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

[Reality Check]

What do you think he is intentionally lying about then?

He is intentionally lying about the fact that people (read tusenfem's posts) quoted before have provided him with the definition of "discharge" in a plasma used in older literature, i.e. high current density (Dungey) or current (Alfven).

 

[Michael Mozina]

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?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6787673&postcount=2295

FYI Z, it all relates to GM's false claim which RC then parroted for pages on end. Neither one of them will admit that a 'discharge' can occur in a "conductor'. We're stuck in a denial pattern now and have been for month because they keep repeating the same erroneous nonsense.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm correct on this topic [...]

No, not by simply saying so.

To address the topic: The important concept here is 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 model in a clear and quantitatively describable way, then all this nonsense about discharge and electrical is just a bunch of silly messing with words. 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 anyway. It's just an unqualified guess.

So...

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.

A quantitative objective description of the above comment, filling in the obviously missing parts so that it isn't self conflicting, and including the relevant supporting calculations might be a good way to move this conversation forward. As it stands, without further explanation it seems like sciency sounding nonsense like 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?

 

[Michael Mozina]

He is intentionally lying about the fact that people (read tusenfem's posts) quoted before have provided him with the definition of "discharge" in a plasma used in older literature, i.e. high current density (Dungey) or current (Alfven).

OMG. Both Dungey *AND* Alfven both claimed that discharges occurred in plasma and associated such discharges with flares! OMG!

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

FYI, this was the original definition of a discharge in a plasma that I provided early on in the thread:

Originally Posted by Peratt
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiatiοη.

The definition comes from Peratt's book: Physics of the Plasma Universe

 

[Zeuzzz]

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?

I think what D'rok is trying to say Michael is that sometimes its extremely courageous to admit to a mistake even if you know others will hold it against you. If anything showing you make mistakes and admitting them will make people warm to you eventually, they may poke fun at you for a bit, but its quite easy to then make them look like a condescending tit. Its much better to ask questions to people here for their opinions on things you are unsure of rather than just sharing your views then defending them from peoples attacks.

Half the stuff I used to post here was absolute garbage now looking back. By all means keep doing what your doing but personally I really can not see the point of continuing to post in a place where it seems that every person just disagrees with everything you say. It must drive you mad, you need a medal!

 

[Reality Check]

OMG. Both Dungey *AND* Alfven both claimed that discharges occurred in plasma and associated such discharges with flares! OMG!

OMG. Both Dungey *AND* Alfven both claimed that discharges (defined as currents) occurred in plasma and Dungey associated such discharges with flares! OMG!
That is what I and other posters have been telling you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OMG. Both Dungey *AND* Alfven both claimed that discharges (defined as currents) occurred in plasma and Dungey associated such discharges with flares! OMG!
That is what I and other posters have been telling you.

They are not "defined as currents" as you keep CLAIMING (those things you refuse to actually demonstrate)! It's a discharge of stored EM energy. A single line intro isn't a "definition" of the term discharge, it's an intro. The term "discharge" has a very specific scientific meaning that relates to the dissipation of stored EM energy. It's not *JUST* a current, it's an UNUSUALLY strong current that dissipates quickly over time and leaves very specific *SIGNATURES* in terms of x-ray spikes and gamma rays and stuff like that RC.

Nobody denies that CURRENTS are involved in a discharge, but a flare and a discharge isn't JUST a "current", it's a powerful 'discharge' of stored EM energy that has a very unique signature in the GOES data, specifically it creates big spikes in that data.

Round and round and round we go, where the denial-go-round ends, nobody knows.

 

[Reality Check]

They are not "defined as currents" as you keep CLAIMING (those things you refuse to actually demonstrate). It's a discharge of stored EM energy.
...

You are lying: Alfven and Dungey never define electrical discharges as "a discharge of stored EM energy".

In fact no one defines electric discharges despite your cherry picking of Peratt's first sentence.

I note that MM just highlights magnetic energy, whereas, as usual, he forgets about the rest of the text.

Here is a very good paper (albeit a bit old, and therefore somewhat dated), but I think it is the first (and only?) paper that shows the deficits in the Carlqvist-Alfven model. MM will be happy as circuits are explicitly mentioned and papers that deal with circuit representation of various processes (e.g. by Spicer and by Ionson).

One of the things in the paper is that they discuss discharge models of solar flares, however, as far as I could see none of the models is actually labeled as such. I think we have to consider the section with models with parallel electric field as the part describing discharge models. Just below Eq. (26) this statement is made, making a difference between reconnection models and discharge models.

This shows the muddy waters we are dealing with: what do we call a discharge? Let's look at some of the definitions that we have come across here in the thread and some more:

Peratt: An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

Dungey: The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density. The electrons must reach at least relativistic energies ...

Oxford Reference (concise science dictionary): 2. The release of electric charge from a capacitor in an electric ciruit. 3. The passage of charge carriers through a gas at low pressure in ad discharge tube.

Alfvén: (Cosm. Eldy.) Traditionally a current through a gas is called a discharge.

Alfvén & Fälthammar: (Cosm. Eldy.) (no definition but (as in Alfvén) they say) Electric discharges in the laboratory are usually divided into two groups : non-sustained discharges, which depend upon an `external' ionizer to produce at least an essential part of the ions and electrons which carry the current, and self-sustained discharges, where the ionization is mainly produced by the discharge itself .

Alfvén: (Cosm. Pl.) does not even give a definition of what he means by a discharge, he just starts using the word.

Dictionary of Electronics: disruptive discharge Sudden, heavy current flow through a dielectric material when it fails completely under electric stress

And so we can go on and on and on.

So some want to define loosely, like Alfven just a "current through a gas" others in electronics want a dielectric to "feel completly under electric stress."

 

[D'rok]

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

That's also explicitly Alfven's definition and approximately Dungey's definition. It's also one you have reverted to when it suits your purposes. You wanted a path forward...there it was. Too bad you wouldn't take it.

 

[D'rok]

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

Sigh. Another lie. I'm too tired to look it up, but I made a post where I went through tusenfem's post listing the various definitions and said which ones I thought were conducive to talking about discharges in plasma. You read it and responded to it. Now you claim it never happened.

You are irritating.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's also explicitly Alfven's definition

Which "definition" was that? Be specific. Paper, chapter, verse please.

and approximately Dungey's definition.

Dungey's flare description is of LIMITED duration, so that's simply not so.

It's also one you have reverted to when it suits your purposes. You wanted a path forward...there it was. Too bad you wouldn't take it.

There has been no 'path forward' offered by anyone but PS and The Man (if he's so inclined to even get involved in this melee), but the rest of you are stuck as I will demonstrate:

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sigh. Another lie. I'm too tired to look it up, but I made a post where I went through tusenfem's post listing the various definitions and said which ones I thought were conducive to talking about discharges in plasma. You read it and responded to it. Now you claim it never happened.

You are irritating.

Yes or no, can a "discharge" (as defined by Peratt) occur in a plasma? Please now, no dodging, I want to move forward.

 

[D'rok]

which "definition" was that? Be specific. Paper, chapter, verse please.

It's literally two *********** posts above yours. Pay *********** attention.

dungey's flare description is of limited duration, so that's simply not so.

I posted dungey's exact words from the paper you claim to have read multiple times. *********** read my posts.

there has been no 'path forward' offered by anyone but ps and the man (if he's so inclined to even get involved in this melee), but the rest of you are stuck as i will demonstrate:

*********** read tusenfem's posts.

 

[D'rok]

Yes or no, can a "discharge" (as defined by Peratt) occur in a plasma? Please now, no dodging, I want to move forward.

I already answered this. I already answered this wrt to all the definitions in play so far. Read my *********** posts.

I'm through with you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's literally two *********** posts above yours. Pay *********** attention.

That was t's paraphrase as best as I can tell. Got something a LITTLE more to work with than one sentence?

I posted dungey's exact words from the paper you claim to have read multiple times. *********** read my posts.

Dungey specifically end explicitly associates these events with FLARES, that have a LIMITED LIFE SPAN directly associated with that STORED energy! It's not a CURRENT, it's a DISCHARGE!

*********** read tusenfem's posts.

I have. I have yet to see him say, YES, a DISCHARGE of STORED ENERGY can OCCUR in a plasma. How hard is that to say anyway?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I already answered this. I already answered this wrt to all the definitions in play so far. Read my *********** posts.

The only 'semi-straight" answer I ever got from you was *THIS* post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6762037&postcount=1883

True only if discharge = current. Which is more or less how Dungey defines the term

That won't cut it! I can't differentiate between those relatively flat lines in GOES data and those spikes in GOES data during flare events if you won't differentiate between CURRENT and a DISCHARGE of stored energy! I can't work with an OVERSIMPLIFIED definition. For the record, you NEVER answered the actual question I asked, which is whether or not you accept PERATT's (not t's) definition of a "discharge" meaning they do happen in plasma/conductors as a *RELEASE* of STORED energy.

 

[D'rok]

The only 'semi-straight" answer I ever got from you was *THIS* post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6762037&postcount=1883

*********** liar.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6738866&postcount=1507

 

[Michael Mozina]

*********** liar.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6738866&postcount=1507

I stand corrected. Now explain WHY you said no (because you're wrong).

 

[dasmiller]

Dungey specifically end explicitly associates these events with FLARES, that have a LIMITED LIFE SPAN directly associated with that STORED energy! It's not a CURRENT, it's a DISCHARGE!

How does an association relate to the definition? Penguins are associated with sea lions, ice, herring, and documentaries, but none of those help me define "penguin," or differentiate between "penguin" and "South Sandwich Islands."

"Current" refers to the movement of charge carriers. Do you really, really mean to say that there's no movement of charge carriers in a flare?

In common usage, "current" applies whether it's steady-state flow or a brief transient. Saying "It's not a CURRENT, it's a DISCHARGE!" requires either changing the definition of current or having a non-electrical type of discharge.