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

[D'rok]

Hey Mozina. Tusenfem's online right now. Go physics!

 

[D'rok]

All of the time we spent typing out explicit, exact fields that included magnetic field line reconnection (with no "circuit" rearrangement whatsoever) sure was time well spent, wasn't it?

Depends. Some of us appreciate it.

 

[R.A.F.]

No, the real difference between us is that I have taken the time to educate myself and you have not.

Yeah, that must be the "real" difference. It couldn't possibly be that you are wrong.

So, Michael...still believe that the Sun has an Iron "coating"...ya know, like a dipped ice cream cone?

 

[R.A.F.]

When did you intend to get a proper physics education?

Is that what you have?...a "proper" physics education??

Yet you still believe that the Sun is "coated" in iron, when there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for such an outlandish claim.


I glad I have an "improper" (compared to yours) physics education. Apparently an "improper" physics education makes you immune to idiotic claims.

 

[R.A.F.]

Work is a two way street. I've done a lot of work already just in rounding up the right materials. I can talk to you about Birkeland's work, or that Chinese paper till I'm blue in the face, but if you refuse to read it for yourself, and all you ever do is bitch, what is there to talk about from the standpoint of science?

Why is it necessary to read all these books to discuss this topic? Can't you form your own arguments without resorting to "I can't discuss this unless you read this book", crap?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually, I did read Dungey's work and a fair bit of the others. But that's beside the point.

No. Actually it shows you made "a little" effort to understand the basics. It shows you didn't go the "whole distance" however and read any relevant books on the topic.

I recognize my limits.

Your only real limits seem to mostly be related to how much time you are personally willing to put into properly educating yourself to this topic. You clearly don't have any mental limitations that I can see.

You do not.

I just don't impose educational limits on myself like you do.

Where I do not understand, I accept that there is a void.

I do too. I therefor try to fill that void of ignorance with the proper reading materials. I started with Alfven and Birkeland. One had a Nobel. The other just didn't live long enough to collect his.

How did you chose to fill that void of ignorance?

Where you do not understand, you fill that void with your own fantasises and call yourself educated.

You have reality standing on it's head. I'm the only one of the two of us that HAS actually read Birkelands *EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTS* and his maths for myself. I'm the only one of the two of us to have read Alfven's work for themselves. You only have "fantasies" born of very little actual "education" on this topic.

Get real.

Get educated.

 

[D'rok]

Get educated.

I have a computer science diploma, a political science degree, and a law degree. I also started but did not finish a music degree. I am educated. But not in physics.

How about you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Apparently, you like to quote stuff and then just only pick out the little small piece that you need (nothing new, you did that in the discharge discussion with Peratt's words, just read far enough till you can interprete it to your liking). If you had yellowed a bit more, then you find my reason why Birkeland could not have thought that the Sun was an anode because I go on with: because "cathode" is always accompanied by "ray" and as an experimental scientist working with electricity all the time, I am sure Birkeland also understood that cathodes do not emit positive corpuscules.

All that tells me t is that you didn't actually read his book yet. If you had, you would have noted that whole series of comments (and further experiments) with the "soot" on the glass anode walls. You'd have noted all the (now called sputtering) experiments and you wouldn't be so damn naive as to believe that sputtering doesn't happen in discharge processes.

I am sure you can point out to me book, page and line number where Birkeland states that the Sun is a cathode.

I already provided D'rok with the appropriate link and page numbers today. Go back and at least read that section again. You should read his whole series of sputtering/"soot" experiments too. He physically *CONFIRMED* that positively charged particles are released from the cathode and they can stick to the anode.

The reasons for his experiments with an anode or cathode terrella are in the other thread, it's rather hard to create a Sun in the lab, therefore B had to use things that he could experiment with, in this case a metal ball with a magnet inside. However, we KNOW that the solar wind is not driven electrically like circuit, because the electrons and ions move at the same velocity in the same direction. That is so much of basic electrodynamics, heck it is basic electrotechnics (circuit theory) that it is staggering you still come up with this nonsense.

The only difference between his experiments and our physical solar system is that he underestimated the densities of plasma in space, probably because everyone at the time called it a "vacuum". He didn't want to "overestimate" the density, so he ended up overestimating the velocity instead. In every other respect he got it exactly right.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have a computer science diploma, a political science degree, and a law degree.

Which only confirms my earlier statement that your only "limitation" appears to be related to the time you're willing to put into properly educating yourself on *THIS* (not any other) topic.

When did you intend to read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, or even his previous book on MHD theory? I've read both. When might I expect you to read Birkeland's book on this topic? I've read it, including the maths.

 

[GeeMack]

I've read it, including the maths.

Reading does not equal understanding.

 

[D'rok]

Which only confirms my earlier statement that your only "limitation" appears to be related to the time you're willing to put into properly educating yourself on *THIS* (not any other) topic.

Quite right. I'm too old to start my university education over again from scratch. What's your excuse for not being properly educated on this topic?

When did you intend to read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, or even his previous book on MHD theory? I've read both. When might I expect you to read Birkeland's book on this topic? I've read it, including the maths.

Right after you read my library of law casebooks.

Now, will you be demonstrating your authority on these topics at any time? A good way to do so might be to tell us about your physics education. Or, you could just have a coherent discussion with the many folks here who really do have one and have demonstrated their understanding of the subject.

I'm not optimistic.

 

[GeeMack]

The only difference between his experiments and our physical solar system is that he underestimated the densities of plasma in space, probably because everyone at the time called it a "vacuum". He didn't want to "overestimate" the density, so he ended up overestimating the velocity instead. In every other respect he got it exactly right.

Like the Sun is made of brass and has an electromagnet inside connected by wires that run up a pole to the outside of the Universe. Yep, got that part exactly right.

​

Apparently there is no end to the ridiculousness of the arguments put forth to support the nutty electric Sun conjecture.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Those experiments where Birkeland was working to figure out how the aurora works on Earth?

Yep, specifically the ones he compared to solar events, and claimed were important as it relates to solar events. Did you fail to read those experiments?

The "predictions" he made related to solar theories were a direct result of things he learned via active experimentation. They were true empirical predictions by the way, not the bogus "postdictions" that you folks try to now pass off as "predictions".

With that terrella, or "little Earth"?

Er, no. It was the "little Saturn" experiments that he compared to solar events.

Uh, yeah. We'll pass on that bogus and oft repeated distortion of the truth to support some cockamamie notion about the Sun being powered by electricity.

The only one distorting the truth around here is you, and only you. You're in pure denial that discharges happen in plasma. No wonder the Chinese are kicking our butts all over this planet in term of science and engineering. They've actually read the relevant maths from Alfven and they understand them. The west is still utterly clueless because almost nobody has actually read his work in the west.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501334

While the Chinese are busy studying his work and putting it to good use, the west is blissfully promoting what Alfven called "pseudoscience".

The response to this post will be a complaint about the poster rather than any quantitative objective support for the crackpot electric Sun conjecture.)

Deny that Chinese math all you like GM. It won't go away. Your denial routine is just bogus nonsense. I've handed you tons of maths, tons of paper and tons of physical evidence to support discharge theory. You're still clueless as to the SCIENTIFIC FACT that electrical discharges occur in plasmas and have been associated with solar flare events since as far back as Dungey and Birkeland himself!

Only a "crackpot", only someone completely and utterly and totally *CLUELESS* about plasma physics would be running around denying the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasmas. Only a clueless crackpot would keep claiming no supporting QUANTITATIVE evidence has been presented when it's been handed to them on a silver platter at LEAST a dozen or more times by at least a half dozen different author going all the way back to Dungey, Alfven and Calqvist.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Reading does not equal understanding.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501334

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0501/0501334v1.pdf

Did you not read it, or not understand it? Did you not read Dungey discuss electrical discharges in solar flare or not understand it? Do you not understand that electrical discharges occur in flares and that Dungey wrote about them over 60 year ago, or are you just stuck in pure denial?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Quite right. I'm too old to start my university education over again from scratch.

I didn't ask you to go back to school, I asked you to read a few relevant books on *THIS PARTICULAR* topic.

What's your excuse for not being properly educated on this topic?

I'm not. I've read Alfven's work, including his earlier book on MHD theory. Have you?

I've already explained to you how I filled my void of ignorance related to plasma physics. I started by reading Alfven's books on MHD theory. How did you educate yourself to MHD theory and how it should be properly applied to applications in space? I personally started with the author of MHD theory, the guy that won the Nobel Prize for developing that theory. That does seem like a logical place to begin. Where did you begin?

 

[D'rok]

I didn't ask you to go back to school, I asked you to read a few relevant books on *THIS PARTICULAR* topic.

No. You asked me if I have been properly educated on the topic. I have not. Picking up a few books for which I utterly lack the appropriate foundation will inevitably lead me to fatal errors and horrible misunderstandings. I would not even be able to evaluate whether or not those books were still good science or if they ever were.

Sound familiar?

I've already explained to you how I filled my void of ignorance related to plasma physics. I started by reading Alfven's books on MHD theory. How did you educate yourself to MHD theory and how it should be properly applied to applications in space? I personally started with the author of MHD theory, the guy that won the Nobel Prize for developing that theory. That does seem like a logical place to begin. Where did you begin?

Translation: You and I have precisely the same amount of proper education in physics.

None.

 

[ben m]

When did you learn anything other than MHD theory? MHD is an approximation.

It's like saying "I educated myself on hydrodynamics by reading 'Life at Low Reynolds Number' by Purcell."

 

[R.A.F.]

Which only confirms my earlier statement that your only "limitation" appears to be related to the time you're willing to put into properly educating yourself on *THIS* (not any other) topic.

Nonsense....we don't need to read anything to see that you improperly evaluate evidence.

Are you really going to ignore my "Iron Sun" comment?...are is it too embarrassing for someone "properly educated in physics"?

 

[GeeMack]

What's your excuse for not being properly educated on this topic?

I'm not.

Simple as that.

The question remains, is there any objective quantitative evidence that would support the crackpot notion that the Sun is powered by electricity and that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic bolts of lighting? By objective I mean when reviewed by those qualified in the field of solar physics, they also reach the conclusion that the Sun is indeed powered by electricity as claimed in this thread. Objective.

It does seem to be a paradigm shifting claim, requiring the complete rewriting of physics as we know it and running contrary to every quantitative objective observation, virtually every bit of empirical evidence we already have to formulate our notions about the Sun. Any guesses as to why nobody told those people who work at NASA and LMSAL? Or perhaps someone told them and they're all so stupid they just don't get it?

Any guesses as to why nobody who writes physics textbooks or teaches physics knows about it? Any guesses why there aren't any articles about it in scientific journals, articles which come to the conclusion that the Sun is a huge cathode, anode, or whatever that sucks up electricity from space and turns it into whopping bolts of lightning that make it all hot and bright? Any guesses as to why there aren't even Discovery Channel TV shows or articles in Popular Science magazine about it? I mean, this stuff is big news, isn't it?

For something that does require a wholesale rewrite of physics and goes against all quantitative and objective evidence, everyone sure seems to be very, very quiet about it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Simple as that.

The question remains, is there any objective quantitative evidence that would support the crackpot notion that the Sun is powered by electricity and that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic bolts of lighting?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501334

Only the poster child of pure denial would deny the fact that quantitative evidence for electrical discharges processes in solar flares has been presented. Did or did not Dungey suggest that electrical discharges occur in solar flares?

Did Wu, Chen and Li show quantitative evidence for pinch discharges in solar flares, yes or no?