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

[Michael Mozina]

And presto. We have the reason for why you deny that there is such a thing as a photosphere, properly understood. If there was a photosphere,

If there were a "photosphere", that "persistent" shape under the wave would not be visible in Kosovichev's Doppler image. Care to explain that shape I circled in this image and why it is "persistent" (if you don't like "rigid')?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your image has been explained.

By whom? When?

You are doing the denying.

Not me. You're the one claiming there's nothing persistent in Kosovichev's Doppler image, but I (and many others) can see it. Obviously Kosovichev can see it because we've discussed it via email.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Derail.

No, this thread is entitled "Electric sun theory", not "I refuse to answer any other question put to me so therefore I want to fixate on only one side issue to the utter exclusion of anything else."

If and when you start by *ADMITTING* that electrical discharges can happen in a plasma, then we might have something to discuss. At the moment, I have no logical way to deal pitiful, obvious denial.

 

[GeeMack]

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

No quantitative objective evidence has been provided yet to support this claim.

 

[D'rok]

Derail.

This thread is about the crackpot claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.

True. But I think all equine animals in all MM threads have been equally fatally thrashed. Does it really matter any more?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No quantitative objective evidence has been provided yet to support this claim.

That is pure denial. I handed you the work of Calqvist, Alfven, Bruce, Dungey, Peratt and many others, none of which you have commented on. If you don't address the information, it's not my fault. The fact you're in pure denial that at least SOME evidence to support the idea has been provided, and you continue to deny that discharges can even occur in a plasma, simply demonstrates the pathological nature of your position.

 

[D'rok]

If and when you start by *ADMITTING* that electrical discharges can happen in a plasma, then we might have something to discuss. At the moment, I have no logical way to deal pitiful, obvious denial.

Depends on the definition. Based on tusenfem's excellent post, this is my take (in red):

Peratt: 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.

No discharge

Dungey: The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density. The electrons must reach at least relativistic energies ...

I don't know

Oxford Reference (concise science dictionary): 2. The release of electric charge from a capacitor in an electric ciruit. 3. The passage of charge carriers through a gas at low pressure in ad discharge tube.

No discharge

Alfvén: (Cosm. Eldy.) Traditionally a current through a gas is called a discharge.

Yes discharge

Alfvén & Fälthammar: (Cosm. Eldy.) (no definition but (as in Alfvén) they say) Electric discharges in the laboratory are usually divided into two groups : non-sustained discharges, which depend upon an `external' ionizer to produce at least an essential part of the ions and electrons which carry the current, and self-sustained discharges, where the ionization is mainly produced by the discharge itself .

I don't know. Both yes and no?

Alfvén: (Cosm. Pl.) does not even give a definition of what he means by a discharge, he just starts using the word.

N/A

Dictionary of Electronics: disruptive discharge Sudden, heavy current flow through a dielectric material when it fails completely under electric stress.

No discharge

So, to the best of my very limited knowledge, the only way we can say that discharges happen in plasma is if we use Alfven's definition which says that discharges are currents. Which is another way of saying that discharges don't happen in plasmas, but currents do.

It's a mystery to me.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nothing like a surreal conversation on Friday to really end the week on a high note.

Gee, let's have a conversation:

MM: Do you see those persistent features in this image?
Denialist: What persistent features?
MM: Do you see the flying stuff (for lack of a better time) in this image?
Denialist: What flying stuff?
MM: Do you see this definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma from Peratt, with a Phd in plasma physics?
Denialist: What definition? Discharges can't happen in a plasma!
MM: Do you see how Alfven and Calqvist use the term "circuits"?
Denialist: Circuits? What Circuits?
MM: Do you see how Dungey used the term "electrical discharge" in this paper?
Denialist: Discharge? Discharges aren't possible in plasma!
MM: Do you see how Bruce uses the term "discharge" in plasma?
Denialist: Discharge? That's not possible in a plasma!
MM: You win, I give up......

 

[D'rok]

Nothing like a surreal conversation on Friday to really end the week on a high note.

Gee, let's have a conversation:

MM: Do you see those persistent features in this image?
Denialist: What persistent features?
MM: Do you see the flying stuff (for lack of a better time) in this image?
Denialist: What flying stuff?
MM: Do you see this definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma from Peratt, with a Phd in plasma physics?
Denialist: What definition? Discharges can't happen in a plasma!
MM: Do you see how Alfven and Calqvist use term "circuits"?
Denialist: Circuits? What Circuits?
MM: Do you see how Dungey used the term "electrical discharge" in this paper?
Denialist: Discharge? Discharges aren't possible in plasma!
MM: Do you see how Bruce uses the term "discharge" in plasma?
Denialist: Discharge? That's not possible in a plasma!
MM: You win, I give up......

Get a grip, Michael.

You deny everything or nearly everything about standard solar physics. The fact that the world doesn't conform to your pet delusions must mean that the world is in denial, eh?

Narcissism.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Get a grip, Michael.

You deny everything or nearly everything about standard solar physics. The fact that the world doesn't conform to your pet delusions must mean that the world is in denial, eh?

Narcissism.

Consider that this is from someone with no training in any of the many disciplines that encompass solar physics and has very limited mathematical skills.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then sunspots cannot be cooler than the rest of the photosphere either.

Since the sunspots aren't under the photosphere, but are part of the photosphere, you're obviously wrong.

Which specific observation?

By the observation that the sun is very close to a blackbody radiator. Hence, it has an opaque layer. That opaque layer is defined as the photosphere.

How can you continue to get such basic information completely wrong? How can you persist in your ignorance, when this has all been explained to you before? Are you like that guy from Memento?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Get a grip, Michael.

You deny everything or nearly everything about standard solar physics.

No, I do not. I don't deny anything. I don't even personally exclude standard solar theory from consideration I simply prefer Birkeland's cathode model over the standard model. You're the one *INSISTING* on having one and only one option.

The fact that the world doesn't conform to your pet delusions must mean that the world is in denial, eh?
Narcissism.

Gee, another personal attack. Who would have guessed.....

 

[Michael Mozina]

Consider that this is from someone with no training in any of the many disciplines that encompass solar physics and has very limited mathematical skills.

Oh, and yet *ANOTHER* pointless comment about my math skills as though they are even relevant. Which SPECIFIC one of Alfven's math's contained a flaw PS?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since the sunspots aren't under the photosphere, but are part of the photosphere, you're obviously wrong.

You actually might valid bitch about my response. I was distracted.

So what cools all that plasma *UNDER* the supposedly "opaque" photosphere? What prevents the "opaque photosphere" from distributing heat evenly again?

By the observation that the sun is very close to a blackbody radiator. Hence, it has an opaque layer. That opaque layer is defined as the photosphere.

I'm sorry, but when did you demonstrate that a mostly *HYDROGEN* plasma could act like a black body again? How does that demonstrate any sort of depth involved in the process?

 

[GeeMack]

You actually might valid bitch about my response. I was distracted.

So what cools all that plasma *UNDER* the supposedly "opaque" photosphere? What prevents the "opaque photosphere" from distributing heat evenly again?



I'm sorry, but when did you demonstrate that a mostly *HYDROGEN* plasma could act like a black body again? How does that demonstrate any sort of depth involved in the process?

Dishonest argument by derail is noted. The topic is the electric Sun conjecture. This claim...

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

... is awaiting quantitative objective support. None has been provided yet. No alleged support that has been offered has even remotely indicated any objective agreement with the claim. It appears the claim is unsupportable.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You actually might valid bitch about my response. I was distracted.

So what cools all that plasma *UNDER* the supposedly "opaque" photosphere? What prevents the "opaque photosphere" from distributing heat evenly again?



I'm sorry, but when did you demonstrate that a mostly *HYDROGEN* plasma could act like a black body again? How does that demonstrate any sort of depth involved in the process?

Do you see? We keep running into the same problem over and over again. You simply do not have the training to understand the comments made to you and you lack the mathematical skills to understand the the most basic physics.

 

[Perpetual Student]

GeeMack:
Dishonest argument by derail is noted. The topic is the electric Sun conjecture. This claim...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

... is awaiting quantitative objective support. None has been provided yet. No alleged support that has been offered has even remotely indicated any objective agreement with the claim. It appears the claim is unsupportable.

He will never respond to this question because he does not have the training to do so and he holds these bizarre opinions because he lacks the mathematical skills to understand basic physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

He will never respond to this question because he does not have the training to do so and he holds these bizarre opinions because he lacks the mathematical skills to understand basic physics.

I have already responded to that request and and have provided you with a definition by a plasma physicist. Do you accept it, yes or no?

What does Calqvist mean by a "circuit" in the papers I have provide in this and the solar flare thread?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dishonest argument by derail is noted. The topic is the electric Sun conjecture. This claim...

Er, no. *ANYONE* making "claims" has to back them up with QUANTIFIED evidence, like I provided you with Dungey's paper, Calqvists work, Bruce's work, and other works which you have yet to acknowledge or comment on.

.. is awaiting quantitative objective support.

Calqvist did that. Did you read it? Did you comment on it?

None has been provided yet.

Pure denial. "Definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma? What definition?"

No alleged support that has been offered has even remotely indicated any objective agreement with the claim. It appears the claim is unsupportable.

Yep, just like evolutionary theory is unsupportable to a creationist "skeptic/denialist".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you see? We keep running into the same problem over and over again.

Yes. I keep providing you with quantified papers and books to read, none of you read them, you (collectively) handwave at them, never comment on them, ignore them, ignore Peratt's *DEFINITION* so we have no starting point, lather, rinse, repeat. (tusenfem is the only exception).

Are you ever going to discuss Alfven's actual maths?