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

[Michael Mozina]

.... English speaking people....

Speaking of comprehension problems with the English language:

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.

When were you going to explain what Peratt means by his first sentence of his definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, and when can I expect you to stop handwaving at unspecified physicists in your shirt pocket and provide a published definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Circuit diagram went over your head, eh Michael?

FYI, not at all. In fact I've been looking at Alfven's circuit diagram's now for many years. I've also been *READING* his book and learning how he explains the release of circuit energy in terms of "induction" and such. Would you like to comment on it and show it that *YOU* understand Alfven's circuit diagrams?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Why should I *TRY* when when we've been stuck on a denial-go-round for MONTHS now? Do you agree or disagree with GM's *UNSUPPORTED CLAIM*? Yes or no?

 

[GeeMack]

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

I'm using the common contemporary meaning of electrical discharge, which only occurs when the insulting properties of a dielectric medium breakdown. Dungey and Peratt seem to have used the term differently, and differently than each other as has been shown in this thread numerous times already. And regardless of how they might have been using the term, neither Dungey nor Peratt said solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.

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?

Dungey described magnetic reconnection. Dungey certainly didn't describe solar flares as electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. It would be a lie to suggest otherwise. Oh, and in case nobody mentioned it yet, it's not about me. It's about the ridiculous and unsupported electric Sun claim that...

[...] a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm using the common contemporary meaning of electrical discharge.

Which *SPECIFIC* one describes a *DISCHARGE* in plasma. Work, chapter and verse please.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dungey described magnetic reconnection.

Dungey also described electrical discharges in a plasma, something you keep claiming is *IMPOSSIBLE*! What are your credentials on this topic and why should I believe you rather than Dungey?

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Fraud, indeed. There isn't a shred of honesty in any of the electric Sun arguments put forth here so far. It's all a sham. It certainly isn't science. Ask for a definition, get a lie. Ask for quantitative support, get badgering and complaints. Ask for objective evidence, get gibberish, circular logic, shifting of the burden of proof, and of course, more lies. It think it's reasonable to say this claim...

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

... is not going to be quantitatively and objectively be supported.

 

[D'rok]

FYI, not at all. In fact I've been looking at Alfven's circuit diagram's now for many years. I've also been *READING* his book and learning how he explains the release of circuit energy in terms of "induction" and such. Would you like to comment on it and show it that *YOU* understand Alfven's circuit diagrams?

I don't understand circuit diagrams. There's no shame in that. There is shame in pretending to possess understanding that you clearly do not have. You are a transparent fraud. Your every "rebuttal" demonstrates this.

Quick! Say something about GeeMack! I bet the thread count will go higher and your epic "circuit reconnection" failure will get buried.

 

[D'rok]

From page 49:

Maybe you should lay off all the pot-shotting and just focus on this core issue. After all, how often do you get a plasma physicist who is willing to work with you on the ideas you hold so dear?

It's a pretty good test of your sincerity, seriousness and capacity, I would say. If you brush this off, game over.

Game over.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't understand circuit diagrams. There's no shame in that.

Not at all.

There is shame in pretending to possess understanding that you clearly do not have. You are a transparent fraud. Your every "rebuttal" demonstrates this.

No, I've actually *READ* the materials, I have and will continue to comment on them *IN THE ORDER I SEE FIT* as I see fit. It's clear the "haters" are the frauds. They haven't typically read or commented on the material (t clearly gets the only pass). Not one of them has noted GM's error. Not one of them *WILL* note GM's error. The whole thing is purely an ignorance based belief system that is a complete and utter sham. Just like haters of evolutionary theory, haters of EU theory never actually read or find any flaw in the relevant published materials. They simply handwave, spew complete nonsense in terms of science, none of them notice and they attack the individual. When confronted with actual published materials to comment on, they run like hell from the most rudimentary questions about it, pretending to have some sort of superior knowledge and clairvoyant insight.

Quick! Say something about GeeMack! I bet the thread count will go higher and your epic "circuit reconnection" failure will get buried.

The whole "circuit reconnection" theory has already been written. I don't have write a damn thing I just have to get you folks to READ IT and then comment on it.

Before we can even go there, we have to *AT LEAST* agree on terms and *AT LEAST* agree on some common properties of plasmas, including their ability to contain "electrical discharges". If we can't get that far, the whole rest of the circuit conversation is *UTTERLY POINTLESS*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

From page 49:



Game over.

I haven't "brushed off" anything. I'm simply waiting for you to *WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE* so we can have a rational conversation. Do you agree or disagree with GM's COMPLETELY unsupported claim? Yes or no? If you won't answer a simple yes or no question, game over.

 

[D'rok]

Fraud, indeed. There isn't a shred of honesty in any of the electric Sun arguments put forth here so far. It's all a sham. It certainly isn't science. Ask for a definition, get a lie. Ask for quantitative support, get badgering and complaints. Ask for objective evidence, get gibberish, circular logic, shifting of the burden of proof, and of course, more lies. It think it's reasonable to say this claim...




... is not going to be quantitatively and objectively be supported.

QFT.

 

[Michael Mozina]

QFT.

BS. Not one of you even handwaved at the paper Haig presented. Holy Cow. Ignorance, denial, lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It's clear the "haters" are the frauds.

The whole "circuit reconnection" theory has already been written. I don't have write a damn thing I just have to get you folks to READ IT and then comment on it.

That's a lie.

Michael Mozina is pretending to have forgotten that "circuit reconnection" is his own private name for his own private invention.

A Google search on "circuit reconnection"+plasma brings up only a few hits, and the top hit is a quotation of one of Michael Mozina's posts in this subforum on 24 January 2010, less than a year ago.

Michael's "circuit reconnection" may or may not resemble the consequence of Maxwell's equations that scientists refer to as magnetic reconnection, and may or may not resemble something that Alfvén dismissed as "pseudo-science", but there's no way to tell because Michael Mozina refuses to explain what he means by "circuit reconnection".

As can be seen from the quotation above, Michael Mozina is now pretending that his imaginary "circuit reconnection" theory has already been written, just so he can complain that we won't read it. In reality, Michael Mozina hasn't written anything for us to read, and he can't point us to anyone else's writing on "circuit reconnection" because Michael Mozina invented that phrase himself.

Michael Mozina thinks he can get away with his bluff because he thinks we've all forgotten what he wrote way back in post 1670:

What do you expect me to say about it? I had to explain to our dear Mr. Spock that unlike Alfven, I don't personally reject "reconnection' theory as "pseudoscience", I simply refer to it as "circuit reconnection" (my preference) or "electromagnetic reconnection". I don't actually outright "reject" it the way Alfven did, and I haven't now for many years.

If Michael Mozina wants to talk about frauds, let's remember that:

Michael Mozina, the inventor and sole proponent of "circuit reconnection", can't read a circuit diagram.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's a lie.

Michael Mozina is pretending to have forgotten that "circuit reconnection" is his own private name for his own private invention.

The "name" is perhaps my own "invention", but circuit theory and the sudden release of circuit energy in exploding double layers were written by Alfven himself. I never did see you present a single flaw in any of Alfven's books or papers Mr. Spock and I'm still *IMPATIENTLY* waiting on your overdue science report.

Yes or no can an electrical discharge happen in a plasma Mr. Spock?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, if you keep showing such overt emotion and you can't answer direct science questions, I may be forced to strip you of your title of "Mr. Spock".

 

[GeeMack]

I haven't "brushed off" anything. I'm simply waiting for you to *WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE* so we can have a rational conversation. Do you agree or disagree with GM's COMPLETELY unsupported claim? Yes or no? If you won't answer a simple yes or no question, game over.

It's not about me. And the inference that the rationality of this discussion somehow hinges on some agreement or disagreement with some dishonest distortion of my position is an insane argument.

But the intentional effort to derail the conversation and avoid supporting the claim...

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

... is, as always, noted. If we ever get back around to that, any quantitative objective evidence would be appreciated.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not about me.

No, it is about the *CLAIM* that *YOU* and RC made. In this specific case, you both made the same false claim and neither one of you has rescinded it or provided any support of it. Instead you handwave at invisible mythical physicists in the sky and *REFUSE* to provide a published definition or any statement by a plasma physicist or electrical engineer to support that claim.

And the inference that the rationality of this discussion somehow hinges on some agreement or disagreement with some dishonest distortion of my position is an insane argument.

No, the insane part is arguing with someone in pathological denial of the meaning of "sudden release of stored energy"! Oy Vey.

But the intentional effort to derail the conversation and avoid supporting the claim...

'
Nobody is trying to "derail" anything. This issue is DIRECTLY and *INTIMATELY* related to this whole debate. If you can't understand a definition, and you make inaccurate statements, and you refuse to back up your own *UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS* with anything but handwaves, how can we *POSSIBLY* have rational discussion?

... is, as always, noted. If we ever get back around to that, any quantitative objective evidence would be appreciated.

Your criticisms of the paper Haig provided earlier in the thread would be appreciated too, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The "name" is perhaps my own "invention",

Perhaps? (Insert laughing dog here.)

I never did see you present a single flaw in any of Alfven's books or papers Mr. Spock

How quickly and conveniently you forget.

and I'm still *IMPATIENTLY* waiting on your overdue science report.

I never registered for your course, and never will. All of the science courses I have taken were taught by actual scientists.

Yes or no can an electrical discharge happen in a plasma Mr. Spock?

So you didn't understand tusenfem's answer?

If you insist on hearing an answer from me in my own words, then I'll oblige just as soon as you answer the following closely related question, which I am now having to repeat for the third time:

Do you, Michael Mozina, agree with Peratt's contention that the genitalia of the Tapamveni petroglyph represent an electrical discharge in a plasma?

FYI, if you keep showing such overt emotion

(Insert laughing dog here.)

and you can't answer direct science questions,

(Insert laughing dog here.)

I may be forced to strip you of your title of "Mr. Spock".

(Insert laughing dog here.)

Nobody is trying to "derail" anything.

(Insert laughing dog here.)

This issue is DIRECTLY and *INTIMATELY* related to this whole debate. If you can't understand a definition, and you make inaccurate statements, and you refuse to back up your own *UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS* with anything but handwaves, how can we *POSSIBLY* have rational discussion?

Until you explain what you mean by "circuit reconnection", we can't possibly have a rational discussion of your imaginary theory.

You can't just say you're using that phrase as a synonym for magnetic reconnection, because that would expose the triviality of your semantic derail.

You can't just say you're using that phrase the way your heroes did, because your heroes didn't use that phrase.

I suppose you could say you're using "circuit reconnection" as a synonym for what Alfvén called "pseudo-science", in which case we may run out of laughing dogs.

It looks to me as though you're never going to explain what you mean by "circuit reconnection", so you will never contribute to a rational discussion of it. In my opinion, you never intended to engage in a rational discussion of "circuit reconnection", because you invented that phrase to derail rational discussion of magnetic reconnection in this and other threads.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How quickly and conveniently you forget.

I should have added the term "RELEVANT/RELATED" in front of papers or books. Your quibble of Alfven's "dumbing down" of the "creation" debate is laughable considering how this conversations is going and your whole clans need to dumb down what is obviously a particle collision event to the term "magnetic reconnection".

I never registered for your course, and never will. All of the science courses I have taken were taught by actual scientists.

I didn't ask you to do that. I didn't ask you for a strawman either. I asked you for a straight answer to a straight forward science question and never got one. Instead I got laughter out someone who is clearly no Vulcan. That's it. I hereby strip you of the the title of Mr. Spock. I'm not too proud to admit I made a mistake, and clearly that was a whopper of a mistake on my part.