• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
FYI, TM, that was supposed to have been "some other circuit", not "come other circuit". The unique thing about these circuits is that they are composed of plasma and therefore they are "mobile" and can occasionally "short circuit" themselves together. :)
 
FYI, TM, that was supposed to have been "some other circuit", not "come other circuit". The unique thing about these circuits is that they are composed of plasma and therefore they are "mobile" and can occasionally "short circuit" themselves together. :)


Adding more and more made up nonsense to the pile doesn't get any closer to actually supporting the ridiculous claims.
 
It is absolutely ludicrous to pretend that Birkeland had or even imagined a solid metal surface for the sun just because of the terrella experiments. It would be like claiming that aeronautical engineers who used solid metal representations of aircraft in wind tunnel testing believed that the actual aircraft had to be made of one solid chunk of metal. Sometimes it is just the shape that you’re primarily looking to represent.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

You are of course correct that his cathode sun theories do not *INSIST* upon a "solid" surface, as I have pointed out in other threads, hence the use of term "rigid' in all our published papers. His cathode model simply can be adapted and used that way since that's exactly how the experiments actually functioned.

IMO, it's highly *UNLIKELY* however that a cathode sun would produce a "mixed" (as opposed to plasma layered) atmosphere. Any sort of spherical plasma cathode under the surface of the photosphere is likely to be considerably more dense and cooler than the lighter, less dense outer layers, including the surface of the photosphere.
 
Last edited:
Adding more and more made up nonsense to the pile doesn't get any closer to actually supporting the ridiculous claims.
Why are you even engaged in this conversation at this point?

Edited, breach of rule 0.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Two of what "reconnect"?

Two circuits "short circuit" as they touch inside the double layer that forms between the filaments.

So again are you claiming that there is no stored and released electrical energy in this consideration?

I'm saying exactly the opposite actually. I am claiming that it is the moving particles (current) that do the "reconnecting" inside the double layer that forms between the two circuits. Those particles *already* have kinetic energy BEFORE any double layer transactions. Any change in "circuit topology' is a result of that "current" following the "path of least resistance" and the magnetic field topology follows right along with the changes in current (plasma flow) topology.
 
Last edited:
Tim (or anyone for that matter),

Could you please explain to me what the physical (not mathematical) difference is between what Priest is calling "magnetic diffusion", "magnetic reconnection" and standard ordinary "induction"? There are so many different terms in play here I have no idea how or if magnetic diffusion is even different from "magnetic reconnection" let alone that either of them is actually not "induction" with a silly name. How (physically) are these three names "different" at the level of physics. IMO any transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy is simply "induction'. What (physically) makes "magnetic reconnection' a "faster" process than ordinary induction?
 
Last edited:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

You are of course correct that his cathode sun theories do not *INSIST* upon a "solid" surface, as I have pointed out in other threads, hence the use of term "rigid' in all our published papers. His cathode model simply can be adapted and used that way since that's exactly how the experiments actually functioned.


His experiments actually functioned with a hollow brass ball in a mostly evacuated glass chamber. It had an electromagnet inside which was connected to an outside power source with wires. His experiments were primarily targeted to his ideas about the Earth, particularly auroras. His silly idea that Saturn's rings were glowing electrons has been shown to be complete bunk. And his dabbling with some ideas about the Sun was just that, dabbling.

Oh, and the link to the 100 year old article, the one where some unnamed reporter interprets Birkeland's comments to mean that the Sun spews particles which become planets, does not in any way support the silly idea that the Sun is powered by electricity or that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. It describes some concepts that have been demonstrated beyond any doubt to be complete nonsense. Science has moved forward in the past 100 years, any electric Sun adherents' arguments from incredulity and ignorance notwithstanding.

IMO, it's highly *UNLIKELY* however that a cathode sun would produce a "mixed" (as opposed to plasma layered) atmosphere. And sort of spherical plasma cathode under the surface of the photosphere is likely to be considerably more dense and cooler than the lighter, less dense outer layers, including the surface of the photosphere.


This is also, objectively and quantitatively, a completely unsupported conjecture.
 
Last edited:
What ‘thing’ “specific” was that "stable flow" connected to before and why?

FYI, I apologize profusely for cutting up your posts like this, but it's just too busy at work to try to answer the whole thing at once and I'd like to keep the conversation moving.

The "thing" I'm trying to describe to you is a river/flow of highly mobile particles that form a "flowing thread" in the solar atmosphere. In some cases they can be akin to the base of a tornado/twister, or an ordinary plasma ball filament. The more current, the stronger the rotation of the thread and the more kinetic energy is being "contained" inside the thread. The stable flow that it's connected to are the areas near the surface that contain those currents observed by Wheatland. Once the circuit is interrupted, all that "contained" kinetic/particle/directional flow, along with the magnetic field that is containing it, will be release in one giant explosive event.

If two circuits "short circuit" inside of a double layer, *BOTH* circuits might erupt. If the current inside the double layer takes a new path through that double layer, a "rewiring/reconnection" process may ensue, but the point of "rewire/reconnection" will be HOT and potentially explosive.
 
Last edited:
Two circuits "short circuit" as they touch inside the double layer that forms between the filaments.



I'm saying exactly the opposite actually. I am claiming that it is the moving particles (current) that do the "reconnecting" inside the double layer that forms between the two circuits. Those particles *already* have kinetic energy BEFORE any double layer transactions. Any change in "circuit topology' is a result of that "current" following the "path of least resistance" and the magnetic field topology follows right along with the changes in current (plasma flow) topology.

and when are you finally going to show how a double layer is formed between two touching circuits? Really, you have claimed that for years already, but up to now you have never ever given a detailed explanation of anything.

I have asked before, how do these circuits touch, in what direction is the double layer electic field pointed, etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
Why what drives the current after the circuit is broken?

The kinetic energy/momentum of the particles will continue to carry the particles forward, and their cumulative relative charge compared (with respect) to the surrounding plasma it runs into will also drive the movement of particles. In addition, induction from the magnetic field collapse will also drive the movement of plasma.

What was driving it in that original circuit?

It is presumably that generator in the photosphere.

What “specific” ‘thing’ was it being driven to and why?

The plasma movement around the sunspot creates relative positive and relatively negative "islands" of upwelling plasmas. That charge separation drives the basic circuit.

Again, I'm sorry for responding one idea at a time, but it's the only way I'll be able to respond today.
 
Last edited:
Tim (or anyone for that matter),

Could you please explain to me what the physical (not mathematical) difference is between what Priest is calling "magnetic diffusion", "magnetic reconnection" and standard ordinary "induction"? There are so many different terms in play here I have no idea how or if magnetic diffusion is even different from "magnetic reconnection" let alone that either of them is actually not "induction" with a silly name. How (physically) are these three names "different" at the level of physics. IMO any transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy is simply "induction'. What (physically) makes "magnetic reconnection' a "faster" process than ordinary induction?

Magnetic diffusion is the diffusion of a magnetic field through a conductor. E.g. if you have a magnetic field and put in a metal ball in it, it will take time for the magnetic field to penetrate through the ball. This is described by the (magnetic) diffusion equation (this describes the behaviour of the magnetic field itself):

[latex]
(\sigma \mu)^{-1} \nabla^2 {\bf B} = - \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}
[/latex]

Note that this is related to the break down of the frozen in condition in a non-ideal plasma.

Induction is the response of a conductor to a time varying magnetic field, which follows from Maxwell's equations:

[latex]
\nabla \times E = - \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}
[/latex]

naturally, under certain conditions this equation can be turned into the diffusion equation. This leads to Lenz' law, where a conductor tries to negate a forced change in the magnetic field that is penetrating it. An example is the moon Europa, where the time varying magnetic field of Jupiter induces a secondary magnetic field in the conducting ocean under the ice.

Magnetic reconnection is the topological change of the magnetic field through an X-point, where anti-parallel magnetic fields are pushed together and the field goes through a change and field lines from being anti-parallel turn into strongly bent field lines connecting the "upper" and the "lower" regions, creating a strong magnetic tension.

Even though there is a wee bit of math here, I think the difference between the three should be apparent.

In a general plasma, with conductivity σ, the magnetic field is not frozen in and can move with respect to the plasma (diffuse) with the diffusion time scale given by (σμ)-1, which means if you look at processes much shorter than this time scale, you can work with the frozen in condition, because before the magnetic field significantly moves from where it was in the plasma, the process has finished.

When this plasma is exposed to an time varying external magnetic field, like e.g. in a tokamak, as a conductor, it will resist this magnetic field, setting up currents, which are induced by that external field. This is a way of heating the plasma. However, it is different from diffusion, because the field is kept out of the conductor, because it is time varying. (If it no longer varies, then the diffusion kicks in again).

Neither of these two processes, however, can describe the topological changes that happens in reconnection. From an anti-parallel field

Code:
-------------------------->
-------------------------->
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<--------------------------
<--------------------------

Where we cannot assume that the field has one strength. The xxx is the current sheet between the two field directions coming out tof the plane of the paper. And this changes into:

Code:
------\             /---------->
-----\  \          /   /----------->
xxxxxx|x|xxxxxxxxxx|x|xxxxxxxxxxxx
<----/  /          \  \----------
<------/            \----------

Now, even if there were a guide field along the current sheet, there is no way you can use diffusion to reach this, nor is it possible to use induction to get to this topology of the magnetic field. (well, the drawing is not so cool, but you get the picture.)
 
The kinetic energy/momentum of the particles will continue to carry the particles forward, and their cumulative relative charge compared (with respect) to the surrounding plasma it runs into will also drive the movement of particles. In addition, induction from the magnetic field collapse will also drive the movement of plasma.

This makes no sense at all, what is the "cumulative relative charge" supposed to mean? I guess this is still your claim that a current carrying plasma is not charge neutral, which is nonsense. And that charge will drive movement????

The plasma movement around the sunspot creates relative positive and relatively negative "islands" of upwelling plasmas. That charge separation drives the basic circuit.

No, this is your misinterpretation of what Wheatfield writes about whether currents are neutralized or not. Go back to my post 994 or so, where I discuss what Wheatfield says. Currents are driven by EMFs and not by positive or negative upwellings, whatever those may be.

The more you try to explain the more you show how little (plasma) physics you know.
 
The more you try to explain the more you show how little (plasma) physics you know.
At least I knew discharges occur in a plasma and the difference between a current and a 'discharge'. :) You might try keeping the sniping to a minimum and I might actually start responding to you again. Your overall description of magnetic diffusion vs. induction was somewhat helpful although what exactly do you mean by a "frozen in" magnetic field inside of a moving plasma filament? What exactly is "frozen" about the magnetic field rather than the magnetic fields moving around the thread acting to "pinch" the current carrying thread? How is anything "frozen" in light atmospheric plasma?
 
Last edited:
Neither of these two processes, however, can describe the topological changes that happens in reconnection.

I'm interested in speed and timing between them. Tim has been contending that the reason it cannot be induction that transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is because induction is too slow. How (physically) is "magnetic reconnection' any faster than induction at transferring magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy?
 
That probably was not a good choice of terms on my part, perhaps "hydrogen/helium plasma model" would be a better term. Alfven did in fact stick to a hydrogen plasma solar model in terms of the sun's composition.
Alfven did not just "stick to a hydrogen plasma solar model in terms of the sun's composition".
Alfven in fact stuck to the standard solar model. That is why his model of solar flares starts with
  • Plasma in the photosphere.
  • A magnetic flux tube filled with plasma (a coronal loop).
He then modeled the physical situation as a theoretical circuit containing elements such as
  • a generator to represent the currents in the plasma.
  • inductors to represent the magnetic energy in the magnetic flux tube.
  • a double layer to represent the assumed formation of a double layer in the coronal loop.
 
At least I knew discharges occur in a plasma and the difference between a current and a 'discharge'.


That would, of course, be a false statement if we're talking about an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. Not only would it be a lie to claim that, but moving the goalposts is also dishonest and certainly not scientific.

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.
 
I'm interested in speed and timing between them. Tim has been contending that the reason it cannot be induction that transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is because induction is too slow. How (physically) is "magnetic reconnection' any faster than induction at transferring magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy?
Tim has not been contending this.
He has been quoting a textbook that states that induction is too slow to account for the time scale of observed solar flares.

Magnetic diffusion depends on the magnetic field being transfered from atom to atom, i.e. diffusing into the material (read tusenfem's post). Plug in the numbers for solar plasma and for a length scale of 100,000 km, you have a time scale of a million years.

The observed time scale for solar flares is 100 seconds.

Magnetic reconnection
A current problem in plasma physics is that observed reconnection happens much faster than predicted by MHD in high Lundquist number plasmas: solar flares, for example, proceed 13-14 orders of magnitude faster than a naive calculation would suggest, and several orders of magnitude faster than current theoretical models that include turbulence and kinetic effects. There are two competing theories to explain the discrepancy. One posits that the electromagnetic turbulence in the boundary layer is sufficiently strong to scatter electrons, raising the plasma's local resistivity. This would allow the magnetic flux to diffuse faster.

P.S.
What is "magnetic reconnection' and how does it differ from magnetic reconnection?
 
Last edited:
Tim (or anyone for that matter),

Could you please explain to me what the physical (not mathematical) difference is between what Priest is calling "magnetic diffusion", "magnetic reconnection" and standard ordinary "induction"? There are so many different terms in play here I have no idea how or if magnetic diffusion is even different from "magnetic reconnection" let alone that either of them is actually not "induction" with a silly name. How (physically) are these three names "different" at the level of physics. IMO any transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy is simply "induction'. What (physically) makes "magnetic reconnection' a "faster" process than ordinary induction?

Induction is the response of a conductor to a time varying magnetic field, which follows from Maxwell's equations:

[latex]
\nabla \times E = - \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}
[/latex]

naturally, under certain conditions this equation can be turned into the diffusion equation. This leads to Lenz' law, where a conductor tries to negate a forced change in the magnetic field that is penetrating it. An example is the moon Europa, where the time varying magnetic field of Jupiter induces a secondary magnetic field in the conducting ocean under the ice.

Magnetic reconnection is the topological change of the magnetic field through an X-point, where anti-parallel magnetic fields are pushed together and the field goes through a change and field lines from being anti-parallel turn into strongly bent field lines connecting the "upper" and the "lower" regions, creating a strong magnetic tension.
Without any math at all, for Michael Mozina's sake:

In an electrical circuit, a large series inductance discourages the current from changing rapidly. (The choke on your power supply discourages high frequency noise from entering your computer.)

Magnetic reconnection can create dramatic boundaries between magnetic domains, so currents in the vicinity of those boundaries can change rapidly in response to relatively small changes in the location of the boundary.

So the physical effects of induction and magnetic reconnection are pretty different. Induction discourages currents from changing rapidly. Magnetic reconnection encourages currents to change faster.

That's a grotesque oversimplification, but it's more accurate than saying induction is the same as magnetic reconnection, as Michael Mozina has been doing for hundreds of posts.
 
Last edited:
FYI, in an effort to keep this conversation moving, I'll pick away at your post today as I get time, probably a point or two at a time. That probably was not a good choice of terms on my part, perhaps "hydrogen/helium plasma model" would be a better term. Alfven did in fact stick to a hydrogen plasma solar model in terms of the sun's composition. In my mind (probably not in everyone's mind) that's a "standard" solar model, whereas the one on my website is not a standard solar model. It's a plasma layered, solid crust, cathode sun model. Both are examples however an an "electric" solar theory that would both have quite similar predictions at the surface of the photosphere with respect to the currents in the coronal loops.

Please show where Alfven explicitly asserted an "electric" solar theory, meaning that the sun was power by not fusion but electricity.

A “solid crust” has far fewer degrees of freedom than plasma. So thay are likely to have considerably different "predictions at the surface of the photosphere with respect to the currents in the coronal loops”. Why don’t you give use some of the predictions of your “solid crust” that would differ from a plasma surface and explain the specific reason for that difference.

Nothing. That 4800KM number relates to an entirely different solar model, specifically the one on my website.

Fine describe in detail this “solar model” of yours and specifically where it would be observationally different form the current astrophysical solar model.


Wheatland's work makes me believe an electric field must be involved. Do you have a better explanation for those observations?

Which observations specifically are you referring to? Your own description didn’t seem to require any energy being stored or released from electrical fields.


:blush: I meant "convection". :) Oy. It is just too hectic at work this week to do this conversation justice. :)

That’s no problem. What happens in the convection layer? Why is it called the convection layer?


Presumably that is related to the rotation/convection process in the photosphere. If however charge particles follow a magnetic field line all along the field line, that line originates in the core somewhere. Wheatland's work only suggests that the currents are powerful at the surface, it doesn't say WHERE inside the photosphere those strong currents develop. Sorry, I have to stop here for now..... Stay tuned.....

Why would if have to originate “in the core somewhere”? If it is related to a “rotation/convection process” then why not related to such a process in the, well, convection layer. Does Wheatland's work even say those current develop due to some “process in the photosphere”? If yes then give the citation.
 
Without any math at all, for Michael Mozina's sake:

In an electrical circuit, a large series inductance discourages the current from changing rapidly.

Hmmm. The coil in my car demonstrates that the current in any circuit can still change rapidly and induce currents in another circuit rather "rapidly". Are you all trying to suggest that every single bit of the energy released in the induction process all has to take place at the point of "reconnection" and ONLY the point of "reconnection"? I don't get it. I haven't read Priests paper yet, so I have no idea how ANY sort of "induction" process could possibly take "years". That doesn't even sound feasible, let alone supportable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom