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

[Reality Check]

FYI, the image that he mentions (figure 253) is the black and white image on the first page of my website.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

FYI, Figure 253 happens to be identical to figure 257a mentioned in
Is Saturn the Sun?
14th July 2009
The idiocy of comparing this visible light image to an X-ray image is obvious.

The fact is that Birkeland never had a solar model.
What he had (and was careful to state) was an experimental analogy to some solar activity. That is he had pictures of activity in his experiment that looked like pictures of activity on the Sun. He would have been well aware of the measured composition and temperature of the Sun. He would not have been so insane as to think that it he Sun was a metallic ball as in his experiments.

This is just only of the unsupported assertions you have made about his book:

1. MM - Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms
   28 December 2009
2. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
   7th July 2009​
3. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
   7th July 2009
4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
   7th July 2009
5. Is Saturn the Sun?
   14th July 2009
6. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
   28 December 2009
7. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
   27th April 2010
8. Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?
   12th May 2010

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have to concur with Tim. I've seen you put forward scattered bits of data, but nothing like a coherent theory.

That's because you see only what you wish to see. Alven's single paper on coronal loops should suffice in terms of "circuit theory". Mann and Onel's paper should also suffice.

I've provided papers to explain the mathematics behind gamma rays production in plasma pinch discharges too. That should also be enough to link 'discharges' to 'gamma ray production'. I went further. I provided evidence that "discharges" are already KNOWN to generate gamma rays in our own atmosphere and many other atmosphere in this solar system. That TOO should be enough to "connect" discharges to the flare process. I added Dungey's work. I added Bruce's work. I added work that ties "discharges" to high ionization states in iron. I threw in all kinds of maths from Alfven. I threw in definitions from Peratt. None of it was accepted, not any of it. You all just flippantly handwave at it and demand more.

Peratt et al may have a coherent story, but you haven't been willing to dive into the details, partly because we keep getting sidetracked on much simpler concepts like optical depth.

IMO that's not really a "sidetrack" in terms of being able to see under the surface of the photosphere (or not). It's pretty much THE issue.

That's not my take at all. When we've shown you math, you've typically fallen back on the "I know what I see" argument.

In many cases your maths are typically based on your own preconceived ideas about the sun. Those tend not to impress me. Physics and observation tends to impress me personally and its clear that few of you put ANY value at all on OBSERVATION, let alone put any value in laboratory physics.

He paraphrased 2 of Cowlings' concerns. We have not actually seen Cowling's concerns. And, in any event, I consider this paper to be yet another red herring.

It's not a "red herring", it's a clear demonstration that "electrical discharges" have been associated with solar flare events for over 60 years! Your desire to label it a "red herring" is "PURE DENIAL".

Yes and no. The paper addressed 2 concerns: Cowlings' use of Lenz's law and the required thinness of the accelerating layer.
I don't grok Lenz's law well enough to follow either the argument or the rebuttal, and I doubt that you followed it, either. In any event, whether or not Dungey properly used Lenz's law does not have much bearing ES's accuracy.

You're focused on trivia and ignoring the point of my providing the paper in the first place! I was demonstrating that "electrical discharges" have been associated with "reconnection" events in solar flares since as far back as Dungey.

For the thinness of the accelerating layer, Dungey's argument boiled down to the lack of observational data to confirm or deny his prediction.
So I don't see anything in the paper that provides significant support or refutation of ES.

Of course you don't. You're simply ignoring they key point and the whole reason I provided the paper in the first place. I was simply trying to connect flares to "electrical discharge" events. PERIOD.

If you think that the paper provides substantial support for ES, then tell us how rather than simply posting a link to it and then complaining that we're handwaving.

I'd be THRILLED if I could just get you to all agree that A) electrical discharges occur in plasmas, and B) they've been associated with both solar flare events and "reconnection" events. I can't even get you folks to go that far!

Anyway,

See, this is why we get frustrated, because we've been over this several times. All of those things are results of very hot plasma. Electrical discharges are one way of making things very hot (and often the most convenient way to do it in a lab), but there are many ways of making very hot plasma, so nothing on that list favors discharge over, say, magnetic reconnection, fusion, matter-antimatter reactions, or gravitational collapse.

This is the sort of twisted logic that I find frustrating as well. You've never provided a sliver of physical empirical evidence that "magnetic reconnection" does any of the more important things on that list. You've ALLEGED it based on a handwavy thing you do with the B field on paper, and then a slight of hand you do in the lab where you actually reconnect two CURRENTS, not magnetic lines! Grrrrr.

We can definitely write off matter-antimatter reactions OTHER THAN positrons produced in "discharges" since "discharges" on the only powerful things that happen in large atmospheres. We can also rule out gravitational collapse too. In fact the ONLY thing that we know of for sure that CAN DEFINITELY do all these things, PLUS is known to be a "naturally occurring" event in many other large atmospheres in our solar system is a discharge! You COMPLETELY ignored the empirical support and you COMPLETELY failed to provide a logical alternative that is anywhere near as well as supported in the lab.

For that matter, nobody is denying that there are some substantial currents flowing around the sun. We just don't give them the primacy that you do.

And that's the primary difference between us in a nutshell. Birkeland gave them primary importance too.

They're observed only in non-conductive atmosphere.

No. I've shown you video examples "electrical discharges" that occur between the plasma in the sides of the walls of the discharge chamber. I'm sure it's somewhere in this thread.

I need to stop here for the time being.

 

[Reality Check]

Just out of morbid curiosity, I don't suppose any of you would like to take a shot at explaining what deflected that shockwave in today's flare? A solid surface feature would certainly have that that effect, but I'll be darned how anyone might explain that deflection of the shock wave with nothing but a bunch of wispy light plasma.

It would be extremely stupid to say that it was a solid structure given that

1. The photosphere consists mainly of hydrogen.
2. The temperature of the photosphere has been measured as ~5700K.
3. The entire Sun is made of plasma (and has been measured to get hotted with depth).

You really need to learn some solar phsyics: The photosphere is not a 'wispy light' plasma. It is 10 orders of magntude (10,000,000,000 times ) denser than the top of the transition region.

What the shock waves are deflecting off are changes in density caused by magnetic fields. This is described by something called magnetohydrodynamics. It is quite possible that a certain book by a guy calld Alfvin mentions how waves travel in plasma. Just don't confuse these Moreton waves (or see the Wikipedia article) with Alfvin waves!
P.S. deflecting is not quite right. The waves are being retarded in places by the different densities.

ETA: Wrong video!
I was looking at the APOD A Large Tsunami Shock Wave on the Sun image.

Your video seems similar. A flare causes a shock wave that seems to deflect where we would expect it to defect, i.e. around the strong magnetic fields in other active areas.

 

[GeeMack]

And just like I figured: "Shock wave? What shock wave?"

Obviously misrepresenting my position does not constitute an honest argument. The truth is, of course, that I explained how the video clip does not, or more precisely how it can not support the assertions.

The shock wave represented in the video clip does not "clearly show [an] electrical discharge event". All it clearly shows is changes in thermal characteristics over time and space. And it only clearly shows that if we understand the purpose and method involved in obtaining and processing the graphics. Without that foundation, the video clip is objectively meaningless, just 65 pretty pictures glued together in a row.

The video clip also doesn't support the notion that the shock wave "follows a path that makes prefect [sic] sense in a Birkeland solar model", if only because no specific Birkeland solar model has ever been presented here, or anywhere for that matter. For that assertion to be relevant, or even to make sense, it would need to be accompanied by a thorough description of Birkeland's alleged solar model and a quantitative objective explanation of how the video clip relates to it.

Also there is nothing about the video clip that could be said to "defy the laws of physics in the standard model". Again, it is an unsupported assertion lacking the context of a quantitative objective explanation.

Moving on, the burden of proof is on the proponents of the electric Sun conjecture. If anything at all about the video clip is relevant to the issue, detailed objective responses to Tim's follow-up questions would be appropriate...

What specifically is a "Birkeland solar model"?
What is it that shows the shock wave follow a path that makes sense in the Birkeland solar model?
What is it that shows the shock wave defies the laws of physics in the standard model?

 

[Reality Check]

http://spaceweather.com/images2011/24sep11/x2.mov

That last x-class flare was pretty interesting for a couple of reasons. Not only does it clearly show the electrical discharge event,

No it does not - unless you are ignorant enough to think that overloading the pixels in a detector means an electrical diascharge.

the shock wave that ensues follows a path that makes prefect sense in a Birkeland solar model,

Nothing makes sense in a model that does not exist.
Please cite the prediction of the paths of shock waves in the mythical? model that you think exists.

but looks to defy the laws of physics in the standard model. That was really cool!

definitely looks to confirm your ignorance of the laws of physics in the standard model.
The 'magneto', 'hydro' and 'dynamic' parts of magnetohydrodynamics seemed to escaped your attention.
Simply put: Given a volume of plasma like the photosphere, the density of the plasma varies with the strength of any magnetic field. The magnetic field of the Sun is different from place to place. Thus the photosphere density varies. The most prominent feature that this causes is sunspots.
Filaments and flares are other regions of different magnetic field strength.

Thus according to the laws of physics in any solar model that matched reality, it would be astounding if a shock wave did not deflect given the changing magnetic fields (and so plasma density) that it will travel through.

And it does look really cool , just like millions of other images of the Sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Obviously misrepresenting my position does not constitute an honest argument. The truth is, of course, that I explained how the video clip does not, or more precisely how it can not support the assertions.

The shock wave represented in the video clip does not "clearly show [an] electrical discharge event". All it clearly shows is changes in thermal characteristics over time and space.

The only things that are known to occur "naturally" that create those kinds of thermal changes over space and time in such conditions are "electrical discharges". Electrical discharges occur NATURALLY in the atmosphere of every large body in this solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field. The sun has the single largest of each.

You've never provided a SHRED of laboratory evidence that anything other than "electrical discharges" could generate these thermal characteristics in such conditions.

And it only clearly shows that if we understand the purpose and method involved in obtaining and processing the graphics. Without that foundation, the video clip is objectively meaningless, just 65 pretty pictures glued together in a row.

Every image is evidently useless to you because you place no value at all on the "pretty little billion dollar pictures". To you they are just cold numbers and statistics.

The video clip also doesn't support the notion that the shock wave "follows a path that makes prefect [sic] sense in a Birkeland solar model", if only because no specific Birkeland solar model has ever been presented here, or anywhere for that matter.

Pure denial. Birkeland did it himself many times. The fact you weren't personally there is irrelevant.

For that assertion to be relevant, or even to make sense, it would need to be accompanied by a thorough description of Birkeland's alleged solar model and a quantitative objective explanation of how the video clip relates to it.

Well, I'm intending to do just that with some actual still images.

Also there is nothing about the video clip that could be said to "defy the laws of physics in the standard model". Again, it is an unsupported assertion lacking the context of a quantitative objective explanation.

I'll give you the fact it's not quantified yet (I just saw the image on Friday afternoon and I do have a real life), but in terms of QUALIFICATION, your beloved wimpy plasma model is toast. There no way you're going to explain the direction of the travel of the shock wave based on the standard solar model. I doubt you personally will ever admit there was a shockwave visible in the image, let alone identify it in any image.

Moving on, the burden of proof is on the proponents of the electric Sun conjecture. If anything at all about the video clip is relevant to the issue, detailed objective responses to Tim's follow-up questions would be appropriate...

Actually, this particular issue isn't specifically relevant to ALL EU solar models, in fact it's really only relevant to the solar model described on my website. A solid cliff would in fact explain why a shock wave deflects over 90 degrees. A shock wave that is following a solid contour of mountains and valleys would in fact curve around to follow such a contour.

A bunch of wimpy light plasmas aren't going to do much of anything to shock wave like that, let alone deflect it's trajectory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No it does not - unless you are ignorant enough to think that overloading the pixels in a detector means an electrical diascharge.

Show me any experiment with "magnetic reconnection" where iron was ionized to these energy states and temperatures RC.

You don't have any reasonable alternatives in terms of pure empirical physics. All you have to date is a stack of papers related to the B field and a bunch of experiments that begin with charge separation and CURRENT where CURRENTS reconnect. When did they ever produce neutron capture signatures in a lab with "magnetic reconnection"? When did they ever ionize iron to these energy states using "magnetic reconnection' in lab RC?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Simply put: Given a volume of plasma like the photosphere, the density of the plasma varies with the strength of any magnetic field. The magnetic field of the Sun is different from place to place. Thus the photosphere density varies. The most prominent feature that this causes is sunspots.
Filaments and flares are other regions of different magnetic field strength.

Thus according to the laws of physics in any solar model that matched reality, it would be astounding if a shock wave did not deflect given the changing magnetic fields (and so plasma density) that it will travel through.

What a pity for you that the shock wave blew over THOUSANDS of such wimpy individual coronal loops and groups of coronal loops in it's path as it traveled south and north (but not west).

 

[GeeMack]

Peratt et al may have a coherent story, but you haven't been willing to dive into the details, partly because we keep getting sidetracked on much simpler concepts like optical depth.

IMO that's not really a "sidetrack" in terms of being able to see under the surface of the photosphere (or not). It's pretty much THE issue.

Just so we don't get sidetracked again, the definition of "photosphere" is essentially this: It's the part of the Sun's atmosphere we can't see under. Limb darkening objectively supports this. It's a very simple concept, an extremely rudimentary and well understood aspect of solar physics.

 

[Reality Check]

What a pity for you that the shock wave blew over THOUSANDS of such wimpy individual coronal loops and groups of coronal loops in it's path as it traveled south and north (but not west).

What a pity that you do not understand that it what is supposed to happen as the shock wave blew over THOUSANDS of such dense individual coronal loops and groups of coronal loops in it's path as it traveled south and north (but not west).

 

[Michael Mozina]

The bottom line is this:

In terms of pure empirical (laboratory) physics, nothing comes close to 'electrical discharges' as the primary culprit in explaining solar flares, nothing.

MR theory is a kludge. It's B field on paper, but when you go to the lab you start with an E field. Boloney!

MR experiments have never ionized iron and other elements to millions of degrees in a lab. Discharges have. MR has NEVER produced neutron capture signatures in a lab. DISCHARGES do. MR has NEVER produced gamma rays "naturally" around any other bodies in this solar system. MR has never heated plasmas to millions of degrees in a lab, but discharges have. MR has NEVER produced SQUAT in terms of the key observations seen in flare events. In fact all it's done thus far is waste a lot of paper because your experiments begin and end with CURRENT!

 

[Reality Check]

When did they ever ionize iron to these energy states using "magnetic reconnection' in lab RC?

There is your delusion about things haveng to happen in a lab again, MM.

FYI: There is no lab here on Earth that has a star in it, let along the Sun.

Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist?
20th May 2010
​

So the answer is no MM? If not then why do you think stars exist?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is your delusion about things haveng to happen in a lab again, MM.

In this specific case, why not? You have no excuse! It's been done with electrical discharges. What's your excuse?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What a pity that you do not understand that it what is supposed to happen as the shock wave blew over THOUSANDS of such dense individual coronal loops and groups of coronal loops in it's path as it traveled south and north (but not west).

Show me anything in the magnetic field measurements for those same timelines that would explain the direction of the travel of the shock wave RC.

 

[Reality Check]

The bottom line is this:
...usual MM rant about magnetic reconenction...

Wrong: The bottom line is simple physics: Electrical discharges (like lightning) are impossible in plasma.

The only other definition of electrical discharge that was used in solar physics was the high current density created in the magnetic reconnection that you think does not exist.

The bottom line is your obsession with a few books on plasma physics, only one of which (Peratt's) has anything on electrical discharges and that book totally ignores actual electrical discharges in plasma!

 

[Reality Check]

In this specific case, why not? You have no excuse! It's been done with electrical discharges. What's your excuse?

The reason seems obvious: Why spend million or billions of dollars doing the experiment here on Earth when you already have a lab called the Sun already doing the experiment for you.

The idiocy of thinking that there are electrical discharges on the Sun (other than Dungey's use of the phrase for high current densities caused by magnetic reconnection) has been explained to you many times.

 

[Reality Check]

Show me anything in the magnetic field measurements for those same timelines that would explain the direction of the travel of the shock wave RC.

I have no idea where to get the data or how to interpret it.

The fact remains that MHD states that plasma has different density according to the different magnetic field strength. Solar features such as filaments and sunspots have differing magnetic strengths. So MHD predicts that a shock wave will deflect according to these different densities.

It is of course idiotic to think that the shock wave is being deflected by solid structures given the temperature and composition of the Sun.

How about you MM: Show us how the shock wave is deflected in the electric sun solar model. Start by explaining this so far non-existent solar model to us
Birkeland did not have one.
Any model that says the Sun has a solid surface has been addressed elsewhere (the result is that simple physics shows that to be a fantasy at best).

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have no idea where to get the data or how to interpret it.

Yes, I know.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh your such a ly...

It's a pity you always take the low road......

I have told you loooooooooooong time ago, that I don't care about the definition of "discharge" because it is a word, and I showed how many different authors have different definitions of this word and thus decided that this discussion was pointless and it would be better to actually talk about the processes that take place in the medium. E.g. break down of the insulator throught excess of the break-down electric field, or a sudden increase in a plasma through an increased EMF or ... or ... or ...

...or the Mann and Onel paper......

The fact that you want to maintain this discussion on "what the definition of a discharge is" is because when you quit this discussion, you will have to do actual work, actual calculations, modeling, which you have often enough showed that you cannnot. See e.g. your escapism at actually trying to set up a "circuit reconnection model."

Er, no. First of all I don't even need your precious "reconnection" in the first place since a simple circuit disruption will do. In fact any plasma pinch disruption will do.

Secondly I've already provided you with maths. You're need for me to personally do maths is absurd. GR theory doesn't rise and fall on the math skills of yours truly. You do understand that, right?

Again WRONG, I have discussed Alfvén's double layer interruption flare model and I have then also given a paper that shows that the large double layers that Alfvén needs for this to take place in a solar flare will probably not exist.

No, you handwaved a paper at me and claimed it somehow invalidates the theories of the guy with the Nobel prize. Sorry, but I don't buy your concept. I've yet to see any of you show me a plausible alternative from the halls of empirical physics! You guys do math, but God forbid you lift a finger to demonstrate your theory in the lab with an experiment that actually begins with the B field like your papers, rather than E field like a "discharge".

YOU are the one that ignores anything that is not in your pre-fixed state of mind, as Tim Thompson has already shown two pages back I think, with a whole list of claims that you made two years ago, which were addressed, then you made them again one year ago and were explained again and then lately you brought them up again, and then TT showed you your repetitious monotony.

When you folks used term "addressed" what you typically mean is "we handwaved at it a little bit a year ago". What baloney.

You personally should have been the FIRST ONE to correct anyone who believed that discharges could not occur in plasmas. If you won't fix the problem, then don't blame me if the conversation is stalled. In order to move forward in some logical fashion we all have to agree that electrical discharges can and do occur in a plasma. Care to step in and do something useful to correct that misconception on your side of the aisle?

MMM let me see, MM published plasmaphysics paper 4, Tusenfem published plasmaphysics papers > 100, yeah I really must get up to speed here.

Appeal to authority much? Show me a lab experiment with "magnetic reconnection' that would explain ANY iron ion wavelength solar image". You have nothing but piles of math, and experiments that begin with the E field not the B field. In the commercial world that's called "bait and switch false advertizing".

I have explained this paper to you a looooong time ago, and guess what, you never ever actually joined this discussion, as any detailed discussion is over your head.

That's because you never lifted a finger to explain to your side of the aisle that "electrical discharges occur in plasmas". When did you intend to fix that problem? Never?

Do it and lets move on. If you sit there and do nothing to fix it, you have no right to bitch at me. What's it going to be?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The reason seems obvious: Why spend million or billions of dollars doing the experiment here on Earth when you already have a lab called the Sun already doing the experiment for you.

There's clear evidence that you don't know the difference between an actual "experiment" (with a control mechanism) and an "observation with a mathematical handwave".

The reason you do it here is because you can't control the sun, but in theory you should be able to control your precious magnetic reconnection doggy on Earth, right? I guarantee you that your dog won't hunt without you starting with an E field or a "current" in there somewhere. You wrote papers on the B field, but most experiments all began with the E field. Let's see you do it with a B field without a current first this time.

The idiocy of thinking that there are electrical discharges on the Sun (other than Dungey's use of the phrase for high current densities caused by magnetic reconnection) has been explained to you many times.

The idiocy of living in pure denial has also been explained to you many times. Why do you continue to deny that electrical discharges occur in plasmas?