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

[Tubbythin]

Yes. Alfven compares the magnetic ropes to Bennett pinches in fact. They are 'current carrying" filaments.

So if the Fe²⁰⁺ ions are in the plasma and electrons are also in the plasma...

 

[Michael Mozina]

So if the Fe²⁰⁺ ions are in the plasma and electrons are also in the plasma...

Yep, right up until the circuit erupts and extremely hot plasma (millions of degrees) in the loop get's released into a relatively cool surrounding plasma, along with all that stored magnetic field energy in one giant "discharge" of very highly energetic plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is the antithesis of legitimate science.

Actually, the antithesis of legitimate science is complete ignorance of Alfven's work and an unwillingness to find fault in any of the published papers I have provided you with. That's the antithesis of legitimate science.

 

[nvidiot]

Do you have any actual evidence of these statements Michael? You know, the "I think my idea should show up as this when we look at that and when I looked at that it showed me exactly this." etc etc

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you have any actual evidence of these statements Michael? You know, the "I think my idea should show up as this when we look at that and when I looked at that it showed me exactly this." etc etc

Absolutely:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6448934&postcount=200

 

[Reality Check]

Absolutely:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6448934&postcount=200

Absolutely not: That is a prediction that an active region ("hot spot") will produce a flare within the next 48 hours.
That is a trivial prediction since flares are expected to occur in active regions. See the thread from which this one was split ( CME's, active regions and high energy flares ).

ETA
Absolutely not an answer to the question:

Originally Posted by nvidiot
Do you have any actual evidence of these statements Michael? You know, the "I think my idea should show up as this when we look at that and when I looked at that it showed me exactly this." etc etc

I would interpret the question as:
Michael Mozina,
Has your Electric Sun model given any testable, falsifiable predictions that distinguishes it from the standard model and have been tested and found to be not false?
Please show your working.
Please cite the literature for the observations.

 

[nvidiot]

Riiiiiight. The whole quantification bit is what you're missing though. Pointing at pictures and suggesting youre going to see a particular activity is not really science. Showing how you make those predictions quantitatively is what you need to show for it to be considered "evidence".

And no, that doesnt mean tallying up how many times you get it right or wrong.

 

[tensordyne]

recap someone? plus link


Man, I have no idea exactly what is being debated about in the last 100 or so posts. What do you guys think of the following link.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051201protonstorm.htm

 

[Reality Check]

Man, I have no idea exactly what is being debated about in the last 100 or so posts. What do you guys think of the following link.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051201protonstorm.htm

Not much since it is from a crank web site that has a track record of lying to its readers.
The author is using the logical fallacy of false dichotomy and throwing out unsupported claims. Note the absence of any numbers supporting the claims. Electric fields accelerate particles - big news !

 

[tensordyne]

unsupported claims...

I am curious what is meant in the last post by RC by unsupported claims. Is it the claim that most solar flares take 24 hours to reach earth and the one they referrence took 30 minutes or something else entirely? I would think that the claim that most solar flares take 24 hours and so on could be substantiated one way or another is all. I grant though that anything beyond that would be a debateable matter of interpretation but I would disagree if any such conclusions are thought of as claims.

 

[Reality Check]

I am curious what is meant in the last post by RC by unsupported claims. Is it the claim that most solar flares take 24 hours to reach earth and the one they referrence took 30 minutes or something else entirely? I would think that the claim that most solar flares take 24 hours and so on could be substantiated one way or another is all. I grant though that anything beyond that would be a debateable matter of interpretation but I would disagree if any such conclusions are thought of as claims.

The unsupported claim is that an electric sun theory can explain the speed of the particles.

The observation that there are solar events that produce high speed protons is not in dispute. Read the 2005 article: NASA - A New Kind of Solar Storm.

ETA
tensordyne: A big problem about depending on the information in this crank web site is that the authors do not bother to update it. They ignore all of the science that has been done since 20 January 2005.
For example:
Solar Energetic Particle Event of 2005 January 20: Release Times and Possible Sources (6 December 2006) Gui-Ming Le1, Yu-Hua Tang and Yan-Ben Han

Based on cosmic ray data obtained by neutron monitors at the Earth's surface, and data on near-relativistic electrons measured by the WIND satellite, as well as on solar X-ray and radio burst data, the solar energetic particle (SEP) event of 2005 January 20 is studied. The results show that this event is a mixed event where the flare is dominant in the acceleration of the SEPs, the interplanetary shock accelerates mainly solar protons with energies below 130 MeV, while the relativistic protons are only accelerated by the solar flare. The interplanetary shock had an obvious acceleration effect on relativistic electrons with energies greater than 2 MeV. It was found that the solar release time for the relativistic protons was about 06:41 UT, while that for the near-relativistic electrons was about 06:39 UT. The latter turned out to be about 2 min later than the onset time of the interplanetary type III burst.

ETA2
Proton spectrum of the 2005 January 20 solar flare (PDF) (Feb., 2008) WANG Rui-Guang
has in the discussion section

There have been proposed various mechanisms in explaining the particle acceleration in the extreme solar events, mainly including the direct acceleration by DC electric fields in neutral current sheets, the diffusive shock acceleration at the bow shock of a CME, and the resonant wave-particle interaction (stochastic acceleration) nitiated by MHD turbulence. In fact, these acceleration processes always co-exist in one event, and it is dicult to distinguish a diffusive shock acceleration from a stochastic acceleration. However, the dominated mechanism seems to be diffusive shock acceleration in this event owing to the power-law like energy spectra as can be seen in Fig. 4.

 

[Tim Thompson]

January 20 2005 CME

What do you guys think of the following link.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051201protonstorm.htm

Not much. The idea that the January 20 2005 CME somehow challenges the standard theories of how things work on the Sun is absurd. This particular CME is no more than an outlier in the statistical distribution of CME power & speed; a rare, but not unprecedented event. A more careful analysis of this CME reveals some interesting details. See, for instance, Acceleration of Relativistic Protons During the 20 January 2005 Flare and CME by Sophie Masson, et al., Solar Physics 257(2): 305-322 (July 2009). They show that the CME is powered not by a single particle acceleration event but by multiple particle acceleration events. They argue that both shocks and coronal magnetic reconnection will explain the complex structure in time of the acceleration events.

ETA: I did not see RC's post just before mine. His papers come to similar conclusions. I second his note that these idiot websites like thunderbolts are not worth the time & space the universe wastes on them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Riiiiiight. The whole quantification bit is what you're missing though.

http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/...GH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

I'm not missing and sort of quantification, YOUR side keeps ignoring all the pretty maths. I can't get anyone to really comment much about the fact that Wheatland's work also shows that powerful currents come up and through and back into the photosphere as they *MUST* in a "circuit" oriented approach. What exactly can I do when you side ignores the quantification, the lab qualifications, the pretty pictures, the personal explanations, and actual REAL TIME PREDICTIONS? Holy Moly. What's it going to take to get your attention anyway?

Pointing at pictures and suggesting youre going to see a particular activity is not really science.

So how about Carlqvist's work? Is that "really science"?

Showing how you make those predictions quantitatively is what you need to show for it to be considered "evidence".

When I see one of you "predict" (in real time) the next "big" (M or better) class flare down to a 48 hour window from a particular active region, then you can tell me it's not "evidence" that these ideas have PRACTICAL value in solar physics. Right now I see a lot of blowing of smoke, and nobody willing to come close to make a similar successful prediction about a major flare.

And no, that doesnt mean tallying up how many times you get it right or wrong.

Hell, I'd settle for seeing your side even do it *ONCE*.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm not missing and sort of quantification, YOUR side keeps ignoring all the pretty maths. I can't get anyone to really comment much about the fact that Wheatland's work also shows that powerful currents come up and through and back into the photosphere as they *MUST* in a "circuit" oriented approach. What exactly can I do when you side ignores the quantification, the lab qualifications, the pretty pictures, the personal explanations, and actual REAL TIME PREDICTIONS? Holy Moly. What's it going to take to get your attention anyway?

Maybe quantitatively and objectively explain how solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. It has already been mentioned many times that linking to other people's work without demonstrating even a rudimentary understanding of that work is not an explanation. It's a dishonest attempt to pass the buck, to avoid explaining the claims. The unqualified guessing, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, deflecting the burden of proof, and lying we've seen so far are not explanations, no matter how desperately the electric Sun adherents might like them to be.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm not missing and sort of quantification, YOUR side keeps ignoring all the pretty maths.

Hilarious.

Be specific, Michael Mozina. Which specific equations do you think we're ignoring, and why do you think those specific equations are important?

It seems to me you're the one who's been running away from math. For example:

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]

You never responded to those equations in any way.

Your response to my radically dumbed-down version of tusenfem's explanation was to post nonsense proving you don't understand the purpose of the old-fashioned ignition coil you chose as your example.

Here's a simple test to see who's been ignoring the math here: What does the ∇² mean in tusenfem's first equation?

If that's too hard for you, we can turn it into a multiple choice question:

A. It stands for the Lagrangian operator.
B. It stands for the Laplacian operator.
C. It stands for the curl of a curl.
D. It stands for the gradient of a gradient.
E. It stands for the divergence of a gradient.

We'll be looking forward to your guess.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Careful! As a layman, I was able to look it up without really understanding its meaning.

LINK
Laplacian of a scalar field is defined as the divergence of the gradient

 

[Michael Mozina]

Maybe quantitatively and objectively explain how solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

Been there done that with Dungey's work. Denial is so darn ugly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hilarious.

Be specific, Michael Mozina. Which specific equations do you think we're ignoring, and why do you think those specific equations are important?

It seems to me you're the one who's been running away from math. For example:

You never responded to those equations in any way.

Your response to my radically dumbed-down version of tusenfem's explanation was to post nonsense proving you don't understand the purpose of the old-fashioned ignition coil you chose as your example.

Here's a simple test to see who's been ignoring the math here: What does the ∇² mean in tusenfem's first equation?

If that's too hard for you, we can turn it into a multiple choice question:

A. It stands for the Lagrangian operator.
B. It stands for the Laplacian operator.
C. It stands for the curl of a curl.
D. It stands for the gradient of a gradient.
E. It stands for the divergence of a gradient.

We'll be looking forward to your guess.

I'm still looking for a PDF of the paper t recommended. Anyone got a link? I'd really like to see how they justify these figures before I comment on this stuff.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Without components, values and the related physics your "circuit oriented approach" has no real advantage over simple and baseless speculation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

You might take a look at this paper. One of the significant advantage a circuit approach has over "reconnection" is that it allows for a *SINGLE* loop to explode, even *WITHOUT* a reconnection event.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Careful! As a layman, I was able to look it up without really understanding its meaning.

LINK
Laplacian of a scalar field is defined as the divergence of the gradient

No hints, please.

I will say this, however: My question wasn't quite as trivial as it looks. Either tusenfem's equation contains a typo, or he was using a notational convention with which I am not familiar. With either possibility, there are two ways to change the equation so it will be correct and use standard notation.