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

[Reality Check]

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!

I would say that they are sort of right - lightning is a common source of terrestial plasma but I would call lightning itself a process

On a personal note, I am more on the fence about plasma cosmology versus big bang cosmology then I was before.

On a personal note, you should realize that plasma cosmology does not exist! It is a collection of often mutually exclusive, often invalid theories.

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).

It does not make sense because

1. Red dwarf stars emit light. They are not dark.
2. The observations have noting to do with galaxies. They are to do with galaxy clusters.

The observational evidence for DM is very strong.

...
Wonder if one of you wizards can look it up so I can get more specific.

Debye length (note Alfven's comment about double layers a few 10's of Debye lengths for the intergalactic medium is less than a million kilometres).

If you want to talk about plasma comology then go to the appropriate thread: Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not
Start by

1. Defining plasma cosmology, e.g. list the theories in your version of pc that explains teh things the BBT explains (red shift, CMB, etc.)
2. List the testable, falsifiable predictions that theses theories make and the

 

[Michael Mozina]

On a personal note, you should realize that plasma cosmology does not exist! It is a collection of often mutually exclusive, often invalid theories.

Name even one mutually exclusive thing that Alfven ever wrote in is book "Cosmic Plasma"?

It is rational to agree or disagree that PC theory is a useful or relevant theory, but to say it doesn't exist is simply bizarre IMO, and easily refuted.

FYI, standard theories are always being "invalidated" and stuffed with some new, ad hoc, "mutually exclusive" (to the old theory) metaphysical concept, the most recent addition being "dark energy". Of course since it's a "metaphysical" gap filler, the "cause/effect" relationship between observation and dark energy defies "validation" in any empirical way!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I would say that they are sort of right - lightning is a common source of terrestial plasma but I would call lightning itself a process

Just checking.....

Just out of curiosity, are you willing to admit that electrical discharges happen in plasma yet?

 

[GeeMack]

Name even one mutually exclusive thing that Alfven ever wrote in is book "Cosmic Plasma"?

Alfvén's work has been discussed thoroughly right here in this thread. It was determined that it doesn't support the crackpot notion that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.

It is rational to agree or disagree that PC theory is a useful or relevant theory, but to say it doesn't exist is simply bizarre IMO, and easily refuted.

The word "theory" has a scientific definition having to do with falsifiability. It is more than reasonable to say there isn't a PC theory when using the word scientifically. Now if the word "theory" is being used to mean a pulled-from-the-rear guess...

FYI, standard theories are always being "invalidated" and stuffed with some new, ad hoc, "mutually exclusive" (to the old theory) metaphysical concept, the most recent addition being "dark energy". Of course since it's a "metaphysical" gap filler, the "cause/effect" relationship between observation and dark energy defies "validation" in any empirical way!

The ridiculous and transparent attempt to make legitimate physics into a strawman has been done too many times. It's been busted every time. It's a stupid and dishonest argument.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Alfvén's work has been discussed thoroughly right here in this thread. It was determined that it doesn't support the crackpot notion that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.

Who actually determined that GM?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun & Real Plasma Physics II

*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.

If that's the case, then why pick a paper from the "ancient history" of astronomy? After all, 1969 is a long time ago, and Carlqvist's paper doesn't really use the circuit paradigm to describe the energy transfer physics anyway. Certainly, Zaitsev & Stepanov, 1992 is both much more recent, and much more on point, examining the circuit paradigm fare mode deeply that Carlqvist or Alfven ever did, and relating the energy release mechanism much more closely to the circuit parameters. In any case, I think simply showing that the circuit paradigm is used or in some sense useful is not now necessary. That the circuit paradigm is actually used is well known and hardly what we would call "news" (e.g., Khodachenko, 2009, Onel & Mann, 2009, Wheatland & Farvis, 2004; and see Liffman, 2007 which discusses electric circuits in young stellar objects).

All of the discussion concerning the circuit paradigm, as well as what does or does not constitute an "electric discharge" is pointless. Besides, it is obvious from your posting pattern that you would rather trade insults than actually deal with anything substantial. Why do you even bother to respond to posts that you think are not making any scientific points? As has been said already ...

... 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.

It seems to me that whether or not one wishes to call the hot plasma an "electrical discharge" is not really the point. It is certainly a poor choice of words, designed to generate confusion in the absence of a constantly repeated definition. But the real issue is the physics that underlies the words. What physically is really happening is the point. This is where Mozina runs into the brick wall of physics and catastrophically fails the test. He rejects magnetic reconnection in favor of exploding double layers, even though physics rejects the latter in favor of the former. He rejects the frozen flux approximation for magnetic fields in a plasma even though physics requires it. These two points are the most fundamental and critical points in this entire discussion. Everything in the physics of coronal heating, coronal loops, flares & CME's stems from these two critical concepts (with some thermodynamics & radiative transfer thrown in, but they don't yet seem to be points of contention).

As long as Mozina rejects these two critical concepts of physics, magnetic reconnection and the frozen flux approximation, then this discussion and all other similar discussions everywhere are doomed at once to become infinite loops of the same thing over & over & over & over again, ad infinitum, as has become the case for this discussion. Quite simply it's Mozina vs. physics, and I choose physics over Mozina every time.

So are you ever going to address the real issues, or are we just going to wallow around in the semantic pig-pen some more?

The actual physics of energy transfer to the flare cannot possibly be induction (or "induction") in any physically reasonable sense. Magnetic reconnection and the frozen flux approximation (which is key to the energy transfer in Carlqvist 1969) are key & proven processes in real plasma physics. These things are true regardless of the paradigm one chooses to use as window dressing. This is where the real meat of the discussion should be but seems rarely to actually happen.

The process of induction is strictly limited by the diffusion time scale. It cannot possibly act any faster than physics allows.

You specifically refer to induction as a "rapid transfer of energy" but give no timescale for what constitutes "rapid". My source, quoted above, clearly indicates that the timescale of induction is too slow to be consistent with the observed rapidity of energy release in solar coronal events. Do you or Alfven have evidence to show that induction will in fact work on such short timescales, over such large distances, contrary to my source quoted above?

 

[Reality Check]

Name even one mutually exclusive thing that Alfven ever wrote in is book "Cosmic Plasma"?
[/quoe]
You need to read my post more carefully:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
On a personal note, you should realize that plasma cosmology does not exist! It is a collection of often mutually exclusive, often invalid theories.

I do not mention Alfven at all.
I specifically used lower case "plasma cosmology". This separates that scientific crackpottery from the scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology started by Alfven. Plasma Cosmology though has little evidence to support it and has drmatic failures, e.g. it cannot produce the CMB that we observe.

 

[Reality Check]

Just checking.....

Just out of curiosity, are you willing to admit that electrical discharges happen in plasma yet?

Just out of curiosity: Have you been understanding any of my posts?

The answer is it depends:

• No when the usual 1960's definition of electrical discharge is used.
• No when the usual modern definition of electrical discharge is used.
• No when discussing solar flares since modern solar physics uses the usual definition of electrical discharge which excludes it from happening in plasma.
• No when reading Peratt's book where he uses the usual definition of electrical discharge in his section about aurora and lightning.
• Yes in the context of a few old papers that use the definition of electrical discharge = a high current density.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If that's the case, then why pick a paper from the "ancient history" of astronomy?

I didn't just pick *ONE* paper Tim, I included several, including a recent one that I handed to The Man and Tubbythin that is on your list. I specifically selected a RANGE of papers, some that preceded my birth, and at least one fairly recent one to demonstrate a 60 YEAR HISTORY of circuit/discharge theories related to solar flare events! Oy. I realize you haven't been all that actively engaged in this conversation Tim, but you at least owe me the courtesy of skimming through the thread before you accuse me of presenting only *ONE* paper.

After all, 1969 is a long time ago, and Carlqvist's paper doesn't really use the circuit paradigm to describe the energy transfer physics anyway. Certainly, Zaitsev & Stepanov, 1992 is both much more recent, and much more on point, examining the circuit paradigm fare mode deeply that Carlqvist or Alfven ever did, and relating the energy release mechanism much more closely to the circuit parameters. In any case, I think simply showing that the circuit paradigm is used or in some sense useful is not now necessary. That the circuit paradigm is actually used is well known and hardly what we would call "news" (e.g., Khodachenko, 2009, Onel & Mann, 2009, Wheatland & Farvis, 2004; and see Liffman, 2007 which discusses electric circuits in young stellar objects).

The Onel and Mann paper is the one I recommended to The Man just recently. As always, you are an *EXCELLENT* resource of information and I think there is at least one of those papers you cited that I haven't read, maybe two! Cool. Thanks!

FYI, I never claimed circuit or discharge theories were "new". In fact I specifically cited Alfven and Carlqvist's work as well as Bruce's and Dungey's work to establish a *HISTORY* of circuit/discharge theory. I realize it's "old news". but it may not be "old news" to everyone reading this thread.

All of the discussion concerning the circuit paradigm, as well as what does or does not constitute an "electric discharge" is pointless.

If I am to take your wise advise from a prior post, "Ar, I believe it be time for ye to be walking the plAnk Matey."

I provided you with a perfectly good physical definition of a "discharge" in a plasma that jives with Dungey's association of a 'discharge" with a flare. I have clearly explained in this thread that Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma is *INCLUSIVE* of any sort of magnetic energy transfer event, including any sort of "magnetic reconnection" event, whatever that might actually be at the level of actual particle physics inside of a explosive double layer.

Besides, it is obvious from your posting pattern that you would rather trade insults than actually deal with anything substantial.

No Tim, that is simply not true. I would love to move this conversation forward in a logical manner. I would LOVE (frankly I would expect) you and t to "step in" and explain to the confused members on your side of the aisle when they make mistakes, like claiming discharges cannot occur in conductors. Instead of doing so, you and t both dodge the issue, refuse to confront the issue, and we continue going around in circles on the denial-go-round just because none of you wish to embrace *DISCHARGE* theory that was written before I was personally even born.

Why do you even bother to respond to posts that you think are not making any scientific points?

What points are you willing to concede Tim? You won't accept the term "discharge' even after that wonderful advice about long walks off short planks. You won't confront the denial issue going on over on your side of the aisle over the whole discharges in conductors issue. You refuse to even allow the conversation to move forward by conceding any points, even *BLATANTLY OBVIOUS ONES* like "discharges happen in plasmas". How on Earth could can we expect the SS denial to ever make port if we all keep going around in circles to protect *ONE MEMBER* rather than seek scientific truth? Oy. Walk the plank matey.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just out of curiosity: Have you been understanding any of my posts?

The answer is it depends:
[*]No when the usual 1960's definition of electrical discharge is used.
[*]No when the usual modern definition of electrical discharge is used.

What does that mean RC? When did Dungey write about 'discharges' possibly being related to flare events RC? When did Bruce write about "discharges' in the solar atmosphere RC?

[*]No when discussing solar flares since modern solar physics uses the usual definition of electrical discharge which excludes it from happening in plasma.

Reference please. Book/paper, chapter and verse.

[*]No when reading Peratt's book where he uses the usual definition of electrical discharge in his section about aurora and lightning.

Did you see the term "in cosmic plasma" RC? Was the term "dielectric" used anywhere in Peratt's definition of a discharge?

[*]Yes in the context of a few old papers that use the definition of electrical discharge = a high current density.
[/LIST]

You are *STILL* neglecting that RELEASE OF *STORED ENERGY* component in Peratt's definition of a discharge. Why?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do not mention Alfven at all.

Ya, and that's a problem.

It's really hard for me to conceive of any logical way to bring the SS Denial into port with this sort of an attitude going on. Who do you think first wrote PC theory RC?

 

[Reality Check]

What does that mean RC? When did Dungey write about 'discharges' possibly being related to flare events RC? When did Bruce write about "discharges' in the solar atmosphere RC?

1960's (and 1950's and a bit in the 1970's).

Did you see the term "in cosmic plasma" RC? Was the term "dielectric" used anywhere in Peratt's definition of a discharge?

Back to parroting again MM:

Peratt never defines an electrical discharge in a plasma or you would be able to answer:

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

​

His definition is the general one (e.g for aurora and lightning) that is impossible for plasmas.
And we are probably going to get your delusion about the section title again so:

Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011
​

What do you think a electrical engineer (Peratt) means by the breakdown of an energy transmission medium, MM?

You are *STILL* neglecting that RELEASE OF *STORED ENERGY* component in Peratt's definition of a discharge. Why?

You are *STILL* lying.
I am *STILL* using all of Peratt's definition of a electrical discharge that includes

1. RELEASE OF *STORED ELECTRIC OR MAGNETIC ENERGY*
2. "This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium."

 

[Michael Mozina]

1960's (and 1950's and a bit in the 1970's).

Then it could not have been true that a 60's definition of a discharge precluded discharges from occurring in plasmas, because discharges in plasmas were being written about in the 50's and 60's! Man, oh man this is excruciatingly painful!

At this point you *OWE* me a definition of a discharge that supports any of your claims RC. Paper/book, chapter, verse please.

 

[Reality Check]

Ya, and that's a problem.

Ya, and that is not a problem

Who do you think first wrote PC theory RC?

That is fairly dumb MM:
I wrote that Alfven first wrote Plasma Cosmology.

This separates that scientific crackpottery from the scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology started by Alfven.

The point is that the modern "plasma cosmology" has little to do with the invalid theory of Plasma Cosmology. I suspect that Alfven would be horrified by people confusing his scientific theory with the non-science of "plasma cosmology".

 

[Reality Check]

Then it could not have been true that a 60's definition of a discharge precluded discharges from occurring in plasmas, because discharges in plasmas were being written about in the 50's and 60's! Man, oh man this is excruciatingly painful!

Wrong. The usual defintion of an electrical discharge that has been in use since they were first experimented with excludes themfrom being prodiced in plasma.

But the defintion varies as I stated before but here goes again (without the 1960's stuff which seems to have confused you, MM )

• No when the usual definition of electrical discharge is used.
• No when discussing solar flares since modern solar physics uses the usual definition of electrical discharge which excludes it from happening in plasma.
• No when reading Peratt's book where he uses the usual definition of electrical discharge in his section about aurora and lightning.
• Yes in the context of a few old papers that use the specific definition for the context of electrical discharge = a high current density.

At this point you *OWE* me a definition of a discharge that supports any of your claims RC. Paper/book, chapter, verse please.

I *OWE* you nothing.
There are plenty of cited definitions of electrical discharges in this thread, e.g Peratt's. If you cannot understand them then I suggest that you buy a physics text book on the subject.


So can you understand the point after these many posts?

• The usual defintion of electrical discharge is the "sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy" caused generally by the breadown of an energenergy transmission medium (A. Perratt, Cosmic Plasma, Section title: Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma).
• Some authors use electrical discharge = a high current density.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I *OWE* you nothing.

Jane, stop this crazy thing!

 

[tusenfem]

Well, I guess my google-fu has left me.
If anyone knows where I discussed the Önel & Mann paper then I would love to hear it.
Or I am just imagining thing ....

 

[Reality Check]

Jane, stop this crazy thing!

Does this mean that you still cannot understand the point after these many posts?

• The usual definition of electrical discharge is the "sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy" caused generally by the breadown of an energenergy transmission medium (A. Perratt, Cosmic Plasma, Section title: Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma).
• Some authors use electrical discharge = a high current density.

P.S.
Paper/book = Cosmic Plasma, chapter = Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma, verse stated in
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, I guess my google-fu has left me.
If anyone knows where I discussed the Önel & Mann paper then I would love to hear it.
Or I am just imagining thing ....

FYI, I "think" it was in the solar flare thread (not this thread) if I recall correctly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Does this mean that you still cannot understand the point after these many posts?

No, I don't. I long ago gave up debating creationists in cyberspace. I learned the hard way that pure denial is something that no amount of published, scientific evidence can overcome. We seem to have reached that same point in this thread. You and GM seem to be in pure denial of the fact that "discharges happen in plasma", even after the pretty tokamak video and everything. We're stuck now at an impasse because you refuse to actually support your claims/statements with actual written, published materials. It's all "science by proclamation". It's like "the good book says "yada yada yada", therefore it *MUST* be true", only the "good book" is evidently *IN YOUR HEAD* and doesn't even exist in print! That's how bizarre it's become around here.

If you refuse to present a single published definition of a discharge that supports any of your claims, where is there to go except around in circles? I want to get off this denial-go-round! It's ridiculous. I'm thinking it might be more productive to go discuss solar physics at a religious website. They might actually listen! You folks are hopeless IMO!