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

[D'rok]

Give what up? Give up hope that you will *EVER* accept a definition of a discharge in a plasma or provide one of your own to work with?

And the lies continue.

Man, I have seen denial in a debate before, but never this bad, never in such numbers, and never to the exclusion of common sense and logic to this sort of an extreme.

Ah well the nile is more that a river in Egypt.

Peratt's whole paragraph is a "definition" of an "electrical discharge* *IN* a plasma. It relates *TO* plasma. It's all *ABOUT* plasma. It's *ENTIRELY* consistent with Dungey's use of an "electrical discharge IN a plasma.

The first paragraph is the definition and then, apart from the lightning, he discusses nothing about the generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

Really, go through the bloody text and show the how and what in full explanation.

Though I do agree that all the other things he discusses are Dungey's definition (from his reply to comment paper) that a discharge is just a current in a plasma, but that was not Peratt's own definition!!!!!

I guess the whole problem is that the moment you agree to Peratt's definition the debate is over. You'd rather live in pure denial of a "definition", and Dungey's consistent use of that very same term. Wow!

Has nothing reached your gray matter, Mikey? I say I can live with any definition of a discharge, if one holds to it. If Peratt defines it in that first part of the first paragraph of section 1.5, and then just a few lines further down in that section perfectly deviates from his own definition, than it is not workable at all.

FYI, the IRS made *REALLY* bizarre payroll changes this year and since I sell an accounting program, it effects many hundreds (thousands?) of my payroll users. The updates are financially lucrative, but exhausting and time consuming. I'm not going to waste much more of my breath around here until we can all agree that:

I don't care a frak what the IRS does or does not do. That basically means you will have to take some more time before you answer any questions or start a discussion.

A) electrical discharges occur in plasma
B) Dungey and others wrote about them
C) They have been associated with flares by Dungey and other authors.

Is anyone here willing to step beyond denial and have a rational conversation on this topic? Right now this conversation is simply not worth my time.

Ah I am so glad I am in your positive list of people you might consider to discuss with, even tho I am in the nile.

If you would be so kind as to state which definition you want to use for discharges, then finally there could be a discussion. However, it does not really matter if you call it a discharge or not. Especially in the Dungey definition (that you seem to want to move to now, instead of the Peratt definition) it is really so what of unimportant if you call it a discharge or a current, because basically Dungey wants to have a current.

So, fine I will state from now on a discharge is to be considered a current in a plasma.

So now you can start discussing Dungey, but please start with the original paper, to which the comment was made, to which the reply was written, so we know what the context of the whole discussion is.

Please, take it away Mr. Mozina, the stages is yours.

**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.

 

[GeeMack]

Give what up? Give up hope that you will *EVER* accept a definition of a discharge in a plasma or provide one of your own to work with? I already gave up on that concept a long time ago. About the best I can do is show you how the Oxford Dictionary explains that RELEASE aspect and see if you'll EVER accept it. Care to explain how Peratt's definition is not inclusive and LIKE the Oxford definition?

Obviously dwelling on the archaic use of a particular term is not moving this discussion forward. This has already been addressed by tusenfem in this post...

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?

Because, it has been clearly shown that over the years the meaning of discharge has changed, and even contemporary authors use different definitions of discharge, and therefore discharge is a useless word in this whole discussion.

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*!

And because "discharge" is the most correct, I guess that is the reason why there are zero papers on solar physics mentioning the word "discharge" since the late 70s or so.
Aside from that, when one looks at atmospheric/planetary physics, then suddenly the word "discharge" pops up in lots and lots of papers, with respect to lightning and sprites etc. Strange, that so many scientists disagree with you on the usage of discharge.

Please let it be noted that instead of talking about science, maybe address the MISTAKES he makes in simple plasma physics (like "currents running through the plasma creates a magnetic field that becomes aligned with the current", Alfvén turning around in his grave) he keeps on looking for the useless discussion of a definition of a word that does not add anything to the discussion.

It might be a good time to follow the advice of tusenfem, Tim Thompson, and others, those who actually know something about plasma physics and astrophysics, and leave the sematics argument out of it. There are contemporary terms used in technical discussions of solar physics, the term "discharge", as tusenfem pointed out, not being one of them.

Maybe we could get a quantitative objective explanation to fill in the missing parts of this...

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.

As it stands it is self conflicting at best, and at worst it's just sciency sounding nonsense, as Perpetual Student explained here...

The more I try to interpret this comment, the more convinced I become that MM has no understanding whatsoever of the physics involved. How does a current "create a magnetic field that becomes aligned with the current" since a magnetic field created by a current forms in concentric circles around that current? How then does this "aligned" magnetic field "pinch" the plasma? How does it "evacuate regions around" a filament?
These comments demonstrate no relevance to or understanding of the gratuitous accompanying diagram.

 

[Zeuzzz]

And the lies continue.

Balderdash, lying means intentional deceit. I'm quite sure that Michael believes what he types. Even if what someone says is wrong if they still believe it themselves its no a lie just a misinformed belief.

What do you think he is intentionally lying about then?

 

[dasmiller]

Here's the problem D'rok. Their side made CLAIMS. They made FALSE claims. They never produced a SHRED of published support of those claims. They CLAIMED that a "discharge" could not occur in a conductor. That's a false claim. They claimed that discharge could not occur in a plasma because it's a conductor. That's a false claim. They claim I have misused the term "discharge" somehow, but that is also a "False claim". When did their side ever intend to admit these were "false claims" so we can move on? I've seen PS do that. I've seen t "sort of" do that, with all sorts of riders attached that blur the distinction between current and discharges *INTENTIONALLY*.

I've not seen ANY of the rest of them/you even admit that a discharge can happen in a plasma!

I think a great many people have agreed that for some definitions of "discharge," a discharge can happen in plasma, and that for other definitions, it can't. There is no absolute definition for "discharge" when applied to phenomena in a plasma, so any effort to find one is ultimately futile. Different authors have used it differently, and when we're evaluating various papers, we'll simply have to take that into account. Whenever we use the word "discharge" in this thread, we'll have to be clear what we mean.

Which is why it's been suggested that we simply avoid using the term whenever possible.

 

[dasmiller]

There is no absolute definition for "discharge" when applied to phenomena in a plasma, so any effort to find one is ultimately futile.

. . so maybe that effort is appropriate for this thread

 

[Zeuzzz]

Wait,

Are we talking about discharge in physics or in biology?

 

[D'rok]

Balderdash, lying means intentional deceit. I'm quite sure that Michael believes what he types. Even if what someone says is wrong if they still believe it themselves its no a lie just a misinformed belief.

What do you think he is intentionally lying about then?

Because it is his standard defensive strategy when cornered. I've seen it over and over. I'm not talking about whether or not he sincerely believes obviously false nonsense like a solid surface on the sun. I'm talking about his idiotically transparent tactic of introducing confusion and incoherence into a discussion, pretending that no one replied to him trying to clear up the confusion, and then attributing the initial cause of the confusion to everyone else.

It is particularly blatant lying when he accuses his interlocutors of doing/not doing something, when he has read and responded to the very posts in which they have done/not done the particular thing in question.

This behaviour, combined with his obvious lack of real scientific knowledge or skill, is terminal for his credibility and forces many of us to have a very low opinion of him, despite the fact that he is probably a perfectly decent person IRL.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For me, that description actually muddies the water. If I take a literal interpretation (which I'm sure you didn't intend), then a current is something that produces a steady output of high energy photons, and a discharge is something that produces a variable output of high energy photons.

And then neither of those words would necessarily involve the movement of charge carriers, and I'm pretty sure you want your definition of current to include movement of charge carriers.

Hmmm. Let's try it another way.

The coronal loop 'circuits' are also PINCHED threads, that emit high energy, x-ray photons even before they *RECONNECT* or "break down" in any way. Some of the coronal loop filaments are continuously "lit up" in the x-ray spectrum and that process can continue for days without any overt spikes in the x-ray spectrum. Once the circuit erupts however, the whole circuit energy is discharged at once and we get a C or M class flare with a notable spike in the GOES data.

 

[D'rok]

Wait,

Are we talking about discharge in physics or in biology?

Peratt thinks they are the same. Seriously.

 

[Vermonter]

I'll tell you what, I'll even relate the difference between current and a discharge right back to solar physics for you in terms of the data. A "current' produces pretty consistent outputs, whereas a "discharge" tends to produce "spikes", or variations in high energy photon output.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/plots/xray/20110120_xray.gif

If we look at today's GEOS x-ray data today, we see "spikes" in the red base line, specifically we see a 'minor' B class spike about an ago. The "current" in the coronal loops produces the baseline output we see in GOES, but the spikes are due to DISCHARGES (in flares). That change in current flow over time in a discharge is what produces those x-ray "spikes".

That's not what I'm looking for. Pictures are nice, but I'm looking for a written definition of both terms. Telling me that a current produces consistent output and that discharges create spikes in output doesn't help.

 

[dasmiller]

Hmmm. Let's try it another way.

The coronal loop 'circuits' are also PINCHED threads, that emit high energy, x-ray photons even before they *RECONNECT* or "break down" in any way. Some of the coronal loop filaments are continuously "lit up" in the x-ray spectrum and that process can continue for days without any overt spikes in the x-ray spectrum. Once the circuit erupts however, the whole circuit energy is discharged at once and we get a C or M class flare with a notable spike in the GOES data.

Actually, I like that description much better (of course, I can't speak to whether it accurately describes solar phenomena).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because it is his standard defensive strategy when cornered. I've seen it over and over. I'm not talking about whether or not he sincerely believes obviously false nonsense like a solid surface on the sun.

For the record, I do believe it to be true.

I'm talking about his idiotically transparent tactic of introducing confusion and incoherence into a discussion,

What!?!?! I'm the one that provided the PUBLISHED DEFINITION. Your heroes are the ones that made false claims that thereby confused the whole thing! They lied to you and you got "confused".

pretending that no one replied to him trying to clear up the confusion,

The only two individuals I've even see *TRY* to clear up any confusion that were not EU proponents, were The Man (purely inadvertently I suspect), and PS when he started asking direct questions. t hasn't tried to "clear up" anything or he would have busted that first false claim about a discharges not occurring in conductors *MONTHS* ago!

Edited by Locknar: 

Off-topic discussion removed, re breach 11.

I'm correct on this topic and that's really all that matters. Science isn't about opinions, it's about facts. The fact of the matter is that discharges can and do happen in conductors. Sooner or later you'll have to accept that FACT! Sorry if you don't like the messenger, but that isn't even STRICTLY my fault either.

 

[GeeMack]

Here's the problem D'rok. Their side made CLAIMS. They made FALSE claims. They never produced a SHRED of published support of those claims. They CLAIMED that a "discharge" could not occur in a conductor. That's a false claim. They claimed that discharge could not occur in a plasma because it's a conductor. That's a false claim. They claim I have misused the term "discharge" somehow, but that is also a "False claim". When did their side ever intend to admit these were "false claims" so we can move on? I've seen PS do that. I've seen t "sort of" do that, with all sorts of riders attached that blur the distinction between current and discharges *INTENTIONALLY*.

I've not seen ANY of the rest of them/you even admit that a discharge can happen in a plasma!

Obviously there's been a major misunderstanding here. The discussion was in regards to not just a discharge, but specifically an electrical discharge. And even more specifically, that electrical discharge was clearly described as being like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. That type of electrical discharge requires a dielectric medium and the subsequent breakdown of its insulating properties. And since the plasma in the solar atmosphere is a conductor, that particular type of electrical discharge, the type implied by the electric Sun adherents' comparison of solar flares and CMEs to lightning or the sparks in a plasma ball, cannot occur there.

Of course a discharge, when defined as something that happens in a plasma, can occur in a plasma. It's circular, a simple logical fallacy. If we define the term "dribble" as something that happens in a plasma, then a dribble can happen in a plasma. So a solar flare *IS* an ejaculation. A common definition for the term ejaculation is, "the act of throwing or darting out with a sudden force and rapid flight". It's that easy. But that's not science, it's wordplay.

I think a great many people have agreed that for some definitions of "discharge," a discharge can happen in plasma, and that for other definitions, it can't. There is no absolute definition for "discharge" when applied to phenomena in a plasma, so any effort to find one is ultimately futile. Different authors have used it differently, and when we're evaluating various papers, we'll simply have to take that into account. Whenever we use the word "discharge" in this thread, we'll have to be clear what we mean.

Which is why it's been suggested that we simply avoid using the term whenever possible.

Indeed. Maybe we shouldn't use the terms dribble or ejacualtion either.

The important concept here is, of course, the claim that a solar flare is or is caused by some sort of electrical process, a process which is unlike the standard solar model in a significant and unique way. If that process isn't different from the standard solar model, in a clear and quantitatively describable way, then all this nonsense about discharge and electrical is just a bunch of silly messing around with words, and very poorly done at that. And if such a process is unlike the standard solar model but can't be explained quantitatively and objectively, then it's not a theory and it's not science. It's just an unqualified guess.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, I like that description much better (of course, I can't speak to whether it accurately describes solar phenomena).

As long as you're happier with the description, I'm happy too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Obviously there's been a major misunderstanding here.

Yes and you personally caused it with this *FALSE* claim:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6607542&postcount=64

A discharge cannot occur within a conductor.

Care to set the record straight yet?

 

[D'rok]

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

I'm correct on this topic and that's really all that matters. Science isn't about opinions, it's about facts. The fact of the matter is that discharges can and do happen in conductors. Sooner or later you'll have to accept that FACT! Sorry if you don't like the messenger, but that isn't even STRICTLY my fault either.

I highlighted one of your lies right at the top of this very page. Tusenfem has clearly, forcefully and unambiouglsy "accept[ed] a definition of a discharge in a plasma or provide[d] one of [his] own to work with". Yet you continue to lie about this. Why?

<snip> You have no business pretending to be an authority on anything wrt science.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 12.

Why not have the courage to embrace your ignorance and attempt to actually learn something instead of preaching an outrageously false gospel to your betters?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I highlighted one of your lies right at the top of this very page. Tusenfem has clearly, forcefully and unambiouglsy "accept[ed] a definition of a discharge in a plasma or provide[d] one of [his] own to work with".

And therein lies the rub. *HIS* definition isn't a "discharge" it's a "current"! Gah!

 

[Reality Check]

When "electrical discharges" = currents then they happen in plasmas

Here's the problem D'rok.
...snipped conspiracy theory-like rant...
I've not seen ANY of the rest of them/you even admit that a discharge can happen in a plasma!

Here's the problem Michael Mozina: That is a blatent lie.

Several posters (including me) have stated that authors have used the term "electrical discharge" to describe currents in plasma.

One more time:

• If you define electrical discharge as a current (Alfven's use).
• Then an electrical discharge can happen in a plasma.
• This is not modern usage. Scientists today call a current a current.

Try reading, understanding and remembering this.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Ok i'm confused.

Either you seem to be spending pages discussing a particular plasma discharge model for flares, or we seem to be spending pages arguing that a word with numerous definitions in numerous circumstances in fact only has one correct meaning.

Which?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, and you ARE a crank. I'm sure you love your family and are kind and loyal to your friends, but you are a crank. You have no business pretending to be an authority on anything wrt science.

So you still believe that GM's statement is true and that discharges cannot happen in conductors, yes or no?

Why not have the courage to embrace your ignorance

My ignorance? Please. I'm sure you actually believe that to be true and all, but OMG. After what has gone on here, it's *EXTREMELY* clear to me that all of the opinions of the "haters" are born of pure ignorance, and protected by pure denial. When I make mistakes (which all humans do) I simply admit them and move on. I don't repeat the same mistake over and over and over again. I'm happy to embrace my ignorance when it's warranted, but I'm not so ignorant about basic electricity to believe that discharges cannot happen in conductors. That takes a special kind of ignorance to make that claim.