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

[Michael Mozina]

It looks to me as though you're never going to explain what you mean by "circuit reconnection",

I mean exactly what Alfven means when he describes coronal loops as "circuits" and two such circuits happen to "reconnection" in an "exploding double layer" event. Have you found a single flaw in any relevant paper *MR/DR/Corporal Clinger"?

 

[Perpetual Student]

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.
...

OK, I'll bite. Since you have gained the above claimed expertise by studying Alfven's circuit diagrams for many years, please explain in your own words 'the release of circuit energy in terms of "induction" and such.'
This is a chance for you to demonstrate that you are capable of something other than providing links. OK? No more make-believe science; just explain the release of circuit energy in terms of induction. Please do not avoid any terminology to simplify for my sake; I did once study a good deal of electric circuitry and electronics, which should help me understand your words.

 

[nvidiot]

*ahem*

Can you describe a "electric discharge in plasma" in your own words Michael?

 

[Michael Mozina]

*ahem*

Can you describe a "electric discharge in plasma" in your own words Michael?

No. That's not the point. The point is to cite *PUBLISHED* work, preferably not your own work, particularly in a science debate. I already provided a published *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge in a plasma that I am personally comfortable with that was written by someone with a knowledge of electrical engineering and plasma physics who's written a book on a related topic and who's published many papers on related topics.

I'm still waiting for GM (other haters) to SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS and provide a *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge in a plasma by an electrical engineer or a plasma physicist. I'm tired of the "handwave at the invisible electrical engineers in the sky routine. I want to see something *PUBLISHED*. Any book or any paper by any qualified "expert" on a relevant or related topic will do. Where's the beef (definition)?

 

[nvidiot]

Right, so you can't demonstrate simple comprehension skills by describing something in your own words.

Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, I'll bite. Since you have gained the above claimed expertise by studying Alfven's circuit diagrams for many years, please explain in your own words 'the release of circuit energy in terms of "induction" and such.'

Sure, I'll be happy to as long as this is a two way conversation. While I'm sitting here learning a bit about the Latex features, how about you start by answering a couple of quick direct questions about whether an electrical discharge can occur in plasma. Yes or no?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I already provided a published *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge in a plasma that I am personally comfortable with that was written by someone with a knowledge of electrical engineering and plasma physics who's written a book on a related topic and who's published many papers on related topics.

Say, isn't he the guy who says the genitalia of the Tapamveni petroglyph represent an electrical discharge in plasma?

If we're going to use his definition, we'll have to discuss thousands of petroglyphs around the world. Some of those petroglyphs are indeed interesting, but I doubt whether his definition will ever tell us what you pretend to mean by "circuit reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Right, so you can't demonstrate simple comprehension skills by describing something in your own words.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Oh for crying out loud! The whole point is a *SCIENCE DEBATE* is to present *EVIDENCE* and DEFINITIONS that come from OUTSIDE of oneself! If that can't be done, it's nothing but an internal circular feedback loop. The Man provided an *EXCELLENT* (and I do mean EXCELLENT) and methodical explanation of the difference between "current" and a "discharge". What's left to discuss? I want to see some support for the claim that a plasma cannot experience a discharge based on something *OTHER THAN PERSONAL PROCLAMATION*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Say, isn't he the guy who says the genitalia of the Tapamveni petroglyph represent an electrical discharge in plasma?

I think on that note I'm outa here for this evening. I"ll pick up the Latex lessons in the morning should any of you actually cop to the fact that plasmas can experience "discharges" some day far, far, far into the future if ever.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Oh for crying out loud! The whole point is a *SCIENCE DEBATE* is to present *EVIDENCE* and DEFINITIONS that come from OUTSIDE of oneself! If that can't be done, it's nothing but an internal circular feedback loop.

So all your talk of "circuit reconnection" was nothing more than "an internal circular feedback loop."

Good to have that on the record.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So all your talk of "circuit reconnection" was nothing more than "an internal circular feedback loop."

Good to have that on the record.

No, its a term designed to get you to read and comment on Alfven's exploding double layer paper, that you all sort of handwave at, but never find a flaw in. You know, that paper from the conference where he called magnetic reconnection theory pseudoscience a ton of times?

 

[nvidiot]

No Michael, using definitions from other sources are one thing, but showing you understand them enough to describe them in your own words is quite another. If you won't (or can't) describe what you're talking about in clear conscise and most importantly of all, your own language then you may as well be a parrot.

You are the one making a positive claim Michael. You are claiming the sun has a solid surface, you are the one claiming the sun is predominantly explained in scientific way with electrical circuit descriptions.

The fact you can't put these things into your own words means much.

 

[nvidiot]

Oh, and I'm fairly sure that some other most excellently educated and ridiculously patient member has gone through your descriptions and references to Peratt and Alfvien, and found your semantic twisting to distort what is actually being said.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No Michael, using definitions from other sources are one thing, but showing you understand them enough to describe them in your own words is quite another. If you won't (or can't) describe what you're talking about in clear conscise and most importantly of all, your own language then you may as well be a parrot.

You are the one making a positive claim Michael. You are claiming the sun has a solid surface, you are the one claiming the sun is predominantly explained in scientific way with electrical circuit descriptions.

The fact you can't put these things into your own words means much.

What exactly about the phrase "the sudden release of stored EM energy" do you find so incredibly difficult to understand that somehow requires me to personally *EXPLAIN* that concept to you? His one line definition is clear. It's easy to follow. This *EMOTIONAL NEED* to get me *PERSONALLY INVOLVED* is another red herring because not a single one of you can back up that *FALSE CLAIM* about discharges and conductors.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, and I'm fairly sure that some other most excellently educated and ridiculously patient member has gone through your descriptions and references to Peratt and Alfvien, and found your semantic twisting to distort what is actually being said.

Then surely you can explain to me how I have misrepresented either of them in clear, concise terms?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Gah! Must leave here for tonight for my own sanity........ahhhhhhh........runs for the door!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Sure, I'll be happy to as long as this is a two way conversation. While I'm sitting here learning a bit about the Latex features, how about you start by answering a couple of quick direct questions about whether an electrical discharge can occur in plasma. Yes or no?

OK, I'll bite again.
What is it about "I am a layman" that you do not understand? Why does it matter what I say about electrical discharges in plasma? The only practical application of the term discharge that I am personally familiar with is from my background in electronics (in which I made a living 45 years ago). Specifically, a charged capacitor will discharge when a circuit is completed.
Now, I have also become familiar with the usage of the term discharge here regarding the breakdown of an insulator, which seems to be a separate usage of the term, but somewhat related, in that both usages involve a surge of current.
So, my guess would be that since a plasma is a conducting medium, there can be no discharge unless some accumulated charge suddenly comes in contact with the plasma so that said accumulated charge discharges through the plasma. I have no idea if such a thing is possible on the sun. However, if I did develop a passion to find out, I would consult a modern text, a modern paper, or person trained and knowledgeable in such matters. I would certainly not consult a fifty year old text or paper -- especially from a discredited source.
OK, now it's your turn:

OK, I'll bite. Since you have gained the above claimed expertise by studying Alfven's circuit diagrams for many years, please explain in your own words 'the release of circuit energy in terms of "induction" and such.'

Now, be honest and respond!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No, its a term designed to get you to read and comment on Alfven's exploding double layer paper, that you all sort of handwave at, but never find a flaw in. You know, that paper from the conference where he called magnetic reconnection theory pseudoscience a ton of times?

If the highlighted phrase were true, then it would most definitely be a flaw in Alfvén's keynote address. Magnetic reconnection is a fact: theoretically, observationally, and experimentally.

I have suggested on several occasions that Michael Mozina may be misinterpreting Alfvén's remarks. In my interpretation of his keynote address, Alfvén did not intend to condemn all magnetic reconnection as pseudo-science, and Tim Thompson confirmed my suggestion by explaining that Alfvén was only rejecting magnetic reconnection in ideal plasmas.

That leaves us with a peculiar situation: Michael Mozina is the only person who is making both of these two contradictory claims:

• Alfvén's keynote address condemned all magnetic reconnection as pseudo-science.
• There are no flaws in Alfvén's keynote address.

(Insert laughing dog here.)

 

[Reality Check]

Solar flares are not caused by electrical discharges

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

I never said that you stated that they were exactly the same.
Read Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
Any one who can read can tell the difference between a current (Dungey) and an energy release (Peratt).
Any one who can read can see that the breakdown of the medium is missing from Dungey's defintion and included in Peratt's.
Can you read MM ?

The difference shows that you were lying when you stated

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
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.

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

I stated that it was dumb to cite a paper that did not mention electrical discharges as support for your assertion that solar flares were "electrical discharges"

[/quote]

Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena (1974)
No mention of electrical discharges.

You were the one who did not define the term electrical discharge in your original assertion. That makes your assertion total nonsense. But then you cited Peratt's defintion which confirmed your original assertion as nonsense.

The only way that your original assertion makes any physical sense is if you use the outdated and no longer used "electrical discharge" = a current definition.
Under either meaning (or Alfven's of discharge = current): Solar flares are not caused by electrical discharges

 

[D'rok]

I haven't "brushed off" anything [wrt tusenfem's circuit reconnection post].

Is that so?

Dear T,

Thanks for hanging in there and for responding with useful diagrams, topics and questions. I HONESTLY appreciate your efforts. Depending on the work load today, I may not be able to fully respond to your whole post in a single sitting, but I will try to work on the basic issues, maybe one post per issue.?

I'll work on your post as I get time today, but bear with me. It's been the busiest January in many years, and I'm swamped with phone calls due to tax table changes

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

Keep in mind it's an *EXTREMELY* busy day at work today.

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

Game over, fraud.