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

[Andrew Wiggin]

Happy second millenium, ya'all! Who would have thunk this would go 2000 posts?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

OMG! Wife changes husband's plans and talks to husband on Saturday morning, interrupting his online hobby! Film at 11:00!

FYI, in case there's any question about, it, let me explain the pecking order of JREF in my life for you. My wife, my children, my job, my sleep, my "enjoyment in life", my "honey-do list", all come before little ol' JREF, and all it's local inhabitants. In case you haven't noticed there are entire weekends when I do not post to this (or any) forum.

Maybe you don't understand how a message board works? It's not a time limited environment.

Now....

It's time for you to earn your pay Mr. Spock as Science Officer and get us the hell off this denial-go-round. T hasn't bothered to chime in much on the issue, but of course he isn't the science officer. We are are in need of your scientific expertise Mr. Spock.

A discharge cannot occur within a conductor.

Both GM and RC have been suggesting that discharge cannot occur within a conductor. Both Dungey and Peratt (with a PhD *ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING (not a plasma physics/my mistake) *DEFINE* an electrical discharge inside of an ionized, CONDUCTIVE media.

Either Dungey and Peratt are both in error, or GM is in error. Which is it Mr. Spock?

FYI, I will expect a direct, emotionless response worthy of a Vulcan.

Please get us off this denial go round Mr. Spock.........PLEASE!?

 

[Perpetual Student]

FYI, in case there's any question about, it, let me explain the pecking order of JREF in my life for you. My wife, my children, my job, my sleep, my "enjoyment in life", my "honey-do list", all come before little ol' JREF, and all it's local inhabitants. In case you haven't noticed there are entire weekends when I do not post to this (or any) forum.

Trust me; nobody cares.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Trust me; nobody cares.

Ah, more ego banter devoid of any scientific substance. Do you agree or disagree with GM's claim? When can I expect you to address Alfven's use of circuits and his math's related to the release of circuit energy in a plasma?

 

[dasmiller]

Both GM and RC have been suggesting that discharge cannot occur within a conductor. Both Dungey and Peratt (with a PhD *ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING (not a plasma physics/my mistake) *DEFINE* an electrical discharge inside of an ionized, CONDUCTIVE media.

Either Dungey and Peratt are both in error, or GM is in error.

Different definitions of the word "discharge." Words have no fundamental meanings, just the meanings that we assign to them. No about of debate over the "real" meaning of "discharge" can resolve it, because there's no underlying reality to find.

When using "discharge" to talk about lightning, it's a dielectric-breakdown discharge. It is necessarily sudden and short-lived. When Dungey talked about discharge, he seems to have meant simply a large current in a conducting plasma, which needn't be either sudden or short-lived.

It's like using one word for both "river" and "damburst."

Again (and I'm not addressing this to MM in particular), why do we insist on using one word for both phenomena?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Ah, more ego banter devoid of any scientific substance. Do you agree or disagree with GM's claim? When can I expect you to address Alfven's use of circuits and his math's related to the release of circuit energy in a plasma?

Have you forgotten that I am a layman (with a mathematics background)? Others on this thread have given me a good understanding of some aspects of solar physics -- that I would otherwise not have gained. But, I have no intention of engaging you in your "make-believe science." Learn some mathematics and real physics; then perhaps we can have a real conversation about something -- after you have taken the time for genuine study.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Ah, more ego banter devoid of any scientific substance.

OMG! Wife changes husband's plans and talks to husband on Saturday morning, interrupting his online hobby! Film at 11:00!

FYI, in case there's any question about, it, let me explain the pecking order of JREF in my life for you. My wife, my children, my job, my sleep, my "enjoyment in life", my "honey-do list", all come before little ol' JREF, and all it's local inhabitants. In case you haven't noticed there are entire weekends when I do not post to this (or any) forum.

Well, that certainly explains why you posted five times after you said you'd get right back to tusenfem's post.

When can I expect you to address Alfven's use of circuits and his math's related to the release of circuit energy in a plasma?

You run away from tusenfem's circuits and math, but think you can intimidate Perpetual Student by yet another vague reference to Alfvén's?

The vapidity of your argument just confirms what I wrote about your 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.

Bottom line: Our dedicated proponent of "circuit reconnection" can't read a circuit diagram.

 

[The Man]

Different definitions of the word "discharge." Words have no fundamental meanings, just the meanings that we assign to them. No about of debate over the "real" meaning of "discharge" can resolve it, because there's no underlying reality to find.

When using "discharge" to talk about lightning, it's a dielectric-breakdown discharge. It is necessarily sudden and short-lived. When Dungey talked about discharge, he seems to have meant simply a large current in a conducting plasma, which needn't be either sudden or short-lived.

It's like using one word for both "river" and "damburst."

Again (and I'm not addressing this to MM in particular), why do we insist on using one word for both phenomena?

I don’t think that we do. A discharge generally represents the dissipation or release of an accumulated charge (whether it be electrical, chemical as in the case of a powder charge or sexual as in a genital discharge alluded to before). A current however does not require an accumulated charge to be, or infer that is, dissipated or released to any degree. It simply refers to the motion of charged particles which in the case of an alternating current can be rather confined and cyclic.

I think, as the name infers, those of the thunderbolts inclination simply would like to see current in general to be associated with a discharge like lightning in spite of the fundamental differences. Just as all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles. All electrical discharges involve a current but not all currents result from the dissipation or release of an accumulated electrical charge (an electrical discharge).

 

[Reality Check]

Both GM and RC have been suggesting that discharge cannot occur within a conductor. Both Dungey and Peratt (with a PhD *ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING (not a plasma physics/my mistake) *DEFINE* an electrical discharge inside of an ionized, CONDUCTIVE media.

You are lying: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different

I have never stated that "discharge" cannot occur within a conductor. Dungey's definition of discharge (a large current density) can happen in a conductor. It definitely happens in a plasma, e.g. when a double layer explodes or magnetic reconnection happens.

Under either meaning (or Alfven's of discharge = current): Solar flares are not caused by electrical discharges

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are lying: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different

I never claimed they were exactly the same however both *DEFINITIONS* falsify this (these) claims:

I have never stated that "discharge" cannot occur within a conductor.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6628767&postcount=373

Really? It was some *OTHER* RC that said this?

It is quite ignorant to claim that Lee's work *DOES* support an electrical discharge in plasma theory anywhere in the universe when

1. By definition electrical discharges cannot happen in plasmas (they are conductive).

 

[GeeMack]

I [...]

... ignored this.

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.​

The stupid semantics "gotchya" game has been busted, thoroughly. Electric Sun adherents' successes so far: None, zero, zip. I predict it will remain that way forever.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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.

The stupid semantics "gotchya" game has been busted, thoroughly. Electric Sun adherents' successes so far: None, zero, zip. I predict it will remain that way forever.

We have witnessed this same behavior (tactic) on many other threads with words like:

pressure
dark energy
photosphere
empirical
inflation
lambda

As I said earlier:

There is no satisfactory conclusion to these discussions. There is no science being discussed. It all revolves around unconventional usage of standard terminology twisted to "win" the argument. It's a game, with no substance, no meaning and of no value.

Most importantly, it's not science!

 

[Michael Mozina]

... ignored this.

That seems to be par for the course since you've ignored everything else, evidently including The Man's very *excellent* explanation of the difference between a "discharge" and "current".

 

[GeeMack]

That seems to be par for the course since you've ignored everything else, evidently including The Man's very *excellent* explanation of the difference between a "discharge" and a "current".

Of course The Man's very excellent explanation was pointing out that the electric Sun nutters are wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course The Man's very excellent explanation was pointing out that the electric Sun nutters are wrong.

And he also pointed out why you're wrong too by the way.

 

[GeeMack]

And he also pointed out why you're wrong too by the way.

Uh, no. The plasma of the solar surface carries a current, but an electrical discharge, requiring the breakdown of the insulating properties of a dielectric medium as the term is commonly used by physicists, cannot occur within it because it is a conductor. And to normally intelligent, sane, English speaking people, nothing in The Man's explanation says otherwise. The dishonest practice of electric Sun cranks arguing by redefining terms to the point of meaninglessness notwithstanding, of course.

And we still don't have any quantitative objective support for this silly claim...

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

 

[Michael Mozina]

Uh, no. The plasma of the solar surface carries a current, but an electrical discharge, requiring the breakdown of the insulating properties of a dielectric medium

Where did Dungey or Peratt use the term "dielectric breakdown". Please quote them.

I know Dungey's qualifications in solar physics. What are your qualification on *THIS SPECIFIC* topic again? What *SPECIFIC* definition *OUTSIDE OF YOURSELF* are you using to describe a "discharge" in a plasma and/or ionized gas?

 

[D'rok]

Circuit diagram went over your head, eh Michael? Well, I'm sure it'll get buried in the depths of this thread soon enough. Mission accomplished, fraud.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Circuit diagram went over your head, eh Michael? Well, I'm sure it'll get buried in the depths of this thread soon enough. Mission accomplished, fraud.

The only "fraud" being perpetrated around here is the fact that *NOBODY* has noted that GM's statement is an error (among the so called skeptics of EU theory anyway), and nobody is willing to do so! Talk about fraud. How can tusenfem be such the expert on plasma physics and let that BS sit there on the table for *MONTHS* (not just hours or days) on end? Give me a break. This whole "denial-bait-and-switch" definition game is getting old. GM hasn't even cited a published source of a definition of of a discharge in a plasma. He just speaks for "unknown and unspecified physicist" in his shirt pocket evidently.

 

[D'rok]

Do you even believe your own act anymore? Did you ever? You're barely even trying.