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

[Michael Mozina]

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.

If you think you have disrespect for me and my naivete, you should see how I view haters like yourself that haven't even read the materials in question, won't comment on the materials in question, and add absolutely nothing of scientific value to the discussions. Your sole purpose in this thread seems to be to insult individuals, not to discuss the science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

One of the key revelations for me that has come out of this conversation is the fact that not a single one of you appreciates the presence of those "currents" in those "circuits" and the fact that they can seek another (less resistant) path through the plasma at any point in the process, just like that tokamac video I showed you. You all seem to be under the impression that the magnetic field had to release *ALL* the energy, by itself. Nothing could be further from the truth!

 

[Perpetual Student]

If you think you have disrespect for me and my naivete, you should see how I view haters like yourself that haven't even read the materials in question, won't comment on the materials in question, and add absolutely nothing of scientific value to the discussions.

Reading materials that are beyond one's comprehension does not impart knowledge and understanding. One must first master real physics and mathematics before branching out into a specialty like solar physics or cosmology. I have yet to see any EU proponent who has demonstrated an understanding of physics.

Your sole purpose in this thread seems to be to insult individuals, not to discuss the science.

Sadly, all my attempts to discuss real science here have been thwarted by the slight of hand techniques so eloquently described by:

Originally Posted by GeeMack
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.

Every time I have attempted to engage an EU proponent in a dialog, the attempt disintegrates into an exchange so very well outlined above by GeeMack.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Reading materials that are beyond one's comprehension does not impart knowledge and understanding. One must first master real physics and mathematics before branching out into a specialty like solar physics or cosmology. I have yet to see any EU proponent who has demonstrated an understanding of physics.

Well, it's time for you to demonstrate how it SHOULD be done. I am sufficiently convinced that both t and TT are HIGHLY engaged in this subject at a "scientific" level. Both of them have commented on the relevant papers presented, and both of them are discussing the papers I have presented. RC has also commented on some of the relevant papers and materials and IMO is also engaged in the conversation at the level of physics and science. I have yet however to see you personally comment on any of Alfven's work, specifically the work that is directly related to this topic. I would like to see you "show us how it's supposed to be done". Please explain the energy release mechanism described in Alfven's double layer paper.

Sadly, all my attempts to discuss real science here have been thwarted by the slight of hand techniques so eloquently described by:

Every time I have attempted to engage an EU proponent in a dialog, the attempt disintegrates into an exchange so very well outlined above by GeeMack.

Sadly your hero is in stanch denial of the fact that "discharges" can and regularly do occur in a "plasma.". I can't even get him to comment on Peratt's "release of stored energy" aspect in terms of what the term "discharge" even means. Evasion seems to be a key element in hater behavior from what I've observed. Will you finally now comment on Alfven's double layer paper, and specifically how the energy is released according to Alfven?

 

[GeeMack]

Well, it's time for you to demonstrate how it SHOULD be done. I am sufficiently convinced that both t and TT are HIGHLY engaged in this subject at a "scientific" level. Both of them have commented on the relevant papers presented, and both of them are discussing the papers I have presented. RC has also commented on some of the relevant papers and materials and IMO is also engaged in the conversation at the level of physics and science.

And all of them have demonstrated that the electric Sun nutters don't actually understand what they're babbling about. All of them have demonstrated using their own expertise, not pulled from the behind guessing, that none of the alleged support for the cockamamie claims is actually any support at all. All of them have quantitatively and objectively critiqued the material and found it wholly lacking in any support for the claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. And all the while, after over 2500 posts in this thread, after over 2500 opportunities for the electric Sun adherents to put their physics where their mouth is, we wait for the supporters of that claim to offer even a shred of quantitative objective evidence that it is even plausible, much less true.

 

[Perpetual Student]

My experience has been that it is not possible to engage EU proponents in a genuine scientific discussion since they have little knowledge about and understanding of real physics and they lack the mathematical training to make an attempt to learn any real physics. It would be like trying to engage a toddler in a serious scientific discussion.
When those who do have genuine knowledge in the area discussed here have attempted to engage EU proponents, the EU proponents invariably demonstrate they do not comprehend and are unwilling to learn.
It has been my experience that reading papers written by discredited authors (that the EU proponents only pretend to understand) is a waste of time. When I have attempted to read such papers and engage in a dialog, the EU proponents invariably slide back into the slight-of-hand mode so well described by GeeMack above.

 

[tusenfem]

One of the key revelations for me that has come out of this conversation is the fact that not a single one of you appreciates the presence of those "currents" in those "circuits" and the fact that they can seek another (less resistant) path through the plasma at any point in the process, just like that tokamac video I showed you. You all seem to be under the impression that the magnetic field had to release *ALL* the energy, by itself. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Yeah, I guess that shows in the papers I publish which specifically deal with currents in space plasmas like: Magnetotail dipolarization and associated current systems observed by Cluster and Double Star.

One of the observations I have to make over the years dealing with MM is that you never can expect a real scientific discussion from MM. For one, he does not understand the physics, and thus will hide behind appropriate or not quotes from papers, if he quotes them at all and not just say "the answer is in this paper (somewhere)." On the other hand, when MM does go into a "scientific discussion" it usually gets short circuited very fast (usually less than one page) as it either gets to close to finding out reality, or it gets too close in showing that he (see number one) does not understand even the basics of the physics in the papers which he wants to discuss.

A very good example is my start of "circuit reconnection" and then that got short circuited because I was putting in my ideas and I should (apparently) only use Calrqvist's ideas about circuits (like there is any difference). So nothing happened anymore, because MM, as expected, did not bother to give an explanation of what I was supposed to do, again it was look at Carlqvist paper (not even mentioning anymore which of the three he had quoted before one should look at) and that is that.

Now, what exactly did the tokamak youtube show? It showed the lightening up of the plasma, how and what was shown was not explained. Maybe an explanation by MM of what we were seeing would have been nice? But no.

And if MM would have actually read my comments on the Foukal & Hinata paper, then he would have seen that I do not expect "that the magnetic field had to release *ALL* the energy, by itself." whatever that is supposed to mean. It is just stated that the energy in the plasma is stored in the magnetic field.

However, maybe after another 30 pages in this thread, MM might finally start to write down what he thinks actually is happening and work through the reasoning behind it. Just hiding behind a few old papers does not do anything, unless you can describe in your own words how that paper is important. That is something that is learned in school, it is called comprehensive reading.

 

[Michael Mozina]

My experience has been that it is not possible to engage EU proponents in a genuine scientific discussion since they have little knowledge about and understanding of real physics and they lack the mathematical training to make an attempt to learn any real physics.

I have yet to see you even *TRY* to discuss Alfven's work! When confronted with his double layer paper, you scurry away, and continue to hurl personal insults from the peanut gallery.

It would be like trying to engage a toddler in a serious scientific discussion.

Case in point. Villainize the opposition by comparing them to a toddler. Do whatever it takes to avoid Alven's double layer paper at all costs.

When those who do have genuine knowledge in the area discussed here have attempted to engage EU proponents, the EU proponents invariably demonstrate they do not comprehend and are unwilling to learn.

Teach me. Teach me how Alfven's paper should be understood. How do you know if you never try PS?

It has been my experience that reading papers written by discredited authors (that the EU proponents only pretend to understand) is a waste of time.

How will you know if that is true if you never actually try, at least in my case? How long have I asked you now to comment on Alfven's work?

When I have attempted to read such papers and engage in a dialog, the EU proponents invariably slide back into the slight-of-hand mode so well described by GeeMack above.

Psst. Your hero is *STILL* in denial that 'discharges' occur in plasma, even after I posted that Tokamak video. Wake up and smell the coffee. He knows nothing whatsoever about plasma physics, and until you take some time to comment on Alfven's double layer paper I doubt you do either.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And all of them have demonstrated that the electric Sun nutters don't actually understand what they're babbling about. All of them have demonstrated using their own expertise, not pulled from the behind guessing,.....

That's hysterical coming from the guy that *REFUSES* to provide a published definition of a discharge that supports ANYTHING they've said. Irony overload.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Carlqvist 1969 redux

From the bottom of the last page, where it might have been overlooked ...

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.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Alfven's opinions are to cosmology as Linus Pauling's are to vitamin C.
When pursuing knowledge about cosmology or vitamins, I rely on modern science based sources, not the musings of obsolete and discredited Nobel prize winners.
I have not (nor do I have any intention ever to) read Pauling's writings about vitamin C.

 

[GeeMack]

I have yet to see you even *TRY* to discuss Alfven's work! When confronted with his double layer paper, you scurry away, and continue to hurl personal insults from the peanut gallery.

Case in point. Villainize the opposition by comparing them to a toddler. Do whatever it takes to avoid Alven's double layer paper at all costs.

Teach me. Teach me how Alfven's paper should be understood. How do you know if you never try PS?

How will you know if that is true if you never actually try, at least in my case? How long have I asked you now to comment on Alfven's work?

Psst. Your hero is *STILL* in denial that 'discharges' occur in plasma, even after I posted that Tokamak video. Wake up and smell the coffee. He knows nothing whatsoever about plasma physics, and until you take some time to comment on Alfven's double layer paper I doubt you do either.

Tim Thompson, tusenfem, and several other qualified, sane, intelligent people here and on the BAUT Forum, among others, have discussed Alfvén's work. At length. It has been found wholly lacking in any scientific legitimacy as it relates to the electric Sun idiocy. It does not support the silly electric Sun claims.

All this trying to badger people into discussing Alfvén's work, after it has already been done dozens of times, shows that this isn't about the correctness or supportability of the claims. It's about a despicable strategy of manipulating people into talking all sciency in hopes of validating the legitimacy of the crazy claims.

News flash: The crackpot claims made so far aren't scientifically legitimate. All the scientific sounding words strung together into sciency gibberish will not make it so. And the juvenile attacks on people taunting them to indulge the fantasy is just a dishonest attempt to validate the nonsense and to deflect the burden of proof. It's a sham, a fraud. It's been busted a thousand times. And it won't work again the next time some wacky crank tries it.

This is as good an assessment of the current state of this discussion as any...

One of the observations I have to make over the years dealing with MM is that you never can expect a real scientific discussion from MM. For one, he does not understand the physics, and thus will hide behind appropriate or not quotes from papers, if he quotes them at all and not just say "the answer is in this paper (somewhere)." On the other hand, when MM does go into a "scientific discussion" it usually gets short circuited very fast (usually less than one page) as it either gets to close to finding out reality, or it gets too close in showing that he (see number one) does not understand even the basics of the physics in the papers which he wants to discuss.

Alfvén has been discussed and nobody has found his material to be convincing support for the electric Sun position. Birkeland's material has been discussed and found to be equally lacking in support. Dungey doesn't support it. Bruce doesn't support it. Carlqvist doesn't. Bahcall, Bethe, Ulrich, deGrasse Tyson, all the contemporary physicists and astrophysicists whose work the crackpots intentionally ignore, none of them support the claim that...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

So start somewhere else with something that hasn't been tried yet. Develop a legitimately scientific model, quantitative and objective, properly researched, not conflicting with valid physics, and described with clear understandable terminology, not some made up jargon with dishonestly redefined and cherry picked terms, but with the contemporary terminology of the field. Oh, and thoroughly mathematically supported, too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One of the observations I have to make over the years dealing with MM is that you never can expect a real scientific discussion from MM. For one, he does not understand the physics, and thus will hide behind appropriate or not quotes from papers, if he quotes them at all and not just say "the answer is in this paper (somewhere)."

Trying to have a "scientific" conversation on this forum related to Alfven's work, would be like *intentionally* seeking out *THE* single most closed minded set of "creationists" on some religious website to discuss evolutionary theory.

Mind you, it can't just be *any* old religious website, it would have to be a really "fundy" website where the crowd is extremely hostile to anything that deviates from creationism. The "haters" would have to call me, or compare me to a "dishonest" evil lying spawn of satan every single day, in fact in every single post. They'd have to ridicule me as an individual every single day, avoiding the subject at all costs.

They'd also have to be *COMPLETELY* ignorant of physics. They'd have to fight over the very *TERMS* like "evolution" and deny that there even *IS* such a term, or that DNA mutations are even *POSSIBLE*! That's how *IRRATIONAL* the crowd would have to be in order to even *COMPETE* with the ridiculous behaviors that go on here.

"Discharge? What discharge?" Good grief. "Science? What science?"

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Ya, I guess at this point it's buried so deep, it's absurd.

Essentially it was originally related to this post you made earlier and my response:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6789862&postcount=2332
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6791146&postcount=2342

It's related to this definition of an electrical discharge by Peratt:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6792683&postcount=2361

It's also related to my statement that a flare *is* an electrical discharge.

*ORIGINALLY* I cited Carqvist's work as an example of a paper that demonstrates the "circuit" oriented approach to releasing "stored energy". Since then however it's morphed into an entirely different conversation evidently.

 

[Michael Mozina]

News flash: The crackpot claims made so far aren't scientifically legitimate.

Yep, just like this gigantic whopper of a scientific lie:

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

A discharge cannot occur within a conductor.

 

[GeeMack]

Trying to have a "scientific" conversation on this forum related to Alfven's work, [...]

A scientific discussion of Alfvén's work has been done right here in this thread. It was determined that Alfvén's work doesn't support the crackpot notion that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. It's old news.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A scientific discussion of Alfvén's work has been done right here in this thread. It was determined that Alfvén's work doesn't support the crackpot notion that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.

Who discussed his work, and who specifically said that?

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

 

[GeeMack]

Ya, I guess at this point it's buried so deep, it's absurd.

Essentially it was originally related to this post you made earlier and my response:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6789862&postcount=2332
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6791146&postcount=2342

It's related to this definition of an electrical discharge by Peratt:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6792683&postcount=2361

It's also related to my statement that a flare *is* an electrical discharge.

*ORIGINALLY* I cited Carqvist's work as an example of a paper that demonstrates the "circuit" oriented approach to releasing "stored energy". Since then however it's morphed into an entirely different conversation evidently.

A scientific discussion of Carlqvist's work has been done right here in this thread. It was determined that Carlqvist's work doesn't support the crackpot notion that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A scientific discussion of Carlqvist's work has been done right here in this thread. It was determined that Carlqvist's work doesn't support the crackpot notion that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.

Who made that determination?

 

[Reality Check]

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.

You are right - whatever that web site is, it is "quackish". Lightning is not a state of matter. It is a process.

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.

What do you mean by this?
Plasmas are never "dark".
Plasmas are never "glow".
Plasmas are never "arc".
Plasmas are never electrical discharges. A plasma is a state of matter. An electrical discharge is a process.

There are dark discharges.
There are glow discharges.
There are arc discharges.