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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
I understand why you feel that way, but I also believe that you have no right to judge me until or unless you read and UNDERSTAND the material I've presented. If you don't understand the material and you're just "out of the loop" in terms of the irony factor in RC's comments, it's not my fault.
Click to expand...

I'm not judging you. I said your post had no content.
 
Belz... said:
Irrelevant. You are unable to understand my point, or unwilling to understand my point.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, this has been the experience of everyone (including me) who has attempted to have a rational dialog with Mozina on these JREF threads. He seems to be an irrational make-believe physics pretender, whose method is to avoid any actual analysis by using the diversionary tactics you have encountered.
 
Perpetual Student said:
As far as I can tell, this has been the experience of everyone (including me) who has attempted to have a rational dialog with Mozina on these JREF threads.
Click to expand...

What rational dialog? You've never read Alfven's book. You never read Peratt's book on this topic either. You've never found a flaw in Alfven's circuit orientation to solar flares. You've never set RC straight about "electrical discharges" in plasma. Who do you think you're fooling?
 
GeeMack said:
Oh, and an electrical discharge analogous to lightning here on Earth can't occur in a conductive plasma like the solar atmosphere. It's a matter of simple physics. Reality Check is correct on that issue, and none of the dishonest attempts to redefine terms and cherry pick definitions, no amount of quoting a couple of phrases from Peratt while blindly ignoring the rest of what he wrote will change that.
Click to expand...

A) electrical discharge analogous to lightning here on Earth can't occur in a conductive medium.

True.

B) Solar atmosphere is plasma.

True.

C) Plasmas are electrically conductive.

True.

"an electrical discharge analogous to lightning here on Earth can't occur in a conductive plasma like the solar atmosphere. It's a matter of simple physics."

True.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Hey, I missed that paper earlier. That's a good paper IMO. It is too bad that you never applied the idea to solar flares and gamma radiation from solar flares.
Click to expand...

The solar flare and double layers was published here.

Solar flare conditions are not extreme enough to make DLs create gamma radiation through curvature radiation.
 
Almo said:
A) electrical discharge analogous to lightning here on Earth can't occur in a conductive medium.

True.
Click to expand...

FYI, that's the ASSUMPTION that is "false". The actual release of stored energy can ONLY happen in a conductive medium like the PLASMA that forms during the electrical discharge process here on Earth. In order for the stored energy to actually be "released", the medium must become conductive.
 
The only real difference between the discharges is that in plasma the CIRCUIT is the energy storage mechanism. The release of stored energy is related to a failure of that circuit or any part of that circuit.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, that's the ASSUMPTION that is "false". The actual release of stored energy can ONLY happen in a conductive medium like the PLASMA that forms during the electrical discharge process here on Earth. In order for the stored energy to actually be "released", the medium must become conductive.
Click to expand...

Lightning happens because charge builds up on either side of a non-conductive medium. Once the charge is large enough to create an electric field strong enough to start the lighting strike, it happens.

In a plasma, the charge can't build up, because it would just go across the plasma now instead of waiting until later.

The original statement is true. Lightning as we know it here on Earth cannot happen in a plasma environment. This is very simple stuff, dude.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I realize that when RC says something to the effect: "It's not about scaling the double layer, it's about scaling plasma physics", that you really don't grasp the irony of such a comment.
Click to expand...
I realize that you cannot understand simple English:
You cannot just make the DL's bigger ('scaling the double layer') for the simple reason that DL's have a specific size in plasma
http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2004/
Hannes Alfven pointed out that: "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized."
Click to expand...
You have to scale the plasma physcis.
 
Almo said:
Lightning happens because charge builds up on either side of a non-conductive medium.
Click to expand...

Sure. Inside of plasma the "build up" that you're looking for is directly related to the "circuit energy" of the coronal loop. The "insulation" factor is directly related the evacuation process around the plasma pinch/circuit.

Once the charge is large enough to create an electric field strong enough to start the lighting strike, it happens.
Click to expand...

In plasma the "release mechanism" is too strong of a current that ultimately PINCHES the plasma thread apart. It can also happen if two or more of them touch.

In a plasma, the charge can't build up, because it would just go across the plasma now instead of waiting until later.
Click to expand...

Well, you're actually "kinda" correct in the sense that the charge isn't "building up", it's sustained by the flow of movements around sunspots. The flow begins immediately as you presume, forming a "flowing filament" or "circuit". That circuit does however have "circuit energy" that is "stored energy". That stored energy of the circuit can be released in an electrical discharge event.

The original statement is true. Lightning as we know it here on Earth cannot happen in a plasma environment. This is very simple stuff, dude.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple dude. That's why you need to read a few of the references I cited and reread Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma. The "electrical discharge" in a gas is not the ONLY kind of electrical discharge in existence! You can't hide the complexities of plasma behavior by hiding behind an oversimplification fallacy.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-logical-fallacies-of-insufficient-evidence.htm

Fallacy of Oversimplification. In this fallacy, some aspects of an issue -- generally more subtle ones -- and their ramifications are not explored.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
This exchange is so much more apropos than some will realize...
Click to expand...

It's true of you too by the way. :) There's no point in telling you that electrical discharges in a gas are not the only kind of electrical discharges in existence. You don't listen to or acknowledge that point. What's the point of repeating myself when you and RC don't care about truth?
 
Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge

Michael Mozina said:
That's why you need to read a few of the references I cited and reread Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma.
Click to expand...
This delusion of yours needs the various things that you are ignoring collected together in one response that can be cited every time hat you state this fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.
Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge is the standard definition for which Peratt gives the example of lightning.

This is backed up be the fact that he ignores 'electrical discharges in plasma' :jaw-dropp! No examples. No discussion of the physics.
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.
You then lie about the definition (quote mine the first sentence) which leads to absurdities:
Your incompetence in not doing the research to back up your assertion is displayed in your inabilty to answer:
 
Michael Mozina said:
There's no point in telling you that electrical discharges in a gas are not the only kind of electrical discharges in existence.
Click to expand...
GeeMack has shown that he is capable of understanding that electrical discharges do not happen just in a gas, i.e. they also happen in solids and liquids.
They cannot happen in plasma by definition (Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge) but then you are still lying (quote mining) that:
Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!
 
Michael Mozina said:
No amount of denial is going to change the fact that monopoles do not exist in nature and they DO in fact violate Gauss' law of magnetism. Were they to exist, it would require a MODIFICATION to the existing formulas.
Click to expand...
No amount of ignorance is going to change the fact that the usual Gauss's law assumes that monopoles do not exist.
If monopoles exist then that law of physics is invalid.
If a paper assumes that monopoles exist then that law of physics cannot be applied to that paper.

There is no modification needed to Gauss's law of magnetism - the modification has already been done by putting the density of monopoles to zero.
 
Reality Check said:
This delusion of yours needs the various things that you are ignoring collected together in one response that can be cited every time hat you state this fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Ya RC, I know you can DANCE around that word *IN* till the cows come home (and longer). I've seen you do it now for months and none of the haters set you straight. That in itself says volumes.

You personally wouldn't have a clue what Peratt talks about or doesn't talk about in his book because you've never read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom