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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
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 !
Click to expand...

FYI, just so you know: Sol is actually someone I personally trust and respect and admire in terms of his mathematical abilities. We don't always agree on all points, but I respect him and I respect his opinions on many science related topics. My disappointment is genuine, I assure you. :(
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
I see Mozina has lost another foil. But the game continues; there's always new blood to debate Mozina's make-believe physics.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna vote with Sol on this one. Earlier (2009/2010), I was actually learning interesting stuff from these threads and even had some fun making my own models.

But that phase seems to have passed. I'm going to stop lurking here, and I'll leave it to others to . . . umm . . . do whatever is being done here.
 
dasmiller said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I think it would look more like the surface discharges in Birkeland's cathode terella/sun experiments. That's why you will find that composite image on the first page of my website, along with an x-ray Yohkoh image of the sun.

birkelandyohkohmini.jpg


If so, then why don't we see underwater lightning?),
Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...nderwater+welding&gbv=2&oq=underwater+welding

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.
Click to expand...

This line really scares me. I've talked to you long enough to know that you're normally a pretty logical guy. This statement seems as out of character to me as your concern about my reaction to that one paragraph seems to you about now. You should be looking for "natural" solutions to a relatively "simple" problem actually. We already know that electrical discharges CAN do everything on that list. We know MR theory only scores 1 point, it's not "natural" here on Earth, and it only scored a point because I took pity on you.

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.
Click to expand...

So what was the actual context and purpose of that paper as originally used? I can't ever remember off the top of my head. There are many other papers on that list that strongly support my beliefs including that paper by Mann and Onel too. What about that one? Alfven? Birkeland? Dungey? Bruce? How about those authors?

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.
Click to expand...

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/3/29/2007/astra-3-29-2007.pdf
So you didn't even look at that last 'new' paper I handed you eh? You didn't read any of Alfven's work I presume? Evidently you took the time to read one or two papers on that list for some reason and then ignored everything else on the list. I think you really should spend less time responding to me and more time reading that last PDF link I handed you on MHD models of electric fields. It's worth the read and you should cool your jets should you actually take the time to read it.

Okay, let me see if I understand you. You claim that everyone else is ignoring or handwaving any data that contradicts the conventional model.
Click to expand...

Strawman. I didn't say that. I only seem to be talking to "EU critics/haters" to begin with. Lot's of folks I know embrace electric universe theories in general. This crew is in a class by themselves IMO.

Yet when confronted with data that contradicts your model, from sources you provided, your response is "Some do, some don't. So what?"
Click to expand...

How many papers have been written that contradicted something about standard theories? Give me a break. I don't even remember that particular paper being all the relevant to begin with. You seem to have gone out of your way NOT to select Dungey or Bruce or Birkeland, or anyone else that would agree with these ideas.

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?
Click to expand...

I can see how you might twist things around to make it seem that way, sure. The fact of the matter is that I'm sure there are other papers written that DID NOT find 'currents' using their technique. There are others that have found them using other techniques. Whom then shall I believe is correct? You can't just select a choice single paragraph from 30 provided references and try to use one paragraph of one paper to toss out the entire 30 works!
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...


Claiming there is a flaw or problem with a theory while admitting to not understanding the theory, and using that unfounded criticism as support for an alternative conjecture is an argument from ignorance.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I think it would look more like the surface discharges in Birkeland's cathode terella/sun experiments. That's why you will find that composite image on the first page of my website, along with an x-ray Yohkoh image of the sun.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Neither of those images has anything to do with the other, and neither has anything to do with an electrical discharge analogous to lightning. That makes the argument a non sequitur.
 
GeeMack said:
Neither of those images has anything to do with the other,
Click to expand...

That's just more pure denial and in fact it's an outright lie. They're both electrically driven discharge events according to Dungey and Birkeland and Peratt and Bruce and Alfven and many, many, many others.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
That's just more pure denial and in fact it's an outright lie. They're both electrically driven discharge events according to Dungey and Birkeland and Peratt and Bruce and Alfven and many, many, many others.
Click to expand...


Kristian Brikeland died in 1917. Charles Bruce died in 1979. Since the Yohkoh satellite observatory was launched in 1991, it is impossible for either of them to have seen that picture. Ever. Period. Obviously any argument concerning an opinion on that picture "according to" Birkeland or Bruce is so utterly nonsensical it merits nothing but ridicule and derision.

Hannes Alfvén died in 1995. Although he may have seen the Yohkoh satellite X-ray image and the photo of the terrella from Birkeland's Saturn experiment, there is no evidence that Alfvén expressed any opinion at all on either picture, much less claiming they are both "electrically driven discharge events". Same with Anthony Peratt and James Dungey; no evidence at all that they expressed any opinion on pictures of Birkeland's terrella Saturn experiment or the Yohkoh X-ray image. Dungey appears to have done most of his research about 50 years ago. I didn't find whether he's still alive, but it seems likely he's not. I think it's reasonable to accept the entire quote above as wholly unsupported nonsense.

And really, those pictures both show electrically driven discharge events according to some dead guys!? That has to be the absolute epitome of absurd arguments. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina: Is pair production an electrical discharge

Michael Mozina said:
Hey RC, did you ever get a reply back from Peratt?
Click to expand...
Not yet - and since Gee Mack also sent him an email a couple months ago on this very issue, I do not have high hopes of a reply.

However anyone who can read can anticipate his reply. Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge is the standard definition for which Peratt gives the example of lightning. He totally ignores any actual electrical discharges within plasma which is something that you are still ignoring:
The honest answers which you seem incapable of writing would be
  1. He never discusses electrical discharges within plasma in his book (and AFAIK in none of his other publications)
  2. Because his electrical discharges (e.g. lightning) happen because there is the breakdown of a dielectric medium as in the second sentence of his definition.
Your lie (quote mine) about his definition means that you imply that Anthony Peratt is an idiot because "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy." would mean that processes such as absorption of light by atoms and pair production would now be 'electrical discharges'.
But maybe in your mind they are :eek:! So:
Michael Mozina,
Is the sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy in pair production an electrical discharge?

And then there is your inability to actually find any publications on 'electrical discharges in plasma' other than 60 year old, magnetic reconnection papers by Dungey (and others) that describe high current densities as electrical discharges.
 
Michael Mozina: Google Books list for electrical discharges within plasma

Reality Check said:
And then there is your inability to actually find any publications on 'electrical discharges in plasma' other than 60 year old, magnetic reconnection papers by Dungey (and others) that describe high current densities as electrical discharges.
Click to expand...
You still have not been able to answer
But maybe you live somewhere where there are no universities or libraries :rolleyes:!
But you have access to the internet so
Michael Mozina: Where is your Google Books list of books that define, analyze and give examples of electrical discharges within plasma?
 
Michael Mozina: Google Scholar articles on electrical discharges within plasma

Reality Check said:
You still have not been able to answer
But maybe you live somewhere where there are no universities or libraries :rolleyes:!
But you have access to the internet so
Michael Mozina: Where is your Google Books list of books that define, analyze and give examples of electrical discharges within plasma?
Click to expand...
Likewise:
Michael Mozina: Where is your Google Scholar list of articles that define, analyze and give examples of electrical discharges within plasma?

ETA: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection so do not make yourself seem ignorant and cite him!
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Somewhere in this thread I actually posted a youtube video of a "discharge" taking place to the side of a wall inside of a "discharge chamber
Click to expand...
This is your usual 'I see bunnies in the clouds' logic.
You are confused (to be charitable) about what the viedo is about.
Tore Supra Tokamak as about a tokamak, not a plasma discharge chamber.
All of the plasma is in the center of the torus. The bright flash along the side of the torus is not an electrical discharge, it is probably cooling plasma as stated by the top comment:
Well yes you don't see the plasma because in the plasma there are electrons pulled out of their atomic orbits, however the edges are visible as they are the cooler regions(divertors, if you're interested) and in these region the electrons are once again trapped in their respective atomic orbits and as they change their energy levels the light is emitted, that's why it's only visible on the edges
Click to expand...

It could even be contamination in the ring being accelerated (unlikely)

This is your fantasy that it is an electrical discharge. To turn this from a fantasy to a scientific fact you need to produce the literature on electrical discharges within plasma:
Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?
26th September 2011 (a month and counting!)

Michael Mozina: Google Books list for electrical discharges within plasma?
28 October 2011

Michael Mozina: Google Scholar articles on electrical discharges within plasma?
28 October 2011

Michael Mozina said:
The circuit is the basic energy storage mechanism in plasma, and the double layer is the energy release mechanism.
[/quoter]
Totally ignorant as usual.
There are no circuits in plasma since plsma is a gas with not resistor, wires, etc in it :jaw-dropp.
The 'basic' energy storage mechanism in plasma is magnetic fields because that is where the majority of the energy is stored. Particle movements store some kinetic energy as well. When energy is released plasma heats up and the particle kinetic energy is increased.

The usual energy release mechanism in solar flares is magnetic reconnection
Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003
and
Eric Priest, Terry Forbes, Magnetic Reconnection, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0-521-48179-1, contents and sample chapter online
Reconnection provides an elegant, and so far the only, explanation for the motion of chromospheric ribbons and flare loops during solar flares. At the same time, it also accounts for the enormous energy release in solar flares. The ejection of magnetic flux from the Sun during coronal mass ejections and prominence eruptions necessarily requires reconnection; otherwise, the magnetic flux in interplanetary space would build up indefinitely. Reconnection has also been proposed as a mechanism for the heating of solar and stellar coronae to extremely high temperatures
Click to expand...

Double layers may be created by the MR in solar flares and these may also release energy.
Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption (and double layers)?
MM: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption (and DL) II?
Click to expand...
 
MM: Can you answer sol invictus's question about magnetic field lines and Gauss' law

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, just so you know: Sol is actually someone I personally trust and respect and admire in terms of his mathematical abilities. We don't always agree on all points, but I respect him and I respect his opinions on many science related topics. My disappointment is genuine, I assure you. :(
Click to expand...
So it looks like you will be willing to answer his question without derailing the discussion.
This is what he posted on 25th October 2011
Originally Posted by sol invictus
Michael, we've discussed this issue many times before. It's true that B-field lines cannot start or end. Nevertheless, they can reconnect, so long as they do so at a point where the magnitude of the B field is zero. This does not violate Maxwell's equations, and it does not require magnetic monopoles. In fact we've several times given you explicit examples of magnetic fields that solve Maxwell's equations and reconnect.

Years ago I gave you the example of contour lines on a map. Those can't begin or end either - but they can reconnect, for instance at a saddle point (a pass between two hills) during an earthquake (i.e. as the topography changes with time).
Click to expand...
Note the he is talking about magnetic field lines by themselves.
There is no plasma involved.
Do not attempt to derail the discussion into the MR that is observed to happen in plasma.

The actual question was on 27 October 2011:
Originally Posted by sol invictus
Michael, the point of my post was to remind you that Gauss' law for magnetism - the law that says that magnetic field lines cannot begin or end - is fully consistent with magnetic reconnection. I think we should settle that first, and then afterwards I'd be happy to answer your questions.

So - do you agree with that statement? To be completely explicit, do you agree that "Gauss' law for magnetism - the law that says that magnetic field lines cannot begin or end - is fully consistent with magnetic reconnection"?
Click to expand...
Thus Michael Mozina:
Can you answer sol invictus's question about magnetic field lines and Gauss' law?

I will emphasis again that there is no plasma involved in the question. No one (even you) needs to understand the theory of MR in plasma. This is a basic EM question. All you need to understand is EM theory (Maxwell's equations + basic concepts like magnetic field lines). So questions about that are appropriate.
Questions about plasma are you trying to wiggle out of answering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom