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

[GeeMack]

**I** cannot help that YOU do not "read" any significant 'messages'

Then again I have already said, the discussion about discharge is totally utterly useless, and I have claimed in huge letters somewhere that:

from now on a discharge is a current in a plasma, discussion closed

I guess you missed that too about 10 pages back.

I'm good with that, too. And that eliminates the notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of sparks like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yesterday, 11:01 AM #2199
Michael Mozina
Philosopher


Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,344

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
That's great! Finally some clarity!
So, what you have been labeling a "discharge" is the process of electromagnetic induction.
As I have said a few tines, I have no expertise in solar physics, so I don't know why my opinion about solar plasmas has any value.
Nevertheless, in answer to your question, I see absolutely no reason why an induced current cannot be created in a plasma, so by your definition of discharge, the answer is yes, a discharge can occur in a plasma.
OK, now why do you say a solar flare is a discharge -- in contrast to saying that discharges occur within flares?

Great, that's real progress IMO. I'm happy.

Ok, let's look at the REST of Peratt's definition about the 'effects' of the discharge, what FEATURES we should be looking for. That seems like the next logical step. Bear with me a bit, I'm a bit swamped at work right now, but I'm catching up.

Well, you still need to explain why a solar flare is a discharge, And. by the way, let's not forget to define "circuit breakdown."

 

[Perpetual Student]

He does that because the "circuit" breaks down, and the magnetic field energy is transferred into particle kinetic energy via induction. That release of stored circuit energy is an "electrical discharge".

What circuit "breaks down" and what does "break down" mean? Is this "circuit energy" in the magnetic field of some circuit that induces a current in an adjacent plasma or was the circuit that "broke down" in the same plasma? Can you clarify this muddled statement in your own words?

 

[Michael Mozina]

How does this “PINCH effect” develop? What force or forces “evacuates the area around the filament” and confines the current to that reduced cross sectional area?

Essentially the currents running through the plasma creates a magnetic field that becomes aligned with the current. That magnetic field acts to "pinch" the plasma into "filaments", sometimes "tubular" filaments. The magnetic field around the filament acts to evacuate the regions around the filament, creating an insulating effect directly around the filament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

Where was that energy stored? How is it released when discharged and to where?

The energy is stored in the "circuit' that goes though and under the photosphere, as well as high above the photosphere. Alfven has a pretty good single paragraph description of how this all works. I'll try to round it up again for you today. Be patient however, it's really busy again today (thank you very much SS administration ).

What you mean this last line..

Scientists tend to use the term 'may' rather than will, when describing their theories. The same process takes place inside of an ordinary plasma ball, although the process is somewhat different because it's not all ionized matter inside of a plasma ball, but the process is quite similar. Current carrying filaments tend to carry the bulk of the current while the rest of the plasma is not carrying much current at all, certainly far less than the filament.

Hardly an explanation and simply an assertion that it “may” “produce regions of exceptionally low densities”.

Well, what exactly did you expect him say about his own theories?

Where is your EM energy stored?

It's stored in the coronal loop "circuit".

How is it accumulated?

Well, it's essentially accumulated by increasing the current through the loop, which increases the particle kinetic energy *AND* the magnetic field energy around the filament.

What conditions change to go from an accumulation to a sudden release?

Essentially the plasma reaches the limit of the amount of current it can carry before the plasma starts to become "noisy" due to collisions, the plasma heats up, the filament becomes unstable, and the resistivity of the filament jumps through the roof. The whole things then "explodes/discharges'.

How and to where is your EM energy released?

It's released as a result of the physical breakdown of the filament/circuit. Once the "pinch" creates a gap in the filament, the whole thing erupts.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6753100&postcount=1692

Here's the one paragraph explanation from Alfven from the Double Layer conference in 1986:

D. Solar Prominence Circuit. Solar Flares

The circuit consists of a magnetic flux tube above the photosphere and part of photosphere (see Fig. 10). The generator is in the photosphere and is due to a whirl motion in sunspot magnetic field. Generator output increases circuit energy which can be dissipated in two different ways: ( 1 ) When current density surpasses critical value, an exploding DL is produced in which most of the circuit energy is released. This causes a solar flare. Hénoux (1985) has recently given an interesting study of solar flares and concludes that a current disruption by DL's is an appealing explanation of solar flares. (2) Under certain circumstances the electromagnetic pressure of the current loop may produce a motor which gives rise to a rising prominence (Alfvén and Carlqvist, 1967; Carlqvist, 1982b).

I also posted a paper from Wheatland in this thread that demonstrates that Alfven was correct about the currents beginning far under the photosphere in a very highly energized state.

 

[dasmiller]

Galactic Birkeland currents contract in a "Z" pinch to form the Sun ...

And this is why the sun has the familiar spindle/filament shape rather than being spherical as one would expect if the sun was gravitationally bound.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Quote:
"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."

FYI, this was Alfven's description of a flux tube which he specifically compares to a Bennett Pinch and a current carrying thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

**I** cannot help that YOU do not "read" any significant 'messages'

Then again I have already said, the discussion about discharge is totally utterly useless, and I have claimed in huge letters somewhere that:

from now on a discharge is a current in a plasma, discussion closed

I guess you missed that too about 10 pages back.

I can't believe you still do *NOT* understand the difference between a discharge and a current after yesterday's discussions! Oy Vey. The only two people (other than EU proponents) that I'm confident actually understand the difference are The Man (who *CLEARLY* explained it) and PS. When did you intend to get up to speed on this topic?

 

[tusenfem]

I can't believe you still do *NOT* understand the difference between a discharge and a current after yesterday's discussions! Oy Vey. The only two people (other than EU proponents) that I'm confident actually understand the difference are The Man (who *CLEARLY* explained it) and PS. When did you intend to get up to speed on this topic?

I was up to speed years before you wrote your paper on the CNO, getting a plasma astrophyscis degree.

Like I say, it is totally utterly unimportant what you or I or the Man or whoever want to call a discharge.

The fat huge letters were there to show that I did not care, and hoped to finish this futile discussion. Oy Vey indeed.

In another message, you wanted me to agree with you that an exploding double layer is a discharge. The question is WHAT FOR? Is exploding double layer not a lot more clear than discharge? Then at least you know what is being discussed.

How does this “PINCH effect” develop? What force or forces “evacuates the area around the filament” and confines the current to that reduced cross sectional area?

Essentially the currents running through the plasma creates a magnetic field that becomes aligned with the current. That magnetic field acts to "pinch" the plasma into "filaments", sometimes "tubular" filaments. The magnetic field around the filament acts to evacuate the regions around the filament, creating an insulating effect directly around the filament.

My god, can you get any more wrong?!?!?!

Take the tube, and let a current flow along the field (this would be aligned with the zero order magentic field). The current creates a toroidal magnetic field (you know, the left hand rule??). This makes the total field spiral like in the figure. The toroidal component of the field gets stronger as the current gets stronger. The current flowing experiences a jxB force which has a radial component (assuming the loop is a tube). Now, this force is opposed by the plasma pressure and searches an equilibrium. Bennett showed a long time ago that:

[latex]2 N k(T_e + T_i) = \frac{{\mu_0}} {4 \pi} I^2 [/latex]

is the threshold stability. If the current is greater then the the tube gets squeezed together by the jxB force.

As the plasma is magnetized, it has to move with the field and thus the current channel, when the Bennett relation is crossed, thins, leaving a a region where the field has been pulled away including the plasma.

However, I am not sure how it works if a loop would filament into several pinches and what effect that has on the loop and the the space inbetween the pinches.

The same process takes place inside of an ordinary plasma ball, although the process is somewhat different because it's not all ionized matter inside of a plasma ball, but the process is quite similar.

No, that is completely wrong, there is no plasma in a plasma ball outside of the conducting paths. It is a low pressure argon gas, with a voltage between the central ball and the glass that is greater than the break down electric field of the argon gas. Now, normaly it would only be one blitz, but because the electric field is modulated by a kHz AC the blitz can be continuous. I once gave the whole explanation here on the board, but I cannot find it.

Essentially the plasma reaches the limit of the amount of current it can carry before the plasma starts to become "noisy" due to collisions, the plasma heats up, the filament becomes unstable, and the resistivity of the filament jumps through the roof. The whole things then "explodes/discharges'.

A plasma is always noisy and it always has collionsion, how would you like to heat a plasma with a current without collisions. So there is no limit necessary to heat a plasma with a current, it is just basic current I times resistivity R.

Now, things get interesting when the current requires a particle velocity which is greater than the thermal velocity of the plasma particles. Then there needs to be extra acceleration of the particles, for example through the creation of a double layer. High velocities can lead to instabilities, however, there is no need for the resistivity to jump through the roof.

You want to pinch to create a gap in the current. However, what you forget is that higher current density in the pinch will lead to higher heating rate, so most likely it will never come to a catastrophy that the Bennett pinch will squeeze to zero thickness as the plasma pressure will increase too, if not because of the squeezing, then because of the heating.

Then again there is the Foukal & Hinata paper, that takes the experience from the laboratory with respect to double layers and they show that the one big exploding double layer will not happen.

Where was that energy stored? How is it released when discharged and to where?

The energy is stored in the "circuit' that goes though and under the photosphere, as well as high above the photosphere. Alfven has a pretty good single paragraph description of how this all works. I'll try to round it up again for you today. Be patient however, it's really busy again today

Of course the correct answer, that The Man wanted to get was that the energy is stored in the magnetic pressure and magnetic tension in the solar loop.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I was up to speed years before you wrote your paper on the CNO, getting a plasma astrophyscis degree.

Yet for two months you did *ABSOLUTELY* nothing with that degree in terms of setting the record straight about 'discharges' in a "plasma". Why not?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Like I say, it is totally utterly unimportant what you or I or the Man or whoever want to call a discharge.

You know, this statement is just absurd IMO. In *SCIENCE* the proper use of terminology is *CRITICAL*. This isn't a conversation about spirituality, it's a conversation about *SCIENCE*. The terms "current" and "discharge" are used in electrical engineering, and they have *VERY* precise meanings.

The "pack" here has been dogging me around for months *INTENTIONALLY* blurring the distinction between those two terms. How on Earth did you expect to have a rational discussion inside of a pack mentality, *WITHOUT* first intentionally clarifying terms and CORRECTLY using them and agreeing to them in advance?

Holy smokes. I went *OUT OF MY WAY* to provide a PUBLISHED DEFINITION of a "discharge". Instead of just accepting it, and helping other accept it, you've sat back and let the pack run crazy, never once lifting a finger to set anyone straight on your side? Wow.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In another message, you wanted me to agree with you that an exploding double layer is a discharge. The question is WHAT FOR?

The point was so that we could go back to those laboratory experiments by Lei and we have a clear understanding of a "discharge" and how it relates to iron ionization states, and high energy photons. We couldn't ever go there until you at least *AGREE* to something and get the pack settled down!

Is exploding double layer not a lot more clear than discharge?

I don't think so. I think the term "discharge" is the most correct. It's ultimately a release of stored EM energy, aka an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE *IN A PLASMA*!

 

[Tubbythin]

Galactic Birkeland currents

And the quantiative evidence that their exists Birkeland currents strong enough to power the Sun for billions of years is found where?

Are you claiming Alfven didn't say these words?

I'd find it unusual if Alfven said them since he'd be talking about himself in the third person.

I could have quote it from many sources:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/electricsky_preface.htm#awarn

You could have but you didn't.

I thought that would have been obvious. The effect of gravity is insignificant compared to the electromagnetic forces some x39 powers of magnitude stronger.

Hilarious. Please show us a calculation for this in the case of the interaction of a proton with a 1 solar mass spherical body with a charge of 1 e.
Its also hilarious that you give scorn towards Ziggurat for using electrostatics and then throw in a number from electrostatics at the first opportunity.

Yes and it was much better IMO than Bridgman‘s rant.

And yet it was distinctly lacking in physics. Funny that.

I had no trouble, what couldn't you understand?

It may have been my pdf reader but it appeared to have been written in about 14 different fonts.

I have no problems with it

You have no problem with him talking about freight trains? Or the fact that his analysis of LSND and MiniBoone data is completely wrong? Or the fact that he demands that the standard model should provide an explanation of a phenomenon that probably doesn't exist? Or the fact that he gives no quantitative explanation for the production of neutrinos in his model?

You don't think there is dogma in mainstream science?

I don't think anyone should be bringing up claims of dogma to try and support there conclusions instead of bringing up quantitative data.

Information "While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology."
I wondered about the differences of EU and PC theory.

So where was all the quantitative data that was meant to rebut Bridgman?

Galactic Birkeland currents

Again? The quantitative evidence that such currents exist and can power the Sun for billions of years is where exactly?

What exactly do you find shocking?

The fact that it is complete nonesense. See the questions above and previous posts.

The public public obviously

So his peers are those who generally do not have any scientific qualifications or any particular ability to analyse the data and draw safe conclusions. Says it all really.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a circular argument bringing us back to your supposed de-bunk using the wrong model for your math.

You keep saying that it's the wrong model, and yet you cannot provide the right model. You cannot show how to correct the calculations I made.

Again, by using numbers in the wrong model you prove Scott wrong. brilliant logic

I used Jeurgens' numbers. Scott is basing what he said on what Jeurgens said. If you don't want to use Jeurgens' numbers, then you're basically just admitting Scott has nothing by which we can do ANY calculations, that he has no model at all.

Your just "adding epicycles" with each new puzzle the space probes uncover.

No, actually, I'm not. I'm starting with the single most important thing, and solving that. The single most important fact to account for in regards to the sun is its power output. The standard model accounts for that output quite nicely. Electric models... don't account for it at all.

This isn't like the epicycles problem at all. It isn't a contest between two competing theories which both explain the data, it's a contest between a theory which does explain the data (the standard model) and a theory which does not, and cannot.

Yes, but what an idea!

You could say the same about ESP, and UFO abductions, and free energy, and any of countless other ideas. I don't care if you're fascinated by the idea. I care if the idea has any merits.

Your ideas have no merit.

It makes sense of what we have actually found.

No it doesn't. The most important thing we have actually found remains completely unexplained, and in fact unexplainable, by your "idea".

No need for the invention of all the invisible, unknowable, dark stuff, just to balance the math ie NO "adding epicycles".

Except that you're doing exactly that: you are adding invisible, unknowable, dark stuff just to balance the math. But what's worse is, the math STILL doesn't balance.

Yes they have (my hilite):

No they haven't. They wave their hands at the problem and pretend that they've solved it. Note that they cannot, and do not, account for the fusion rate. Nor do they account for how the double layers that drive these currents are formed, or how the energy released from fusion reactions can feed back into creating the massive currents which would be required to drive that much fusion, nor how to create a negative feedback mechanism to keep the power output stable.

They have explained nothing. Furthermore, their model is ruled out by observations. Fusion produces gamma rays and neutrinos. We observe the neutrinos. We do not observe the gamma rays. Therefore, the gamma rays are shielded. So the fusion isn't happening at the surface. But we know it will happen at the core, because we know conditions are right for it to occur.

Here an explanation from Scott in his rebuttal of Bridgman

"POWERING THE SUN FROM THE OUTSIDE Starting on his page 17 Bridgman launches into a long discussion peppered with equations, tables of numbers, and diagrams, all designed to disprove the possibility of powering the Sun electrically from the outside. My reaction to it can be summarized as follows:

Whether or not Juergens was completely correct in his assertion that the Sun is totally or partially powered by external electrical excitation is really not the most important aspect of the Electric Star (ES) hypothesis. This question is one of the most controversial and speculative aspects of plasma cosmology. So it is an easy one to pick on.

With good reason: it's absurd. It requires impossible properties for the sun, and invisible imaginary entities outside the sun. Note that Scott doesn't have the integrity to admit that it's utter nonsense.

What is important is that most of the phenomena we observe on and above the photospheric surface of the Sun (a partially ionized plasma) are explainable in terms of well-known properties of plasma. This is true no matter how the Sun gets its power.

And this differs from the standard model... how? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

Again the standard model has only ad hoc explanations for these observations.

The EU model doesn't have ANY explanation for the most basic parameter of all, and can't explain anything else in a quantitative manner either. That's better... how?

The Sun rotates more rapidly at its equator than near its poles. Why? If it does operate as a Faraday (homopolar) motor as the ES model suggests, this phenomenon is completely expected."

That's nice. But the sun doesn't operate as a Faraday motor, so it's irrelevant.

 

[Reality Check]

Was Alfven wrong to call a DL that explodes an exploding DL

I don't think so. I think the term "discharge" is the most correct.!

I don't think so. We have

1. a double layer
2. that double layer is exploding.

It is obvious that the term exploding double layer is the correct term to use.
Or are you calling Alfven and the other scientistc that call a DL that explodes an exploding DL wrong?

If so you really are pointing out the incompetence of Alfven

• he calls currents dicharges (you wantr then to be the erle3ase of energy).
• he calls a DL that explodes an exploding DL instead of a discharge.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun & Real Science II

Like I say, it is totally utterly unimportant what you or I or the Man or whoever want to call a discharge.

You know, this statement is just absurd IMO. In *SCIENCE* the proper use of terminology is *CRITICAL*.

And your stand on absurdity is absurd in my opinion. The proper use of terminology is not even an issue. Definitions are always arbitrary and your definition of a "discharge" is both arbitrary and contrary to normal usage. So if anybody is confusing the issue with poor use of terminology, it is most definitely you who are doing it. I say the only relevant points are whether or not you use your own definition in a self consistent manner and whether or not your claims are consistent with the laws of physics. The latter is certainly true, your claims are certainly inconsistent with the laws of physics as we know them.

It seems to me that whether or not one wishes to call the hot plasma an "electrical discharge" is not really the point. It is certainly a poor choice of words, designed to generate confusion in the absence of a constantly repeated definition. But the real issue is the physics that underlies the words. What physically is really happening is the point. This is where Mozina runs into the brick wall of physics and catastrophically fails the test. He rejects magnetic reconnection in favor of exploding double layers, even though physics rejects the latter in favor of the former. He rejects the frozen flux approximation for magnetic fields in a plasma even though physics requires it. These two points are the most fundamental and critical points in this entire discussion. Everything in the physics of coronal heating, coronal loops, flares & CME's stems from these two critical concepts (with some thermodynamics & radiative transfer thrown in, but they don't yet seem to be points of contention).

As long as Mozina rejects these two critical concepts of physics, magnetic reconnection and the frozen flux approximation, then this discussion and all other similar discussions everywhere are doomed at once to become infinite loops of the same thing over & over & over & over again, ad infinitum, as has become the case for this discussion. Quite simply it's Mozina vs. physics, and I choose physics over Mozina every time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And your stand on absurdity is absurd in my opinion. The proper use of terminology is not even an issue.

The hell it's not, especially if you expect me to DEFEND a statement that requires AGREEMENT on a scientific term!

Definitions are always arbitrary and your definition of a "discharge" is both arbitrary and contrary to normal usage.

Bolding mine. I'm sick and tired of your side playing "science by proclamation". Prove it Tim. Provide us with a *PUBLISHED* physics definition of an electrical discharge that shows I'm using the term incorrectly.

 

[DSo]

Bolding mine. I'm sick and tired of your side playing "science by proclamation". Prove it Tim. Provide us with a *PUBLISHED* physics definition of an electrical discharge that shows I'm using the term incorrectly.

Semantics, semantics. This thread is a joke. MM the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that solar flares are electrical discharges consistent with some kind of electric sun or electric universe model.

So far it has been an epic fail on your part. All you like doing is arguing over minor details. It seems to me like incredibly bad manners on your part. Sorry for making it personal, but after 1000's of posts, that's all I can conclude. A number of knowledgeable posters have made a good effort to dialogue with you about science, but all you've ever done is cr&p on anyone who's shown the slightess bit of disagreement with your point of view.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The Mozina thesis (based on a series of posts above):

A. Solar flares are electrical discharges.

B. Currents produced in plasmas by magnetic fields are discharges.

Hence: Solar flares are currents produced by magnetic fields.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI The Man

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967SoPh....1..220A

FYI, this is probably one of the earliest papers on this topic that was published by Carlqvist and Alfven. It pretty much explains the entire process.