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

[Michael Mozina]

Dungey's description of a flare was a poorly worded way to describe magnetic reconnection.

What *ARE* your qualification in solar physics, and/or plasma physics anyway? You're handwaving at two Phd's now so what are you qualifications on this specific topic since you haven't read either Alfven's book or Peratt's book. It's only "poorly worded" in your mind because it refutes your claims.

 

[Perpetual Student]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-fermi-large-area-telescope-flares.html

Hey look! It turns out that flares/discharges happen around neutron stars too.

Will you admit that this was a dishonest attempt to claim that discharges have been detected in neutron stars?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Will you admit that this was a dishonest attempt to claim that discharges have been detected in neutron stars?

Not at all. You're just in *DENIAL* that discharges occur in flares and you've never commented on Dungey's paper. I can't *MAKE* you comment on, read, or deal with Dungey's paper. When can I expect you to do that?

 

[GeeMack]

I don't know. How long do I have to wait for you to address Calqvist's use of circuits, or Alfven's use of circuits, or Peratt's use of circuits and his definition of a discharge in plasma? How long do I have to way for you to address Dungey's paper on electrical discharges in flares?

Evidently you're talking about yourself since you have yet to explain Alfven's use of circuits, or Dungey's paper. As the saying goes, 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink".

What *ARE* your qualification in solar physics, and/or plasma physics anyway? You're handwaving at two Phd's now so what are you qualifications on this specific topic since you haven't read either Alfven's book or Peratt's book. It's only "poorly worded" in your mind because it refutes your claims.

The persistent dishonest attempt to deflect the burden of proof noted. The responsibility for explaining the electric Sun conjecture falls to the proponents. It was suggested by tusenfem that the electric Sun crackpots start to support their own claims by explaining the science and math that allegedly supports them. Maybe this would be a good claim to start with...

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

 

[Perpetual Student]

OK, now a I am confused. What is this saying?

Photosphere
The visible surface of the Sun, the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light.[47] Above the photosphere visible sunlight is free to propagate into space, and its energy escapes the Sun entirely. The change in opacity is due to the decreasing amount of H− ions, which absorb visible light easily.[47] Conversely, the visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H− ions.[48][49] The photosphere is tens to hundreds of kilometers thick, being slightly less opaque than air on Earth. Because the upper part of the photosphere is cooler than the lower part, an image of the Sun appears brighter in the center than on the edge or limb of the solar disk, in a phenomenon known as limb darkening.[47] Sunlight has approximately a black-body spectrum that indicates its temperature is about 6,000 K, interspersed with atomic absorption lines from the tenuous layers above the photosphere. The photosphere has a particle density of ~1023 m−3 (this is about 0.37% of the particle number per volume of Earth's atmosphere at sea level; however, photosphere particles are electrons and protons, so the average particle in air is 58 times as heavy).[44]

LINK
On the one hand, it says, "the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light." On the other hand it says, " (it is) slightly less opaque than air on Earth." Less opaque than air means more transparent than air. not so? So, would that not imply we can see features below the photosphere, as Mozina proposes? (I hate myself for saying this!)

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun and the Dungey Paper

Instead of any of you (other than t) commenting on Dungey's description of an "electrical discharge" in flares, ...

Really?

From December 7th ...

See The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, J.W. Dungey, 1958 (this is the paper that Mozina's "Dungey" comment above refers to).

"Certain other features of flares may be accounted for by the bulk motion resulting from a discharge at a neutral point. The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly. The 'reconnection' upsets the mechanical equilibrium in the neighborhood in a way that can be visualized, if the lines of force are seen as strings. Then the mechanical disturbance will spread from the neutral point and may have energy comparable to the energy of the spot field in the solar atmosphere."
Dungey, 1958, page 139
​

So Mozina tells us that Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent but also tells us that magnetic reconnection is 100% pseudoscience. But Mozina overlooks that Dungey's 100% consistent explanation includes the 100% pseudoscience of magnetic reconnection. I will leave it as an exercise for the attentive reader to decide what impact this will have on the general credibility of Mozina's arguments.

Again from December 7th ...

The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly. The 'reconnection' upsets the mechanical equilibrium in the neighborhood in a way that can be visualized, if the lines of force are seen as strings. Then the mechanical disturbance will spread from the neutral point and may have energy comparable to the energy of the spot field in the solar atmosphere."
Dungey, 1958, page 139

Notice that Dungey is talking about a "reconnection" of "currents" of *IONS* and *ELECTRONS* ... I can comprehend *DUNGEY's* concept of RECONNECTION of *PARTICLES* ...

Notice that Dungey says, "'reconnect' the lines of force ... if the lines of force are seen as strings". The statement that the reconnecting is being done by lines of force could hardly be more explicit. And yet Mozina insists that Dungey actually says currents and ions and electrons and particles.

It should show the reader that my credibility is very good.

Need I say more?

See Post #499 by W.D. Clinger (dated 8 December 2010 and back on page 13) which discusses Dungey's paper in considerable detail, including reproducing one of his diagrams.
See Post #337 in the thread on Crackpot Physics, by W.D. Clinger (dated 13 December 2010) which also discusses the Dungey paper in great detail.

I think not, if you think that a Bennet pinch will reconnect lines of force. The idea is preposterous, very much so because a Bennett pinch is quite the opposite of a neutral point that Dungey is talking about.

Why don't you acknowledge that some of us have actually read many of the papers you've recommended? Why don't you acknowledge that, when we read those papers, we usually (though not always) discover that you have misunderstood/misrepresented their results?


You should. You do seem to care about the scientific literature, but most of it is written in a language you don't understand: mathematics. If you'd make an effort to learn the rudiments of that language, you'd soon acquire a better understanding of the books and papers you've been urging us to read.

Consider, for example, the Dungey paper you wanted us to read. That's a relatively minor conference paper: Dungey wrote at least 30 other papers that have been more widely cited. It's highly mathematical, but refers to Dungey's 1953 paper to justify most of its claims. (It also contains several typos, which make it even harder to read. I don't blame Dungey for those typos. The paper was published in 1958, long before LaTeX. They'd have mailed galley proofs back and forth, and it looks like an editor gave up on that process before all the typos were fixed.)

Because you don't read math, you have misrepresented Dungey's paper, claiming it talks about electrical reconnection instead of magnetic reconnection. That's not true. The main point of that paper is that magnetic reconnection acts to increase (not to reconnect, as you would have it) current at the neutral point.

Because you don't understand the mathematics, you routinely misunderstand the papers you ask us to read.

Dungey's paper is a case in point:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6636179#post6636179
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6636281#post6636281
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6636433#post6636433
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6636473#post6636473
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6637486#post6637486
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6637920#post6637920

I have done the math, calculated the numbers, and can reproduce both Dungey's Figure 1 and Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection directly from Maxwell's equations.

You, however, continue to deny any connection between Dungey's paper and magnetic reconnection. ...

I could post more, but I trust the point is made. Obviously, Mozina indeed has a hard time getting anybody to discuss Dungey's paper with him.

 

[tusenfem]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-fermi-large-area-telescope-flares.html

Hey look! It turns out that flares/discharges happen around neutron stars too.

Well screw my nipple nuts and send me to Alaska.

My PhD supervisor already calculated this in 1990, Flaring interactions between accretion disk and neutron star magnetosphere, Aly, J. J.; Kuijpers, J., Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 227, no. 2, Jan. 1990, p. 473-482. This paper was the basis for my paper on flares near black holes.

 

[tusenfem]

Ok, let's get more specific. According to Dungey, can an "electrical discharge" occur in a flare? If so, where would we expect to find evidence of that "discharge"? Would Peratt's definition of what a "discharge" does to plasma be helpful in locating the "discharge" in terms of locating it in satellite imagery?

Yes according to Dungey as he says it is just a strong increase in the current.
No according to Peratt as there is no associated break down of the medium (the part that you so longingly like to forget about the Peratt definition).

Been there done that, got anything quantitative to add to the discussion or hech even some qualitative real discussion (see my thread on Birkeland how you do such a thing) would be welcome.

 

[tusenfem]

No, I'm just trying to use terms that allow me to communicate. It's not my fault you created a term that *ASSUMES* something none of you seem to be willing to demonstrate to a depth of 4800KM, the distance in question.

I can't help you don't accept the definition of the photosphere as the level at which the last scattering takes place. But who cares actually?

I have not got the foggiest what you mean with a depth of 4800 km, as the thickness of the photosphere is usually assumed to be 500 km.

I understand how it's "defined", I just don't agree with it, much like RC and GM seem to DENY the definition provided by Peratt of a discharge in a plasma.

Then forget about a meaningful discussion. A definition is a definition. If you don't like it this discussion is over, because then we cannot talk.

I tend to simply select a common reference point for purposes of communication, and the "surface of the photosphere" is a term that anyone can relate to. Keep in mind that even in Birkeland model, the sun is "opaque" at 4800KM. It's only 4800KM in debate.

Birkeland has no model of the sun that is "opaque" at 4800 km. I have no idea where the 4800 km comes from, please explain where you get this number and where exactly Birkeland claims this in his work (i.e. title of the work and page number)

First you will have to explain to me why it "won't work" when two "circuits" "reconnect" and a double layer forms between them?

A double layer does not form between two circuits. As we have absolutely no idea what you mean with circuit reconnection, I can try to make that whole model up for you but to what purpose? Only to save you the time and effort to actually develop such a model by yourself? Do some work, man, or point to a paper that explicitly shows this circuit reconnection and discuss it in an understandable way.

Oh for crying out loud. I can't get anyone but you to even comment on the work I've already provided. What's the point of continuing down denial alley if none of us can agree on what an "electrical discharge in plasma" is, and nobody besides you is willing to address Alfven's/Calqvist's work on circuits?

So, boo hoo hoo! I explicitely started the thread on discussing the scientific works of Birkeland, which you completely ignored, even though you were very happy that I was going to do that, and then in the end the only question that you came up with was about something that was absolutely irrelevant to the whole discussion that had been gone before.

I don't know why I am the only one, and I don't frakking care. If you want to discuss that then do that, and stop discussing semantics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes according to Dungey as he says it is just a strong increase in the current.

Ok.

No according to Peratt as there is no associated break down of the medium (the part that you so longingly like to forget about the Peratt definition).

Woah! How about those FE+20 ions? There is certainly more *IONIZATION* taking place inside coronal loops, not to mention flare events. You're going to have to stop thinking in terms of "breakdown" and start thinking in terms of "further ionization" at higher energy/ionization states.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun and the Photosphere I

OK, now a I am confused. What is this saying?
LINK
On the one hand, it says, "the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light." On the other hand it says, " (it is) slightly less opaque than air on Earth." Less opaque than air means more transparent than air. not so? So, would that not imply we can see features below the photosphere, as Mozina proposes? (I hate myself for saying this!)

I only have a few minutes before I am off to a family reunion so let me just say this: It is the base of the photosphere and not literally the photosphere itself that is opaque. That happens at a depth of about 400 km, and I have posted extensively on this in the past. Mozina says it happens at a depth of about 4800 km, where we will find a "rigid" surface. So the real bone of contention is the difference between 400 and 4800 km (and of course the insane idea of a "rigid" surface that breaks every law of physics you can think of). We can see the photosphere in projection by looking at the limb of the sun and there is no way you can see to a depth of 4800 km, so direct observation falsifies Mozina's claim. All he can do in response is say "I don't believe that" (ignoring all real observations and all real physics in the process) and appealing to a horribly min-interpreted image (movie) that he does not understand at all. You will have to wait until tonight or tomorrow for more frrom me, but I am sure somebody else can chime in.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well screw my nipple nuts and send me to Alaska.

My PhD supervisor already calculated this in 1990, Flaring interactions between accretion disk and neutron star magnetosphere, Aly, J. J.; Kuijpers, J., Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 227, no. 2, Jan. 1990, p. 473-482. This paper was the basis for my paper on flares near black holes.

Tell it to your side of the aisle. It seems to *STILL* be "news" to them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Really?

I'll be happy to exclude/include (depending on how you want to see it) you too Tim if you're willing to accept that discharges happen in plasma and you agree to *SOME* definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma. At least then we'll have a place to begin. I think tusenfem and I can communicate, maybe you and I can do that too. Do you accept either Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma or Dungey's definition?

 

[tusenfem]

Woah! How about those FE+20 ions? There is certainly more *IONIZATION* taking place inside coronal loops, not to mention flare events. You're going to have to stop thinking in terms of "breakdown" and start thinking in terms of "further ionization" at higher energy/ionization states.

Sheesh, that 20+ has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The iron in the loops comes out of the Sun with the magnetic field of the loop, that means that is already iononized otherwise it would not stick to the magnetic field now, would it?

A break down is like in a discharge in the laboratory, where a neutral gas is being forcefully ionized because of the electrical stress (see lightning).

In that current carrying loop, the resistivity (particle collision, wave-particle interactions) will heat the plasma more, and more electrons can be knocked off but that does not change anything about the gas.

Therefore, it is not a discharge in the sense of Peratt, but is a discharge in the sense of Dungey.

This is very very basic simple physics, reading definitions and understanding them and then comparing the situation that you observe with the definitions. Heck, it is not even physics it is comprehensive reading.

 

[dasmiller]

Woah! How about those FE+20 ions? There is certainly more *IONIZATION* taking place inside coronal loops, not to mention flare events. You're going to have to stop thinking in terms of "breakdown" and start thinking in terms of "further ionization" at higher energy/ionization states.

Okay, there's more ionization. And the loops are really hot, which means we would expect . . . more ionization. So I have 3 possibilities (1, 2a, 2b):

1) the observed ionization levels are consistent with the observed temperatures in the loops. In this case, the ionization does not provide any more support for Electric Sun than it does for any other explanation of why the loops are hot

2) the observed ionization levels are not consistent with the observed temperatures of the loops. This leads to:

2a) Electric Sun theory makes quantified predictions (not simply "more") that are consistent with the observed ionization. This would support Electric Sun. I have not seen such calculations and I suspect that most of us here are going to assume that if you had them, you'd show them.

2b) Electric Sun theory does not have an quantifiable prediction that fits the observed ionization level better than the conventional models do. In this case, the ionization levels do not support Electric Sun.

So, which is it? Or did I miss a case?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, there's more ionization. And the loops are really hot, which means we would expect . . . more ionization. So I have 3 possibilities (1, 2a, 2b):

1) the observed ionization levels are consistent with the observed temperatures in the loops. In this case, the ionization does not provide any more support for Electric Sun than it does for any other explanation of why the loops are hot

How and *WHERE* did they get that "hot", above or below the surface that looks like a boiling liquid? How did it get that hot? What's the heat source of a *SINGLE* coronal loop?

2) the observed ionization levels are not consistent with the observed temperatures of the loops. This leads to:

The fact that multiple and very high ionization states can be observed from multiple types of elements suggests that we can exclude that option.

2a) Electric Sun theory makes quantified predictions (not simply "more") that are consistent with the observed ionization.

Actually Alfven (moreso Calqvist IMO) spelled out a whole series of maths that make quantified predictions so we can also exclude that one as well. In fact Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge predicts pinches and such.

This would support Electric Sun. I have not seen such calculations and I suspect that most of us here are going to assume that if you had them, you'd show them.

Ya and I "assume" that everyone actually reads the links I post to these threads. That never seems to actually happen unfortunately. Almost everyone ignores them, they get buried in pages of "junk" and then readers start to think they haven't already been posted.

2b) Electric Sun theory does not have an quantifiable prediction that fits the observed ionization level better than the conventional models do. In this case, the ionization levels do not support Electric Sun.

Actually, there's no need for "better than", in this case, it just has to "predict"/"explain" them as well (if not better).

Evidently you did miss several links to several papers. I will spend time rounding them up for you again (from these thread no doubt) if you will promise to read them this time and respond to them accordingly. Deal?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sheesh, that 20+ has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Give me a break! Of course it does. How did that plasma get so hot anywhere near an "opaque" 6K surface? What could possibly do that *BESIDES* a "discharge" in a *SINGLE* coronal loop, besides current flow that PINCHES the thread and ionizes the elements in the thread?

The iron in the loops comes out of the Sun with the magnetic field of the loop, that means that is already iononized otherwise it would not stick to the magnetic field now, would it?

So you're claiming they are a million degree *INSIDE* of that "opaque" material?

A break down is like in a discharge in the laboratory, where a neutral gas is being forcefully ionized because of the electrical stress (see lightning).

Notice that lightning/electrical discharges emit gamma rays in the Earth atmosphere, so it's likely that "discharges" are also responsible for gamma rays from flares too.

In that current carrying loop, the resistivity (particle collision, wave-particle interactions) will heat the plasma more, and more electrons can be knocked off but that does not change anything about the gas.

Yes it does. It changes the TEMPERATURE of that "gas" to very high temperatures as the z-machine has demonstrated on MANY occasions.

Therefore, it is not a discharge in the sense of Peratt, but is a discharge in the sense of Dungey.

It doesn't matter to me which definition you prefer, I"m fine, as long as we can all agree on what a "discharge" in a plasma is.

 

[dasmiller]

How and *WHERE* did they get that "hot" (above or below the surface that looks like a boiling liquid? How did it get that hot? What's the heat source of a *SINGLE* coronal loop?

If the issue is simply the loop temperature, then why do you keep raising this issue of the ionization state?

Ya and I "assume" that everyone actually reads the links I post to these threads. That never seems to actually happen unfortunately.

I read some of them, not all. I'm not a physicist, so I look for simpler predictions.

Actually, there's no need for "better than", in this case, it just has to "predict"/"explain" them as well (if not better).

If Electric Sun doesn't explain the Fe+20 observations better than the conventional model, then the best you can say is that the presence of Fe+20 in the coronal loops does not actually refute Electric Sun.

Evidently you did miss several links to several papers. I will spend time rounding them up for you again (from these thread no doubt) if you will promise to read them this time and respond to them in terms accordingly. Deal?

As long as there's not an unreasonable amount of material linked, and you're clear on how the links relate to the topic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If the issue is simply the loop temperature, then why do you keep raising this issue of the ionization state?

Well, that ionization state (particularly that high), along with gamma and x-rays must be "explained" sooner or later. The loops are "Bennett Pinches" according to Alfven, and as such are capable of producing high energy states.

I read some of them, not all. I'm not a physicist, so I look for simpler predictions.

By "simple", don't you mean you can be "certain" occurs "naturally" around multiple large physical objects in this solar system?

If Electric Sun doesn't explain the Fe+20 observations better than the conventional model, then the best you can say is that the presence of Fe+20 in the coronal loops does not actually refute Electric Sun.

It's better in one very obvious way. A "large current flow" (which seems to be where we have dumbed it down to) produces a "pinched filament" that can "light up" the filament in many wavelengths all along the filament, much like you see in an ordinary plasma ball. How does the current model explain *ONE* (singular) coronal loop at a million + degrees? What's the heating mechanism if not a "large current flow/discharge" through a pinched filament?

As long as there's not an unreasonable amount of material linked, and you're clear on how the links relate to the topic.

Give me some time today, I've got a lot of "honey do" stuff going on today, but I'll start by rounding up Dungey's paper unless you've already read it, and wish to comment on it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm looking for evidence it's "opaque" at all wavelengths at a depth of 4800KM.

For my argument it doesn't matter what the depth is. Whatever that depth of the opaque region is, the observably opaque region has a temperature of around 5700 K. And it doesn't even have to be opaque at all wavelengths either, it only needs to be opaque enough over the IR, visible, and near UV to make it impossible for anything below it to be at lower temperatures. And it is sufficiently opaque over that region. Which (again) we can tell because it acts like a blackbody over this part of the spectrum, so it must absorb like a blackbody too.

It's quite simple, Michael. If there's a solid surface to the sun, and the layer above this solid surface is NOT opaque, then this layer will not radiate like a blackbody. In order to get a blackbody spectrum, the solid surface would need to provide that missing radiation. Which it could only do if it too was at 5700+ K. So I don't CARE if you want to claim that the plasma above your solid surface isn't opaque, it doesn't matter to this argument. You still end up with the solid surface at a temperature of at least 5700 K. Which is, well, not possible.