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

[dasmiller]

The significance is that it then becomes possible to describe coronal loops as circuits, and to describe solar flares as simply "electrical discharge" events in a current carrying plasma. It allows us to finally see the E orientation as it's supposed to be seen, not just the B orientation! I guess that's why RC doesn't want to go there. We no longer need "magnetic reconnection" theory since Alfven's double layer paper explains such processes WITHOUT it.

No, that's not my question.

What is the significance of the "as far back as Dungey and Bruce" part?

 

[Reality Check]

Where are Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma

Until you leave Denialville RC, nobody can save you, not Dungey, not Peratt, not me, not anyone. ...snipped usual rant....

Until you leave Delusionville MM, nobody can save you, not Dungey, not Peratt, not me, not anyone.
The facts remain that

• Electricall dicharges are impossible in plasma.
• Dungey's 'electrical discharges' are high current densitiies in magnetic reconnection.
• As for Peratt, your delusions about Peratt's definition are obvious to anyone who can read:
  • Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
  • Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
  • Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
  • MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title?
  • And then therre is your obsession with this one book:
    Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?

P.S. Where are Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, that's not my question.

What is the significance of the "as far back as Dungey and Bruce" part?

Oh. The significance is that there's a history of "electrical discharges" being associated with solar flares going back 100 years to Birkeland himself. RC's claim that discharges cannot occur in plasma is utterly bogus! That's the significance! Does someone else want to take a crack at setting RC straight on this issue? I'm bored silly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Electricall dicharges are impossible in plasma.

Honestly folks, it's your side that needs to step in and set him straight. This is just ridiculous at this point. As long as you folks let RC spew outright BS and get away with it, why should I take ANY of you seriously? It's an honest question. I'd like an answer.

 

[Reality Check]

The significance is that it then becomes possible to describe coronal loops as circuits, and to describe solar flares as simply "electrical discharge" events in a current carrying plasma....

The significance is that you are continuing in a delusion that electrical discharges can happen in plasma when that is physically impossible.

The significance is that you are continuing your ignorance that Dungey's 'electrical discharges' are high current densities in magnetic reconnection, i.e. he is treating solar flares as magnetic reconnection events!

The significance is that you are continuing your inability to understand that

1. Bruce's theory has nothing to do with plasma.
2. Bruce's work is fatally flawed for the simple reason that the temperature of the Sun does not allow his solid dust particles (producing actual lightning not discharges in plasma) to exist.
3. Bruce postulated solid dust particles - maybe he knew that electrical discharges cannot happen in plasma!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Many a plasma process can be modeled by a circuit. This it taking the long wavelength approximation, where all micro physics is integrated over the system to give overall quantities. So instead of looking detailed at the particle interactions in the plasma (i.e. collisions, wave particle interactions, particle-field interactions, ...) this is replaced by a total resistivity R in a circuit. However, we should never confuse the true plasma with the circuit that can model it, as e.g. in the circuit the current must go along the wires (which are often the magnetic field lines) but in the real plasma the current can also flow perpendicular to the magnetic field.

So, just like MHD, circuit description of plasma processes is an approximation at an even larger scale than MHD.

FYI, I'm still waiting for you to come to terms with the fact that I don't reject your desire to model the plasma interactions using MHD theory. I just want you to give your process a legitimate scientific description. If you change the topology of a couple of circuits, it's "circuit reconnection'. If you change the topology of a couple of field aligned currents, it's "current reconnection', even if you personally choose to model it based on the B orientation! I don't care that you orient yourselves with B as long as you recognize what you're physcally doing at the level of currents and circuits. I don't see any evidence that most of this crew even appreciates that, even if you do, and I'm not even sure about you actually.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The significance is that you are continuing in a delusion that electrical discharges can happen in plasma when that is physically impossible.

The significance is that nobody in your inbred little cult of EU haters has bothered to set you straight. That's the sad, and highly significant part of "group think" behaviors. Nobody wants to confront you, even though you're absolutely full of malarkey on this point. Cults always stick together. Science is irrelevant with EU haters. I've come to realize that over the years.

 

[dasmiller]

Oh. The significance is that there's a history of "electrical discharges" being associated with solar flares going back 100 years to Birkeland himself.

AFAIK, nobody's disputed that Birkeland believed that with solar flares were primarily electrical 100 years ago.

RC's claim that discharges cannot occur in plasma is utterly bogus! That's the significance!

What does that have to do with 100 years ago?

 

[Michael Mozina]

AFAIK, nobody's disputed that Birkeland believed that with solar flares were primarily electrical 100 years ago.

What does that have to do with 100 years ago?

RC's been known to be wrong for more than a 100 years now. Is ANYONE going to wake him up to reality? Anyone?

 

[dasmiller]

Honestly folks, it's your side that needs to step in and set him straight. This is just ridiculous at this point. As long as you folks let RC spew outright BS and get away with it, why should I take ANY of you seriously? It's an honest question. I'd like an answer.

As far as I can tell, it's a terminology dispute. Nobody has claimed that currents can't flow in a plasma, the dispute is over whether "electrical discharge" implies a dielectric breakdown.

I don't care. I take some interest in the underlying phenomenology, but I don't much care what term is used. And I'm not going to scour the internet to see which worthies have used the term in what manner to determine which usage is more consistent with the broader scientific community's use over the last TBS years.

Okay?

 

[GeeMack]

Honestly folks, it's your side that needs to step in and set him straight. This is just ridiculous at this point. As long as you folks let RC spew outright BS and get away with it, why should I take ANY of you seriously? It's an honest question. I'd like an answer.

There are people involved in this conversation who are well versed in physics, solar physics, plasma physics, and related sciences. None of them seem to accept the nonsensical argument that an electrical discharge like a bolt of lightning can occur in the conductive plasma of the solar atmosphere. They should be taken seriously exactly because they understand the subject, some to the point of professional expertise, and they are objective and scientific in their assessment of the issue.

 

[dasmiller]

RC's been known to be wrong for more than a 100 years now. Is ANYONE going to wake him up to reality? Anyone?

When you and I went back and forth on the Dungey papers, your final statement on them was that they showed that electricity had been associated with solar flares back in Dungey's time (I forget your exact wording, but I thought that was the gist of it).

Was there some significance to anything aside from your argument over the definition of "electrical discharge?" Or am I misremembering?

 

[Michael Mozina]

As far as I can tell, it's a terminology dispute.

No, it's a CONCEPTUAL problem! RC and GM have been claiming throughout this thread that because plasma is a conductor, no charge build up was possible, therefore no "electrical discharge" was possible. RC has consistently been in PURE DENIAL and none of you have lifted a finger to fix it.

Nobody has claimed that currents can't flow in a plasma, the dispute is over whether "electrical discharge" implies a dielectric breakdown.

It's not a question of implication, it's a question of physics. Can stored circuit energy be released from the circuit? Yes! Can electrical discharges therefore occur inside of a conductive plasma? Yes! Can electrical discharges explain 7 of 7 key observations associated with flares? Yes!

I don't care. I take some interest in the underlying phenomenology, but I don't much care what term is used. And I'm not going to scour the internet to see which worthies have used the term in what manner to determine which usage is more consistent with the broader scientific community's use over the last TBS years.

Okay?

No. It's not OK. It's not OK to ignore physics over semantics. In the real world of physics, electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas. That's still getting lost in translation around here!

 

[Dancing David]

If you go back and check DD, you'll see that I mentioned the term sputtering quite some time ago. It's the process of "disintegration" that Birkeland writes about during those experiments.



No! That is absolutely NOT what Birkeland's LABORATORY model actually PREDICTS DD! In the lab, it's not that simple, particularly when there's a heliosphere and very strong magnetic fields to consider. The disintegration process that he discusses will absolutely continue, but the positively charged particles will flow out toward the heliosphere with the negative ones DD. He specifically predicts both types of particles to come from the sun, and in fact he expect them to explain the growth of planets over time!

Have you tried your claim in the lab DD, complete with magnetic fields and such? If so, can you cite a paper?



First you'll have to demonstrate that it actually does defy any known physics in the lab because to my knowledge it does NOT! If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears. It's not as though Birkeland's cathode terella was a "simple" cathode DD. It contained a very powerful EM field inside that cathode that plays a significant role in flow of particles. The interstellar winds buffeting the heliosphere also have a significant effect on the flow of particles. You can't simply assume it works exactly like an ordinary cathode in some ideal conditions that are in no way similar to the experiments Birkeland performed.



I told you what it was. You can choose to accept it or not, but you can't say that I avoided your question. Those high speed electrons streaming from the surface are going to slam into particles in the solar atmosphere and push them out toward space on a constant basis. Some areas of the heliosphere will be relatively "negatively" charged compared to that particle and will attract it. The constant flow of electrons past the positively charged ion continues to attract it as well.



Honestly DD, did you even actually read Birkeland's experiments in the lab? Why didn't he predict what you expected him to predict in terms of particle movements? Why didn't he predict that only NEGATIVELY charged particles came from the sun? Did he botch his experiments? Did he mess something up in the lab?



The ISM is a CURRENT just as the solar wind is a CURRENT. That current flows past the heliosphere, just as the current of the solar wind flows past the magnetosphere. Just like the magnetosphere, the heliosphere acts to "buffer" us from that external current, but it too is composed of both positively and negatively charged particles DD. The heliosphere is a complicated place, just as the magnetosphere is a complicated place. The currents are "directed" around at the heliosphere but both types of particles flow in the heliosphere just as both types of particles flow in the magnetosphere.

I take that as a resounding if wordy no, so where are these events in modern cathodes and anodes MM?

Seriously, I asked you for modern data, and I am sure that there are plenty of modern cathodes around.

You said quite clearly that the sun is a cathode and so i will ask you a simple question, show me recent research that show positive ions flowing away from a cathode. (if the cathode has a negative charge, or negative ions from a positive cathode)

There are probably hundreds of introductory texts that discuss cathodes and how electrons flow from them to anodes.

I am amazed at your inability to actually answer the question.

 

[tusenfem]

RC's been known to be wrong for more than a 100 years now. Is ANYONE going to wake him up to reality? Anyone?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
this is comedy at its greatest!

 

[Reality Check]

If you change the topology of a couple of circuits, it's "circuit reconnection'.

FYI: That does not happen, Michael Mozina !
Try reading Alfven's paper or Onel & Mann's paper and understanding them for once.

A circuit model models a physical process like a solar flare with a single circuit that remains as it is forever. There are no multiple circuits. These nonexistent circuits do not reconnect. The single circuit does not reconnect. It remains as the same circuit.

 

[iantresman]

Electricall dicharges are impossible in plasma.

Am I missing something here? There are several different kinds of discharge: Townsend, Coronal, Dark, Glow, Arc etc.

Doesn't a neon tube produce light via the glow discharge, in a plasma? Hasn't the aurora been considered to be a discharge? (ref) Apparently even meteorites striking the lunar surface (surrounded by the interplanetary plasma) may produce an electric discharge.(ref)

Or are we suggesting that certain kinds of electric discharges are not possible in certain kinds of plasma?

 

[Reality Check]

Peratt's definition of electrical discharge

Anthony Peratt wrote a book (Physics in the Plasma Universe, 1992) with section 1.5 from which Michael Mozina has been quote mining the first sentence for a while now.
I had the wrong post linked prevously so here is a more complete quote.

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 prαesses 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 microωανes . 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, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static 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.
The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere.

Things to note:

• No mention of actual discharges in plasma.
• The discharge needs a breakidown of a dielectric medium (generally).
• The 'Cosmic Plasma" part of the section title (which MM, is not the definition ) is the title of a book by Alfven.

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 Alfven'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

 

[Reality Check]

Am I missing something here? There are several different kinds of discharge: Townsend, Coronal, Dark, Glow, Arc etc.

You are lucky - I just posted Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.

Electrical discharges happen because a dielectric medium (e.g. a gas) break down under the influence of an intense electromagnetic field. So they require the existence of the dielectric medium before the discharge happens.

Plasma is not a dielectric medium - it is conductive. If you apply an electromagnetic field then currents immediately flow. You do not get the characteristics of a discharge, i.e. no current until a threshold is reached and then a sudden current.

However...
In older magnetic reconnection papers (the only example that has been cited is Dungey's), the high current density caused by the reconnection is called an electrical discharge. This is not the modern usage.

ETA
You have cited electrical discharges that create plasma. We are talking about electrical discharges that happen in a body of existing plasma, e.g. the Sun.
MM has the mistaken idea that all plasma experiments that have plasma created from electrical discharges through a gas are about electrical discharges in plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

The significance is that nobody in your inbred little cult of EU haters has bothered to set you straight.

How idiotic - I do not hate EU. The science in EU is so pitiful that there is nothing to hate.

Science is irrelevant with EU haters. I've come to realize that over the years.

Even more idiocy. The science as stated in Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.

Science is irrelevant with you. Anyone who has read this forum and will read the forum over the coming years will quickly realize this.