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

[GeeMack]

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

So we'll discard all that nonsense about Peratt's definition of electrical discharge, since it would require we define "plasma" as almost everything, 99.999% of all the observable matter in the Universe. And at that point it can be said that everything occurs in a plasma, everything, even farting. And farting most certainly can't happen on the surface of the Sun. Everyone caught up with this so far?

And it follows that Peratt's comment and the electric Sun proponents' non sequitur argument that was cherry picked from it is worthless to the discussion. Are we all good with this much? (Didn't Tim Thompson make this very point dozens of pages ago?)

 

[Michael Mozina]

So we'll discard all that nonsense about Peratt's definition of electrical discharge, since it would require we define "plasma" as almost everything, 99.999% of all the observable matter in the Universe.

Ok, just out of *MORBID* curiosity, why would you "discard" the definition simply because most of the universe happens to be in a plasma state? The rationalizations around here are both baffling and bizarre.

 

[GeeMack]

Ok, just out of *MORBID* curiosity, why would you "discard" the definition simply because most of the universe happens to be in a plasma state? The rationalizations around here are both baffling and bizarre.

Competent English readers would have noticed what we are discarding...

So we'll discard all that nonsense [...]

 

[Michael Mozina]

You know....

I've been around the message board circuit, and I've talked to more than a few creationists in my day, but I have *NEVER* seen such a blatant, obvious, classic example of pure denial in over 10 years of internet debates, and that's saying something! This is really classic denial.

 

[GeeMack]

You know....

I've been around the message board circuit, and I've talked to more than a few creationists in my day, but I have *NEVER* seen such a blatant, obvious, classic example of pure denial in over 10 years of internet debates, and that's saying something! This is really classic denial.

So if we go with 99.999% of all observable matter in the Universe existing in the plasma state, then anything that can happen at all, can happen in a plasma. I can do cartwheels in a plasma. An amoeba can live in a plasma. A fart can occur in a plasma. I'm sure we all agree it would be illogical and stupid to suggest I can do cartwheels on the surface of the Sun, that amoebas can live there, or farts can happen there. And that's why this argument by spamming Peratt is nonsense.

Sticking with the topic...

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

Any progress with objectively and quantitatively supporting this?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun & Real Plasma Physics III

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.

But they are not making any mistake. Remember what I said ...

The only thing that is necessary is that you clearly state your definition of whatever the phrase du jour is (in this case "discharge" or perhaps "electrical discharge") and then present a hypothesis that is consistent with your definition.

That works for everybody. You seem to be under the illusion that your definition is right in some absolute sense, and therefore anyone who says that discharges do not occur is plasmas (you said "conductor" above, which I believe should have been "plasma" for this discussion) must be mistaken. But your definition is no more absolutely right than is any other definition. They are all arbitrary, as is usually the case for any definition of anything. You are consistent in claiming that discharges do happen and they are consistent in claiming that discharges don't happen. You are all "right" in the relative sense that your claims are consistent with your definitions. To argue that someone must be wrong in any absolute sense, because they disagree with your arbitrary definition, is not reasonable.

Instead of doing so, you and t both dodge the issue, refuse to confront the issue, ...

That is absolutely false in the true sense of "absolute". It is definitely you and you alone who are taking great pains to dodge the real issue. You prefer to spin your wheels over some nonsensical argument on the semantics of "electric discharge" while completely avoiding any discussion of the physics behind the words, as I have already repeatedly pointed out.

You refuse to even allow the conversation to move forward by conceding any points, ...

This too is absolutely false. You and you alone refuse to allow your own conversation to move forward by wasting time over useless semantics while avoiding the real issue of the physics behind the words. I have asked pointed questions to get you back on that track, but to no avail; you ignore them all and now blame me for not allowing the conversation to move forward. That's absurd.

Lest we forget ...

I agree that both Alfven's "circuit" orientation and "reconnection" maths work on paper, but at the level of physics, IMO it's "induction" doing the work.

I need to know what you think you mean by saying that the "maths work on paper" (the likes of which you have said many times). Does this mean only that the mathematics of magnetic reconnection is self consistent? Or does it carry the broader and more effective meaning that one usually associates with mathematical physics, namely that predictions made using the mathematics will correctly anticipate the results of physical experiments?

Why do you think induction rather than reconnection is at work? Consider from just over a year ago (Magnetic Reconnection Redux V, 30 December 2009) ...

Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction ...

The conversion of magnetic energy into a current always operates on a time-scale characteristic of the system, and that time scale is controlled by the ability of the magnetic field to move through the conductor, in order to create a dB/dt term from which the current is generated. That time-scale in a plasma is rather different than it is for a fixed conductor. Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes:

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6
​

Can you point out specific errors in what is said here?

Yes, but keep in mind that any transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy is explicitly referred to as "induction" when Alfven describes the breakdown of the circuit. Suffice to say it's a rapid transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy, also known as a 'discharge' in the plasma.

Consider this ...

Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction ...

The conversion of magnetic energy into a current always operates on a time-scale characteristic of the system, and that time scale is controlled by the ability of the magnetic field to move through the conductor, in order to create a dB/dt term from which the current is generated. That time-scale in a plasma is rather different than it is for a fixed conductor. Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes:

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6
​

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?

I should have asked "Do you or Alfven have evidence to show that induction will in fact work in a plasma on such short timescales, over such large distances, contrary to my source quoted above?" Of course induction can work on very fast time scales in a vacuum, or in air, where there are no diffusion time scale restrictions.

So, you can answer my questions and move the conversation forward. Or, if you prefer ...

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?

What points are you willing to concede Tim?

I don't know. If you ever get around to making a point, we'll find out I guess.

 

[Reality Check]

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

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

One more thing to point out about Peratt's definition

"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", section titled 'Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma')

​

It is very delusional to cherrypick the first sentence as a defintion of electrical discharge in plasma (cosmic or otherwise ).

• Lightning happens in air. Air is a gas, not plasma.
• Discharging capacitors cause "a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy". Capacitors are solid, not plasma.

The complete definition includes the breakdown of the energy transmission medium. Given Peratt's electrical engineering qualifications, breakdown is the transition of an insulating (dielectric) medium to a conducting state.
This is confirmed by Peratt's examples of "electrical discharges in cosmic plasma" - the aurora and lightning.

Thus my previous question: Do you really think that Peratt is so ignorant that he thinks that air is plasma?

 

[tusenfem]

I don't know. If you ever get around to making a point, we'll find out I guess.

Well, I got nothing to add to this response (I could quote my science posts too, but that would be too much). I see the utterly useless definition game has started again, and now even the definition of "definition" seems to under discussion. What a waste of time, glad I am going away for 3 weeks.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But they are not making any mistake.

Well, I just thought I'd pop in this fine Superbowl Sunday afternoon and check in on the progress of the SS Denial. It seems the soap opera hasn't changed much.

Yes Tim, as a matter of fact both RC and GM made a mistake. They both falsely claimed that discharges could not occur in a plasma because:

A) Discharges cannot happen in a conductor (plasma is a conductor)
B) A "dielectric breakdown" was a necessary component in a "discharge".

Note that neither of them produced any evidence to support either claim.

I always thought that arguing about "scientific truths" on a "science oriented" forum would be radically different than say debating creationist in cyberspace of a fundy religious website. I "assumed" that would be true because there are in fact such things as "empirical truths", things that can and are replicated in the lab and on Earth.

Foolish me. I "assumed" that denial on a science forum would be "unlikely", particularly on a forum such as this one, evidently nothing could be further from the truth. It seems denial is just one of those human self defense mechanisms that spans all types of individuals, all subjects, all areas of human conversation apparently.

Discussing circuit oriented approaches to solar physics on this forum is *EXACTLY* like discussing evolutionary theory with creationist. No amount of mathematical, physical, or *EMPIRICAL* (in the lab) evidence would ever suffice to move this ship off it's circular course.

I have of course linked "electrical discharges" to high iron ionization states seen in SDO and other solar satellite images. There is an empirical link between gamma rays and "discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere. It "naturally" produces such wavelengths and such wavelength's are observed in RHESSI solar satellite images.

In this particular case, there is a physically correct answer, and both answers are mutually exclusive. Either electrical discharges can occur in plasmas (conductors), or they cannot. These are mutually exclusive positions, and only one of them is "correct" in terms of actual plasma physics Tim. Which one?

 

[tusenfem]

In this particular case, there is a physically correct answer, and both answers are mutually exclusive. Either electrical discharges can occur in plasmas (conductors), or they cannot. These are mutually exclusive positions, and only one of them is "correct" in terms of actual plasma physics Tim. Which one?

As has been made clear to you in dozens of posts, this all depends on which definition you use for the term discharge. I have listed in a famous post numerous definitions that have been used over time by Dungey in his reply paper, by Alfvén in his books, by Peratt in his book, from an Oxford science dictionary, and that post showed that there are various definitions used (over time) for the term discharge.

The fact that you want to have Peratt's definition (but then only the first sentence and not the next in the one paragraph) and then also Dungey's definition (from the reply paper, which does not fit Peratt's) clearly show you want to have your cake and eat it.

So, I am going to try once more (sigh):

Final Definition:
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. (Nothing more, nothing less, take it or leave it)

And for pete's sake, let this frakking useless discussion be over!

 

[Haig]

Final Definition:
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. (Nothing more, nothing less, take it or leave it)

And for pete's sake, let this frakking useless discussion be over!

Excellent choice of definition and I hope MM can agree with it.
(my hilite)

Electrical 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 [Melrose 1997], and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation

http://plasmauniverse.info/elec_currents.html

 

[GeeMack]

Final Definition:
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. (Nothing more, nothing less, take it or leave it)

Excellent choice of definition and I hope MM can agree with it.

So electrical discharge, for purposes of this discussion, can mean anything from magnetic reconnection, as we understand to be the cause of solar flares, to the breakdown of a dielectric medium, as we recognize being the cause of lightning here on Earth and the sparks in a toy plasma ball. And since those processes are physically quite different, it renders this claim...

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

.. too ambiguous to be of any scientific use. Which is, in essence, what Tim Thompson has been saying for weeks, and tusenfem of course, and Reality Check and others.

So if there's something that differentiates the standard model from the electric Sun conjecture, if there's something about electricity powering the Sun or CMEs being some kind of gigantic electric sparks, if solar flares are alleged to be like lightning here on Earth, that process needs to be explained. It requires a description of the process, the physics, a quantitative objective explanation of how that electrical whatchamacallit works and how it differs from the contemporary understanding that solar flares are the result of magnetic reconnection. And if the electric Sun conjecture isn't different, or if it can't be explained physically, scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively, then it is bunk, unscientific, and not really a valid conjecture at all.

 

[Reality Check]

Excellent choice of definition and I hope MM can agree with it.
(my hilite)

I think it is actually a bad choice of definition for the context that MM wants, i.e. for the use of the term "electrical dicharges" within plasma.

By falling into MM's semantic trick of cherry picking the first sentence of Peratt's definition as a definition of an electrical discharge within plasma, we get to rather idiotic situations. For example a capacitor discharging is a "a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy". Thus MM will have us redefine solids as plasma.

The definition of an electrical discharge within plasma is the one the Dungey used 40 years ago (and is no longer used), i.e. a high current density And that was in the even more restricted context of magnetic reconnection within plasma.

The points that MM still canot get are

• The definition of an electrical discharge means that they cannot occur in plasma.
• Some authors have used the term "electrical discharge" for a high current density, especially in the past. The current term used for a high current density is ... high current density !
• Cherry picking the first sentence of a defintion is basically lying.
• It is obvious that Peratt's defintion is the usual one that describes things such as lightning:
  • A title is not a definition (Do you know the difference between a title and a definition? First asked 11 January 2011)
  • No electrical discharges within plasma described (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?

The conculsion is that if MM wants to use the term "electrical discharge" then he can within the context of magntic reconnection in plasma.
Otherwise he is just spouting out-of-context nonsense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Final Definition:
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. (Nothing more, nothing less, take it or leave it)

I'll take it.

And for pete's sake, let this frakking useless discussion be over!

Differentiating scientific fact from fiction is not useless. I guess in this case it was a necessary step. Just like it's necessary to understand that DNA changes can occur in animals so we can properly discuss evolutionary theory, so too it's necessary to understand that discharges can and do occur in plasmas in order to properly discuss circuit theory.

I suppose the next step is to all agree/discuss the notion that the "circuit" is the storage mechanism, which when broken/modified, releases some/all of that "stored energy".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Did you find your earlier response to this paper t?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CEAB...33..141O

It seems to me that the next logical step would be to discuss this paper (again). Did you find your earlier comments on this paper, or shall we just start over?

 

[GeeMack]

I suppose the next step is to all agree/discuss the notion that the "circuit" is the storage mechanism, which when broken/modified, releases some/all of that "stored energy".

According to the definition of electrical discharge, as accepted by the electric Sun adherents in this discussion, this...

​

... shows an electrical discharge. So explain quantitatively and objectively how the "circuit" is the storage mechanism and how breaking it releases the stored energy resulting in that particular electrical discharge. And why doesn't it look anything like lightning or a solar flare?

 

[Michael Mozina]

By falling into MM's semantic trick of cherry picking the first sentence of Peratt's definition as a definition of an electrical discharge within plasma, we get to rather idiotic situations. For example a capacitor discharging is a "a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy". Thus MM will have us redefine solids as plasma.

Huh? You just need to accept the fact that some things are plasmas and some things are solids and discharges can and do occur in 'conductors". I guess that's the real sticking point for you eh? Why? Can't you understand that some things are in a plasma state to begin with, and other things are not? Can't you accept that discharges occur in both solid and plasma "conductors"?

The definition of an electrical discharge within plasma is the one the Dungey used 40 years ago (and is no longer used), i.e. a high current density And that was in the even more restricted context of magnetic reconnection within plasma.

Dungey's explanation makes it clear that it's a particle "reconnection" process, not only a "magnetic" process. That's the part we will all have to discuss next.

The conculsion is that if MM wants to use the term "electrical discharge" then he can within the context of magntic reconnection in plasma.
Otherwise he is just spouting out-of-context nonsense.

The only real question is HOW that energy is released from the storage mechanism (circuit) and what kind of energy is involved. Sooner or later we'll have to get into the key points of Alfven's double layer paper, but before we do that I want to make sure everyone grasps the concept of kinetic energy that is "contained/stored" inside the circuit, not simply the magnetic field energy AROUND the plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

I'll take it.

I suggest that you do not - see my previous post where taking this cherry-picked sentence from Peratt's defintion leads to you redefining solids as plasma.

I suppose the next step is to all agree/discuss the notion that the "circuit" is the storage mechanism, which when broken/modified, releases some/all of that "stored energy".

What is a "circuit"?
What is "stored energy"?
What is the difference between broken and modified?
Why are you ignoring the energy stored in the electric and magnetic fields?

 

[Michael Mozina]

According to the definition of electrical discharge, as accepted by the electric Sun adherents in this discussion, this...

​

... shows an electrical discharge. So explain quantitatively and objectively how the "circuit" is the storage mechanism and how breaking it releases the stored energy resulting in that particular electrical discharge. And why doesn't it look anything like lightning or a solar flare?

Well, in some ways, YES, it's "like" the processes that can and do release energy in PLASMAS, but of course we're talking PLASMA so the storage mechanisms are different, as are the release mechanisms. At least you seem to grasp the basic concept of a "discharge". That's progress IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I suggest that you do not - see my previous post where taking this cherry-picked sentence from Peratt's defintion leads to you redefining solids as plasma.

No, I do not need to do that. You seem to have an emotional need to do so, but that is not a requirement in my book. The atoms in the solid lattice are not plasmas, but I *SUPPOSE* you could call the electrons flowing through that conductor a "discharge".

What is a "circuit"?

You tell me. How did Onel and Mann define it?

What is "stored energy"?

Great question. Besides the particle kinetic energy flowing inside the plasma filament, what other energies must we consider?

What is the difference between broken and modified?

One would involve a full breakdown of the circuit, whereas the latter might only require a "rewiring event" to occur and neither circuit needs to fully erupt.

Why are you ignoring the energy stored in the electric and magnetic fields?

I'm not. I'm convinced however that your side is ignoring the particle kinetic energy in the "circuit" however, and that's one of the key issues we need to discuss next.