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

[dasmiller]

Oh please! I can't even get half your cohorts to accept the *FACT* that "discharges" occur in plasmas/conductors! Don't even *THINK* about preaching to me about understanding circuit theory and how Alfven applied it to solar atmospheric events. We'll get there t, but you could speed things up by dragging RC out of denial kicking and screaming if necessary. He's still clueless, and you aren't lifting a finger to clear things up.

I don't get it. Why does your ongoing semantic dispute with RC keep you from discussing circuits with tusenfem?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't get it. Why does your ongoing semantic dispute with RC keep you from discussing circuits with tusenfem?

Technically it doesn't, it is just weird. It's like discussing evolutionary theory with several members screaming in the background that DNA mutations are *IMPOSSIBLE*.

Never in my wildest imagination did I ever believe that folks actually believe that discharges cannot occur in conductors/plasmas! It's just a scientifically bankrupt position that makes further conversations about discharge theories impossible.

 

[GeeMack]

Never in my wildest imagination did I ever believe that folks actually believe that discharges cannot occur in conductors/plasmas! It's just a scientifically bankrupt position that makes further conversations about discharge theories impossible.

Sort of like...

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?

Go ahead.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sort of like...

Go ahead.

Probably the only reason that I won't walk is that it would give you satisfaction if I did.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When can I expect you to rerad and understand Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge that *DOESN'T* allow electrical discharges to occur in/through conductors?

Why does *ANYONE* else participating in this thread let you get away with this BS? Talk about denial. It says "plasma" in the title of the *DEFINITION* RC. It not only ALLOWS for discharges to occur in plasmas/conductors, it describes an example of a discharge that occurs THROUGH A CONDUCTOR once the plasma becomes ionized. The term "dielectric" appears nowhere in the definition, and the "breakdown" he describes in the definition is typically a breakdown of the "circuit" (the primary energy storage medium in plasma).

 

[Zeuzzz]

What was the date that Birkeland made that prediction in your signature michael?

 

[GeeMack]

Why does *ANYONE* else participating in this thread let you get away with this BS? Talk about denial. It says "plasma" in the title of the *DEFINITION* RC.

And that brings us back around to this...

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)

 

[Michael Mozina]

What was the date that Birkeland made that prediction in your signature michael?

I believe it was in 1908.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And that brings us back around to this...

The only thing it brings us right back to is pure denial on your part since it includes the term *PLASMA*!

 

[GeeMack]

The only thing it brings us right back to is pure denial on your part since it includes the term *PLASMA*!

It was a simple yes or no question...

Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?

 

[dasmiller]

Technically it doesn't, it is just weird.

Oh, Michael, we started with a discussion of the sun having a solid surface, requiring radical revision to the laws of gravity and thermodynamics, based on an observational technique that specifically doesn't show solid surfaces. And now we're stuck because a semantics argument is "weird?"

 

[tusenfem]

Sure. In terms of calculating the *TOTAL* energy in the system, that's fine. When Alfven got to the point of "instability" (pinches inside double layers and whathaveyyouots in the plasma), he switched to his "exploding double layer" approach. At some point the plasma pinch is simply incapable of "carrying the load' and it "explodes" according to Alfven.

This has nothing to do with my comment on circuit theory as described in Õnel & Mann, please address the topic that is discussed.

That's the point where Alfven's double layer paper comes in.

And how exactly?

Oh please! I can't even get half your cohorts to accept the *FACT* that "discharges" occur in plasmas/conductors! Don't even *THINK* about preaching to me about understanding circuit theory and how Alfven applied it to solar atmospheric events. We'll get there t, but you could speed things up by dragging RC out of denial kicking and screaming if necessary. He's still clueless, and you aren't lifting a finger to clear things up.

I have nothing to say to RC, he will do what he will, and I am finished with the utterly stupid discussion about discharges. It is unnecessary, just do the physcis, look at the processes that happen.

Now please explain to us what YOU mean by circuit theory, it is Fig. 2 of Onel & Mann or is it Fig. 3. What exactly is the difference between Fig. 2 and Fig. 3?

No, you're playing with blinders on, and ignoring the particle kinetic energy entirely IMO. You certainly don't have a *FULL HOUSE* that includes LAB TESTS to demonstrate that your concepts of capable of generating gamma rays, neutron capture signatures in plasma, high iron ionization states, etc, etc, etc, all the thing that *electrical discharges* are KNOWN TO CAUSE in laboratory experiments.

Well, let's see, I wrote a paper on radiation from double layers in solar flares and then I also wrote a paper about radiation emitted from double layers from experiments I did in Alfvén's laboratory. Now, you have one paper, and ... nothing, or maybe the IRS does solar physics ...

Right. Your side can't even figure out what a *DISCHARGE* is, it *STILL* believes that discharges cannot occur in conductors, and it's in total denial of Peratt's definition of an electrical discharges *IN* a *PLASMA*. Don't even think about preaching at me. Anytime you want to help pick up the pace around here, you can drag RC, kicking and screaming into *PHYSICS* anytime you'd like. That would certainly help move things along.

Discharges is twenty pages ago, been there, done that, not interesting, utterly useless. Go do some real physisc, man, stop that bitching about a term that is useless, show what you want to do witn Önel & Mann, start discussing that paper, that is what you have said several times you want to have discussed, so start the frakking discussion.

But no, you won't do that, because that means putting effort in it, trying to actually understand the paper, trying to actually explain to us what you want with that paper. That is never ever gonna happen. Just start with my question above, what is the difference between Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 in that paper.

I'll go round up the other Wheatland paper again, and the relevant quotes so we can look a "circuit energy" again, and talk about "release mechanisms" in *CURRENT CARRYING* plasmas!

Oh now you want yet another paper again, what is wrong now with the Ö&M paper?

Well, this is the last night for me, I will be gone 3 weeks, and then I will be excited to see this discussion going full force, with circuits flying through the air, and plasmas flowing over the table.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I believe it was in 1908.

Nice. Nearly over half a century before it was definitively proved I think.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, Michael, we started with a discussion of the sun having a solid surface, requiring radical revision to the laws of gravity and thermodynamics, based on an observational technique that specifically doesn't show solid surfaces. And now we're stuck because a semantics argument is "weird?"

Actually *I* started a thread about solar flares and this whole discussion/thread "deevolved" from there.

I have never made any claims about the laws of gravity or thermodynamics needing to be rewritten, so evidently those are your own strawmen. FYI, even I conceded my PREFERENCE for the term "rigid" specifically because of those thermodynamic issues you mentioned. At least I'm responding to the physical issues being raised, whereas GM and RC seem to be stuck in pure denial of the FACT that discharges and can and do occur in a plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

Why does *ANYONE* else participating in this thread let you get away with this BS? Talk about denial. It says "plasma" in the title of the *DEFINITION* RC.
...usual rant snipped...

You are still ignorant of

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)
​

And the obvious things that show that Peratt's definition applies to lightning and aurora, not plasma:

• Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
  • And related to this:
    Do you really think that Peratt is so ignorant that he thinks that air is plasma?
• Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
  First asked 7 December 2010

This makes it obvious to anyone who can read that "Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" is not about electrical discharges within cosmic plasma. It is about electrical discharges in non-conducting medium (like air).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nice. Nearly over half a century before it was definitively proved I think.

The part that I find "amusing" is that Birkeland used a cathode sun to drive the auroral processes that he also accurately predicted along with those flying electrons and ions.

 

[dasmiller]

Actually *I* started a thread about solar flares and this whole discussion/thread "deevolved" from there.

I had that earlier thread in mind; I guess I sort of assumed that this thread grew out of that one.

I have never made any claims about the laws of gravity or thermodynamics needing to be rewritten, so evidently those are your own strawmen. FYI, even I conceded my PREFERENCE for the term "rigid" specifically because of those thermodynamic issues you mentioned.

I know that you never conceded that it violated thermodynamics, but for most of us it was a very straightforward violation. For that matter, so was the gravity violation.

(In the interest of not re-starting that debate, which I agree would be hazardously OT here, I'm not re-stating our perceived issues. But saying "rigid" vs. "solid" didn't resolve our perceived issues.)

At least I'm responding to the physical issues being raised, whereas GM and RC seem to be stuck in pure denial of the FACT that discharges and can and do occur in a plasma.

You don't think this is a purely semantic argument? Do you think that RC and GM are denying that electrical current can flow in plasma?

 

[Tubbythin]

The part that I find "amusing" is that Birkeland used a cathode sun to drive the auroral processes that he also accurately predicted along with those flying electrons and ions.

Hilarious.

 

[GeeMack]

At least I'm responding to the physical issues being raised, [...]

Not even remotely true. There are physical issues raised in virtually all of Tim Thompson's posts. And in all of tusenfem's posts. And in most of Reality Check's posts. And in many of mine. There are physical issues being raised right here...

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.

Responding?...

But that would require that you actually read and respond to that Onel and Mann paper, or Alfven's double layer paper, or the paper by Wheatland or something that actually explains these things. When can I expect you to do that?

Nope. That's not responding to the physical issues being raised. That's evasion, ignorance, dishonestly attempting to deflect the burden of proof, and whining. But it is most definitely not responding to the physical issues being raised. It is a lie to claim it is.

If there's something that differentiates the standard model from the electric Sun conjecture, if there's something about electricity powering the Sun, or if CMEs are some kind of massive electric sparks, if solar flares are supposedly like lightning here on Earth, the processes need to be explained. "Responding to the physical issues being raised" requires a description of the process, the physics, a quantitative objective explanation. "Responding to the physical issues being raised" means describing how that electrical whatever works and how it differs from the contemporary understanding that solar flares are the result of magnetic reconnection. "Responding to the physical issues being raised" would be showing that the electric Sun conjecture is different and how it can be explained physically, scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively. If it can't, then "responding to the physical issues being raised" would be acknowledging that it is crap, unscientific, and not really a valid conjecture at all.

So...

[...] I'm responding to the physical issues being raised, [...]

Go ahead.

 

[Reality Check]

The part that I find "amusing" is that Birkeland used a cathode sun to drive the auroral processes that he also accurately predicted along with those flying electrons and ions.

The part that I find "amusing" is that Birkeland used a cathode sun Earth to drive the auroral processes that he also accurately predicted along with those flying electrons and ions.
Fixed for you Michael Mozina