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

[tusenfem]

Right. For *MONTHS* you and the gang here *REFUSED* to accept that discharges occur in plasmas, and a discharge is not the same as a simple "current". You also simply let stuff like this slide, without a single word to correct him with all that knowledge you claim to posses about plasma physics and astrophysics:

There is nothing wrong with what Tim has written. Please spell out specifically what Tim has incorrectly written down. And the explain in detail please how it should be actually.

I still adhere to the modern day definition of discharge and not that of the late 60, in that case a disch ah never mind. I gave in to you, I did not care anymore and do not care anymore to go into this pointless discussion again

Oy Vey. "Discharges in plasma? What discharges? Circuits? What circuits? Induction? What induction?" This place is simply absurd. None of the critics are interested in an honest conversation about plasma physics. It's all about attacking the individual, and not a single one of you is interested in "science". The Man has made the last few days enjoyable for me for a change, but alas, I'm so bored here I could scream. My life is *WAY* to busy to waste my breath arguing about stupid things like a missing - sign.

This was not me, but anywhoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Have you spend even a few minutes actually reading and trying to understand all the papers that I have actually discussed? I have gone through the Onel & Mann circuit paper, I have discussed various Carlqvist papers, I have discussed the Wheatfield paper (Heck I have a whole thread about Birkelan's writings). When are you actually going to come up with something significant, something that shows that you actually understand a wee bit of plasma physics, something that shows that you actually are putting in some effort to come to something that sometime may resemble somthing like a model. But no, what we get is non-sequiturs like: Alfven called it a bennet current with a birkeland pinch in a discharging double layer, or whatever.

What is tiresome is that you *REFUSE* to explain ANYTHING to your cohorts, or correct them when they make any mistakes. Instead you engage in the exact same personal attack nonsense as the rest of them, and ignore every stupid statement made by your side for MONTHS.

Excuse me???????? Even after you said that you were not going to answer any questions of mine, you kept on asking me questions, and stupid me, I even answered those questions, even though i had decided to actually ignore you.

I don't care a buckeload of donkey manure what other people write, whether "on my side" or "on your side". I have given you posts and posts of explanations, definitions, paper discussions, heck I even started trying to set up a circuit model that may or may not be able to describe what you think circuit reconnection is.

But that latter came too close to home, did it not, it was like you suddenly were faced with the problem that your faith was going to be tested, so you decided to have a 20 page discussion about how exactly a discharge is supposed to be defined, instead of working on making the circuit run.

Whenever it gets really interesting and scientific you come with a diversion technique like: "Yes, this may be the correct way to go, but .... maybe we should come to an agreement about what the meaning of the word is is." And there goes everything down the drain, another 10 pages of useless, pointless discussion.

I think by now Tim has figured out that this whole conversation has been a red herring, and it's probably related to the fact that none of you have really read the paper, or I wouldn't be hearing ridiculous statements like "Induction? What induction?".

I have read ALL the papers you linked to and many of them I have actually commented on. Please go through all of the XXX pages of this thread and write down all the posts in which I discuss the papers that you have brought up. Then also write down all the posts in which you discuss the papers in a similar way (you will find none in this list).

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is about magnetic dissipation but as tusenfem has pointed out the same problem happens with induction.

Could you point out where he did that for me RC?

 

[GeeMack]

Oy Vey. "Discharges in plasma? What discharges? Circuits? What circuits? Induction? What induction?" This place is simply absurd. None of the critics are interested in an honest conversation about plasma physics. It's all about attacking the individual, and not a single one of you is interested in "science". The Man has made the last few days enjoyable for me for a change, but alas, I'm so bored here I could scream. My life is *WAY* to busy to waste my breath arguing about stupid things like a missing - sign.

I'm sure anyone purchasing software for business accounting would be pleased to know the author or support staff of that software was this nonchalant about mathematical accuracy. Missing minus sign? It's just a stupid thing!

And that, in a nutshell, flushes any electric Sun adherents' claims about quantitative concerns right down the toilet. Argument failed beyond redemption.

​

 

[Michael Mozina]

And that, in a nutshell, flushes any electric Sun adherents' claims about quantitative concerns right down the toilet. Argument failed beyond redemption.

Thus spoke the poster boy for all EU haters: "Discharges in plasma? What discharges?". Oy Vey.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6779664&postcount=2193

 

[tusenfem]

Could you point out where he did that for me RC?

How about post 2452, where I once more explain diffusion and induction time scales for you?

How about doing something constructive for a change? Not fight about who has the biggest with Gee Mack.

Have you read the free Yamada et al. (2010) paper already about reconnection? It's only like 64 pages (oy vey!)

 

[Michael Mozina]

How about post 2452, where I once more explain diffusion and induction time scales for you?

So explain to me how two of Carlqvist's "circuits" come into close proximity, and that somehow induction responses in both circuits is "too slow" to describe the intersection of *MOVING CURRENTS*?

Have you read the free Yamada et al. (2010) paper already about reconnection? It's only like 64 pages (oy vey!)

I have yet to see any of you demonstrate that "discharge" in a plasma takes "years". That's pure baloney. All I asked for was ONE free paper/link where I could see how you came up with such numbers related to *INDUCTION*, because that how magnetic field energy is transferred to particle kinetic energy in a plasma. How many days did it take?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI t,

In case you haven't noticed, the circuit oriented approach doesn't work like your 'magnetic reconnection" models. You're going to have to explain your problem with the release of energy via *INDUCTION* (not diffusion) in timescales of SECONDS as Alfven and Carlqvist describe them. You can't use *YOUR* models and apply them to CARLQVIST'S work. You have to begin with HIS work, two *CIRCUITS* in close proximity, and explain why you believe "induction" is too slow between two "circuits" to explain flare events.

 

[tusenfem]

FYI t,

In case you haven't noticed, the circuit oriented approach doesn't work like your 'magnetic reconnection" models. You're going to have to explain your problem with the release of energy via *INDUCTION* (not diffusion) in timescales of SECONDS as Alfven and Carlqvist describe them. You can't use *YOUR* models and apply them to CARLQVIST'S work. You have to begin with HIS work, two *CIRCUITS* in close proximity, and explain why you believe "induction" is too slow between two "circuits" to explain flare events.

Sure, I am willing to once more discuss Carlqvist's papers.
Why don't you start off with explaining exactly how it works in Per's papers.
I would rather like to know which two circuits you mean in his work, as there is the unwinding flux tube with a double layer at one side, and there is the current limitation paper at the other side.
So, just that I don't get confused, if you could just give me a little start-off I am sure to be up to speed with you in no time and join your scientific discussion of Carlqvist's papers.

Can't wait, this is going to be great!

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8BZyiggEAE

Actually, I want you to explain to me why you think "discharges" take years to occur in a plasma. Notice the timeline as "discharges" form in the chamber?

 

[tusenfem]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8BZyiggEAE

Actually, I want you to explain to me why you think "discharges" take years to occur in a plasma. Notice the timeline as "discharges" form in the chamber?

Just one more of your misunderstandings with respect to plasma physics. I, nor Tim nor W.D. nor RC has ever made such a claim.

Read and try to understand post 2452.
There are, luckily, processes in plasmas that go faster that the diffusion time or the induction time. However, as you want to reduce every "discharge" to diffusion or induction (which is ridiculous) you are having a problem.

Please read Carlqvist, read Alfven, and then explain to me the time scales that they are using. Is Carlqvist writing about the induction time, and if yes, does he give a value for that, and in relation to what kind of process does he discuss this? Is Carlqvist writing about diffusion, and if yes, does he give a time scale for diffusion and for what kind of process is diffusion important for Carlqvist?

 

[Reality Check]

Could you point out where he did that for me RC?

Try reading the posts MM:

Still wrong tootsie: No one (except you) is claiming that the diffusion equation is falsifying Carlqvist's work. As tusenfem states Carlqvist's model uses induction not magnetic diffusion.
ETA: If you read tusenfem's posts (in post 1144 and in post 2263) on Carlqvist's work then you will see that Carlqvist's work is not false for the knowldege of the time. It is now simplistic and out of date.

 

[Reality Check]

I am curious about something RC wrote above, lightning is not a plasma? From what I have read (please do not ask me for sources because I am at a loss to remember where)plasmas have three modes each with their own characteristic voltage versus resistance characteristics that are highly nonlinear: dark, glow and arc (aka, like lightning I would suppose), or are these modes just made up parts of some EU/PC thing according to RC, or is their another relevant but perhaps subtle point I am missing?

Wow - you really have a bad memory . This is at least the second post where you are "at a loss to remember".
You obviously do not know about Wikipedia.

The "subtle point" you are missing is that lightning is an electrical discharge in air. Air is not a plasma.
Lightning does ionize the air. That ionized air may be in the plasma state or not.

I
Which I imagine also brings up another point, if the matter inside of a lightning bolt is not in a plasma state, what is the name of the state it is in if it has a name? Just curious.

Gas.

 

[The Man]

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.

Why don’t you take a look at it and tell us in your own words exactly how and why that “circuit approach” allows a “*SINGLE* loop to explode, even *WITHOUT* a reconnection event”.

Well, I guess this was already addressed before.

I really should make an excell sheet to keep track of all the papers that I have already discussed here on JREF. This one is amongst them, and I cannot find it. It would be nice tho if MM would show his insight into this paper.

Naturally in a circuit description you don't have to worry about the real physical processes, it is just V, R, L, C, I in serial or parallel and then it can go kaboom.

Yep, I guess any approach that doesn’t actually deal with the physics of the processes simply “allows a “*SINGLE* loop to explode”.

The paper allows for the possibility of magnetic reconnection as I pointed out on 14 January 2010 (a whole year ago )


(emphasis added)
ETA: Note that there has to be some form of "magnetic connection between two oppositely charged areas through the corona" before the author's mechanism can work.

The significant advantage a circuit approach has over MHD (not just magnetic reconnection) is that it is easy to calculate the gross properties of the system, e.g. the total energy release.
The significant disadvantage a circuit approach has over MHD (not just magnetic reconnection) is that it cannot model the details.

Very well put Reality Check (evidently again), and interesting that this paper Michael Mozina claims “allows for a *SINGLE* loop to explode, even *WITHOUT* a reconnection event” instead explicitly refers to a “magnetic connection between two oppositely charged areas through the corona, possibly as a result of magnetic reconnection..” to “close the electric circuit”.

Naturally in a circuit description you don't have to worry about the real physical processes, it is just V, R, L, C, I in serial or parallel and then it can go kaboom.

And that is probably the single most important advantage circuit theory has over standard theory IMO.

The problem is Michael that it is a disadvantage when actually discussing the real physical processes involved. Again without even just those V, R, L, C, I values in serial or parallel your “circuit theory” has no advantage over just baseless speculation.

 

[tensordyne]

bad memory

Wow - you really have a bad memory . This is at least the second post where you are "at a loss to remember".
You obviously do not know about Wikipedia.

The "subtle point" you are missing is that lightning is an electrical discharge in air. Air is not a plasma.
Lightning does ionize the air. That ionized air may be in the plasma state or not.


Gas.

2nd post? I made one post asking what lightning was as per plasma or not, so far as I can find and did not respond as yet to what I can tell of is the first post asking this question. I read your post and after that in fact I did read the wiki article entry on lightning (can't prove that to you one way or the other but I did all the same...), unless I am missing something else. Really, I did not understand where this original post is that asked the same question(s).

I do notice though that the question of what state of matter, if it is a state at all, that lightning would then have to be in, was answered. There is a website calling it the fifth state of matter but I am sure that RC would consider such a site quackish, so I only bring it up for completeness.

As for the contention that plasmas are not in dark/glow/arc but should instead only be considered as something called an electrical discharge, I am still debating the relevant merits of each position with myself. On the one hand, lightning is a massive flow of electrons (hence the term electrical discharge sounds like a pretty good term to use to describe the situation), of which I have no doubts. On the other hand, lightning ionizes the air around this massive surge so that what you see of lightning is the highly ionized plasma sheathed around the surge of electrons. The electrons in the sheath of plasma are different in essence from the electrons flowing down the lightning bolts in that they are disordered, as best as I understand the situation. No doubt a fulminologist would have much more to say on the matter, but that is that.

Really though, get off my back RC, the best likely response to a question you can get here on these forums is the one you got, which is no response, meaning you did affect my thinking on the matter, otherwise I would have gone on to debate you about the matter further, and I didn't. So aside from some odd possibility that I asked the same question in the past, for which I am infintely sorry about (hope you can sense the sarcasm in that), I do not see the point in bringing this up again (well, maybe now that I have said what I have said about lightning above, but not before).

While I am at it, RC you do generally a good job of following rule 0. be polite and so on. I have to say though that most everyone else does not. Plus, I am tired of everyone on this forum calling each other liars. Just say they are freaking wrong and leave it at that. Saying someone is a liar implies not just that they are wrong but that they are malicious, a judgement call. Stick to the facts and leave morality out of scientific discussions. This place is like reading the overheated testosterone laden remarks of a bunch of people at a chess club or something, it is nauseating at times. Oh well, I am not going to change things just because I complain a little.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Oh ffs can everyone in this discussion just get a life and stop the relentless semantic based arguments predicated on "currents pwn magnetism" or "magnetics pwn currents" or "discharge means charge separation breakdown" vs "discharge means vaginal discharge" arguments. Its literally driving me insane as half the time both sides are right, they are just being extremely pedantic over the terminology used (ej or bu) rather than fully elaborating on the actual PHYSICALLY PROVABLY TESTABLE phenomenon that underlie aforementioned terms.

 

[Zeuzzz]

wow i can be a real tit when im drinking

 

[tensordyne]

just the models

Hey Zeuzzz, nice to see you posting again. Thanks again for the links you sent me in pm that one time.

RC, I scoured the internet and noticed that on the wikipedia page covering plasma(physics) they have a table listing lightning as a common form of terrestial plasma! So I am not saying you are right or wrong because of this, but I thought you might be interested to know this all the same. I looked for a websource that you(RC) might normally find acceptable that made any statements about plasma having three principle modes of dark/glow/arc and as yet have not found them. The wikipedia entry on plasma(physics) seems to sway in favor of the dark/glow/arc modes as being plasmas though since it lists a neon sign as a plasma, as well as lightning. If the ionosphere is included as a plasma that would cover the three modes I would suppose.

On a personal note, I am more on the fence about plasma cosmology versus big bang cosmology then I was before. On the one hand plasma cosmology seems like the much more sensible theory because it does not introduce unverified hypotheses such as dark matter/energy (sorry RC but I do not think the signature refference to the two colliding galaxies as proof of DM, it is much more likely in my estimation (agreeing with Eric Lerner) that the part in the middle that was left behind was a huge number of red dwarf stars, but by all means let me know why that might not make sense). On the other hand, I whish I knew much more about Big Bang Cosmology and conventional astronomical theories. To me it seems like even if the Big Bang ideas are wrong, or the concensus ideas behind commets, the sun and so are too, that does not mean necessarily that GR is wrong, it would just mean that maybe some people have not applied GR correctly or have not taken into consideration all the relevant facts. That is my biggest gripe against the lay attacks I see on for instance youtube about the Big Bang in favor of PC/EU ideas.

I remember there is an entry by RC in the past where plasma as a cosmic or even a galactic actor was dismissed because the debye length for even the most conservative case is too small. Something about that logic did not ring true to me though. Wonder if one of you wizards can look it up so I can get more specific.

I think perhaps a listing of basic points in contention would be useful. Just the points and what each model advocates would be nice perhaps. Take it easy!

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
On a personal note, I am more on the fence about plasma cosmology versus big bang cosmology then I was before. On the one hand plasma cosmology seems like the much more sensible theory because it does not introduce unverified hypotheses such as dark matter/energy (sorry RC but I do not think the signature refference to the two colliding galaxies as proof of DM, it is much more likely in my estimation (agreeing with Eric Lerner) that the part in the middle that was left behind was a huge number of red dwarf stars, but by all means let me know why that might not make sense). On the other hand, I whish I knew much more about Big Bang Cosmology and conventional astronomical theories. To me it seems like even if the Big Bang ideas are wrong, or the concensus ideas behind commets, the sun and so are too, that does not mean necessarily that GR is wrong, it would just mean that maybe some people have not applied GR correctly or have not taken into consideration all the relevant facts. That is my biggest gripe against the lay attacks I see on for instance youtube about the Big Bang in favor of PC/EU ideas.

...

Don't you fine it perplexing that thousands of dedicated physicists, astronomers and cosmologists throughout the world embrace the basic elements of the mainstream model, while those who embrace EU theories are computer programmers, electrical engineers, and an assortment of occupations having little to do with real physics? As a layman with respect to this area, I find it logical to go with those who have dedicated themselves to decades of serious study as opposed to the dilettantes who barely understand the mainstream theories they so passionately criticize. Furthermore, as a retired mathematician, I find it quite appalling that these so called EU specialists know and understand so little mathematics, which is the fundamental tool of communication and analysis for physics.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I have noted references in this thread made to "EU haters."
The author of that expression is very mistaken in his belief that anyone hates someone who believes in EU dogma or anyone actually hates EU dogma itself. What is true, however, is that people have a disdain for EU believers and EU theory. This disdain results in a strong disrespect to the point of finding proponents of EU theories naive, quite silly and a laughing stock.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Carlqvist 1969

Reference: Current Limitations and Solar Flares
P. Carlqvist, Solar physics 7(3): 377-392, June 1969.

At this point, I have no real idea what Mozina's point is suppose to be in referring to this paper, or what he thinks it is supposed to prove. Maybe it is buried in some post pages and ages ago, I don't know. So let me just tell you what I think and let it go from there. I will simply quote a specific passage from Carlqvist, which I think strikes to the heart of the paper.

Quoted from P. Carlqvist, "Current limitations and solar flares", Solar physics 7(3): 377-392, June 1969, page 385, section 8, "Release of the Stored Energy"

Begin quote

"We have found that an energy as large as that of a flare can be stored in the twisted magnetic field of a current filament passing through the solar atmosphere. If the current density of the filament becomes sufficiently large an instability may occur, which can give rise to a high-impedance region in the filament. Since the current has to pass the potential drop of the region U_A the stored magnetic energy is released at the rate ~U_AI. The magnetic energy is then transformed into kinetic energy of the ions and electrons accelerated in the region. When the stored magnetic energy becomes dissipated the filamentary current decreases. The helical magnetic-field lines inside the filament must then be 'twisted back' and straightened."

"If the time required for the 'twist-back' of the magnetic field lines (and for the energy release) is short for the time needed for the magnetic field lines to diffuse through the filamentary plasma, the magnetic field lines can be considered 'frozen' into the plasma during the whole phase of energy release. The magnetic field will then force the filamentary plasma to rotate."

"The time constant of the diffusion for a magnetic field in a plasma of conductivity σ and with a characteristic length l_c is t_d ~ μ₀σl_c² (see, e.g., Cowling, 1957). Putting l_c equal to the radius of the filament r₀ ~ 10⁵ m and σ >~ 10 S m^-1 (valid for the chromosphere and the corona) we obtain t_d >~ 10⁵ sec. Thus the time constant for diffusion t_d seems to be much longer than the time required for the energy release (10² - 10³ sec). Consequently the energy release should be intimately coupled with a rotational motion of the filamentary plasma."

"Because of the momentum of inertia of the filamentary plasma the velocity of propagation of the rotational motion along the filament is limited to the hydromagnetic velocity V = (V'^-2 + c^-2)^1/2, where V' = B/(μ₀ρ)^1/2 and ρ is the mass density. Hence, the minimum time of release for the whole stored energy is given by the time t_t needed for a hydromagnetic signal to move from the high-impedance region to the roots of the filament anchored in the deep layers of the solar atmosphere."

End Quote
​

These 4 paragraphs from Carlqvist make clear what hs is doing. The "high-impedance" region in the first paragraph is a double layer. The double layer does not ever "explode" and in fact does not even power the flare at all. The role of the double layer is to provide a potential drop which allows the magnetic field to unwind. The unwinding of the magnetic field is what imparts energy to the flare. But this process is certainly not induction, or anything like induction. It works because the magnetic field freezes to the plasma so that when the magnetic field unwinds, it drags the plasma forcibly along for the ride. So the flare is energized because a double layer forms and allows the frozen flux to power the flare; without either the double layer or the frozen flux approximation, the flare powering mechanism described here by Carlqvist would never work.

Note that induction is not involved in the process. Induction could not have been involved in the process, as Carlqvist makes clear, by showing the the diffusion time scale is much longer than the flare time scale (the same conclusion I have repeatedly posted for Priest & Forbes, 2000). Induction would require the field to diffuse through the plasma.

Important points in this paper:

1. Flares are not powered by exploding double layers.
2. However, the formation of a double layer is critical to the flare process.
3. The frozen flux approximation is also critical to the flare process.
4. Induction is not involved in the flare process.
5. The process involves one filament alone, not multiple combining filaments.

Let the comments (and corrections of there are any) begin.