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

[Michael Mozina]

Maybe more germane to this thread, nobody has ever postulated a connection between the (any) iron Sun ideas and the equally impossible notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic electrical sparks like lightning bolts.

I guess you figure that if you lie often enough, someone will believe you, is that it? You never read the Mann and Onel paper I presume?

 

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by GeeMack
Maybe more germane to this thread, nobody has ever postulated a connection between the (any) iron Sun ideas and the equally impossible notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic electrical sparks like lightning bolts.

I guess you figure that if you lie often enough, someone will believe you, is that it? You never read the Mann and Onel paper I presume?

I guess you you want to continue to display your delusions about the Önel and Mann paper which has nothing at all to do with the rather pathetic Iron Sun idea or the fantasy of solar flares being electrical discharges.
Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits by Hakan Önel, Gottfried J. Mann

A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy

The idea that the Sun has an iron surface is pathetic because to believe it you have be unable to see that one number (the melting point of iron) is lower than another number (the temperature of the Sun).

 

[Reality Check]

I just noticed that you are going on about magnetic field lines not reconnecting again.
You may have a problem with the 'reconnection' in magnetic reconnection. Few other people have this term since the changes in magnetic field topology corresponding to reconnection are actually observed.
See for example
Comments on magnetic Reconnection by Tim Thompson (on 14th February 2009 !).

A current filamentation mechanism for breaking magnetic field lines during reconnection by H. Che, J. F. Drake & M. Swisdak in Nature (2011).

MHD reconnection (Scholarpedia)

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I guess you figure that if you lie often enough, someone will believe you, is that it?

More cultesque behaviors involving attacks on the individual. Yawn. If you folks didn't attack individuals, you'd be absolutely defenseless.

Hey, I know how ya feel. Didja see that feller who can't defend his beliefs without callin' folks liars?

In other words, you called me a liar because you don't understand freshman-level electromagnetism.

No. You're a liar because it's *YOU* that doesn't understand freshman-level electromagnetism. If you did, you would have ACKNOWLEDGED your mistake. Since you refuse to do so, you're wearing your error like a badge of honor.

I understand most of your argument:

1. You've never read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism,
2. nor have you read any other textbook on electromagnetism,
3. but you've read Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma,
4. and think you understood it,
5. so you're certain that magnetic flux is a euphemism for field-aligned currents,
6. so you can't possibly understand Φ_m = ∫_SB∙da or ∇∙B = 0 or even B,
7. so you don't understand dΦ_m/dt or ∇×E= - ∂B/∂t,
8. which means you don't understand induction.
9. Nevertheless, you are certain that magnetic reconnection is a euphemism for induction.
10. Meanwhile, I've been suggesting a simple experiment
11. whose magnetic fields reproduce Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection
12. as well as both figures of Dungey's paper,
13. which all competent authorities (e.g. Priest&Forbes, Yamada et al) acknowledge as an example of magnetic reconnection.
14. Which makes me a liar.

I was following along real good there until that last step.

[size=-1]"Den letzten Schritt mußt du gehen allein."[/size]​

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hey, I know how ya feel. Didja see that feller who can't defend his beliefs without callin' folks liars?




I understand most of your argument:

[*]You've never read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism,
[*]nor have you read any other textbook on electromagnetism,

False! You keep FABRICATING my strawman past! WTF?

There's only ONE THING you need to do to demonstrate your case, come up with a PUBLISHED reference that supports your claim! Can you do that, yes or no? If not, you have an OBLIGATION to CORRECT your mistake.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Meanwhile, I've been suggesting a simple experiment

Ya, and you've been ERRONEOUSLY claiming that your attraction/repulsion experiment is an example of "magnetic reconnection". The whole world is waiting for you to produce a SINGLE PUBLISHED PAPER, or a COLLEGE FRESHMAN textbook on electromagnetism that agrees with you. Got one? Gonna dodge again?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

False! You keep FABRICATING my strawman past! WTF?

When you had a cow about this earlier, you ended up admitting you had never read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism. In doing so, you implicitly declined my explicit invitation to identify any comparable textbooks you have read.

I have read literally thousands of your posts. I don't recall any mention of any electromagnetism textbooks that you have read, nor do I recall any evidence that you have ever read a textbook on electromagnetism.

Considering how often you've boasted of reading Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma and other books by Peratt etc, I just assumed you'd have told us about any electromagnetism texts you had read. If I assumed incorrectly, then name the textbook and I will happily post a corrected outline of your argument as I understand it.

There's only ONE THING you need to do to demonstrate your case, come up with a PUBLISHED reference that supports your claim! Can you do that, yes or no? If not, you have an OBLIGATION to CORRECT your mistake.

In my previous post, I cited the book by Priest&Forbes and the survey paper by Yamada et al as authorities for the fact that Dungey's figures show magnetic reconnection. I also noted that the experiment I've been suggesting reproduces Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection as well as both figures of Dungey's 1958 paper; that fact is obvious to anyone who's read and understood a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism.

Why are you pretending there's any question about this? I can think of only three possible reasons:

1. You don't count Priest&Forbes or Yamada et al. as scientific publications.
2. You don't understand freshman-level electromagnetism.
3. You're having a hard time conceding that the simple, straightforward experiment you've been dissing for most of the past year exposes the preposterousness of your argument against magnetic reconnection.

If I had to bet, I'd bet on both 2 and 3.

 

[GeeMack]

Maybe more germane to this thread, nobody has ever postulated a connection between the (any) iron Sun ideas and the equally impossible notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic electrical sparks like lightning bolts.

I guess you figure that if you lie often enough, someone will believe you, is that it? You never read the Mann and Onel paper I presume?

I have the Onel and Mann paper right here in front of me. Doing a search on terms doesn't turn up any reference to a solid, rigid, or iron surface. In fact the words solid, rigid, and iron seem conspicuously absent from the entire document, as are the words sparks, lightning, electrical, and discharge. But of course that's entirely irrelevant to the fact that nobody has ever postulated a connection between any iron Sun ideas and the equally impossible notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic electrical sparks like lightning bolts. No explanation has ever linked the fantasy of an iron core/surface Sun with the idea that it's some kind of cathode blowing off positive and negative ions. There has never been any sort of cause, effect, physical, scientific, objective connection described.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When you had a cow about this earlier, you ended up admitting you had never read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism.

Actually, I just don't even remember the authors of all the various books I've read and sold back to various bookstores or given away to local libraries in my lifetime. I may in fact have read his book for all I can recall *30* years later!

In doing so, you implicitly declined my explicit invitation to identify any comparable textbooks you have read.

Nor do I need to. You have NO RIGHT to ATTACK INDIVIDUALS in the first place! Your whole "attack the messenger" strategy is a miserable flop. All you needed to do is present a published example from a freshman book on electromagnetism that supports your case. You can't. You won't. You REFUSE. Instead you keep ATTACKING THE INDIVIDUAL, just like a good cult member should.

In my previous post, I cited the book by Priest&Forbes and the survey paper by Yamada et al as authorities for the fact that Dungey's figures show magnetic reconnection.

Dungey's figures and writings also demonstrate 'electrical discharges' occur in plasmas too. Do you accept that as fact as well?

I also noted that the experiment I've been suggesting reproduces Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection

Yes, which actually only demonstrates that both of them actually refer to attraction/repulsion and induction forces, and their effects on plasma at the point of a "discharge" in plasma.

as well as both figures of Dungey's 1958 paper; that fact is obvious to anyone who's read and understood a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism.

ANYONE who read and understood a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism knows what an ELECTRICAL discharge is too, you know the one that DUNGEY MENTIONED? Do you accept that statement from Dungey in relationship to "reconnection", or do you just PICK AND CHOOSE which terms have meaning and which do not?

Why are you pretending there's any question about this? I can think of only three possible reasons:

[*]You don't count Priest&Forbes or Yamada et al. as scientific publications.

Which publications specifically mention your personal experiment Clinger? Pager number and paragraph please.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have the Onel and Mann paper right here in front of me.

Did you notice how it talks about a fast release of circuit energy?

Doing a search on terms doesn't turn up any reference to a solid, rigid, or iron surface.

Strawman. Nobody every said it would. How about Dungey's DISCHARGE paper. Did you read that one too? Did you notice that connection between solar flares and ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES that Dungey describes? Notice a connection to Dungey's work and the Onel and Mann paper? Remember what Peratt called it when EM field energy was quickly released into plasma?

equally impossible notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic electrical sparks like lightning bolts.

This is the lie. There has been a connection between "electrical discharges" and solar flares. You're in hardcore denial of scientific fact since the time of Birkeland, Dungey, Bruce and Alfven. Nothing like a 100 years worth of denial to hide from eh?

 

[Reality Check]

Did you notice how it talks about a fast release of circuit energy?

Notice how you seem to be lying since there is no mention of 'circuit energy' in the paper?
The mentions of energy release are in the context of observed energy release in solar flares.

Notice how you also seem to be wrong about the 'fast release' part (no 'release' or 'fast release' in the paper).

Notice how that is not the definition of an electrical discharge, e.g. Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge (unless you are ignorant enough to quote mine part the definition).

Notice that this paper is about the electrons that are are accelerated to relatively high energies.(about 1.2% of the electrons according to page 3).

 

[GeeMack]

Did you notice how it talks about a fast release of circuit energy?


Strawman. Nobody every said it would. How about Dungey's DISCHARGE paper. Did you read that one too? Did you notice that connection between solar flares and ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES that Dungey describes? Notice a connection to Dungey's work and the Onel and Mann paper? Remember what Peratt called it when EM field energy was quickly released into plasma?


This is the lie. There has been a connection between "electrical discharges" and solar flares. You're in hardcore denial of scientific fact since the time of Birkeland, Dungey, Bruce and Alfven. Nothing like a 100 years worth of denial to hide from eh?

None of the above nonsensical blathering addresses my comment in any way. The issue I was speaking of is this...

Maybe more germane to this thread, nobody has ever postulated a connection between the (any) iron Sun ideas and the equally impossible notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of gigantic electrical sparks like lightning bolts. No explanation has ever linked such a fantasy Sun, iron inside or out, with the idea that it's some kind of cathode spewing a wind of positive and negative ions. Some vague mention has been made about iron surface *mumble mumble* Birkeland's hollow brass ball with an electromagnet inside *mumble* electrical discharge. But there has been no actual cause, effect, physics, scientific, objective connection described. Ever. It's reasonable to assume no such connection exists, even in the minds of those who support one or the other of the iron Sun notions.

For all the times a solid/rigid surface Sun conjecture has been brought up as if it's a related issue, nobody has ever described a connection between that conjecture and the equally impossible notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of giant electrical lightning bolts. No explanation has ever been made to link the fantasy of an iron core/surface Sun with the idea that it's some kind of electrically powered cathode. There has never been any sort of objective physical connection made between the two concepts. If a solid/rigid surface Sun, or even Manuel's ridiculous idea of an iron core Sun, has anything to do with this thread about an alleged "Electric Sun Theory", it seems reasonable that an objective connection should be made. So far it has not.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

MM says we have NO RIGHT to identify books he hasn't read!

In doing so, you implicitly declined my explicit invitation to identify any comparable textbooks you have read.

Nor do I need to. You have NO RIGHT to ATTACK INDIVIDUALS in the first place! Your whole "attack the messenger" strategy is a miserable flop.

Are you attacking individuals when you observe that some particular person hasn't read some particular book?

If so, then you have a whole awful lot of apologizing to do:

Without so much as *READING* Alfven's material....Notice any flaw in your notion of self proclaimed 'expertise' when you haven't even read Alfven's materials for yourself?

It turns out you haven't even read Alfven's work....You have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't even bothered to read the material in question....When you've read the material, let me know. Until then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you haven't studied the material in question....

....you didn't read his material either....

That's from just one post, the first in this thread. I could give hundreds of other examples of you attacking individuals for not reading your holy texts.

If you don't want us to continue to point out that you show no sign of having read Purcell or any other electromagnetism texts, then you might want to stop attacking individuals for having enough sense not to waste their time on Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are you attacking individuals when you observe that some particular person hasn't read some particular book?

If so, then you have a whole awful lot of apologizing to do:

Er, no. It would however be a personal attack if I UNJUSTLY accused you of not reading Alfven's book, when in fact you had read Alfven's book. You keep accusing me of some strawman past that has nothing to do with my actual education in electromagnetic theory. I've read more books on basic theory than I can count. I've read enough plasma physics texts books in the last five years that I couldn't recall a number of the authors at this point in time. You keep *FALSELY* accusing me of things that are simply not true.

On the other hand, you have NOT read Cosmic Plasma, and this has in fact created serious conceptual problems for you. You don't grasp circuit theory as it applies to plasma. You don't grasp "discharge" theory either. In fact you went OUT OF YOUR WAY TO AVOID MY DIRECT QUESTIONS related to Dungey and the term "electrical discharge" in relationship to flare events.

You really don't grasp how VEHEMENTLY Alfven rejected MR theory EXCEPT as a pseudonym for the same thing he describes in his double layer paper. I offered to meet you folks in the middle too. Not once have you lifted a finger in over the year long time you've engaged yourself in this conversation to actually read Cosmic Plasma for yourself. Your opinions about Alfven's opinions are therefore based on pure clairvoyance, not "knowledge" you gained by reading any specific materials.

I have to tell you Clinger, you RC and GM have absolutely amazed me in terms of the similarities between arguing EU theory with EU haters and arguing evolutionary theory with "creationists". It really doesn't matter how much material you offer them. They never actually read it or respond to the key points anymore than you responded to my last series of questions about Dungey's use of the term 'electrical discharge'. Denial and avoidance are ALWAYS the name of the game when discussing scientific topics with 'haters'. Material becomes irrelevant to haters. It's all about an emotional attachment to bashing the individual with haters. You folks can't use the term "evil" so your hater's term is "crackpot". Same hater dance, slightly different lingo. It's still all about avoiding the topic and attacking the individual.

That's from just one post, the first in this thread. I could give hundreds of other examples of you attacking individuals for not reading your holy texts.

Those "holy texts" provide that "holy math" your always asking me for. Rather than read the materials I suggest, and respond to the questions I put before you, you run from the material and run from the DISCHARGE questions entirely. Haters run. I'm simply noting a pattern of behavior that haters perform regardless of the topic under discussion. It's all about denial and avoidance with haters.

If you don't want us to continue to point out that you show no sign of having read Purcell or any other electromagnetism texts, then you might want to stop attacking individuals for having enough sense not to waste their time on Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma.

I've read PLENTY of intro textbooks to electromagnetism. I'll admit it's been awhile, but your claim I never read any such books is a bald faced lie.

If and when you come up with a PUBLISHED paper or intro to electromagnetism textbook that talks about 'magnetic reconnection', you let me know. I'll expect a page number and paragraph. Until then I think you pulled your claim about your experiment being an example "magnetic reconnection" right out of you back pocket. If you had any evidence that this experiment demonstrates anything other than 'attraction/repulsion' you would have stuffed it down my throat by now. Since you haven't done that, one can only surmise your in pure denial of the fact that your experiment is an example of magnetic ATTRACTION/REPULSION, not "magnetic reconnection".

That's nothing new by the way. You're also in hard core denial of the fact that electrical discharges have been associated with flare events for 100 years. You're also in hard core denial of the fact that Alfven rejected your precious magnetic reconnection theory as "pseudoscience" and talked about putting nails in it's coffin when presenting his double layer paper that made it UNNECESSARY and IRRELEVANT inside of current carrying plasmas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For all the times a solid/rigid surface Sun conjecture has been brought up as if it's a related issue, nobody has ever described a connection between that conjecture and the equally impossible notion that solar flares and CMEs are some kind of giant electrical lightning bolts.

Well, there's another bald faced lie since Birkeland did that himself over 100 years ago. I think sol and I even discussed the page numbers a few weeks ago.

No explanation has ever been made to link the fantasy of an iron core/surface Sun with the idea that it's some kind of electrically powered cathode.

Again, that is another of an endless series of false statements. Birkeland actually used iron in his calculations of the mass of the universe. What a pity you understood so little of what you actually read.

There has never been any sort of objective physical connection made between the two concepts.

PURE BS. Birkeland himself made that connection over 100 years ago! Denial and nothing but denial. That's the hater's game.

If a solid/rigid surface Sun, or even Manuel's ridiculous idea of an iron core Sun, has anything to do with this thread about an alleged "Electric Sun Theory", it seems reasonable that an objective connection should be made. So far it has not.

I did that the moment I mention Birkeland's work. You're just in hard core denial of historical scientific fact. Haters are all alike. The subject material isn't even relevant to haters. Denial and avoidance are the twin tools of all haters.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Notice how you seem to be lying since there is no mention of 'circuit energy' in the paper?
The mentions of energy release are in the context of observed energy release in solar flares.

Give it a rest RC. You're costing me a minor FORTUNE in irony meters.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, there's another bald faced lie since Birkeland did that himself over 100 years ago. I think sol and I even discussed the page numbers a few weeks ago.


Again, that is another of an endless series of false statements. Birkeland actually used iron in his calculations of the mass of the universe. What a pity you understood so little of what you actually read.


PURE BS. Birkeland himself made that connection over 100 years ago! Denial and nothing but denial. That's the hater's game.


I did that the moment I mention Birkeland's work. You're just in hard core denial of historical scientific fact. Haters are all alike. The subject material isn't even relevant to haters. Denial and avoidance are the twin tools of all haters.

Given the gibberish response above, it's obvious that my point continues to be misunderstood. In simplest terms, no objective connection has ever been made between the nonsensical notion that the Sun has a solid/rigid iron surface/core and the equally ridiculous notion that the Sun is some kind of massive cathode with lightning dancing around the surface and spewing ions of every sort. If there is such a connection that can be objectively described, it would certainly be interesting to see it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Given the gibberish response above, it's obvious that my point continues to be misunderstood. In simplest terms, no objective connection has ever been made between the nonsensical notion that the Sun has a solid/rigid iron surface/core and the equally ridiculous notion that the Sun is some kind of massive cathode with lightning dancing around the surface and spewing ions of every sort. If there is such a connection that can be objectively described, it would certainly be interesting to see it.

Sure, when caught in a lie, lie a whole lot more, that will help.

Birkeland already empirically connected a "solid surface" cathode sphere and "electrical discharges" to different points on the sphere which he personally associated with flares. That was done *empirically in a lab, over 100 years ago*. Get a grip.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Quote 'fast release of circuit energy' from the Önel and Mann paper

Give it a rest RC. You're costing me a minor FORTUNE in irony meters.

Try reading the paper, MM.
You are making yourself seem delusional by stating things that do not seem to be in the paper.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Did you notice how it talks about a fast release of circuit energy?

Michael Mozina
Either: Quote the statement of 'fast release of circuit energy' from the Önel and Mann.
Or: Admit you made a mistake and there is no 'fast release of circuit energy' in the paper.

 

[Reality Check]

Birkeland already empirically connected a "solid surface" cathode sphere and "electrical discharges" to different points on the sphere which he personally associated with flares.

Birkeland took images that he stated were analogies of solar activity.

He was not such an idiot that he would think that the Sun was an actual "solid surface" cathode sphere. He knew the temperature of the Sun. He knew the melting point of brass (the usual composition of his spheres). He could count. He thus knew that the Sun was too hot to be a "solid surface" cathode sphere.

But we should not be surprised, you seem to persist with the delusions listed in Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work which date from July 2009!