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

[Perpetual Student]

We have established that the word "discharge" is used in many ways, so one person's definition will differ from another's in a particular context involving electricity. Many of the usages of this word have been published -- any textbook that deals with batteries, capacitors, etc. with have published these differing meanings. Yet Mozina wants someone to give him a *PUBLISHED* definition to continue this discussion. Which one should we choose? And will that choice prove anything?
I now understand why Mozina does poorly with mathematics. Mathematics is nothing more than applied logic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here is the whole mathematical section from Cosmic Plasma. Note that Alfvén uses circuit, but from the 0.5 L I², which does not occur in MHD or plasma physics, it is clear he talks about a circuit representation. Unfortunately, the language is (with many an author, me included) often ambiguous, and one needs to be well versed in the topic, not to let first impressions misguide you.

Thanks for clerifying that. According to Alfven, when that circuit energy is released, is it called "induction", or "magnetic reconnection"? Shall we agree that any transfer of stored EM energy into particle kinetic energy is a "discharge"?

If so, I think at least you and I can move forward and we should.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Michael Mozina
Philosopher


Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,318

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
So if I wave a conducting loop through a magnetic field (as is done in high school physics demonstrations), and create a current (moving electrons), I also have a discharge? How else can I interpret your comment, "any transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is in fact a 'discharge'"?

*IN A PLASMA*, anytime we take *STORED* electromagnetic energy and turn it into particle kinetic energy, it is an "electrical discharge". As The Man explained, the term "discharge" infers a gradual or fast release of that stored energy. In a *PLASMA*, that release is typically 'fast', not "gradual". and it has the effect on the surrounding plasma that Peratt describes in his definition.

Anytime we take 'stored' EM energy and we "discharge" that energy into a plasma we will get "particle kinetic energy' and the effects described by Peratt. Is that clear enough? I am really trying.

How about answering my question? "So if I wave a conducting loop through a magnetic field (as is done in high school physics demonstrations), and create a current (moving electrons), I also have a discharge?"
Is that how you are using this term? If so, say so. It's OK. It will allow us to move on.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We have established that the word "discharge" is used in many ways, so one person's definition will differ from another's in a particular context involving electricity. Many of the usages of this word have been published -- any textbook that deals with batteries, capacitors, etc. with have published these differing meanings. Yet Mozina wants someone to give him a *PUBLISHED* definition to continue this discussion. Which one should we choose? And will that choice prove anything?
I now understand why Mozina does poorly wirth mathematics. Mathematics is nothing more than applied logic.

You do realize this is *SCIENCE* forum, right? I did my part. I provided you all with a published definition of a discharge in a plasma. If you *REFUSE (PURE DENIAL) to accept it, you need to *EXPLAIN WHY* and/or provide a *BETTER* one in terms of *SCIENCE*. In a SCIENTIFIC debate, that means you are *OBLIGATED* to provide *PUBLISHED SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM*. Do you comprehend that concept? Yes or no?

 

[GeeMack]

*IN A PLASMA*, anytime we take *STORED* electromagnetic energy and turn it into particle kinetic energy, it is an "electrical discharge". As The Man explained, the term "discharge" infers a gradual or fast release of that stored energy. In a *PLASMA*, that release is typically 'fast', not "gradual". and it has the effect on the surrounding plasma that Peratt describes in his definition.

Anytime we take 'stored' EM energy and we "discharge" that energy into a plasma we will get "particle kinetic energy' and the effects described by Peratt. Is that clear enough? I am really trying.

So there's an acknowledgment that the electrical discharge under discussion is nothing at all like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. It seems it was pretty irrational, or at the very least, the use of sloppy verbiage to have made that silly comparison in the first place.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You do realize this is *SCIENCE* forum, right? I did my part. I provided you all with a published definition of a discharge in a plasma. If you *REFUSE (PURE DENIAL) to accept it, you need to *EXPLAIN WHY* and/or provide a *BETTER* one in terms of *SCIENCE*. In a SCIENTIFIC debate, that means you are *OBLIGATED* to provide *PUBLISHED SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM*. Do you comprehend that concept? Yes or no?

So if I used Aristotle's definition of the word "element," which is certainly *PUBLISHED,* could we then have a scientific discussion about the periodic table?
Just say what you mean by discharge and allow the conversation to continue. That is what scientists do!

 

[Michael Mozina]

So there's an acknowledgment that the electrical discharge under discussion is nothing at all like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball.

Do you really have that big of a problem comprehending the English language? When did you intend to explain what Peratt means by a "discharge" in that first sentence, and/or rescind your false claim about discharges not being possible in a conductor? Denial is ugly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So if I used Aristotle's definition of the word "element," which is certainly *PUBLISHED,* could we then have a scientific discussion about the periodic table?
Just say what you mean by discharge and allow the conversation to continue. That is what scientists do!

Your actions are like those of a creationist. Instead of providing a published work to support your own claims, you refuse to do so. Did you ever notice that creationists do that too? Why do you figure they refuse to provide *PUBLISHED WORK* to support their own claims? Why are you refusing to do so?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Your actions are like those of a creationist. Instead of providing a published work to support your own claims, you refuse to do so. Did ever notice that creationists do that too? Why do you figure they refuse to provide *PUBLISHED WORK* to support their own claims? Why are you refusing to do so?

What? I don't have any claims! I don't make claims that are out of my area of expertise. Show me where I have made a claim about solar physics -- go for it!
I am merely trying to understand why you say a solar flare is a discharge. So define discharge and explain!

 

[GeeMack]

Do you really have that big of a problem comprehending the English language? When did you intend to explain what Peratt means by a "discharge" in that first sentence, and/or rescind your false claim about discharges not being possible in a conductor? Denial is ugly.

Just to make sure everyone is on the same plane here, would that be the Anthony Peratt who thinks electrical discharges are depicted in rock carvings of people with genital dicharges?

​

When we're done laughing at the idiocy of that Peratt, remember, this is a yes/no question, not a rhetorical question. Same Peratt?

 

[GeeMack]

What? I don't have any claims! Show me where I have made a claim about solar physics -- go for it!
I am merely trying to understand why you say a solar flare is a discharge. So define discharge and do so!

Hear, hear! (Again.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just to make sure everyone is on the same plane here, would that be the Anthony Peratt...

Yes. Since you DENY all responsibility for your own statements, and you have no clue what the hell you're talking about, you consistently attack the individual. Why? Do you figure that pathetic behavior and dishonest debate tactic is actually helping resolve anything scientifically? Is that even your goal?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hear, hear! (Again.)

When did you intend to explain what Peratt meant in that first sentence? Denying the question won't make it go away.

 

[GeeMack]

Since you DENY all responsibility for your own statements, and you have no clue what you're talking about, you attack the individual. Why? Do you figure that's helping resolve anything? Is that even your goal?

(Bolding mine.) It's not about me. It's about this ridiculous claim...

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

The implication made by electric Sun adherents is that the "electrical discharge" in the claim is akin to an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or like sparks in a toy plasma ball. So just to make things clear, is it reasonable to describe the claim as this?...

"A solar flare is an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball."​

That's another yes/no question.

 

[tusenfem]

Before I try to play catch up today, did *ANYONE* post a PROFESSIONAL/PUBLISHED definition of a discharge that *REQUIRES* a dielectric breakdown, yes or no?

Yes, paaaaaaages ago, when I made a comparison of different definitions of discharges.

Another stalling tactic Mikey, so you don't have to do anything real?

 

[tusenfem]

Thanks for clerifying that. According to Alfven, when that circuit energy is released, is it called "induction", or "magnetic reconnection"? Shall we agree that any transfer of stored EM energy into particle kinetic energy is a "discharge"?

If so, I think at least you and I can move forward and we should.

as the term discharge is totally unimportant, I could not care less about the definition that you want to use. I already said so paaaaaaaaaaaaages ago.

I doubt that Alfven calls an exploding double layer induction, so I guess that is the next term you are going to fight over.

But then I will only give side comments unless you come with something significant in discussing Alfven's circuits etc. Then maybe I might consider a discussion again.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Just a reminder: Along with Mozina's preferred definition of "discharge" we need his definition of "circuit breakdown."

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, paaaaaaages ago, when I made a comparison of different definitions of discharges.

Was a dielectric breakdown a *REQUIREMENT* or did it claim a discharges cannot occur in a plasma?

Another stalling tactic Mikey, so you don't have to do anything real?

Don't even get me started. *YOU* could and *SHOULD* have cleared this up a long time ago by stepping in with your so called "expertise" and pointing out that discharges can and do occur in a plasma. Since you didn't and never have stated such a thing and explained that to your cohorts, we've been on a denial go round for MONTHS! Talk about stall tactics! You have NOTHING to complain about.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The implication made by electric Sun adherents is that the "electrical discharge" in the claim is akin to an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or like sparks in a toy plasma ball. So just to make things clear, is it reasonable to describe the claim as this?

When (IF EVER) can I expect you to explain what Peratt meant in the first sentence?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Mozina:
AGAIN:
How about answering my question? "So if I wave a conducting loop through a magnetic field (as is done in high school physics demonstrations), and create a current (moving electrons), do I also have a discharge?"
Is that how you are using this term? If so, say so. It's OK. It will allow us to move on.
Asked because you said, "any transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is in fact a 'discharge.'"