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

[Michael Mozina]

We do not have anthing to discuss

I believe that is true as well. We really have nothing to discuss because:

A) Electrical discharges do not occur in plasma.
Electrical currents happen in plasma. When these happen suddenly some authors call then discharges. This causes confusion to scientifically ignorant people who cannot understand that the two phenomena are different.

B) Dungey and many others wrote about these electrical currents. Many authors still write about these electrical currents.

1 .5 Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.

Notice the word "IN" RC? Do you not understand the word IN?

You are utterly ignoring the WORDS that Dungey used. He did not call it an electrical current RC. He called it an "ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE"! Why?

I realize that plasma physics is a unique field of science, but for the life of me I cannot understand why *NO ONE* other than me has pointed out your error. I think that says volumes.

I love how this denial thing works. You simply *IGNORE* the words you don't like, change the words you don't like and make false claims about the words the author used! That is pathetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For the record, you are wrong as Dungey stated:

You do know what the word in means?

Ya, do you? Did Peratt use the term "in" plasma when describing an electrical discharge?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

No matter how you want to try to spin it RC, GM's statements were false. PERIOD.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We do not have anthing to discuss because you cannot understand that
A) Electrical discharges do not occur in plasma.

D) The fact that sudden changes in electrical currents ("discharges") happen in flares means that flares are not electrical discharges. It means that they are plasma trhat has discharges within it.

Now which is it RC? Can a plasma have a discharge in it, or do discharges not occur in plasma? Make up your mind! I can't believe you're attempting to change Dungey's paper to suit yourself and that you are putting words in Dungey's mouth. That's just bizarre. He used the term "electrical discharge", not "electrical current" RC.

 

[Michael Mozina]

...not much of value.

Speaking of not much value....

What have *YOU* actually added to this conversation besides a couple of crackpot comments (personal attack) and a frontal assault on my personal math skills as though they are even relevant?

All of the above disciplines require a great deal of study and all the above fields require a strong background in mathematics. Mozina has demonstrated no understanding of these disciplines and no mathematical skills.

But of course I am the only one participating in this conversation that has demonstrated the ability to accurately predict not only EM flares, but dark filament eruption flares while the rest of you go "dark filaments"? What dark filaments? Oy.

Since none of you (except T) have actually read the relevant materials, all you can do is hurl personal attacks and insults into the conversation. That's just sad.

 

[GeeMack]

I believe that is true as well. We really have nothing to discuss because:

Notice the word "IN" RC? Do you not understand the word IN?

You are utterly ignoring the WORDS that Dungey used. He did not call it an electrical current RC. He called it an "ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE"! Why?

I realize that plasma physics is a unique field of science, but for the life of me I cannot understand why *NO ONE* other than me has pointed out your error. I think that says volumes.

I love how this denial thing works. You simply *IGNORE* the words you don't like, change the words you don't like and make false claims about the words the author used! That is pathetic.

Ya, do you? Did Peratt use the term "in" plasma when describing an electrical discharge?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

No matter how you want to try to spin it RC, GM's statements were false. PERIOD.

No which is it RC? Can a plasma have a discharge in it, or do discharges not occur in plasma? Make up your mind! I can't believe you're attempting to change Dungey's paper to suit yourself and that you are putting words in Dungey's mouth. That's just bizarre. He used the term "electrical discharge", not "electrical current" RC.

Speaking of not much value....

What have *YOU* actually added to this conversation besides a couple of crackpot comments (personal attack) and a frontal assault on my personal math skills as though they are even relevant?

But of course I am the only one participating in this conversation that has demonstrated the ability to accurately predict not only EM flares, but dark filament eruption flares while the rest of you go "dark filaments"? What dark filaments? Oy.

Since none of you (except T) have actually read the relevant materials, all you can do is hurl personal attacks and insults into the conversation. That's just sad.

Argument by nitpicking semantics, by lying, by attempted derail, by badgering, and by claiming persecution noted.

The fact of the matter is this: No matter what Peratt or Dungey meant by "electrical" or "discharge" or how they assembled those words, no matter what preposition was placed between or among them, they did not mean, and were not attempting to say anything remotely like...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

It's a blatantly dishonest attempt to cherry pick a few lines here and there and shoehorn them into supporting a bogus conjecture. How was that stated earlier in the thread?...

I can't believe you're the electric Sun cranks are attempting to change Dungey's and Peratt's papers to suit yourself themselves and that you they are putting words in Dungey's mouth. That's just bizarre.​

It's all arguing by lying. It's a slap in the face of scientists like Alfvén, Bruce, Dungey, Birkeland, and Peratt, invoking their names and attempting to twist their meanings. Foisting off the blame for the failure of the electric Sun crackpots onto them is a despicably dishonest way to construct an argument and by so arguing, an act of scientific fraud.

Now if there is any legitimate, scientific, objective, and quantitative support for this ridiculous claim...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

... we certainly haven't seen it yet. Now would be a good time to post it. And if there isn't, now would be a good time to display the honesty and scientific integrity of admitting it and abandoning the claim.

 

[GeeMack]

But of course I am the only one participating in this conversation that has demonstrated the ability to accurately predict not only EM flares, but dark filament eruption flares while the rest of you go "dark filaments"? What dark filaments? Oy.

That argument has been demonstrated, in another thread right here on the JREF forum, to be a lie.

Since none of you (except T) have actually read the relevant materials, all you can do is hurl personal attacks and insults into the conversation. That's just sad.

And that argument has been demonstrated right here in this thread to be a lie.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That argument has been demonstrated, in another thread right here on the JREF forum, to be a lie.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

The only thing that's been demonstrated to be is lie is your false claim about CMEs. If and when you ever get around to admitting it was a lie, let me know. At that point we can continue. At this point, your lies prohibit us from continuing any sort of scientific conversation.

Essentially you and RC are in *DENIAL* that it is even physically possible to have an "electrical discharge" in a plasma!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Good news, after nearly 10 minutes of effort, I was able to find data on both sunspot activity and solar neutrino output for the period of Jan 1996 to June 1999. I overlaid the two so that the correlation would be easily visible. The neutrino counts are in black, the sunspot counts are in red.

So . . . what sort of correlation should we be seeing here, and how does it support Electric Sun?

Hmmm. Could you direct me to a few of the places where you found useful information and that graph?

I'm not sure I can speak for every EU advocate, but I would "predict" that neutrino counts would be "somewhat" cyclical, since I (personally) believe that fusion occurs in solar atmospheric "pinches". Since the atmosphere is much more active during the sun's active part of the cycle, I would expect some variability and I would expect it to track (or come close to tracking) with the variability observed in iron ion, and x-ray wavelengths during that same period of time.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

 

[Perpetual Student]

Speaking of not much value....

What have *YOU* actually added to this conversation besides a couple of crackpot comments (personal attack) and a frontal assault on my personal math skills as though they are even relevant?

Have I not made it clear that I have little technical knowledge in this area and can add nothing? I have stated many times that I am a layman.
However, I am an informed layman with decades of reading and light studying in many areas of science and I do have an MS in mathematics (and an undergraduate minor in physics). So, I am as interested in solar physics as I am interested in, say, molecular biology.
My experiences in academia and the professional word have given me a deep respect for hard working genuine professional scientists and equally deep disdain for arrogant dilettantes with crackpot notions.
The fact of the matter is that years of serious study is required to add anything of value in an area this complex. You have demonstrated quite clearly that you have not studied the disciplines required and even lack the mathematical training to understand the current mainstream model. What could be more obvious?

 

[GeeMack]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

The only thing that's been demonstrated to be is lie is your false claim about CMEs. If and when you ever get around to admitting it was a lie, let me know. At that point we can continue. At this point, your lies prohibit us from continuing any sort of scientific conversation.

If and when I...? Me? My lies prohibit the electric Sun advocates from supporting their claims? Something I said prohibits someone else from supporting their own crackpot claim? That's one of the most ridiculous, convoluted, and yes, dishonest arguments I've seen in this or any discussion about any crackpot claim, ever. It's a dishonest rationalization, an apparent attempt to blame me for a failure which is not mine. It's not my fault that there isn't any objective quantitative support for this claim...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

The failure belongs to the cranks who make the electric Sun claims, 100%, and without question. They created the failure by arguing for fantasy claims which are demonstrably unsupportable, and they perpetuate the failure arguing by lie, incredulity, and ignorance, among other obvious logical fallacies. They own the failure, lock, stock, and barrel. It doesn't belong to Birkeland, Alfvén, Bruce, Peratt, Dungey, or anyone else. The failure belongs to the crackpots, tax, title, license, and out the door. It certainly doesn't belong to me. That argument is just... plain... stupid.

Now if there is scientific, objective, and quantitative support for this claim...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

... it hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet. If there isn't, it would be a good time to show some honesty and scientific integrity and admit that it can't be supported.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

Since it has been asked many times by GeeMack, can you actually provide a real scientific basis for this claim or will you finally admit that you cannot?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since it has been asked many times by GeeMack, can you actually provide a real scientific basis for this claim or will you finally admit that you cannot?

OMG. Yes, and I already provided it for you, not that you actually READ any of the references I provided, specifically Alfven's exploding double layer paper you have never personally commented on. Care to explain how that is NOT an electrical discharge in plasma as defined by Peratt?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure I can speak for every EU advocate, but I would "predict" that neutrino counts would be "somewhat" cyclical, since I (personally) believe that fusion occurs in solar atmospheric "pinches".

This idea is nonsense. Or more specifically, the idea that any significant fraction of the sun's fusion occurs at the surface is nonsense. The problem is that the current required to make enough pinches to produce enough fusion is gigantic. To do that, you need absolutely massive charge separation. But the fusion that such pinches would produce has no way of feeding back into the system to create the necessary charge separation. So there's no way to maintain the reaction. And don't just say "double layers", or even "exploding double layers", because neither of those is an answer.

And it gets worse: even if you posit some unknown positive feedback loop to keep that charge separation from dissipating and shutting down your reaction, that's not enough, because that provides no way to initiate fusion in the first place.

And it gets even worse: the solar power output is steady, which means it's got to have a net NEGATIVE feedback, or the power output won't stay steady.

So you need some method to initiate charge separation without fusion (which you don't have), you need some positive feedback mechanism to make the fusion maintain the charge separation and ramp up the rate, and you need some negative feedback mechanism to cap the rate at the current total solar power output and keep it steady. You have none of these mechanisms. The standard model of core fusion, on the other hand, has all of the mechanisms to start core fusion, ramp it up, and produce negative feedback to cap it at some stable value.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

Your evidence seems circumstantial at best. I'll let others more familiar with the CNO cycle comment in more detail, but what I will note is conspicuously lacking from this paper is any description of the power output of this event. Even if you're right that this was evidence of an electrically-driven CNO fusion reaction, that doesn't mean it contributes any significant fraction of the sun's power output. In fact, given that you seem to have found it in one spot during a transient event, I think it's pretty obvious that it can't.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If and when I...?

Yes. You personally keep engaging me personally. If you personally wish to continue a conversation, you'll have to address that list I provided you with earlier, specifically points a-c.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This idea is nonsense. Or more specifically, the idea that any significant fraction of the sun's fusion occurs at the surface is nonsense.

Woah, let's not get carried away. I said *SOME* fusion occurred in the atmosphere, I didn't say a significant fraction of the sun's fusion occurred in the atmosphere. The cycle however does vary, and that variation in energy output (internal, not just external) is likely to show up in additional neutrino counts during the active phase. I was *NOT* trying to suggest all that variation occurred *ONLY* in the solar atmosphere. I would expect most of the actual energy variation to occur in the core, not in the atmosphere. If it's more electrically active on the outside it's likely to be more electrically active on the inside too.

 

[GeeMack]

Woah, let's not get carried away. I said *SOME* fusion occurred in the atmosphere, I didn't say a significant fraction of the sun's fusion occurred in the atmosphere. The cycle however does vary, and that variation in energy output (internal, not just external) is likely to show up in additional neutrino counts during the active phase. I was *NOT* trying to suggest all that variation occurred *ONLY* in the solar atmosphere. I would expect most of the actual energy variation to occur in the core, not in the atmosphere.

Wholly unsupported speculation noted. In simplest terms: A guess. And clearly an unqualified guess at that.

 

[Perpetual Student]

This idea is nonsense. Or more specifically, the idea that any significant fraction of the sun's fusion occurs at the surface is nonsense. The problem is that the current required to make enough pinches to produce enough fusion is gigantic. To do that, you need absolutely massive charge separation. But the fusion that such pinches would produce has no way of feeding back into the system to create the necessary charge separation. So there's no way to maintain the reaction. And don't just say "double layers", or even "exploding double layers", because neither of those is an answer.

And it gets worse: even if you posit some unknown positive feedback loop to keep that charge separation from dissipating and shutting down your reaction, that's not enough, because that provides no way to initiate fusion in the first place.

And it gets even worse: the solar power output is steady, which means it's got to have a net NEGATIVE feedback, or the power output won't stay steady
So you need some method to initiate charge separation without fusion (which you don't have), you need some positive feedback mechanism to make the fusion maintain the charge separation and ramp up the rate, and you need some negative feedback mechanism to cap the rate at the current total solar power output and keep it steady. You have none of these mechanisms. The standard model of core fusion, on the other hand, has all of the mechanisms to start core fusion, ramp it up, and produce negative feedback to cap it at some stable value..

QED (regarding my comments in post # 1369)

 

[Perpetual Student]

Woah, let's not get carried away. I said *SOME* fusion occurred in the atmosphere, I didn't say a significant fraction of the sun's fusion occurred in the atmosphere. The cycle however does vary, and that variation in energy output (internal, not just external) is likely to show up in additional neutrino counts during the active phase. I was *NOT* trying to suggest all that variation occurred *ONLY* in the solar atmosphere. I would expect most of the actual energy variation to occur in the core, not in the atmosphere. If it's more electrically active on the outside it's likely to be more electrically active on the inside too.

Ah yes, her you have been caught in another lie. You said, "I'm not sure I can speak for every EU advocate, but I would "predict" that neutrino counts would be "somewhat" cyclical, since I (personally) believe that fusion occurs in solar atmospheric "pinches". Since the atmosphere is much more active during the sun's active part of the cycle, I would expect some variability and I would expect it to track (or come close to tracking) with the variability observed in iron ion, and x-ray wavelengths during that same period of time."
This implies a great deal (if not most) of the fusion takes place in "pinches" for the neutrino count to be cyclical. GeeMack does have a valid point about your propensity to distort the truth to sustain your crackpot arguments.

 

[GeeMack]

OMG. Yes, and I already provided it for you, not that you actually READ any of the references I provided, specifically that exploding double layer paper you have never personally commented on. Care to explain how that is NOT a discharge in plasma?

Discharge in plasma? The claim was, and the exact words are...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

And Perpetual Student asked...

[...] can you actually provide a real scientific basis for this claim or will you finally admit that you cannot?

Real science now, not stupid science. No dishonest arguments by cherry picking where someone said "electrical" and "discharge" in the same paper. No lies. No blaming failures on other people in the discussion or dead scientists who can't even defend their positions. The claim is that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. The question was, is there any real scientific basis for this claim?

Apparently the answer is a resounding, "No." No, there isn't a real scientific basis for the claim. And also no, none of those making the claim will finally admit that they cannot support it. No. Almost a quarter of a million words have been exchanged in this thread alone. If a scientific claim cannot be supported, or even explained in a cogent, rational, plausible way in a dialog of a quarter million words, it is reasonable to assume it can't be supported by the arguments offered.

If there's any possibility of demonstrating any truth to the claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges, it will require abandoning any references already mentioned, all the Peratt, Birkeland, Bruce, Alfvén, and Dungey cited so far, abandoning the lies and dishonesty, the arguments from ignorance, the arguments from incredulity, and abandoning the arguments by blaming others for the crackpots' failures.

If there's any possibility of supporting the claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges, it will require an honest argument, scientifically sound, objective and quantitative. Since no such argument has been offered yet, it will essentially require starting over, from scratch, and leaving behind all the arguments attempted so far. They've failed to support the claim, repeatedly. Every... single... argument. Every... single... time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Real science now, not stupid science.

You never comment on the "real" science. "Circuits? What circuits? Exploding double layers? What double layers? Electrical discharge in plasma? What discharge?" Sheesh.