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

[Reality Check]

No RC, the *SURROUNDING MEDIUM* is air, but the conductive path that enables the "discharge" (release of stored energy) occurs in the CONDUCTIVE PLASMA. The discharge process occurs IN THE PLASMA, not the "air.

And that is what I stated in my ETA.

Oh please. He called them "electrical discharges" which he associated with limited duration solar flare events. You're the one insisting his statements be "dumbed down" to "big current".

Oh please. He called them "electrical discharges" which he associated with limited duration solar flare events. You're the one insisting his statements be "dumbed down" to "release of magnetic or electic energy".
You're the one unable to read his paper and see that the context of his use of "electrical discharges" is high current densities.

You are lying: Alfven and Dungey never define electrical discharges as "a discharge of stored EM energy".

In fact no one defines electric discharges despite your cherry picking of Peratt's first sentence.

Originally Posted by tusenfem
Peratt: 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.

Dungey: The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density. The electrons must reach at least relativistic energies ...

Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.

Yes he did. He specifically used the term "discharge", not just "current".

Wrong: He specifically used \both terms, definiing a discharge as a "current", i.e. lots of electrons travelling at high speed in the same direction.

Originally Posted by Dungey
A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.

In other words, high current densities were released from stored electromagnetic field energy, AKA a "discharge".

Wriog: An electrical discharge as used by Dungey is a high current density, AKA a high current density.

You've been claiming that conductors cannot experience "electrical discharges". He said exactly the opposite RC. He used the term "electrical discharge".

You are lying again MM:
I have stated that the usual defintion of electrical discharge cannot happen in plasma, e.g. Peratt's defintion.
Dungey does not use that defintion of electrical discharge. See above.

Emphasis mine. In this specific field, none, but "credentials" seem to be irrelevant.

I agree - I have no credentials specifically in solar physics. That does not matter (see below).
Neither do you. Neither for example does Anthony Peratt - his credentials are in electrical engineering.

You seem to know absolutely nothing about the behaviors of *PLASMAS* (rather than solids), and in fact your "credentials" seem to be in the way of you actually understanding any of the "behaviors' of "plasmas" as far as I can tell.

You are lying again. I know a lot about the behaviors of *PLASMAS* for a couple of reasons

1. Science degrees include learning about many areas of science. I not only learnt about sold state physics (my main area of research). I also learnt about plasmas (and gases and liquids).
2. I have continued to learn about science. That includes plasmas.

 

[dasmiller]

In terms of the 'work put into' actually explaining the RD image, I would say that it's been limited at best, particularly here on this specific forum. Even after 5 years of debating the issue, I've yet to hear a clear presentation that really 'explained' much about the image from the perspective of "standard" solar theory. When I ask even the most rudimentary of questions about the flare event specifically, I get comments like "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" must like I hear "Electrical discharges in plasma? What discharges?". It's frankly hard to take such individuals seriously in all honesty.

Okay, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I actually generated RD images using pictures of terrestrial clouds and got images that looked very much like terrain in the sky. And yet you dismiss it as "Flying stuff, what flying stuff?"

The best "criticism" seems to be temperature related, but all that "criticism" is predicated on the *ASSUMPTION* that the first 500 KM of photosphere acts like a "black body" and is "opaque" to every wavelength at such a shallow depth.

No, that assumption isn't required (or even particularly helpful), but to avoid a derail, I won't go into it here.

The only reason they are 'consistent with' coronal temperatures is because they provide the heat *TO* the corona!

So what makes them so hot? Discharges certainly would have that effect, and do in fact have exactly that effect right here on Earth, including gamma ray emissions we can observe in Rhessi, the same instrument that observes gamma rays in the solar atmosphere.

And as I've said before, if your argument is that the corona temperature implies electric flares, then why bring up the ionization levels?

I frankly don't remember how you even came to that conclusion, but one thing this thread has taught me is that the definition of an 'electric sun' seems to vary quite substantially from one individual to another. If you mean "externally powered sun", no, it doesn't. If you mean "electrically active sun", IMO you're wrong.

In the Dungey paper you provided, he didn't provide a single example of an observation that would support flares-as-electrical-discharges over any other theory. In fact, the only discussion of actual observations was limited to showing how the available (in 1958) observations did not necessarily refute electric flares, though even he tacitly admitted that the observations posed a real challenge for him. And when I asked you what it was about that paper that you thought provided support, you told me is simply provided historical perspective. If historical perspective is considered "support," then phlogiston is an established fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

R.C.:
"I must now ask you what are your credentials in this field MM?"
M.M
"In this specific field, none, ..."

There you have it folks! MM, as we have suspected, is talking and writing through the lower posterior part of his body.

In that case we *ALL* are in the same boat since I doubt anyone in this conversation has a degree in plasma physics. On the other hand, my beliefs and statements are congruent with Dungey, and RC's position is not. Dungey specifically suggested that discharges *CAN* occur in conductors/plasmas in direct opposition to RC's claim.

 

[GeeMack]

A "discharge" is not occurring through the air RC, it occurs THROUGH THE CONDUCTIVE PLASMA. The "discharge" is not the breakdown of the dielectric medium, it's the ENERGY RELEASE that flows through the *PLASMA*!

This is another argument by tantrum. A blatant and transparent attempt to rectify a blunder by dishonestly redefining terms to shoehorn them into this obviously unsupportable claim...

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

So okay, if we define the term electrical discharge to mean any damn thing that can happen anywhere in the Universe, then yes, it can happen in the plasma on the Sun. But that makes the term completely useless, as Tim Thompson, tusenfem, and others have already explained. What we are lacking is some legitimate response to this...

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. It requires a description of the process, the physics, a quantitative objective explanation. It 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 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 the honest, responsible thing to do would be to acknowledge that it is stinky manure and not really a scientific conjecture at all.​

A civil, clearly articulated response. Not some smart mouthing personal attacks. Not some weaseling evasion. Not some cowardly ignorance. But a legitimate, scientific, objective, and quantitative explanation supporting the idea that the Sun is powered by electricity, or showing how solar flares and CMEs are functionally the same thing as lightning here on Earth, or describing how all of space is a huge anode and the Sun is a giant cathode and the glow of the Sun is a billion glowing filaments like the sparks in a toy plasma ball. This is where the discussion should have been on the first page.

 

[Reality Check]

In terms of the 'work put into' actually explaining the RD image, I would say that it's been limited at best, particularly here on this specific forum.
...

You are wrong again

• The amount of 'work put into' does not matter.
• It is trivial to see that the "mountain ranges" that you think are in the RD images are optical illusions.
• It is deluded to think that images taken from light emitted in the corona somehow magically reveal stuff about things happening below the photosphere.

There is no *ASSUMPTION* that the light emitted from the Sun is that from a black body.
There is the *OBSERVATION* that light emitted from the Sun is roughly that from a black body. There is the physics of plasmas which show that a plasma such as the photosphere emits a roughly black body spectrum.

You are still ignoring the definition of the photosphere is that it is the volume from which light is emitted from the Sun . By that definition there is no light emitted from below the photosphere.
The depth of the photosphere varies with the wavelength of light being considered but is usually treated as 100 kilometers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I actually generated RD images using pictures of terrestrial clouds and got images that looked very much like terrain in the sky. And yet you dismiss it as "Flying stuff, what flying stuff?"

It's not enough to show that MOVING objects can create "some" patterns in a couple of images. It's another thing entirely to explain the rigid nature of those patterns. That's the part that is never really much addressed.

And as I've said before, if your argument is that the corona temperature implies electric flares, then why bring up the ionization levels?

The ionization state itself implies the electrical aspect. When we observe images of the corona, the corona cannot be the heat source of coronal loops because the loops are the *BRIGHTEST* thing in the image. The loops are the heat source to the corona!

In the Dungey paper you provided, he didn't provide a single example of an observation that would support flares-as-electrical-discharges over any other theory.

He wasn't trying to. He was simply making the "connection' between "reconnection" theory and "electrical discharges". Onel and Mann's paper on the other hand provided very specific observational support of their theories.

In fact, the only discussion of actual observations was limited to showing how the available (in 1958) observations did not necessarily refute electric flares, though even he tacitly admitted that the observations posed a real challenge for him.

In 1958, I'm sure that was true. In 2009 it seemed to be no problem for Mann and Onel.

And when I asked you what it was about that paper that you thought provided support, you told me is simply provided historical perspective. If historical perspective is considered "support," then phlogiston is an established fact.

Come now. I specifically have a "range" of papers in my bag here to discuss, from Wheatland and Mann's recent papers, to Dungey and Bruce's papers from 50+ years ago, to Alfven's work, to lab work from the 70's, etc. Individually no single paper may make you happy, but collectively they should, at least IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is another argument by tantrum. A blatant and transparent attempt to rectify a blunder by dishonestly redefining terms to shoehorn them into this obviously unsupportable claim...

This is just another example of the endless stream of lies that come out of your mouth. Peratt's one line definition makes it clear that a "discharge" is a release of stored energy. It's not just the "breakdown" that enables the discharge to take place, it's the actual *RELEASE OF ENERGY* (through the conductor) that is the actual "electrical discharge". Your denial game is the only "dishonest" behavior going on here.

A civil,

You clearly don't understand the meaning of that term any better than you understand the term "electrical discharge".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not some cowardly ignorance.

Irony overload from a guy that dodges or handwaves at every paper presented. That response to Mann's paper was about as ignorant and cowardly as it gets.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And that is what I stated in my ETA.


Oh please. He called them "electrical discharges" which he associated with limited duration solar flare events. You're the one insisting his statements be "dumbed down" to "release of magnetic or electic energy".
You're the one unable to read his paper and see that the context of his use of "electrical discharges" is high current densities.

OMG. He used the term "electrical discharge" RC. He specifically claims they *CAN* occur in plasmas and says they may be involved in solar flare events, in direct opposition to your claim that discharges cannot occur in conductors! You're in blatant, hard core denial of scientific fact!

 

[dasmiller]

It's not enough to show that MOVING objects can create "some" patterns in a couple of images. It's another thing entirely to explain the rigid nature of those patterns. That's the part that is never really much addressed.

We discussed it. Again, I don't want to duplicate the discussion here.

The ionization state itself implies the electrical aspect.

What is it about the ionization state that implies the electrical aspect? How is the ionization state inconsistent with conventional theory? If it's not inconsistent with conventional theory, then it doesn't provide any support to electric-flare.

When we observe images of the corona, the corona cannot be the heat source of coronal loops because the loops are the *BRIGHTEST* thing in the image. The loops are the heat source to the corona!

And the connection to ionization levels . . .?

He wasn't trying to. He was simply making the "connection' between "reconnection" theory and "electrical discharges". Onel and Mann's paper on the other hand provided very specific observational support of their theories.

If Dungey's paper doesn't provide support for your theory, then why do you keep citing it?

In 1958, I'm sure that was true. In 2009 it seemed to be no problem for Mann and Onel.

as above.

Come now. I specifically have a "range" of papers in my bag here to discuss, from Wheatland and Mann's recent papers, to Dungey and Bruce's papers from 50+ years ago, to Alfven's work, to lab work from the 70's, etc. Individually no single paper may make you happy, but collectively they should, at least IMO.

I don't have the physics background to reasonably evaluate most of them. When I have invested the time (for example, Dungey, or the papers about ionization levels in flares) I've come away with very different conclusions than you. But when I've raised my concerns, you've neither disputed nor acknowledged them, and you continue to post as if Dungey and the ionization levels support your position. (to avoid confusion, the ionization papers were related to the dispute about the chemical composition of the sun, not the dispute about whether the ionization states themselves were inconsistent with conventional solar theory).

Hence my frustration when you mentioned other people hearing only one side of an argument.

 

[Perpetual Student]

In that case we *ALL* are in the same boat since I doubt anyone in this conversation has a degree in plasma physics. On the other hand, my beliefs and statements are congruent with Dungey, and RC's position is not. Dungey specifically suggested that discharges *CAN* occur in conductors/plasmas in direct opposition to RC's claim.

Here is the point: You are devoid of credentials in the area of solar physics, but you are clinging to 50 year old papers (that you barely understand) for your dogmatic proclamations.
I have no credentials in this area, but I do have enough knowledge of physics and mathematics to know that you are out of your league in this area and that there are thousands of very smart people (with credentials) who know that EU and electric sun enthusiasts are a bunch of crackpots.

 

[GeeMack]

The ionization state itself implies the electrical aspect. When we observe images of the corona, the corona cannot be the heat source of coronal loops because the loops are the *BRIGHTEST* thing in the image. The loops are the heat source to the corona!

This argument demonstrates a complete lack of qualification to understand the relevant solar satellite imagery. In an image of any certain wavelength, the brightest things may be the areas nearest to a particular thermal range. Dimmer areas in the image may be cooler or hotter than the brightest areas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here is the point: You are devoid of credentials in the area of solar physics,

With the possible exception of t, who involved in this discussion is a professional "solar physicist" by trade, or a plasma physicist by trade?

but you are clinging to 50 year old papers (that you barely understand) for your dogmatic proclamations.

You haven't even commented on the 50 year old stuff, nor Mann's recent work. Care to choose either of them and explain how it's not an "electrical discharge" as we earlier agree could happen in "conductors"?

I have no credentials in this area, but I do have enough knowledge of physics and mathematics to know that you are out of your league in this area and that there are thousands of very smart people (with credentials) who know that EU and electric sun enthusiasts are a bunch of crackpots.

Well, even amateurs like yourself were able to agree that electrical discharges occur in conductors and plasmas. Evidently that's much further that some folks.

IMO your next step is to look and comment on that recent paper by Onel and Mann. You have a background in circuit theory, so it should be right up your alley. It's also another example a rapid release of EM energy in a plasma that is directly tied back to observed solar flare events.

 

[Reality Check]

OMG. He used the term "electrical discharge" RC. He specifically claims they *CAN* occur in plasmas and says they may be involved in solar flare events, in direct opposition to your claim that discharges cannot occur in conductors! You're in blatant, hard core denial of scientific fact!

OMG. He used the term "electrical discharge" MM. He specifically claims they (as he defines them in the context of his paper) *CAN* occur in plasmas and says they may be involved in solar flare events, nothing to do with my quoting the standard definition of electrical discharge in which discharges cannot occur in conductors! You're in blatant, hard core denial of scientific fact and elementary comprehension!

• Dungey is using a defintion that is specific to his 50 year old paper.
• Most scientists (especially today) use a standard definition which means that electrical discharges cannot happen in plasmas.

Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This argument demonstrates a complete lack of qualification to understand the relevant solar satellite imagery.

What were your qualifications again?

 

[Michael Mozina]

OMG. He used the term "electrical discharge" MM. He specifically claims they (as he defines them in the context of his paper) *CAN* occur in plasmas and says they may be involved in solar flare events,

So according to Dungey, electrical discharges can occur in plasmas/conductors.

nothing to do with my quoting the standard definition of electrical discharge in which discharges cannot occur in conductors!

Prove it. *OTHER* than the disputed Peratt definition of a discharge, show me published definition of an electrical discharge that makes any such claim about them being incapable of occurring in conductors. That's bogus.

You're in blatant, hard core denial of scientific fact and elementary comprehension!

Oh, I comprehend quite clearly that you are in hard core denial of scientific fact. I've even showed you pretty maths, pretty 50+ year old papers, recent papers, tokamak videos and everything!

Most scientists (especially today) use a standard definition which means that electrical discharges cannot happen in plasmas.

I want to see proof of this claim RC, and not based on a disputed definition by Peratt. You owe me proof of your claim that discharges cannot occur in plasmas because that is a false statement.

 

[Reality Check]

In that case we *ALL* are in the same boat since I doubt anyone in this conversation has a degree in plasma physics. On the other hand, my beliefs and statements are congruent with Dungey, and RC's position is not. Dungey specifically suggested that discharges *CAN* occur in conductors/plasmas in direct opposition to RC's claim.

Actually you are wrong yet again: tunsenfem looks like he has a degree in plasma physics or spolar physics or space physics.

On the other hand you are lying about your position on Dungey's paper. He defines discharge as

Originally Posted by Dungey
A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.

We cane either use "electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities" or the more common term "current".

Please stop lying about what I claim.
My claim is that Dungey specifically states in his paper that "a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities" *CAN* occur in plasmas.
He shortens this to 'discharge' for the purpose of his paper.
That has nothing to do with the scientific definition of electrical discharge.

Likewise an engineer discussing a dam can define a large volume of water suddenly being emitted from the dam as a "discharge". That does not make it an electrical discharge.

Likewise an mother discussing her baby can define a large volume of vomit suddenly being emitted from the baby as a "discharge". That does not make it an electrical discharge.

Ignoring the context that the specific definition of 'discharge' is being used is idiotic.

 

[Reality Check]

Is your claim that a release of energy (solar flare) is a release of energy

So according to Dungey, electrical discharges can occur in plasmas/conductors.

Almost right: According to Dungey, electrical discharges as defined by him in the context of his paper can occur in plasmas. His definition is:

Originally Posted by Dungey
A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.

Prove it. *OTHER* than the disputed Peratt definition of a discharge, show me published definition of an electrical discharge that makes any such claim about them being incapable of occurring in conductors. That's bogus.

There is no dispute about Peratt's definition. He has a section where he talks about electrical discharges in his book "Cosmic Plasma" this section has a title "Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma". His actual definition matches with the standard definition. And

• Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
• Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
  First asked 7 December 2010

The only dispute is why you insist on cherry picking the first sentence of his definition.

But if you want another published defintion of an electrical discharge then go buy a book. Or Google it . Or ask a high school student .

Or maybe read this thread:

Dictionary of Electronics: disruptive discharge Sudden, heavy current flow through a dielectric material when it fails completely under electric stress"

I want to see proof of this claim RC, and not based on a disputed definition by Peratt. You owe me proof of your claim that discharges cannot occur in plasmas because that is a false statement.

Wrong:
You are the one that asserted originally that electrical discharges can occur in solar flares (i.e. plasmas). The usual defintion of electrical discharges is the breakdown of a insulating medium allowing a sudden current to flow.

That means that you are wrong ujnless you produce proof of your claim, e.g. citations to the many experiments on insulating plasmas breaking down to conduct current.

The alternative is that you want to use your own personal and trivial redefinition of electrical discharges as a "a sudden release of magnetic or electrical energy", i.e. a solar flare.

So is your claim actually:

A sudden release of magnetic or electrical energy (a solar flare) is a sudden release of magnetic or electrical energy?
​

 

[Michael Mozina]

What is it about the ionization state that implies the electrical aspect?

Iron isn't ionized to a +20 state at 6000K. Something has to heat plasmas from thousands to millions of degrees. The "most logical' heat source would be 'current'. Note that this applies to *SINGLE* loops, not necessarily even "connected" loops.

How is the ionization state inconsistent with conventional theory?

What conventional theory? It gets all fuzzy when they talk about the heating of the footprints of the loop to millions of degrees. Care to fully explain that process for us?

If it's not inconsistent with conventional theory, then it doesn't provide any support to electric-flare.

Conventional theory really doesn't explain a *SINGLE* million degree coronal loop IMO, but you are welcome to show me I'm wrong.

And the connection to ionization levels . . .?

We both still have to explain that million degree plasma in some way. What is the conventional way to explain a single loop that reaches say a five million degree temperature range that shows up brightly in an SDO 94A image?

If Dungey's paper doesn't provide support for your theory, then why do you keep citing it?

Dungey specifically uses the term 'electrical discharge' in association with flares, so IMO it does support my theory. The ionization state aside, he clearly suggests that electrical discharges can and do occur in conductors/plasmas which was another key reason for me citing the paper in the first place.

I don't have the physics background to reasonably evaluate most of them. When I have invested the time (for example, Dungey, or the papers about ionization levels in flares) I've come away with very different conclusions than you. But when I've raised my concerns, you've neither disputed nor acknowledged them, and you continue to post as if Dungey and the ionization levels support your position.

There are two separate issues here, and let's please not confuse the two.

A) Dungey specifically states that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas/conductors and associated electrical discharges with flares *BEFORE I WAS BORN*.

B) The ionization states are consistent with very strong currents that heat the plasma to very high temperatures.

(to avoid confusion, the ionization papers were related to the dispute about the chemical composition of the sun, not the dispute about whether the ionization states themselves were inconsistent with conventional solar theory).

This could get confusing alright. At least I know with you that we'll work it out sooner or later.

Hence my frustration when you mentioned other people hearing only one side of an argument.

I'm still a bit confused as to why you feel frustrated, but I acknowledge that I can have that effect on some folks. Let's start there. I am trying to listen and be responsive, even if we can't quite agree.

The first purpose in Dungey's paper was to point out that electrical discharges can and do occur in conductors.

The ionization states seen in SDO and Hinode images suggest that a lot of current flows through the magnetic ropes. Alfven compares them to 'Bennett Pinches" in fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually you are wrong yet again: tunsenfem looks like he has a degree in plasma physics or spolar physics or space physics.

Ya, ya, I gave him a free pass in a later post. I don't hear him claiming that discharges cannot occur in plasmas RC. In fact he and I have already agreed that an electrical discharge is a *RELEASE* of stored EM energy (Peratt's one line definition).

Care to explain why you're the odd man out?