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

[Michael Mozina]

It clearly does demonstrate that the crackpot electric Sun conjecture isn't actually supportable in any legitimately scientific way.

Pure denial. I handed you Bruce's work, Dungey's work, Peratt's work, Alfven's work, Calqvist's work, etc. Which of them did you actually comment on that wasn't simply a handwave?

 

[Tubbythin]

After you have agreed that Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge generally involves a breakdown of some medium, perhaps we can move on to debating Peratt's claim that the genitalia of some prehistoric petroglyphs represent electrical discharges:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=1228570
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=1228571
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4198483
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4346239
http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/2008/T131/014048

That is just awesome.

 

[GeeMack]

This is an *EXCELLENT* (classic) demonstration of the human self defense mechanism called denial. Tusenfem is the ONLY one to have "conditionally" accepted a METHOD of communication about "discharges" in plasma. The rest of you are stuck in *PURE DENIAL*, specifically you all *DENY* the *FACT* that a "discharge" can occur in a plasma! Unbelievable.

The comment from post 1534 seems quite apropos here...

It's the responsibility of the crackpots making the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges to define the terms, clearly, objectively, and quantitatively. If it's not electrical discharges like lightning right here on Earth and the sparks inside a toy plasma ball, as has been claimed so often in the past, and if the dishonest redefining and goal post shifting actually has some relevance aside from avoiding supporting the claim, it's still not up to other people to clarify the claimants' position. The dishonest attempt to evade responsibility for supporting the claim is, as always, noted.​

 

[dasmiller]

...perhaps we can move on to debating Peratt's claim that the genitalia of some prehistoric petroglyphs represent electrical discharges

Ouch.

And ouch.

 

[GeeMack]

Pure denial. I handed you Bruce's work, Dungey's work, Peratt's work, Alfven's work, Calqvist's work, etc. Which of them did you actually comment on that wasn't simply a handwave?

I commented on them all. There isn't any objective quantitative support for the ridiculous claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. None of those authors are talking about the same thing when they mention discharges, and none of them concludes that solar flares are electrical discharges. That's not a handwave. It's just a fact.

Again, if someone suggests that the moon is made from cheese, it's not someone else's responsibility to explain the physics of the cheese making process in order to refute the claim. The person making the claim is responsible for supporting it. To make the metaphor more match the electric Sun claims and claimants, if that person demonstrates a complete lack of understanding the cheese making process and the known data regarding the physical composition of the moon, it is damned certain they aren't going to be able to support it.

This responsibility for burden of proof is grade school stuff. It's dishonest to try to deflect the responsibility for the burden of proof. It was dishonest the first time an electric Sun crank pulled it, but that could have been an oversight or simple negligence. It's blatantly dishonest now, because the explanation of the burden of proof has been provided, and several people have pointed out the habitual use of that dishonest method of argument.

 

[D'rok]

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.



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

And what is "Denialist"? A term of endearment?

Congratulations. I think you win the Hypocritical Post of the Week Award.

 

[GeeMack]

After you have agreed that Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge generally involves a breakdown of some medium, perhaps we can move on to debating Peratt's claim that the genitalia of some prehistoric petroglyphs represent electrical discharges

Ah ha, penile discharge. He should see a doctor about that.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Peratt's definition of discharge

I've got no problem with it. Do you?

No, but I have a problem with your continuing misrepresentation of it:

The discharge occurs *IN* an existing PLASMA Mr. Spock. It probably will result in *ADDITIONAL* ionization, but the fact it's a plasma to begin with is irrelevant.

Do you now agree to Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, yes or no?

I disagree with your interpretation of Peratt's definition. Perhaps a concrete example would help us to resolve our disagreement.

Consider the Tapamveni petroglyph:

The trifurcated bottom end of the axial current is commonly interpreted in rock-art lore as the “stick man’s” genitalia. Peratt calls this a “basic” form taken by discharge instabilities, and significantly it is an image common to rock art around the world.

Yes or no, Michael: Do you agree that the genitalia represent a discharge (as defined by Peratt)?

 

[D'rok]

This is an *EXCELLENT* (classic) demonstration of the human self defense mechanism called denial. Tusenfem is the ONLY one to have "conditionally" accepted a METHOD of communication about "discharges" in plasma. The rest of you are stuck in *PURE DENIAL*, specifically you all *DENY* the *FACT* that a "discharge" can occur in a plasma! Unbelievable.

If you'll notice, I did my grubby best on the previous page to find some way of talking about electric discharges in plasma. It turns out (assuming I'm right) that Alfven is your best bet. But not really, because he's just talking about currents, not discharges. So, if you want to rely on Peratt the Paleolithic Penis Purveyor, I think it behooves you to explain what the medium is in a plasma that is breaking down. Presumably the plasma itself is the medium, yes? Describe the breakdown that makes Peratt's definition plausible. Go!

Also, it would be nice if you could cite that whole section of Peratt's book rather than what appears to just be some intro material. Surely there must be some more...ummm...meaty bits later on?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you'll notice, I did my grubby best on the previous page to find some way of talking about electric discharges in plasma. It turns out (assuming I'm right) that Alfven is your best bet.

Actually I thought (still think) Dungey is my best bet, but considering the denial quotient around here, and the handwaving I've seen so far, I'm not holding my breath.

But not really, because he's just talking about currents, not discharges.

Actually he's describing explosive double layers and induction. Not that any of you would know.

So, if you want to rely on Peratt the Paleolithic Penis Purveyor,

OMG. I guess the basic concept of the game around here is "Ignore the science that is actually presented, ignore the topic of conversation if necessary, always attack the individual, and never address the *ISSUE*". Is that it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I commented on them all.

When did you comment on Calqvists use of circuits? Alfven's use of circuits? Peratt's use of circuits? Please show me those posts.

 

[GeeMack]

Actually I thought (still think) Dungey is my best bet, [...]

So magnetic reconnection it is.

 

[D'rok]

Actually he's describing explosive double layers and induction. Not that any of you would know.

Reread tusenfem's post.

OMG. I guess the basic concept of the game around here is "Ignore the science that is actually presented, ignore the topic of conversation if necessary, always attack the individual, and never address the *ISSUE*". Is that it?

No. I think the game is, "pretend outrage at a potty joke to avoid addressing the issue". You did read the rest of my sentence, right? Just in case, here it is:

"I think it behooves you to explain what the medium is in a plasma that is breaking down. Presumably the plasma itself is the medium, yes? Describe the breakdown that makes Peratt's definition plausible. Go!"

 

[GeeMack]

When did you comment on Calqvists use of circuits? Alfven's use of circuits? Peratt's use of circuits? Please show me those posts.

That takes us back to the part of this post where I mention the idiot claiming the moon is made from cheese. That post checks to a Flesch-Kinkaid readability skill level of about grade 10. If anyone doesn't understand it and would like it simplified, please let me know.

But on topic, it's interesting, and highly supportive of the idea that the electric Sun conjecture is simply unsupportable in an objective quantitative way, that so much effort is being put into avoiding this claim...

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

 

[Michael Mozina]

So magnetic reconnection it is.

Great, then it's also an "electrical discharge".

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

Thanks for playing.

 

[Perpetual Student]

How may times have we seen this ploy?

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

Then, when it is demonstrated that the science does not support his contention, he plays semantic games with the term "discharge."

We have seen this same ploy with words like:
pressure
cosmological constant
photosphere
dark energy
inflation
current

There is no satisfactory conclusion to these discussions. There is no science being discussed. It all revolves around unconventional usage of standard terminology twisted to "win" the argument. It's a game, with no substance, no meaning and of no value.

 

[Reality Check]

Unless and until you can explain how and why a "magnetic reconnection" event that suddenly heats plasma to a million plus degrees, emits gamma and x-rays galore, not to mention high speed particles, falls outside of Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge, forgetaboutit.

Done: Magnetic reconnection.
Also: Solar flare (needs a citation though).

So you acknowledge that solar flares are caused by magnetric reconnection?

After all we know it cannot be the usual electrical discharges (as you should agree) since there is no dielectric medium to breakdown. Thus there has to be another mechanism to create the sudden release of energy.

 

[Reality Check]

I simply don't agree that the surface they call the "photosphere" is actually "opaque". What exactly do you want me to do about their choice of terms?

I see we are back to this bit of ignorance.
Yet again, MM: By definition the photosphere is "opaque" at some depth:

It extends into a star's surface until the gas becomes opaque, equivalent to an optical depth of approximately 2/3[1]. In other words, a photosphere is the deepest region of a luminous object, usually a star, that is transparent to photons of certain wavelengths.
[1] Carroll and Ostlie (1996). Modern Astrophysics. Addison-Wesley

There is nothing to "agree" about - that is the definition of photosphere.
So anyone who claims to see anything using light below the photosphere is obviously deluded or ignorant.

 

[Reality Check]

What evidence? Not a single one of you has ever really made any serious effort to explain even that first image on my website. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" seems to be the limit of anyone's attempt to "explain" the image.

You are mistaken, MM: I explained all of the features of that RD movie.

See the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy* shown by the TRACE RD 171A movie
(and on a related topic: the delusional nature of Michael Mozina's fantasy* shown by the Kosovichev movie)
* the fantasy is your idea that the sun has an iron surface/crust below the photosphere.

The fact is that image is a record of areas of increasing and decreasing temperature. These areas happen to be aligned either side of flares. This gives the illusion of mountain ranges. This may fool the ignorant. You have been fooled by this movie for many years.
It is about time that you did the honest thing and admitted your mistake.

The fact is that is the original images are of plasma at a temperature between 600,000 K and 2,000,000 K (the 173 A passband of the TRACE instrument), i.e. the corona which just happens to be plasma above the photosphere.

 

[Reality Check]

That is a possibility of course, but then there still has to be a logical 'cause' for the rigid patterns observed in the image.

There is and you have been told it. In case you miss it in my last post or its links:

The fact is that image is a record of areas of increasing and decreasing temperature. These areas happen to be aligned either side of flares. This gives the illusion of mountain ranges. This may fool the ignorant. You have been fooled by this movie for many years.

The impossibility is that the image is of solid structures under the photosphere:

1. The image is of the corona.
2. By defintion, it is impossible to see below the photosphere.
3. The temperature at the top of the photosphere is ~5700 K. This is too hot for solids and rules out the iron surface/crust in your fantasy and so your "mountain ranges".
4. The temperature at the base of the photosphere is ~9400 K. This is much too hot for solids and rules out the iron surface/crust in your fantasy and so your "mountain ranges"..
5. Helioseismology rules out and rules out the iron surface/crust in your fantasy and so your "mountain ranges".

ETA

An actual "explanation" would start by acknowledging that there are rigid geometric shapes and sizes in the image and then EXPLAINING why they stay in those same geometric shapes and forms even *DURING* and AFTER the CME. Claiming no such rigid geometric shapes exist isn't an "explanation" it's called "denial". They are there. They are rigid in terms of the patterns having lifetimes that are far in excess of the 8 minutes or so like the structures in the photosphere.

There are no "rigid geometric shapes and sizes in the image" to be acknowledged. There are flexible changing shapes in the movie that have been explained. So that image contains flexible shapes. No one denies this.
It would be delusional to state that these were mountain ranges on an iron surface/crust under the photosphere because it is

• physically impossible to see under the photosphere
• physically impossible for an iron surface/crust to exist at the temperatures of the photosphere or the higher temperatures under it.