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

[sol invictus]

Your questions isn't as "simple" as you make it sound sol.

There's only one, and it really is that simple.

Can we "connect" (not reconnect) a couple of zero points in a magnetic line? Sure.

Is that a "yes" to my question? If so, a followup - why did you twice post Gauss' law for magnetism if you admit that the process in that video (which everyone else in the world calls "reconnection") does not conflict with it?

The issue of what happens to the energy stored in the field during this process is a separate question - one that I'm happy to discuss once you acknowledge that reconnection can happen and is consistent with Maxwell's equations. But until you clearly acknowledge that (by answering my simple question), I will not discuss it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Indeed. Exploding irony meters, repeatedly, are not content.

How about those 30 or so other references I have provided you with? Why take ONE SENTENCE from a 105? page thread and claim that one sentence is representative of anything? Did you even read ANY of the references I cited?

The amusing aspect of this conversation is, in fact, that you still think we are discussing your ideas, rather than those contentless posts I was addressing.

IMO it's just sad that you too have some strange desire to focus on trivia rather than that real content I've provided you with to examine and consider.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's only one, and it really is that simple.

It's not as simple as you make it sound IMO.

Is that a "yes" to my question? If so, a followup - why did you twice post Gauss' law for magnetism if you admit that the process in that video (which everyone else in the world calls "reconnection") does not conflict with it?

I don't really know what the video you provided actually shows, other than perhaps typical double layer behaviors in plasma. Alfven already explained such energy exchanges *WITHOUT* 'magnetic reconnection' theory sol. What exactly are you claiming is the energy release mechanism shown in that video that *ISN'T* induction, or current related activity? How is that energy release mechanism PHYSICALLY UNIQUE and DIFFERENT FROM other ordinary processes in current carrying plasma as described by Alfven's double layer paper?

The issue of what happens to the energy stored in the field during this process is a separate question - one that I'm happy to discuss once you acknowledge that reconnection can happen and is consistent with Maxwell's equations. But until you clearly acknowledge that (by answering my simple question), I will not discuss it.

Please be very specific at the level of particle physics and explain to me EXACTLY what you think physically 'reconnects'? At a zero point in a couple of magnetic field lines, there is no photon kinetic energy at that location to work with sol. No field energy, so no field 'reconnection'. There's nothing at that zero point *OTHER THAN* perhaps *CURRENT*. Any INDUCTION that occurs will happen AWAY FROM the actual ZERO points. If there are "discharges" to that location from another location, that too might release energy. Two zero points in a magnetic field are devoid of energy. 0 + 0 = 0. Two CURRENTS however can generate 'discharges'. Until I can understand what you think is physically changing at that zero point, I really don't know how to accurately answer your question about 'reconnection'. AFAIK, they simply 'connect' and absolutely nothing happens. When the fields move again, induction happens.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is something Michael Mozina cannot understand despite being told about it for months.

No, you've been in personal denial for months because Dungey blows your claims away. He personally associated your 'reconnection' event in solar flares to 'electrical discharge' processes in plasma RC! You're SO in denial it's pathetic. Electrical discharges ARE possible in plasma. The RELEASE OF STORED ENERGY can ONLY happen THROUGH a 'conductor'. The storage mechanism is the 'circuit'. The release mechanism is the 'double layer'. Other than the storage and release mechanisms, the electrical discharges in plasmas are EXACTLY the same in terms of their net effect on ions in the plasma. The ions get ionized to much higher energy states due to the discharge. The electrical discharge heats the plasmas to millions of degrees Kelvin. The electrical discharge releases x-rays and gamma rays that we observe in satellite images of both the EARTH and the SUN.

He is obsessed with his fantasy of solar flares being 'electrical discharges in plasma' despite the fact that he is incapable of actually defining 'electrical discharges in plasma'.

Pfft. Peratt's DEFINITION is very clear. Even a child could understand it *IF* they wanted to. You prefer to live in pure denial rather than accept his definition of an electrical discharge *IN* (as in inside of) plasma.

And when he looks in the literature he fixates on 60 year old, magnetic reconnection papers by Dungey (and others) that describe high current densities as electrical discharges.

I simply showed you that you've been wrong for more than 100 years. Even Birkeland's work falsifies your claim. Dungey just NAILED the fact that a 'reconnection' process is a actually an "electrical discharge' process from the E orientation of plasma physics. Unlike you he could see both sides of the issue and relate it all back electrical discharge process just like Peratt.

This of course means that solar flares are magnetic reconnection events, not 'electrical discharges in plasma'.

Oh for goodness sake! A "reconnection" event *IS* an electrical discharge event according to Dungey *AND* according to Peratt's "definition". Wake up and smell the coffee already. Your denial routine and your splitting of hairs is just pathetic.

 

[Belz...]

How about those 30 or so other references I have provided you with? Why take ONE SENTENCE from a 105? page thread and claim that one sentence is representative of anything? Did you even read ANY of the references I cited?

Again, irrelevant. I'm not going to let you get away with it. You have, several times, used the irony meter gif and commented on your own use of it. That is what I indicated was "no content". You responded "indeed", and then proceeded to disagree with me. You were, and are, confused.

IMO it's just sad that you too have some strange desire to focus on trivia rather than that real content I've provided you with to examine and consider.

The devil's in the details.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The devil's in the details.

Ya, the details found in those 30 or so papers and books that you won't bother reading.

 

[dasmiller]

Ya, the details found in those 30 or so papers and books that you won't bother reading.

I bothered reading some of them. For example, http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1991SoPh..132..307F

"... 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 of solar macroscopic electric fields has yet to be achieved."

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

"We explored the implications of the measured currents for
Joule heating of the corona . . . Use of the Spitzer resistivity
leads to a value for the volumetric heating rate approximately
6 orders of magnitude less than the value indicated by observations."

and Birkeland's discussion of the terrella results:

The temperature of the spots should, upon this hypothesis, be very high. This, it is said, does not seem to be well confirmed by the measurements;

Are those the sorts of details that Belz is ignoring?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Someone must have been pretty darn confused.

Yep, you. You know........

I've seen creationists "handwave" a false claim into a conversation before. Typically when I confront them over the fact that no published work supports their handwave of a claim, they "back off". If I can DEMONSTRATE their claim is false based on other information related to their claim (as I showed that your experiment is predicated upon INDUCTANCE, not "reconnection" per distance unit) they almost ALWAYS run and hide. You didn't back off but you do keep running and hiding from the tough questions. You keep repeating the same unsupported claim over and over again. When can I expect you to produce a published work that claims that your 'experiment' demonstrates anything other than inductance? What's going to happened when I swap out your air for other materials Clinger? Will the INDUCTANCE PER DISTANCE UNIT change too?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I bothered reading some of them. For example, http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1991SoPh..132..307F

How about trying something a little newer then:

http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/astro1/Users/benz/papers/return_current.pdf

Here's a new one I ran across today for you:

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/3/29/2007/astra-3-29-2007.pdf

and Birkeland's discussion of the terrella results:

Actually there are hot and cold spots in sunspots probably due to the plasma streaming out of the photosphere:

http://www.universetoday.com/82266/previously-unseen-super-hot-plasma-jets-heat-the-suns-corona/

Are those the sorts of details that Belz is ignoring?

No, more like the 7 of 7 key flare observations that have been associated with "electrical discharges' in the lab, only one of which can be empirically associated with "magnetic reconnection" in the lab, and only because I felt sorry for you and didn't argue the point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not really all that amazing. Mozina never answers direct questions like that, for the simple reason that he can't and he knows it.

BS. What's the point of playing along with the "bash the messenger" mentality. Any of you can look up "induction" on Wiki anytime you'd like. Rewording a Wiki page for you in my own words is hardly going to demonstrate ANYTHING. It's just a DISTRACTION so you can avoid the fact that all your equations evoke PERMEABILITY, a measurement of *INDUCTANCE* per distance unit, not a measurement of "magnetic reconnection" per distance unit!

I even showed you that UCLA paper that USED CIRCUIT THEORY to do the calculations!

For crying out loud. All EU haters ever do is pick on the individual and run like hell from the actual issue and the actual data. The equations evoke PERMEABILITY, a measurement of INDUCTANCE per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnections" per distance unit. Wake up and smell the coffee. There's a damn good physical reason Alfven rejected your theory. Oy Vey!

 

[dasmiller]

No, more like the 7 of 7 key flare observations that have been associated with "electrical discharges' in the lab, only one of which can be empirically associated with "magnetic reconnection" in the lab, and only because I felt sorry for you and didn't argue the point.

<sigh> First, and we've been over this many times, the 7 "key flare observations" that you listed are all things that are associated with very high temperatures and don't favor any particular heating mechanism.

But back to my earlier post: The papers that you provided have said that the measured currents in solar flares simply don't have enough current to account for the observed coronal heating. That's why I keep quoting them.

It would seem to be a very serious problem for your model, and AFAIK you haven't addressed it. And yet you accuse everyone else of handwaving or simply ignoring the papers that you've provided.

If you don't consider the papers to be credible, then why did you cite them? And what do you believe is wrong in them?

If you do consider them to be credible, then . . . haven't you refuted yourself?

 

[Michael Mozina]

<sigh> First, and we've been over this many times, the 7 "key flare observations" that you listed are all things that are associated with very high temperatures and don't favor any particular heating mechanism.

That's not even a rational statement IMO. Nature has very specific ways of manifesting it's forces in atmospheres. Electrical discharges occur "naturally" in every atmosphere in this solar system with a magnetic field and an atmosphere and the sun has the MOST of each! Nature favors "electrical discharges" in the atmospheres of physical bodies with magnetic fields and atmospheres. They occur in MANY atmosphere of MANY other bodies in this system.

But back to my earlier post: The papers that you provided have said that the measured currents in solar flares simply don't have enough current to account for the observed coronal heating. That's why I keep quoting them.

ONE paper couldn't support one aspect of my ideas? How about the rest of them Das?

It would seem to be a very serious problem for your model, and AFAIK you haven't addressed it. And yet you accuse everyone else of handwaving or simply ignoring the papers that you've provided.

I'm willing to take the good with the bad. Not every paper can support every idea I've put forth. Some do, some don't. So what? There's more than a single paragraph from one paper to read and consider.

If you don't consider the papers to be credible, then why did you cite them? And what do you believe is wrong in them?

I don't personally expect every author I cite to be able to support EVERYTHING I believe in. Why cite one when there are so many others to choose from?

If you do consider them to be credible, then . . . haven't you refuted yourself?

No. That would only be true if NO OTHER AUTHOR could achieve what that one author could not achieve.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's even simpler than that. Plasma is a conductor, not an insulator.

FYI, that doesn't matter, in fact the conductance factor is a "requirement" in order for the "discharge" (release of stored energy) to be completed. Without a conductor, no "release of stored energy" would occur.

If plasma was an insulator, every single engineer and scientist would realize it.

It doesn't have to be an "insulator" in a current carrying environment. In a current carrying environment, threads are 'pinched' together to carry the current and the magnetic field around that field aligned current acts to evacuate the region directly around the current and insulates it from other plasmas. If two such circuits touch however, say due to large movements of the current stream, then a "short circuit" can take place. That "discharge process" releases the excess energy we observe in satellite images.

It's impossible to have a discharge in plasma since there is no charge separation.

That's not necessarily the case around sunspots.

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/3/29/2007/astra-3-29-2007.pdf

Plasma can be generated by electrical discharges, but it itself does not experience discharges.

No, it experiences them too. You're absolutely right that we can use a discharge process to create plasma, but the second part of your statement is not true. Alfven's storage mechanism is the 'circuit'. The energy release mechanism is a "double layer". The plasma pinches inside the double layer emit all kinds of high energy wavelengths, including x-rays and gamma rays. We observe these same high energy wavelengths in electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere by the way.

 

[Almo]

What exactly does anyone mean by that term? The term "reconnection" seems to be slapped on to just about everything from inductance through various materials, to the topology change of field aligned currents.

The retreat into semantics.

Do. The. Math.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The retreat into semantics.

It's not semantics, it's physics! The actual way that you're turning magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is via INDUCTION, not "reconnection". Induction already has a proper scientific name.

Do. The. Math.

The math is all based on INDUCTANCE per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnections" per distance unit! No variable in those formulas is based upon a rate of "reconnection".

 

[sol invictus]

It's not as simple as you make it sound IMO.



I don't really know what the video you provided actually shows, other than perhaps typical double layer behaviors in plasma. Alfven already explained such energy exchanges *WITHOUT* 'magnetic reconnection' theory sol. What exactly are you claiming is the energy release mechanism shown in that video that *ISN'T* induction, or current related activity? How is that energy release mechanism PHYSICALLY UNIQUE and DIFFERENT FROM other ordinary processes in current carrying plasma as described by Alfven's double layer paper?



Please be very specific at the level of particle physics and explain to me EXACTLY what you think physically 'reconnects'? At a zero point in a couple of magnetic field lines, there is no photon kinetic energy at that location to work with sol. No field energy, so no field 'reconnection'. There's nothing at that zero point *OTHER THAN* perhaps *CURRENT*. Any INDUCTION that occurs will happen AWAY FROM the actual ZERO points. If there are "discharges" to that location from another location, that too might release energy. Two zero points in a magnetic field are devoid of energy. 0 + 0 = 0. Two CURRENTS however can generate 'discharges'. Until I can understand what you think is physically changing at that zero point, I really don't know how to accurately answer your question about 'reconnection'. AFAIK, they simply 'connect' and absolutely nothing happens. When the fields move again, induction happens.

OK, in that case our conversation is over.

 

[dasmiller]

That's not even a rational statement IMO. Nature has very specific ways of manifesting it's forces in atmospheres. Electrical discharges occur "naturally" in every atmosphere in this solar system with a magnetic field and an atmosphere and the sun has the MOST of each! Nature favors "electrical discharges" in the atmospheres of physical bodies with magnetic fields and atmospheres. They occur in MANY atmosphere of MANY other bodies in this system.

And we've been over this before. Lightning is observed in non-conductive atmospheres. Even you have to admit that the conductivity of an atmosphere should have a dramatic impact on any electrical discharges in that atmosphere (do you really think that terrestrial lightning would look the same if our atmosphere was conductive? If so, then why don't we see underwater lightning?), and therefore one cannot readily extrapolate from terrestrial lightning observations to solar observations.

And, of course, your whole paragraph does not address my original point that your 7 things are all associated with very high temperatures, regardless of the heating mechanism.

But I consider the whole 7-points thing to be another red herring.

ONE paper couldn't support one aspect of my ideas?

Actually, those were quotes from two papers. And it wasn't that they simply "couldn't support one aspect;" they strongly contradicted your central premise.

How about the rest of them Das?

I've covered that, too. I've read a number of the papers that you asked us to read, and almost invariably I've found that they either weren't relevant or directly contradicted you. You've exhausted the amount of time I was willing to spend reading papers for you.

I'm willing to take the good with the bad. Not every paper can support every idea I've put forth. Some do, some don't. So what?

Okay, let me see if I understand you. You claim that everyone else is ignoring or handwaving any data that contradicts the conventional model. Yet when confronted with data that contradicts your model, from sources you provided, your response is "Some do, some don't. So what?"

<sigh>

Can you see why that sort of statement implies that you'll believe in ES regardless of any actual facts or data? And why it seems absolutely futile to continue this discussion?

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, in that case our conversation is over.

I'm sorry to hear that sol, I really am. I would have greatly appreciated hearing your answers to some of those related questions so that I could better answer your question.

Unfortunately I quite literally see *nothing* that might physically "reconnect" at a zero point in two magnetic field lines, even if they happen to "connect/pass through the same point" there. AFAIK, you've simply provided no particles or particle kinetic energy at that specific location that might actually "reconnect" at the level of particle physics, let alone the energy necessary to explain million degree plasmas.

Sorry. I wish I better understood the idea that you were trying to convey.

 

[Belz...]

Here's that lack of content again.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry to hear that sol, I really am. I would have greatly appreciated hearing your answers to some of those related questions so that I could better answer your question.

No, you wouldn't. You don't like hearing what doesn't agree with you.

But please, do go on. I'm "sure" you will show those physicists who's right !