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

[GeeMack]

The part that I find "amusing" is that Birkeland used a cathode sun Earth to drive the auroral processes figure out the rings of Saturn are the same thing as auroras on Earth that he also accurately predicted along with those flying electrons and ions.

Fixed for you Reality Check.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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).

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

Does the highlighted part say "air" or "plasma" RC?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And in many of mine.

Only in you dreams.....

So...

Go ahead.

Go ahead and live in pure denial forever if that floats your boat, but go pester someone else, about a subject you actually know something about. If you won't respond to the materials presented, there's no "science" being discussed. You refuse to discuss the science, and virtually every physical statement you've made in this thread related to discharges in plasmas have been factually false and you refuse to retract them.

Edited, breach of rule 12 material removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Well, that's simply because most of you *ASSUME* that the "photosphere" is "opaque". That's the whole difference between our positions actually.

For that matter, so was the gravity violation.

How? The center of sun is filled with highly pressurized plasma, even in a solid surface" scenario. I've posted videos that demonstrate the surface tension and EM influences have odd effects on objects in space in terms of the arrangements of things by atomic weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyTwLAW-Z8c

All our theory suggests is that the bulk of the mass comes from iron and nickel, it doesn't suggest the sun is actually any heavier than "predicted/postdicted" in standard theory.

(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.)

It shows that I'm paying attention to the criticisms and covering my bases. In RC's case, it's pure denial, denial, and more denial.

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?

No, it's a *PHYSICS* argument. A "discharge" is a release of stored EM energy. It has a limited lifespan based on the discharge rate of that stored energy. An "electrical current" only explains how the loops reach millions of degree, and why we see x-rays from coronal loops. A "discharge" process is needed to explain those spikes in the GOES data.

It's also a PHYSICS argument because they've (RC & GM) both made FALSE CLAIMS about discharges not occurring in conductors, etc. Those are physically false statements either way you look at it. Both of them arbitrarily threw in the need for a dielectric breakdown, but the word "dielectric" does not appear in Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma, nor did Dungey use that term in his paper that related discharges to flare events.

They actually made a simple error that has since turned into a melee of denial where I get to be called a liar every single day, month after grueling month, and neither one of them ever admits their scientific error. Wheeeeee!

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Oy. Sometimes I wonder if you've even read his work.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

This is a great question t, and one I now need to ask you. It is *UTTERLY IRRELEVANT* if *I* understand circuit theory and how it should be applied to solar physics. It's really only important that THEY understand it and properly applied it. Before I go any further with you, do you have any problem with their presentation, yes or no?

 

[Reality Check]

Does the highlighted part say "air" or "plasma" RC?

Neither. It says "Cosmic Plasma" - the title of the book.

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

Is the hilighlighted part a title or a definition, MM?

Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
First asked 11 January 2011
(No is obviously the answer and you unable to learn the difference yet)​

And the other questions that you are ignoring because the answers show that Peratt is talking about discharges in non-plasma:
Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?

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

 

[Reality Check]

This is a great question t, and one I now need to ask you. It is *UTTERLY IRRELEVANT* if *I* understand circuit theory and how it should be applied to solar physics. It's really only important that THEY understand it and properly applied it. Before I go any further with you, do you have any problem with their presentation, yes or no?

I do not think that anyone has any problem with the presentation in Generation of Large Scale Electric Fields in Coronal Flare Circuits by Önel, H.; Mann, G.

The text is nice. The figures are clear. Plenty of citations.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, that's simply because most of you *ASSUME* that the "photosphere" is "opaque".

The photosphere is opaque. It's the definition of the word.

That's the whole difference between our positions actually.

That some people know the definitions of words and some people don't?

How? The center of sun is filled with highly pressurized plasma, even in a solid surface" scenario. I've posted videos that demonstrate the surface tension and EM influences have odd effects on objects in space in terms of the arrangements of things by atomic weight.

Looks like a bunny, sure, but a complete failure to realistically address scientific concerns quantitatively and objectively.

All our theory suggests is that the bulk of the mass comes from iron and nickel, it doesn't suggest the sun is actually any heavier than "predicted/postdicted" in standard theory.

There's no "our" to it. The failure belongs solely to the singular creator of the nutty solid/rigid surface conjecture.

It shows that I'm paying attention to the criticisms and covering my bases. In RC's case, it's pure denial, denial, and more denial.

No, it shows that arguments by back pedaling and moving goalposts are every bit as much the strategy of crackpots as are lying, arguing from incredulity, arguing from ignorance, and deflecting the burden of proof.

No, it's a *PHYSICS* argument. A "discharge" is a release of stored EM energy. It has a limited lifespan based on the discharge rate of that stored energy. An "electrical current" only explains how the loops reach millions of degree, and why we see x-rays from coronal loops. A "discharge" process is needed to explain those spikes in the GOES data.

It's also a PHYSICS argument because they've (RC & GM) both made FALSE CLAIMS about discharges not occurring in conductors, etc. Those are physically false statements either way you look at it. Both of them arbitrarily threw in the need for a dielectric breakdown, but the word "dielectric" does not appear in Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma, nor did Dungey use that term in his paper that related discharges to flare events.

They actually made a simple error that has since turned into a melee of denial where I get to be called a liar every single day, month after grueling month, and neither one of them ever admits their scientific error. Wheeeeee!

An electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball, the original description of the "electrical discharge" claim made in this discussion, the description offered before the electric Sun proponents went on their current binge of goalpost moving, redefining, cherry picking, and dishonest semantics finagling, that kind of electrical discharge cannot occur within a plasma. It can't because it requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium, and plasma being a conductor, isn't a dielectric medium. There's no denial involved. There's an understanding of simple physics and simple physics terminology that the electric Sun adherents apparently don't care to accept.

But we're still here...

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

The physical issues...

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.​

Go ahead.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The photosphere is opaque. It's the definition of the word.

Ya, and it's an electrical discharge *IN* a "plasma" by definition too. Go figure.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's no "our" to it. The failure belongs solely to the singular creator of the nutty solid/rigid surface conjecture.

You are simply demonstrating the *************** lies that you repeatedly tell.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

My name isn't the only name on *ANY* of the published papers I've been involved in.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 12.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it shows that arguments by back pedaling and moving goalposts are every bit as much the strategy of crackpots as are lying, arguing from incredulity, arguing from ignorance, and deflecting the burden of proof.

Yep, just like this crackpot comment you made in post number 64 of this thread, *MONTHS* ago. Note that you've never provided any proof of your false claim:

A discharge cannot occur within a conductor.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Where is it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The physical issues...

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.

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

What do they mean by this statement:

This is in contradiction to the reconnection model in which the magnetic field energy in the corona is taken for the flare.

Care to physically comment on this statement, or are you going to do another disappearing act and dodge another direct question? Gee, is there any doubt in anyone's mind what you're going to do?

 

[dasmiller]

Well, that's simply because most of you *ASSUME* that the "photosphere" is "opaque". That's the whole difference between our positions actually.

How? The center of sun is filled with highly pressurized plasma, even in a solid surface" scenario. I've posted videos (remainder snipped)

I deliberately did NOT cite any rebuttals to your position because I didn't want to take this thread even fruther off-topic. If you want to reopen that debate, start a new thread (and let me know).

No, it's a *PHYSICS* argument.

<sigh> so you don't believe that the word "discharge" is used to mean-

no no no no no I am not going to get sucked back into that one.

 

[GeeMack]

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

What do they mean by this statement:

This is in contradiction to the reconnection model in which the magnetic field energy in the corona is taken for the flare.

Care to physically comment on this statement, or are you going to do another disappearing act and dodge another direct question? Gee, is there any doubt in anyone's mind what you're going to do?

Setting aside the persistent uncivil personal attack, and noting that asking other people to explain a comment indicates the person asking doesn't understand it...

Electric currents are induced when a conductor, the plasma of the solar atmosphere, moves across or through a magnetic field, pretty much the entire surface of the Sun. That's pretty basic physics. So it's no surprise that there are electric currents in the solar atmosphere.

As far as that particular dishonestly cherry picked quote, the authors suggest the purpose of the paper is to investigate the possible mechanism of flare energy being generated by plasma motion. This consideration, the idea that they intend to investigate, is what they say "is in contradiction to the reconnection model [...]". The idea is in contradiction. Junior high school reading comprehension. And it's in the introduction for god's sake. Only an idiot would take it to be some sort of conclusive statement.

Ultimately nothing in the paper seems to offer any support to the crackpot notion that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth. Nothing in it is about sparks like in a toy plasma ball. Nothing in the summary or conclusion mentions discharges at all. The paper appears to fail in every way to support this silly claim...

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

So where were we? Oh yeah...

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

The physical issues...

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.​

Interesting that the responses to the physical issues being raised are mostly arguments from incredulity and ignorance, dishonest attempts to deflect the burden of proof, evasion, personal attacks, and for the most part have nothing to do with those issues.

 

[Reality Check]

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

What do they mean by this statement:

This is in contradiction to the reconnection model in which the magnetic field energy in the corona is taken for the flare.

What they mean by this sentence is fairly clear:

• They have a theory that in special circumstances an event, possibly magnetic reconnection, allows a large current to flow between the oppositely polarized areas of a bipolar active region.
• That large current releases energy that is compariable to that of a solar flare.
• Thus their model can explain the energy that a solar flare can release.
• The magnetic reconnection model also explains the energy that a solar flare can release. The author's theory though ignores this and assumes that it all comes from the current.

The advantage of the magnetic reconnection model is that it can explain the details of the flares, e.g. why flares happen at the top of corronal loops.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Go ahead and live in pure denial forever if that floats your boat, but go pester someone else, about a subject you actually know something about.

Had JREF's rules forbidden us to write about subjects of which we know nothing, then the post count for at least one of the participants in this thread would be less than 6500.

If you won't respond to the materials presented, there's no "science" being discussed.

That's an interesting proposition. Let's apply it...

Three weeks ago I wrote:

Do you, Michael Mozina, agree with Peratt's contention that the genitalia of the Tapamveni petroglyph represent an electrical discharge in a plasma?

Although that question concerned an example of an electrical discharge given by the very same authority whose definition Michael Mozina had been quoting, Michael Mozina has not responded to that question.

According to Michael Mozina's highlighted statement above, we must conclude that Michael Mozina has not been discussing "science".

The other possible conclusion is that Michael Mozina's highlighted statement was nonsense.

Can we vote for more than one?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Had JREF's rules forbidden us to write about subjects of which we know nothing, then the post count for at least one of the participants in this thread would be less than 6500.

Ya, but I actually can't help myself, I kinda like RC.

That's an interesting proposition. Let's apply it...

That's not "applying it", that's a completely irrelevant tangent. If we were discussing DNA, I wouldn't care one iota what you thought of Linus Pauling's opinions on vitamin C. Likewise I couldn't care less what Peratt thinks of a petroglyph and even less what you think of his opinions on that topic.

How about sticking to the topic and answering my previous question to you? Can electrical discharges occur in conductors/plasmas, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Setting aside the persistent uncivil personal attack,

Hypocrisy overload. Projection overload too I might add.

....dishonestly....Junior high school reading comprehension.....an idiot...crackpot notion.......ignorance, dishonest....evasion........

And that's just one post. Civil dialog? Sheesh. I don't think a day has gone by that you haven't claimed I was being 'dishonest", yet you go out of your way to avoid the topic at all costs, as I will again demonstrate for you based on your actual response in the following post. This post however is to point out the hypocritical nature of your complaints about 'civil dialog'. If you dish it out, what exactly do you expect in return?

 

[Michael Mozina]

....... the purpose of the paper is to investigate the possible mechanism of flare energy being generated by plasma motion. This consideration, the idea that they intend to investigate, is what they say "is in contradiction to the reconnection model [...]". The idea is in contradiction.

Yes. In other words, this is a 'unique' way of viewing that release of EM energy in the flare event.

Ultimately nothing in the paper seems to offer any support to the crackpot notion that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth.

That is simply another of your endless string of lies. The paper most *CERTAINLY* associates the release of stored EM circuit energy and flare events! Lies and denial won't cut it.

Nothing in it is about sparks like in a toy plasma ball.

Who said it would? Do you have anything other than strawman arguments and insults to offer me?

Nothing in the summary or conclusion mentions discharges at all.

Does it mention the release to stored EM energy from the circuit that results in a flare, yes or no?

So where were we? Oh yeah...

Oh ya, we're right back to pure denial because you personally refuse to accept the definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma. What's new?

That was an epic fail on your part to deal with the actual materials presented and to even note the association of a release of stored circuit energy and a flare. This paper most *CERTAINLY* supports the notion that a flare is the results of the release of EM energy from the circuit. The result is significant spike in the GOES data. *ANY* release of stored EM energy into the plasma is a "discharge", but then that denial thing kicks in and you ignore the facts presented in the paper and you ignore the agreed upon (between t and I) definition of a discharge as a release of stored EM energy. Wow, who would have guessed?