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

[Reality Check]

No, I don't.
...snipped rant...

It is strange that you cannot understand the simple fact that some authors use a different definition of electrical discharge (= a high current density) in the context of their papers.

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?

You are still lying MM: I have presented a single published definition of a discharge that supports all of my claims.
You have presented a single published definition of a discharge that supports all of my claims.
See the published definition of electrical discharge in Peratt's book:
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is strange that you cannot understand the simple fact that some authors use a different definition of electrical discharge (= a high current density) in the context of their papers.

You've yet to demonstrate that with a published definition of your own!

You are still lying MM:

Why do you do that? Why do you make it personal like that? I could call you a liar every day too, but I don't. Why do you have the emotional need to do that?

I have presented a single published definition of a discharge that supports all of my claims.

No, you didn't. You provided *THE SAME* definition, a DEFINITION that BY DEFINITION refutes your claim that discharge cannot occur in a conductor! Gah!

You have presented a single published definition of a discharge that supports all of my claims.

No, it says discharges occur *IN* a plasma RC. The term "dielectric" appears nowhere in the definition. That claim is completely false.

See the published definition of electrical discharge in Peratt's book:
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

Where can I find the term "dielectric breakdown" in his book RC?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, RC....

Your claim of using Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma to support your case is like trying to use Darwin's work to support your claim that evolution doesn't happen, and DNA changes in living things are not possible. Your position is completely irrational.

 

[Reality Check]

Where are Peratt's many pages about electrical discharges within plasma

You've yet to demonstrate that with a published definition of your own!

I have never published a book or paper on electrical discharges so I cannot cite my own defintion.
Or are you stating that Peratt's book is not good enough for you?

Why do you do that?

If you lie then I will call you a liar.

No, you didn't. You provided *THE SAME* definition, a DEFINITION that BY DEFINITION refutes your claim that discharge cannot occur in a conductor! Gah!

Yes, I did. To use your question: Where does Peratt mention the word dielectric conductor in his defintion?

No, it says discharges occur *IN* a plasma RC. The term "dielectric" appears nowhere in the definition. That claim is completely false.

You are lying. I have never claimed that the term "dielectric" appears anywhere in the definition.

I have pointed out the Peratt is an electrical engineer. In electrical engineering, a breakdown of a medium is the transition of a insulating (dielectric ) medium to a conducting medium.
The term "breakdown" referring to a medium appears in the definition.

The section title is "Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma". Peratt does not define or discuss any electrical dicharges in plasma.
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011

Where can I find the term "dielectric breakdown" in his book RC?

Nowhere that I know of.

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

 

[Reality Check]

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning

FYI, RC....

Your claim of using Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma to support your case is like trying to use Darwin's work to support your claim that evolution doesn't happen, and DNA changes in living things are not possible. Your position is completely irrational.

FYI, MM...
Do not assume anything about what I would or would not say.

Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge is not about discharges in plasma for several reasons.
The only mention of "discharges in plasma" is within the title. A title is not a defintion.
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
First asked 11 January 2011

If he did have such a definition then why does his book ignore the phenomena?
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

That page in his book talks about aurora and lightning. These are electrical discharges wihin air. Air is not plasma.

MM: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning in a section that according to you is about "discharges in plasma"?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Mark this day! This thread was soooo inactive in the last few hours that it slipped down onto PAGE 2!!!

Now back to your regular, scheduled program ...

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, I did. To use your question: Where does Peratt mention the word dielectric conductor in his defintion?

He did that in the phrase *IN PLASMA* in the title of the definition RC. Wow. I've seen creationists do a denial dance before, but this is really entertaining but really boring at this point.

Is a plasma not a "conductor"?

In electrical engineering, a breakdown of a medium is the transition of a insulating (dielectric ) medium to a conducting medium.

But we are not discussing electrical engineering, we are (he was) discussing plasma physics.

The term "breakdown" referring to a medium appears in the definition.

And the 'breakdown' in plasma is typically a "breakdown" of the circuit. The term "dielectric" isn't in the definition RC, no matter how much you wish it were there.

What's *AMAZING* to me in terms of psychology and "group think" mentality is not one of non EU proponents have corrected you.

If the SS Denial keeps sailing around in circles, you don't mind if move the plank over to the outside of the circle and "abandon ship/walk the plank" myself do you? I'm not sure I can keep sailing around in circles with you endlessly over what started out as a simple mistake, and has now turned into the focal point of pure denial.

 

[GeeMack]

What's *AMAZING* to me in terms of psychology and "group think" mentality is not one of non EU proponents have corrected you.

Yes. Every single professional plasma physicist, solar physicist, and astrophysicist on Earth is in denial. They're all victims of "group think", all the tens of thousands of them. And the handful of electric Sun proponents, none of whom are professionals, graduate students, or educators in the fields of plasma physics, solar physics, or astrophysics, all 20 or 30 of them on the entire planet, they are the only ones who get it. Yeah, that's sane.

It does rather force the question: Why the fundamental failure on every level to make the case in a cogent, understandable, rational way? What is it about the electric Sun adherents' method of supporting their claims that results in a 100% failure rate? Why are the 20 to 30 most enlightened humans on Earth so wholly incapable of developing a reasonable argument, writing and publishing the relevant papers, or even convincing a few legitimate physicists on a handful of Internet forums that their position is scientifically valid?

If the SS Denial keeps sailing around in circles, you don't mind if move the plank over to the outside of the circle and "abandon ship/walk the plank" myself do you?

By all means, go.

 

[Reality Check]

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning

He did that in the phrase *IN PLASMA* in the title of the definition RC.

He used the phrase *IN COSMIC PLASMA* in the title. The title is not a definition.
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
First asked 11 January 2011

Is a plasma not a "conductor"?

Yes. Thus electrical discharges cannot happen in plasma because their definition requires a "breakdown" as defined by Peratt.

But we are not discussing electrical engineering, we are (he was) discussing plasma physics.

Nothing to do with what I stated. So maybe you can understand this:
Peratt uses the term breakdown in

"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."
​

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


What does he mean by this?

• He has a degree in electrical engineering. In electrical engineering, a breakdown is the transition of a dielectric medium to a condutive state.
• It is the "energy transmission medium" that is breaking down.
  The energy transmission medium he mentions is air. Air is not plasma.

And the 'breakdown' in plasma is typically a "breakdown" of the circuit.

Plasma cannot break down because it is already broken down.
Making up stuff about a delusional breakdown in a illusionary "circuit" does not change that.

The term "dielectric" isn't in the definition RC, no matter how much you wish it were there.

That is I know it is not.
You do realize that the word "plasma" isn't in the definition MM, no matter how much you wish it were there.

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
Do you really think that Peratt is so ignorant that he thinks that air is plasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What does he mean by this?

He means that the circuit breaks down, and it's "stored energy" is released into the surrounding plasma!

Do you see me moving the plank to the other side of the ship?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes. Every single professional plasma physicist, solar physicist, and astrophysicist on Earth is in denial.

No, just you and RC. Round and round and round we go.....

 

[Michael Mozina]

You do realize that the word "plasma" isn't in the definition MM, no matter how much you wish it were there.

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. 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. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2). On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

See the part in yellow RC? Does that say "plasma"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It does rather force the question: Why the fundamental failure on every level to make the case in a cogent, understandable, rational way?

I keep asking myself that same question about *YOUR CLAIMS*. You've yet to provide any definition of a discharge to support ANY of the claims you've made. It's not clear that it's even possible to have a rational conversation with someone operating from a place of pathological denial.

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. 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. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2). On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

How can any rational person be confused by a one line definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma?

 

[GeeMack]

How can any rational person be confused by a one line definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma?

When defining "plasma" to mean almost anything, 99.999% of all the observable matter in the Universe, then virtually everything that happens occurs in a plasma. Even pissing occurs in a plasma, but it sure as hell doesn't and can't occur on the surface of the Sun. I'm sure we all agree.

 

[Reality Check]

Where does Peratt mention that there is a circuit in plasma

He means that the circuit breaks down, and it's "stored energy" is released into the surrounding plasma!

Do you see me moving the plank to the other side of the ship?

Where does Peratt mention that there is a circuit in plasma?

Where does Peratt mention that plasma in his definition (not the title of his book "Cosmic Plasma" as mentioned in his section title)?

I see you seemingly lying about what Peratt states in his definition (not his title which you seem obsessed about) .

What does he say that this circuit does?
Where does he go through the physics and mathematics of this plasma circuit?
P.S. Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

 

[Reality Check]

Do you really think that Peratt is so ignorant that he thinks that air is plasma

See the part in yellow RC? Does that say "plasma"?

Try reading what I wrote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
You do realize that the word "plasma" isn't in the definition MM, no matter how much you wish it were there.

Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
First asked 11 January 2011
(No is obviously the answer and you cannot seem to learn the difference either)

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

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
Do you really think that Peratt is so ignorant that he thinks that air is plasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

When defining "plasma" to mean almost anything, 99.999% of all the observable matter in the Universe, then virtually everything that happens occurs in a plasma. Even pissing occurs in a plasma, but it sure as hell doesn't and can't occur on the surface of the Sun. I'm sure we all agree.

No, about the only thing WE agree with is that was one *GIGANTIC* piss poor excuse of a rationalization. Don't you remember Dungey and his association of flares with electrical discharges?

 

[GeeMack]

No, about the only thing WE agree with is that was one *GIGANTIC* piss poor excuse of a rationalization. Don't you remember Dungey and his association of flares with electrical discharges?

This comment...

How can any rational person be confused by a one line definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma?

... was about Peratt. My reply to that comment, not to any comment about Dungey, was...

When defining "plasma" to mean almost anything, 99.999% of all the observable matter in the Universe, then virtually everything that happens occurs in a plasma. Even pissing occurs in a plasma, but it sure as hell doesn't and can't occur on the surface of the Sun.​

I'm sure we all agree.

 

[Reality Check]

No, about the only thing WE agree with is that was one *GIGANTIC* piss poor excuse of a rationalization. Don't you remember Dungey and his association of flares with electrical discharges?

Wrong: Dungey defined for the purpose of his 40 year old paper that electrical discharges where high current densities.

The modern (and common at the time) definition is that an electrical discharge is

"An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy" that
"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."
followed by examples such as lightning.
(Anthony Peratt, "Cosmic Plasma")
​

These electrical discharges cannot happen in a plasma. Of course high current densities can and do happen in plasmas all of the time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And the SS Denial just keeps sailing around in circles.....