge that was *OUTSIDE* of "myself"! We now have *TWO* of them to choose from by Peratt and by Dungey, both of which *FALSIFY* GM's *********UNSUPPORTED CLAIM*********. When is this denial-go-round ever going to stop?

 

[nvidiot]

Putting it into your own words would not only facilitate better understanding of whatever the heck you're trying to say, but it would also show that you understand what the heck you're trying to say.

Can you do that? Can you describe what you call and electrical discharge in plasma in your own words?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Mozina's argument from false authority, part 1

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.

When did I claim it had a "lack of clarity" related to Peratt's definition itself as opposed to a lack of clarity related to the fact that none of you (other than t) has ever bothered to read the book?

Your quotation contained a link to a post in which you tried to blame us for Peratt's "lack of clarity".

As for your endless bleats about reading your holy texts, why should I read Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe when I could be reading Weinberg's Cosmology?

Steven Weinberg^WP is a notable physicist, with a Nobel Prize in physics to his credit, and he's an excellent writer. Reading his book is a good use of my free time.

Peratt is an electrical engineer whose Google Scholar h-index is approximately 8, and I have already read or skimmed enough of his research papers to know that his cosmological writings, like Alfvén's, are borderline crackpot. The four papers cited below have already told me as much as I need to know about Peratt's cosmological speculations. The third of those papers contains exactly the same "definition" of a discharge that you've been quoting from his book. Since you have not read the four papers listed below, and I am considerably better prepared than you to read this stuff, I have good reason to think I understand Peratt's terminology better than you do.

• Anthony L Peratt. Evolution of the plasma universe: I. Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science volume PS-14, number 6, December 1986, pages 639-660.
• Anthony L Peratt. Evolution of the plasma universe: II. The formation of systems of galaxies. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science volume PS-14, number 6, December 1986, pages 763-778.
• Anthony L Peratt. Advances in numerical modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas. Astrophysics and Space Science 242:93-163, 1997.
• Anthony L Peratt. Advances in numerical modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas. Part II. Astrophysical force laws on the large scale. Astrophysics and Space Science 256:51-75, 1998.

I am also aware of the direction Peratt's research has taken in recent years:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1228570
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1228571
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=4198483
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=4346239
http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/2008/T131/014048

Concerning Peratt's more recent research, I note that you have ignored a direct yes/no question concerning Peratt's definition of a discharge: Do you, Michael Mozina, agree with Peratt's contention that the genitalia of the Tapamveni petroglyph represent a discharge?

If you continue to ignore that question, I will assume you are embarrassed by Peratt's research.

Arguing on the basis of who has or has not read some holy text is an argument from false authority. You often make a general reference to the mathematics in Alfvén's or Peratt's books, as if your vague awareness of that mathematics adds to their authority or yours, but you have shown no sign of understanding any of that mathematics. Reading their books without understanding what you're reading doesn't count for anything.

Your argument from false authority also manifests itself in the way you like to compare Alfvén's or Peratt's or Dungey's credentials to ours, when the proper comparison would be Anthony L Peratt versus Steven Weinberg or Michael Mozina versus tusenfem. Examples:

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?

It should be noted here that Michael Mozina misrepresented Anthony L Peratt's credentials: Peratt does not have a PhD in plasma physics.

Now whom shall I believe, Dungey or GM? What are GM's qualifications anyway, and what definition of an "electrical discharge" *IN A PLASMA* is he using exactly?

What exactly are *YOUR* qualifications on the topic of solar physics anyway, and why should I believe you rather than Dungey?

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?

Finally, let's note well what happened when tusenfem tried to give Michael Mozina a head start on his alleged "circuit reconnection" theory:

I'll catch the rest of your post after I grab a cup of coffee.

That was over three hours ago. Michael Mozina has found time to post five more times in this thread, but he has yet to respond to tusenfem's post with anything of substance.

It looks as though our dedicated proponent of "circuit reconnection" can't read a circuit diagram or calculate an impedance.

 

[tusenfem]

Ya, a "current carrying" cable that he compared to a "Bennett Pinch". From his book:

Djeeebus frakking klyste man, are you really so stubborn, and don't want to read what I write?

No, it is just you wanting to disagree with me, so you don't have to do a thing, just disagree, throw in some words, and that keeps you from doing math, or try to figure out circuits etc.

When I say I use the magnetic field as a cable, it is just the same as Alfven, and the cable is the line in my circuit diagram.

You are so not understanding anything I am trying to give to you here. I think I regret my OP, and I will give up on you now completely.

Just go to thunderdolts, you will get all the appreciation you need there for your not understanding basic plasma physics.

Please, do not use my diagrams to model your so called circuit reconnection.

In other words, those "cables" are a lot like a "cable" in an ordinary plasma ball. The lit filaments carry the bulk of the current and the stuff between the filaments conducts little or none of it. The resistivity (and heating) aspect is directly related to the collisions in the "pinch". I'll catch the rest of your post after I grab a cup of coffee.

And you still don't understand how a plasma ball works, even after I have explained it to you in detail twice here on the board.

Don't bother, after your coffee, as you did not return to my previous post after your phonecall either.

 

[tusenfem]

Putting it into your own words would not only facilitate better understanding of whatever the heck you're trying to say, but it would also show that you understand what the heck you're trying to say.

Can you do that? Can you describe what you call and electrical discharge in plasma in your own words?

Mr. Mozina does not want to pin himself down to anything, unfortunately, that makes it so difficult. He thinks that quoting from differnent physicists is much safer, even when that means using completely different definitions.

He went wrong when he claimed that reconnection might actually occur, but not magnetic but electromagnetic or circuit reconnection. That I then jumped on that must have hurt him, and he now grabs to every little straw he can find to obstruct a useful discussion that might go forward. It might even in the end show that he may be wrong (or maybe I for that matter) and that cannot be, because then his purpose of life would be gone, i.e. that mainstream physics will not discuss electric fields or don't use circuit, etc. etc.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Mozina cannot honestly discuss a subject like this. He does not have the necessary knowledge and skills. Some of you have made a great effort to have a genuine discussion here in vain. These are pretend scientific discussions for Mozina. He is not a scientist, he does not have the background to understand quantitative science and has no scientific instincts. That explains why he is attracted to crackpot stuff like EU. He will not understand -- not by choice -- but because he cannot understand.

 

[The Man]

Concerning Peratt's more recent research, I note that you have ignored a direct yes/no question concerning Peratt's definition of a discharge: Do you, Michael Mozina, agree with Peratt's contention that the genitalia of the Tapamveni petroglyph represent a discharge?

Funny, even though I never would have expected to see the words ‘genitalia’ and ‘discharge’ associated with each other in any way on a thread about the nature of the Sun. Given the history of the notions put forth here and elsewhere by those of the thunderbolts ilk, I am understandably unsurprised now having seen such an association.

 

[GeeMack]

Why do "my" words matter? I specifically went looking for a definition of a discharge that was *OUTSIDE* of "myself"! We now have *TWO* of them to choose from by Peratt and by Dungey, both of which *FALSIFY* GM's *********UNSUPPORTED CLAIM*********. When is this denial-go-round ever going to stop?

Time and again electric Sun cranks have described solar flares and CMEs as "electrical discharges" analogous to lightning here on Earth and the sparks in a toy plasma ball. It was pointed out by several people that lightning and the sparks in a plasma ball can't occur in plasma like the Sun's atmosphere. Those electrical discharges require the breakdown of the insulating properties of a dielectric medium, and since the plasma that makes up the solar atmosphere is a conductor, not an insulator, such an electrical discharge cannot happen there. So far, so easy.

But what do we see going on in the argument quoted above? It's an admission that an intentional effort was made to hunt down supposed alternate meanings of the term "electrical discharge". These alternatives, not really definitions in themselves, were convoluted into nonsensical, and ultimately useless definitions. And why these bastardized alterative "definitions"? They were cherry picked and cobbled together in order to prove that the original definition doesn't mean what it really means.

As it turns out, nobody has been willing to accept the attempted fraud in concocting bogus meanings of terms to score points in some stupid game of semantics. So what do we get? We get the argument quoted above, built in the form of a hollering tantrum, which implicitly admits to purposefully and dishonestly messing with terms in order to play "gotchya" as a personal attack on a particular detractor. And all that instead of actually trying to support the crackpot electric Sun claim which is the topic of this thread.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Dungey and Peratt meant two very different things in their use of the terms. It seems it would be a good thing, since the electric Sun cranks are playing semantics games and dishonestly trying to score debate points on this nonsense, it would be a good thing if the cranks would lock in on one or the other of these fellows' meanings.

Are you kidding? Having multiple meanings of important terms makes pretend science fun!