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

[tusenfem]

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".

Oh dear idiocy at its extremes.

I have thoroughly, over the years, explained LOTS and *LOTS* and even *LOTS* of plasma physics, reconnection, circuit theory, macrophysics, microphysics, approximations, MHD, etc. etc. Similarly has Tim Thompson, and all you have gotten out of it is zilch.

 

[tusenfem]

Peratt:

Or Peratt:

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

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. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2). On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

ETA, apparently, RC had the same idea.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Peratt:

You really know how to shoot yourself in the foot !

No, but you really know how to twist logic like a pretzel.

You quote Peratt giving lightning as an example of an electrical discharge. Lightning requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium (air) as he mentions above.

Peratt gave *AN* example of ONE TYPE of an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE. Yes, that particular one requires a a breakdown. So what? It's one SUBSET of MANY TYPES of "electrical discharges" RC. Quit ignoring that FACT!

What you do not cite is any author discussing an actual electrical discharge in a plasma

BS! Read the TITLE again RC. The whole thing is a DEFINITION OF A DISCHARGE IN A PLASMA. He then gives an example of a TYPE of discharge that human beings can relate to. Give it up!

(Dungey's high current density is caused by magnetic reconnection which you deny exists).

I don't deny that CURRENTS reconnect, I deny that "magnetic lines" reconnect. All your experiments clearly show CURRENTS reconnecting RC, not "magnetic lines". Even your ridiculous laser experiment simply created two culminated "currents" in the plasma which then "reconnected". Big deal! It happens all the time.

So let us point out yet another problem with your assertion:
Micheal Mozina
Where is the comprehensive discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any plasma physics textbook ever published?

I handed you one on a SILVER PLATTER RC. You simply ignored it.

Peratt's book was published in the 80's. In the last 30 years, many textbooks have been written on plasma physics.

So what?

They should all include that all important 'electrical discharges in plasma' chapter with all of the physics and mathematics.

Why should I bother going through a bunch more books on this topic for you when I've already handed you a PERFECTLY GOOD ONE already? This "I'm in denial so Michael has to do more work" is BS. Get over yourself RC. If you believe it's impossible to create electrical discharges in plasmas, go find a statement from one of those books you're so interested in that actually makes that assertion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh dear idiocy at its extremes.

I have thoroughly, over the years, explained LOTS and *LOTS* and even *LOTS* of plasma physics, reconnection,

But you never once provided an experiment that didn't simply reconnect "currents", not magnetic lines. You folks did the "bait and switch" routine. You created two currents, dumbed them down verbally and mathematically and called them "magnetic lines". You then called it "magnetic line connection" when in fact it was "current reconnection" that actually occurred in the plasmas. In effect your own cited experiments show that your B orientation is pathetically meaningless and a complete misrepresentation of the physics. The majority of your own "experiments" begin and end with the E field not the B field. You have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse, and your assertion it is "magnetic lines" that reconnect is pure BS. The CURRENTS physically reconnect.

circuit theory,

Circuit theory explains flares just fine. I don't need you precious "magnetic reconnection" theory to explain a flare!

macrophysics, microphysics, approximations, MHD, etc. etc. Similarly has Tim Thompson, and all you have gotten out of it is zilch.

No, not actually. I've learned that when it gets to the lab, you folks pull a fast one and use a bait and switch routine. You don't actually begin with a B field. You begin with an E field and blatantly misrepresent it!

I've also learned that you personally don't understand nearly as much about plasma physics as you think you do, or you would have set RC and GM straight months ago.

In current carrying plasmas, all you need is one or a couple of "short circuits" to explain flares. I don't need your stupid reconnection theory and I already know for a fact that you blatantly misrepresent CURRENT reconnection as "magnetic reconnection". I've learned a lot.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Or Peratt:



ETA, apparently, RC had the same idea.

What idea is that? The areas directly around the current carrying threads have been evacuated of plasma. That evacuated area acts as an "insulator" unless or until two or more of them come into contact, or one part of the circuit fails as described by Mann and Onel. At that point all hell breaks loose and an "electrical discharge" occurs in the plasma.

 

[ben m]

But you never once provided an experiment that didn't simply reconnect "currents", not magnetic lines.

"I don't know enough plasma physics to understand whether these papers make sense or not, but I DO know what sort of plasma-vocabulary Alfven tells me are important, and they're not in this paper! Therefore I will declare it indequate; for rhetorical purposes no paper was ever posted."

 

[Michael Mozina]

"Discharges in plasma? What discharges?"

These discharges:

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

 

[dasmiller]

"Discharges in plasma? What discharges?"

These discharges:

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

So you can tell by just looking at a heavily processed picture how a bunch of very hot plasma got to be very hot?

And you think we should be able to do the same?

 

[Michael Mozina]

"I don't know enough plasma physics to understand whether these papers make sense or not,"

Oh, but I do. I understand the physical difference between a flow of current and a "magnetic line", something you folks seem to be completely incapable of discerning.

but I DO know what sort of plasma-vocabulary Alfven tells me are important, and they're not in this paper! Therefore I will declare it indequate; for rhetorical purposes no paper was ever posted."

Quite to opposite. I specifically showed you in the paper and experiment that you actually reconnected two "currents", not simply two "magnetic lines". I specifically demonstrated in your own experiments where you pulled the "bait and switch", and began with an E field and two "currents"!

Denial seems to be the only thing you folks do well in this thread.

 

[ben m]

I see a picture of a solar flare.

Again.

Michael, mainstream solar flare researchers, who have access to these pictures (heck, they TOOK these pictures) in addition to abundant other data (Zeeman spectroscopy, plasma probes in orbit, etc.) do NOT think they are look like electrostatic, ohmically-heated discharges. It's just you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you can tell by just looking at a heavily processed picture how a bunch of very hot plasma got to be very hot?

And you think we should be able to do the same?

Yes. The only reason you "can't do it" yourself is because you don't want to make the link. Your pathetic alternative scored only 1 out of a possible 5, 6 if you count the bonus question.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I see a picture of a solar flare.

Again.

Michael, mainstream solar flare researchers, who have access to these pictures (heck, they TOOK these pictures) in addition to abundant other data (Zeeman spectroscopy, plasma probes in orbit, etc.) do NOT think they are look like electrostatic, ohmically-heated discharges. It's just you.

Boloney. It's just me, Birkeland, Dungey, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt.......

 

[ben m]

Oh, but I do. I understand the physical difference between a flow of current and a "magnetic line", something you folks seem to be completely incapable of discerning.

What the hell are you talking about?

Connecting magnetic field lines allows the plasma to reconfigure (yes, including moving currents around) in a way that releases energy. I don't know or care whether any currents are reconnecting.

You're the only one who has added "circuit reconnection" to the definition.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that your experiments physically reconnect two "currents", not two magnetic lines. Are you going to deal with it or what?

Connecting magnetic field lines allows the plasma to reconfigure (yes, including moving currents around) in a way that releases energy. I don't know or care whether any currents are reconnecting.

The fact you don't care is what prevents you from seeing that at the level of actual particle physics, it's not the magnetic lines that "reconnect", it's currents that "reconnect". Since you don't care, you don't care.

You're the only one who has added "circuit reconnection" to the definition.

I'm simply noting that you are essentially reconnecting two coronal loops, and Alfven specifically called them "circuits". He also specifically dissed MR theory till the day he died.

 

[dasmiller]

Yes. The only reason you "can't do it" yourself is because you don't want to make the link.

Ah. And what is it about this picture that indicates that the particularly bright part was heated by I²R losses rather than any of a wide variety of other energy transport mechanisms? Is it the shape? The particular shade of saturated white? Is it the inferred size?

If there was a flare that had been heated by some other mechanism, how would it look different from the circled flare?

 

[ben m]

I'm talking about the fact that your experiments physically reconnect two "currents", not two magnetic lines. Are you going to deal with it or what?

MRX, and all the literature surrounding it, claims that it's seeing reconnecting field lines.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MRX, and all the literature surrounding it, claims that it's seeing reconnecting field lines.

Ya, but when we look at the experiments they physically reconnected not simple magnetic lines, but ENTIRE CURRENTS!

 

[ben m]

The fact you don't care is what prevents you from seeing that at the level of actual particle physics, it's not the magnetic lines that "reconnect", it's currents that "reconnect". Since you don't care, you don't care.

I'm simply noting that you are essentially reconnecting two coronal loops, and Alfven specifically called them "circuits". He also specifically dissed MR theory till the day he died.

We've been over this a million times. Field lines DO reconnect. (So can currents, of course, but that's not what we're talking about) The physics is fine. Alfven was wrong on this point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah. And what is it about this picture that indicates that the particularly bright part was heated by I²R losses rather than any of a wide variety of other energy transport mechanisms?

Like what?

Is it the shape?

Well, that's part of it. They just so happen to follow the same arc shape that Birkeland's experiments "predicted" they would take over 100 years ago.

The particular shade of saturated white?

Well, that tells us it's mostly from the 131 channel and that it's millions of degrees hot.

Is it the inferred size?

Who cares? It's HUGE! Electrical discharges have been shown to occur over vast distances. What is the longest "magnetic reconnection" process that been seen on Earth?

If there was a flare that had been heated by some other mechanism, how would it look different from the circled flare?

What other mechanism would that be? Has that specific method resulted in a nice pretty atmospheric arc like Birkeland did in his experiments?

 

[Michael Mozina]

We've been over this a million times. Field lines DO reconnect. (So can currents, of course, but that's not what we're talking about) The physics is fine. Alfven was wrong on this point.

No. Field lines do NOT reconnect, they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning, without ending, without the ability disconnect from, or reconnect to any other "magnetic line". Currents can and do reconnect in the lab, including the experiments you cited. The experiments made NO ATTEMPT whatsoever to eliminate current flow considerations before LEAPING to the conclusion that 'magnetic lines' did any reconnecting. In fact the only justification I can see from the experiments for even calling it "magnetic reconnection' is that the magnetic field line topology does change over time as the current flow patterns change over time. That somehow in their mind justifies the claim "magnetic lines reconnected". What a bunch of baloney. They don't even have any control mechanism EXCEPT for a SWITCH to turn off the "current", and some ability to move the current filament channels into closer proximity to one another. They don't even spend a single dime trying to isolate one type of particle reconnection from an actual magnetic line reconnection.