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

[Reality Check]

Alfven, Carlqvist, Dungey, as well as Mann and Onel already did that for you. Did you care to comment further on their explanations?

Wrong again: Alfven, Carlqvist, Dungey, as well as Mann and Onel are not so ignorant that they would state that lightning (electrical discharges) happen on the Sun.

Alfven, Carlqvist: Circuit model (no electrical discharges).
Dungey: Magnetic reconection (electrical discharge = high current density caused by magnetic reconenction).
Mann and Onel: Circuit model (no electrical discharges).

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are still confused, MM.
The electrical discharges that happen in solids, liquids and gases involve the break down of the dielectric property of the solid, liquid or gas.

No, not always and not NECESSARILY. That is an ARBITRARY aspect of an "electrical discharge" through a solid that YOU PERSONALLY slapped in there. Not every discharge through a conductor has to necessarily ionize the solid or the liquid. That's your own personal pet peeve evidently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)

 

[Michael Mozina]

You know.....

I've seen denial, and I've seen HARD CORE DENIAL before, but the DENIAL quotient around here on this issue is simply off scale. An electrical discharge is a sudden release of stored EM energy. There is no REQUIREMENT for ionization. Dungey did in fact write about electrical discharges in relationship to solar flares and "reconnection" events RC, no matter how much you wish that he had not done so. You can't deny history forever.

 

[Tubbythin]

Do you accept that electrical discharges occur in plasmas?

That depends on your definition of electrical discharge. If we're talking about the breakdown of a dielectric medium then no, obviously not.

 

[Tubbythin]

That is a false statement and a false belief you hold. The discharge can ONLY happen through a conductive medium.

The discharge happens because the dielectric breakdown and becomes conductive. If there were no dielectric to breakdown there would be no build up of charge (this is really basic electromagnetism) and then no lightning.

Shall I round up that copper tubing image for you again that was pinched during the discharge process?

You mean the one that was hit by lightning that occurred after the breakdown of a dielectric medium (namely the air).

The discharge process is not hampered by the conductivity aspect, in fact the discharge can't happen through anything other than a conductive medium.

If the air was conductive there would be no lightning because there would be no build up of charge. This is really really really really really basic stuff.

 

[GeeMack]

Electrical discharges happen when a dielectric medium breaks down allowing the sudden creation of a current through the medium.

That depends on your definition of electrical discharge. If we're talking about the breakdown of a dielectric medium then no, obviously not.

In other words, no lightning-like discharges are occurring in the conductive plasma of the Sun's atmosphere. Since they don't happen on the Sun, it would be incorrect to suggest that such discharges are or cause CMEs, coronal loops, or million degree heating. Obviously other principles are at work there.

 

[Tubbythin]

No, not always and not NECESSARILY. That is an ARBITRARY aspect of an "electrical discharge" through a solid that YOU PERSONALLY slapped in there. Not every discharge through a conductor has to necessarily ionize the solid or the liquid. That's your own personal pet peeve evidently.

No it isn't. It's the standard definition you will see in text books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/Crushed_rod_pollock_barraclough.jpg/128px-Crushed_rod_pollock_barraclough.jpg[/qimg]

So what happened here then? Well there was a large build up of a potential difference between ground and air. At some point this causes the breakdown of the air. This means that the air cannot hold the charges separate any more and becomes conductive. What happens? You have a sudden, almost instantaneous release of energy. This we call lightning. Whatever gets hit by the lightning is likely to get frazzled. Like a metal pole for example.
So what about if the air was conducting? Well there would be no build up of a potential difference between ground and air, no sudden release of energy and no frazzled pole.
In other words, electrical discharges like lightning can only occur when there is a dielectric medium to stop charges dissipating.

 

[ben m]

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of stored EM energy.

Nope. An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electrostatic energy. Very little electrostatic energy can accumulate on the Sun because ... wait for it ... the Sun is electrically conductive.

Unlike the atmosphere, or a capacitors, or the Z-machine at Sandia, where insulators allow a big (electrostatic) charge, carrying electrostatic energy, to build up on opposite sides of the insulator. The discharge is when something conductive is allowed in, and the charge goes back to neutrality.

The Sun's electromagnetic energy is almost all magnetic/inductive (not electric/capacitative); its currents are driven by induction (not discharge); its energy releases are from the reconfiguration of B fields, not from ohmic heating in currents.

"Attention all passengers, the next station is the same as the last station and the one before that. This train does not stop at any other stations. This route is a code-share with all other Mozina routes."

 

[Tubbythin]

In other words, no lightning-like discharges are occurring in the conductive plasma of the Sun's atmosphere. Since they don't happen on the Sun, it would be incorrect to suggest that such discharges are or cause CMEs, coronal loops, or million degree heating. Obviously other principles are at work there.

This is so obvious it is mind-boggling that Michael doesn't get it. You don't need any qualifications to understand it at all. I'm pretty sure if you told a ten year old at school that air is an insulator and plasmas are conductors then they could understand this idea perfectly.

 

[dasmiller]

If the air was conductive there would be no lightning because there would be no build up of charge. This is really really really really really basic stuff.

But if that's the case, then since saltwater is conductive, we would never see big charge separations in the oceans, and there would never be underwater lightning!

We never see big charge separations in the oceans, and there's never underwater lightning.

But think how cool it would be!

 

[Reality Check]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)

You need to learn to read:
The caption includes "A section of the crushed lightning rod studied by Pollock and Barraclough."
It is described as:

The phenomenon was not understood until 1905, when Pollock and Barraclough[10] investigated a compressed and distorted length of copper tube from a lightning rod after it had been struck by lightning. Their analysis showed that the forces due to the interaction of the large current flow with its own magnetic field could have caused the compression and distortion

There was no electrical discharge in the rod. It was hit by an existing electrical discharge (lightning). That caused a large current flow in the rod. The magnetic field from that current could have caused the compression and distortion.

 

[Reality Check]

You know.....

I've seen denial, and I've seen HARD CORE DENIAL before, but the DENIAL quotient around here on this issue is simply off scale. An electrical discharge is a sudden release of stored EM energy. There is no REQUIREMENT for ionization. Dungey did in fact write about electrical discharges in relationship to solar flares and "reconnection" events RC, no matter how much you wish that he had not done so. You can't deny history forever.

You are lying.
I have never denied that Dungey did in fact write about electrical discharges in relationship to solar flares and magnetic reconnection events.
I have read the paper where he used that term and it is in the context of large current densities caused by magnetic reconnection.

13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.

No textbook you have found defines electrical discharges as just 'a sudden release of stored EM energy'. Peratt does not despite you cherry picking the first sentence of his paragraph.

• Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
  First asked 7 December 2010
• Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
  First asked 11 January 2011
• Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
  First asked 3rd February 2011
• MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title?
  Shouldn't the title be "Electrical discharges in Plasma"?
  Or what is the magical property of "cosmic" plasmas that allows lightning in them when lightning is impossible in normal plasmas?
  First asked 11th May 2011

 

[dasmiller]

I'm just going to stop your tirade right here, right now. Here's a "short list" of just SOME of the links, papers, and materials I have presented in THIS THREAD alone Tim:

Okay, let's take a look. I'm going to skip the papers/articles/books written by Peratt, Alfven, or Carlqvist, because those three have certainly been addressed at length in these threads (though obviously not to your satisfaction).

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986stpr.rept..409A
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

That's the 1913 New York Times article that leads off with Birkeland claiming to have achieved transmutation in a vacuum tube. Does we really need to consider this as serious scientific material?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986stpr.rept..409A
http://books.google.com/books?id=Zj...onepage&q=Hannes Alfven Cosmic Plasma&f=false
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1996Ap&SS.242...93P/0000093.000.html
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000135.000.html

A paper of Dungey's written in response to a critique of an earlier paper. Since we haven't seen the actual critique (or the earlier paper), it's hard to be confident that this adequately addresses Cowling's concerns. It's sort of like trying to judge a movie by reading the director's response to a bad review.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

Well, it's a NASA press release about aurora observations. I vaguely remember that this came up earlier but I still don't see anything in it that conflicts with conventional solar models.

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2006/physics-astron/hottest-z-output.html

Okay, a Sandia press release about hot plasma. Not seeing anything that would upset the conventional model of the sun. At most, it suggests that Sandia's earlier model of a 2 cm ball of tungsten plasma was oversimplified.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1948MNRAS.108..163G/0000163.000.html

From 1948?

https://springerlink3.metapress.com...dbuehqhatvwttpjxjzpz2&sh=www.springerlink.com
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ASTRA...3...29S

Interesting paper, though it does not mention the word "discharge" anywhere.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..841S

Another interesting paper about currents in the corona. It concludes that the measured currents appear to be 6 orders of magnitude too low to explain coronal heating.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PhyS...65..185F

I could only see the abstract of that one.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...532..616W

Interesting, but not sure how this supports ES.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786440708521050

1953? And I'm not paying for it . . .

http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/33/496/

I could only see the abstract.

http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1977RvGSP..15..271A
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6013/55

I could only see the abstract. Not clear on how it relates to ES.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-fermi-large-area-telescope-flares.html

An article about Crab Nebula gamma ray pulses. Not seeing the connection to ES.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Interesting, I can't tell offhand whether it conflicts with conventional models or not.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32448

Thunderstorms can produce gamma rays. Not seeing how this supports ES.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

Catastrophism.com? Oh dear.
And, yes, it's an ES document, but are you aware that it starts by saying that apparent stellar rotation isn't really stellar rotation, which directly contradicts your 'iron sun' interpretations of the RD movies?

http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1991SoPh..132..307F

From the summary:
"... both quasi-static and wave-related macroscopic electric fields might be expected in the solar atmosphere at intensity levels comparable to or well above the senstitivity limits presently achieved. ... Nevertheless, a firm detection fo solar macroscopic electric fields has yet to be achieved."
Doesn't this directly contradict ES?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

Yes, an article on Birkeland currents. They're accepted by conventional models.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0032063379900825

A paper about solar wind interaction with Venus and Mars. I can only see the abstract, but I don't see the connection to ES in the abstract.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1988Ap&SS.144...73C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969SoPh....7..377C
http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/peer-reviewed-papers

That last is a list of papers. Is it up to us to wade through that list and figure out which ones might seem relevant to you?

----------------

So of the references you provided above, we have a few that that might be relevant, a few that directly contradict you, and a vast majority that seem to be on the list only because they have some reference to astrophysics and electrons.

Some time ago, at your request, I spent time digging into two of the papers you'd provided earlier (that Dungey paper and the SERTS data), and I came to very different conclusions than you did. After an awful lot of going back and forth, you finally said that the Dungey paper was relevant only as an example of terminology. I'm not sure that we ever reached agreement on the SERTS data.

I can't speak for Tim, but I would certainly be reluctant to sink a few hundred hours going through another 20 papers and a few books in the hope that maybe Michael was on to something despite his track record.

Start by focusing on the materials presented Tim, and stop making this personal. It's not personal, is "science". If you can't be bothered to address these materials Tim, at least stop claiming I haven't presented you with a scientific argument, complete with maths.

To the extent that a self-contradictory list of articles, papers, and books is a "scientific argument, complete with maths" . . .


ETA: Yeah, I need a life

 

[sol invictus]

If you're making an allegation, it's up to you to be specific. My position on electrical discharges being associated with solar flares has support going all the way back to Dungey, and in fact all the way back to Birkeland himself.

Can you quote Birkeland saying that he thought solar flares had anything to do with electrical discharges?

 

[GeeMack]

To the extent that a self-contradictory list of articles, papers, and books is a "scientific argument, complete with maths" . . .

Thanks for the re-review, dasmiller. As you mentioned, much of that material has already been discussed here, some at length. And although it seems to represent the bulk of the alleged support for the Electric Sun conjecture, very much of it clearly doesn't actually support it. Some isn't remotely contemporary. One piece is a photocopy of a hundred year old newspaper article by an unknown author which indicates Kristian Birkeland had some pretty odd notions about the workings of the Universe. And even in that we find Birkeland suggesting the Sun is powered by radiation.

None of the publicly available references appear to draw a conclusion that the Sun is actually powered by electricity or that solar flares, CMEs, and the thermal characteristics of the solar atmosphere are caused by some kind of electrical phenomena, particularly not gigantic electrical discharges analogous to lightning here on Earth. Maybe there are some details that haven't been explained yet that will make an objective and quantitative connection between that list of references and the electric Sun conjecture.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But if that's the case, then since saltwater is conductive, we would never see big charge separations in the oceans, and there would never be underwater lightning!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, let's take a look. I'm going to skip the papers/articles/books written by Peratt, Alfven, or Carlqvist, because those three have certainly been addressed at length in these threads (though obviously not to your satisfaction).

Right. By skipping Carquvist, you're essentially "skipping" the guy that best mathematically modeled a coronal loop. Nifty. By skipping Alfven and his protege, you then effectively bypass everyone and anyone that has provided you with any early maths! How cute!

That's the 1913 New York Times article that leads off with Birkeland claiming to have achieved transmutation in a vacuum tube. Does we really need to consider this as serious scientific material?

Yes, you do. You also need to read his actual work, not a simple press release.

A paper of Dungey's written in response to a critique of an earlier paper. Since we haven't seen the actual critique (or the earlier paper), it's hard to be confident that this adequately addresses Cowling's concerns. It's sort of like trying to judge a movie by reading the director's response to a bad review.

Quite the contrary. He goes through his entire list of objections and addresses them directly. He consistently associates "electrical discharges" and "reconnection" events. He understands that "current" does the work. You folks don't get it.

I need some coffee right now, but I'll come back to the rest of your post to see if it's actually worth responding to. The whole desire to flippantly ignore the work of Carlqvist, Alfven and Peratt is really cute and all, but how blatant can you be? If you profess to actually "want maths", what in the hell are you doing by ignore their work with "circuits" in relationship to solar flares?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks for the re-review, dasmiller. As you mentioned, much of that material has already been discussed here, some at length.

Mostly it's been handwaved at for "some time".

And although it seems to represent the bulk of the alleged support for the Electric Sun conjecture, very much of it clearly doesn't actually support it.

Clearly you didn't actually read the actual materials presented if that is what you believe. How does Carqvist's work on solar flares not support a "coronal loops as circuits" theory in your opinion?

Some isn't remotely contemporary.

So what? Birkeland was correct about aurora wasn't he? Who cares if he figured it out 100 years ago?

One piece is a photocopy of a hundred year old newspaper article by an unknown author which indicates Kristian Birkeland had some pretty odd notions about the workings of the Universe.

IMO the only thing 'odd' about it is how flippantly your industry ignores his work outside of his aurora theories.

And even in that we find Birkeland suggesting the Sun is powered by radiation.

Yep. He even correctly "predicted" that a transmutation of elements was taking place inside the sun that powered the sun internally.

None of the publicly available references appear to draw a conclusion that the Sun is actually powered by electricity

Nobody in this thread has suggested that either. What's your point?

or that solar flares, CMEs, and the thermal characteristics of the solar atmosphere are caused by some kind of electrical phenomena, particularly not gigantic electrical discharges analogous to lightning here on Earth.

That's either a bald faced lie, or a complete mischaracterization of the materials presented, one or the other. Which is it? Did Dungey associate solar flares and "reconnection" events with powerful "electrical discharges", yes or no? YES OR NO?

Maybe there are some details that haven't been explained yet that will make an objective and quantitative connection between that list of references and the electric Sun conjecture.

Maybe you better personally start by actually READING those materials since you clearly have no concept about the nature of their content at the moment.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you quote Birkeland saying that he thought solar flares had anything to do with electrical discharges?

Hmm. I can't recall the exact verbiage that he used to describe them, but maybe. That's a question that is worth looking up as I get some time this weekend. It probably won't happen today at work however.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There was no electrical discharge in the rod. It was hit by an existing electrical discharge (lightning). That caused a large current flow in the rod. The magnetic field from that current could have caused the compression and distortion.

You still don't seem to get it, so I'll try to explain it SLOWLY for you and METHODICALLY for you.

The rod became a part of the 'discharge process'. It became a conductive part of the entire "circuit" during the "electrical discharge" process. Some of that circuit was ionized, some of it was not. The plasma in the sky conducts the discharging current, as does the lightning rod during the 'discharge' process. Keep in mind that an "electrical discharge" is the sudden release of stored EM energy, not the ionization process that MIGHT occur in SOME types of materials that conduct the discharging current. The electrical discharge current and specifically the magnetic field surrounding that current "pinched" the copper tubing as the "electrical discharge" passed through the tube.