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

[Michael Mozina]

What they mean by this sentence is fairly clear:

• They have a theory that in special circumstances an event, possibly magnetic reconnection, allows a large current to flow between the oppositely polarized areas of a bipolar active region.
• That large current releases energy that is compariable to that of a solar flare.
• Thus their model can explain the energy that a solar flare can release.
• The magnetic reconnection model also explains the energy that a solar flare can release. The author's theory though ignores this and assumes that it all comes from the current.

The advantage of the magnetic reconnection model is that it can explain the details of the flares, e.g. why flares happen at the top of corronal loops.

Let me 'attempt' to throw you an olive branch here, and we'll see if we can make a little progress.

IMO it doesn't have to be seen as an "either/or" proposition, and there may in fact be times where a non-circuit oriented approach has some technical advantages. I would suggest the opposite is also true. It's not important to me personally to "disprove" magnetic reconnection theory, it's more important that you see that a circuit oriented approach is equally valid at the level of physics and science.

How *EXACTLY* the EM energy is released into the flare is actually irrelevant to my claim that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge. Whether the energy comes from the circuit as a 'current", or via induction, or via magnetic reconnection, it's still the release of STORED EM energy (in the circuit) and therefore it is technically still just an "electrical discharge".

 

[Reality Check]

IMO it doesn't have to be seen as an "either/or" proposition, and there may in fact be times where a non-circuit oriented approach has some technical advantages. I would suggest the opposite is also true. It's not important to me personally to "disprove" magnetic reconnection theory, it's more important that you see that a circuit oriented approach is equally valid at the level of physics and science.

IMO Ditto: it doesn't have to be seen as an "either/or" proposition.
I have always stated the the circuit model approach is equally valid at the level of physics and science. It is just not as detailed as the magnetic reconnection model.

How *EXACTLY* the EM energy is released into the flare is actually irrelevant to my claim that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge. Whether the energy comes from the circuit as a 'current", or via induction, or via magnetic reconnection, it's still the release of STORED EM energy (in the circuit) and therefore it is technically still just an "electrical discharge".

Your claim that a "solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge" is either wrong:

The scientific definition of electrical discharge means that plasmas cannot have electrical discharge.
​

or trivial semantics:

MM's personal definition of electrical discharge is a sudden release of electrical or magnetic energy. A solar flare is a sudden release of electrical or magnetic energy which by MM's definition is a electrical discharge.
​

The paper does not support your claim since there are no electrical discharges - just electric currents.

Solar flares are not caused by electrical discharges

 

[Michael Mozina]

IMO Ditto: it doesn't have to be seen as an "either/or" proposition.
I have always stated the the circuit model approach is equally valid at the level of physics and science. It is just not as detailed as the magnetic reconnection model.

I think that's a valid/fair assessment.

Your claim that a "solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge" is either wrong:
The scientific definition of electrical discharge means that plasmas cannot have electrical discharge.

That simply isn't so RC. Plasmas and conductors can and do experience releases of stored EM energy. Did you even watch the Tokamak video I posted earlier in the thread?

 

[Reality Check]

That simply isn't so RC. Plasmas and conductors can and do experience releases of stored EM energy.

That is simply so MM. Plasmas and conductors can and do experience releases of stored EM energy. So do capacitors. So do inductors. So does turning on a light.

But you are indulging in the trvial semantic trick of redefining electrical discharge to suit your own needs. Thus: Solar flares are not caused by electrical discharges (except in your imagination ).

Electrical discharges in science cannot happen in plasma but some authors in older papers have used the term "electrical discharge" to mean a large current density in the context of magnetic reconnection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But you are indulging in the trvial semantic trick of redefining electrical discharge to suit your own needs.

This behavior is called "projection". I selected a published definition of an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma, which by definition is defined as a release of stored electromagnetic energy.

You're the one doing the Mexican hat dance trying to redefine terms to suit yourself. His definition of an electrical discharge begins *IN PLASMA* RC. The word "dielectric" appears nowhere in the definition, and he certainly writes about the "circuit" energy of circuits in his book, and the breakdown of circuits in his book. A "breakdown" in a plasma is simply a breakdown of a circuit and the sudden release of circuit energy is an "electrical discharge".

Thus: Solar flares are not caused by electrical discharges (except in your imagination ).

Right. It's just my "imagination'' that a solar flare has all the described effects of a "discharge" in a plasma:

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.

So is just a pure coincidence that a flare releases intense electromagnetic radiation, including gamma rays, just like discharges here on Earth?

 

[GeeMack]

So is just a pure coincidence that a flare releases intense electromagnetic radiation, including gamma rays, just like discharges here on Earth?

Discharges right here on Earth, like lightning or the sparks in a toy plasma ball, cannot occur in a conductive medium like plasma on the Sun. They cannot because lightning and other such electrical discharges require the breakdown of a dielectric medium. Plasma in the solar atmosphere is a conductor, so it's not happening there.

This dishonest argument by flailing around words and phrases and by desperately attempting to construct any little apparent coincidence into support for a failed crackpot conjecture is pathetic. It's just not convincing no matter how much semantic finagling and convoluted logic, how many bastardized definitions, lies, and dishonest cherry picked one-liners from research material are added to the already heaping pile of dung that is the electric Sun conjecture.

 

[Reality Check]

This behavior is called "projection". I selected a published definition of an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma, which by definition is defined as a release of stored electromagnetic energy.

This behavior is called "delusion". You cherry picked the first sentence in a published definition of an electrical discharge in a section of a book that describes aurora and lightning.

Originally Posted by Peratt
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.

Right. It's just my "imagination'' that a solar flare has all the described effects of a "discharge" in a plasma:

Right. It is your imagination because electrical dicharges cannot happen in plasma as Perratt's full defintion (not the bit you obsessively cherry pick) shows.

So is just a pure coincidence that a flare releases intense electromagnetic radiation, including gamma rays, just like discharges here on Earth?

Only an ignorant person would think that electrical discharges (as in lightning) are possible in plasma. So it is a coincidence.
Next we will have you claiming the gamma rays released in fusion are caused by electrical dicharges !

The facts are that intense electromagnetic radiation, including gamma rays are released by many processes.

P.S. Since you are back to your delusions about Peratt:
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
First asked 11 January 2011
(No is obviously the answer and you unable to learn the difference yet)

And the other questions that you are ignoring because the answers show that Peratt is talking about discharges in non-plasma:
Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?

Do you really think that Peratt is so ignorant that he thinks that air is plasma?
​

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

 

[Michael Mozina]

This behavior is called "delusion". You cherry picked the first sentence in a published definition of an electrical discharge in a section of a book that describes aurora and lightning.

No, I did what you have not done, specifically provided a physics book *DEFINITION* that supports my claim. You keep trying to stuff in the word "dielectric" in front of the term "breakdown", where none is necessary, require, or appears. The term "breakdown" typically refers to the "circuit" in a plasma. Nowhere does the term "dielectric" appear in Peratt's definition, nor in Dungey's paper associating electrical discharges with solar flares. You're stuffing in a concept that isn't there RC! He cited an example of a DISCHARGE through a CONDUCTOR. That's also what Dungey wrote about.

Right. It is your imagination because electrical dicharges cannot happen in plasma

Show me *ANY OTHER* published plasma physics book that you claim actually makes that claim. Peratt's definition certainly does NOT make any reference to the phrase *DIELECTRIC*.

as Perratt's full defintion (not the bit you obsessively cherry pick) shows.

Pfft. You're the one ignoring the fact that whole definition is about an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE IN A PLASMA*!.

Only an ignorant person would think that electrical discharges (as in lightning) are possible in plasma.

No, only an ignorant person believes that electrical discharges in a plasma (or any conductor for that matter) are not possible.

So it is a coincidence.

You then of course have a lab experiment that shows that gamma rays and high energy ion emissions can be generated by "magnetic reconnection", right?

The denial-go-round is silly RC. Essentially what you're trying to claim is that it is impossible to store and release electromagnetic energy in a plasma. That's pure bunk.

Even Dungey disagrees with you profusely. He consciously and specifically uses the term "electrical discharge" and consciously and specifically associates them with flare events! You're just in pure denial of 60+ years of solar physics history, so nothing anyone might say might *EVER* change your beliefs. The parallels to arguing with creationists are uncanny I tell you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Discharges right here on Earth, like lightning or the sparks in a toy plasma ball, cannot occur in a conductive medium like plasma on the Sun.

Lies, lies, and more damn lies.

The electrical discharge may not occur in exactly the same way in a plasma, but the discharge process is identical to a discharge occurring thorough the plasma/conductor that connects the clouds to the Earth during discharge events in our atmosphere. The EM energy storage mechanism in plasma is called a "circuit". The release of that stored EM energy is called an 'electrical discharge'. Furthermore, electrical discharges can typically *ONLY* occur inside/through a "conductor". A "dielectric breakdown" is only one type of "breakdown".

 

[Reality Check]

No, I did what you have not done, specifically provided a physics book *DEFINITION* that supports my claim. You keep trying to stuff in the word "dielectric" in front of the term "breakdown", where none is necessary, require, or appears. The term "breakdown" typically refers to the "circuit" in a plasma. Nowhere does the term "dielectric" appear in Peratt's definition, nor in Dungey's paper associating electrical discharges with solar flares. You're stuffing in a concept that isn't there RC! He cited an example of a DISCHARGE through a CONDUCTOR. That's also what Dungey wrote about.

You are lying:

1. The book has a 1 page section about aurora and lightning which do not happen in plasma. There is no example of any electrical discharge in any plasma in the book. You are obsessing about 1 sentence of a 2 sentence definition.
   Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
   First asked 7 December 2010
2. I do not keep "stuffing" dielectric into the definition.
   I keep noting that Peratt has a electrical engineering background. In EE a breakdown is the breaking down of a dielectric. So it is reasonable that when Peratt states that a medium breaks down then it is a dielctric medium.
   This is supported by his examples of the aurora and lightning.
3. I have never stated that there is "dielectric" in Dungey's paper.
4. There is no "example of a DISCHARGE through a CONDUCTOR" in Peratt's book:
   Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
   First asked 7 December 2010
5. There is no "example of a DISCHARGE through a CONDUCTOR" as defined by Peratt in Dungey's paper. Dungey does use the term DISCHARGE for a high current density.

Pfft. You're the one ignoring the fact that whole definition is about an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE IN A PLASMA*!.

Pfft. You're the one ignoring the fact that whole definition is about an ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE IN the book called COSMIC PLASMA*!.
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
First asked 11 January 2011
(No is obviously the answer and you unable to learn the difference yet)

And the other questions that you are ignoring because the answers show that Peratt is talking about discharges in non-plasma:
Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?

Do you really think that Peratt is so ignorant that he thinks that air is plasma?
​

No, only an ignorant person believes that electrical discharges in a plasma (or any conductor for that matter) are not possible.

No, only an ignorant person believes that electrical discharges as defined by Peratt in a plasma (or any conductor for that matter) are possible.
Any one who reads Dungey's paper can see that he uses the term electrical discharge for the high current densities in magnetic reconnection.

You then of course have a lab experiment that shows that gamma rays and high energy ion emissions can be generated by "magnetic reconnection", right?

You then of course have a lab experiment that shows that gamma rays and high energy ion emissions can be generated by "electrical discharges in plasma", right?

 

[Perpetual Student]

This dishonest argument by flailing around words and phrases and by desperately attempting to construct any little apparent coincidence into support for a failed crackpot conjecture is pathetic. It's just not convincing no matter how much semantic finagling and convoluted logic, how many bastardized definitions, lies, and dishonest cherry picked one-liners from research material are added to the already heaping pile of dung that is the electric Sun conjecture.

Well said!

 

[Michael Mozina]

The book has a 1 page section about aurora and lightning which do not happen in plasma.

Oy Vey. I'm simply running out of logical ways of even trying to communicate with you. Both the discharge processes that occur in aurora and in lightning occur *IN PLASMA*. In the case of lightning, the dielectric breakdown of elements in our atmosphere *ENABLES* the discharge process to occur. The discharge process (the release of EM energy) takes place *THROUGH* that "conductive plasma" and it emits light while that discharge process is taking place, which can continue for some 'limited' amount of time, until the 'discharge' process is complete. A dielectric breakdown is only *ONE* type of breakdown that might enable a *DISCHARGE* (release of EM energy) to take place. Dungey in no way implied that electrical discharges could not occur in a plasma, in fact he makes exactly the opposite claim as you are making. I understand and accept Dungey's credentials as it relates to solar physics. You're on the wrong side of solar physics history RC.

Since you are claiming that a recognized expert like Dungey was wrong about electrical discharges (release of stored energy) occurring in plasmas/conductors, I must now ask you what are your credentials in this field RC? Stop dodging this issue.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well said!

It must be extremely weird to hear only a single side of the argument. I guess some people really do believe that ignorance is bliss.

 

[Reality Check]

Oy Vey. I'm simply running out of logical ways of even trying to communicate with you. Both the discharge processes that occur in aurora and in lightning occur *IN PLASMA*.
...

That is extermely ignorant of you MM.
Both the discharge processes that occur in aurora and in lightning occur *IN AIR*. Air is not plasma.
Lightning creates *PLASMA*. It does not occur *IN PLASMA*. Before the lightning happens there is *NO PLASMA*.
Ditto for aurora.

ETA:
You are correct in that lightning flows along conductive paths in *AIR*. Those conductive paths are ionized *AIR*. I suspect that the properties of that ionized *AIR* is such that it is in the *PLASMA* state.

ETA2
I will emphasize yet again that lightning cannot happen in *PLASMA* because lightning requires (as Peratt states) the breakdown of the energy transmission medium (*AIR*). *PLASMA* is already broken down.
High current densities as Dungey, etc explore can and do happen in *PLASMA*. These are not electrical discharges except in the context of Dungey's old papers about magnetic reconnection.

Since you are claiming that a recognized expert like Dungey was wrong about electrical discharges (release of stored energy) occurring in plasmas/conductors, I must now ask you what are your credentials in this field RC? Stop dodging this issue.

Stop lying about what I and Dungey stated, Michael Mozina.

Dungey never stated that "electrical discharges (release of stored energy)" happened in plasma. He stated that high current densities happened in magnetic reconnection within plasma. He called those high current densities, "electrical discharges".

My credentials in this fields are the simple ability to understand what I read. That ability was honed by gaining a Masters in solid state physics.

I must now ask you what are your credentials in this field MM? Stop dodging this issue.
Of course if your credentials are less than mine then you are wrong in the many unsupported assertions you make about science !

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
My credentials in this fields are the simple ability to understand what I read. That ability was honed by gaining a Masters in solid state physics.

I must now ask you what are your credentials in this field MM? Stop dodging this issue.
...

I will now take Mozina off ignore to see how he answers this. He challenged you concerning your credentials -- now it will be interesting to learn what credentials a commercial computer programmer with limited knowledge of mathematics brings to the table of solar physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Both the discharge processes that occur in aurora and in lightning occur *IN AIR*. Air is not plasma.

No RC, the *SURROUNDING MEDIUM* is air, but the conductive path that enables the "discharge" (release of stored energy) occurs in the CONDUCTIVE PLASMA. The discharge process occurs IN THE PLASMA, not the "air.

Stop lying about what I and Dungey stated, Michael Mozina.

Oh please. He called them "electrical discharges" which he associated with limited duration solar flare events. You're the one insisting his statements be "dumbed down" to "big current".

Dungey never stated that "electrical discharges (release of stored energy)" happened in plasma.

Yes he did. He specifically used the term "discharge", not just "current".

He stated that high current densities happened in magnetic reconnection within plasma.

In other words, high current densities were released from stored electromagnetic field energy, AKA a "discharge".

He called those high current densities, "electrical discharges".

Yes, and all discharges involve high current densities for LIMITED periods of time. He also specifically claimed that electrical discharges occurred in conductive plasmas in the solar atmosphere and might be involved in flare processes. You've been claiming that conductors cannot experience "electrical discharges". He said exactly the opposite RC. He used the term "electrical discharge".

My credentials in this fields are the simple ability to understand what I read. That ability was honed by gaining a Masters in solid state physics.

I must now ask you what are your credentials in this field MM? Stop dodging this issue.

Emphasis mine. In this specific field, none, but "credentials" seem to be irrelevant since my position is congruent with Dungey's actual statements. The only thing that seems to be relevant to this topic as far as I can tell is that I've actually read Peratt's book, and Alfven's book and the relevant materials related to solar flare events. You haven't read them, so what little you have read, you clearly do not understand, with or without any "credentials". Clairvoyance obviously isn't your strong suit. Whereas Dungey specifically used the term "electrical discharge", and specifically associates them with "limited duration events" (like flares specifically), your claim is absurd. It's not *JUST* a "big current", it's a release of energy that has a limited lifespan.

Of course if your credentials are less than mine then you are wrong in the many unsupported assertions you make about science !

In terms of solar physics, I fail to see how your so called credentials are actually related to this topic (solar/plasma physics). You seem to know absolutely nothing about the behaviors of *PLASMAS* (rather than solids), and in fact your "credentials" seem to be in the way of you actually understanding any of the "behaviors' of "plasmas" as far as I can tell.

A "discharge" is not occurring through the air RC, it occurs THROUGH THE CONDUCTIVE PLASMA. The "discharge" is not the breakdown of the dielectric medium, it's the ENERGY RELEASE that flows through the *PLASMA*!

 

[dasmiller]

It must be extremely weird to hear only a single side of the argument. I guess some people really do believe that ignorance is bliss.

I'm not sure you're entirely innocent of this. For example:

Your characterizations of the arguments against your conclusion that running-difference pictures showed a rigid surface of the sun (this is an unpleasantly convoluted sentence) have been very flippant (and irrelevant to our points) despite the amount of work and detail that some of us put into it.

You keep citing the ionization levels as evidence of electrical discharges even though, despite repeated requests, you've provided no evidence that the ionization levels are inconsistent with the corona temperatures, and we've already agreed that flares and the corona are hot.

You keep citing Dungey, though AFAIK you've never challenged my conclusion that Dungey's paper provided no support at all for ES.

Etc, etc.

 

[Perpetual Student]

R.C.:
"I must now ask you what are your credentials in this field MM?"
M.M
"In this specific field, none, ..."

There you have it folks! MM, as we have suspected, is talking and writing through the lower posterior part of his body.

 

[GeeMack]

Final Definition:
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. (Nothing more, nothing less, take it or leave it)

I'll take it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The electrical discharge may not occur in exactly the same way in a plasma, but the discharge process is identical to a discharge occurring thorough the plasma/conductor that connects the clouds to the Earth during discharge events in our atmosphere.

So the electrical discharge at about 0:15 in this video "may not occur in exactly the same way in a plasma, but the discharge process is identical to a discharge occurring thorough the plasma/conductor that connects the clouds to the Earth during discharge events in our atmosphere"...

​

A sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy, nothing more, nothing less, with full agreement from the electric Sun contingent. So the electrical discharge in a toy plasma ball or lightning "may not occur in exactly the same way" but "the process is identical". Addressing that argument directly, given that it is the same thing as taking a refrigerator magnet off my refrigerator and dropping the kid's crayon drawing, and the process is identical to that electromagnet in the video above, it is one of the stupidest arguments put forth yet by any of the electric Sun supporters on this forum.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not sure you're entirely innocent of this. For example: [

Your characterizations of the arguments against your conclusion that running-difference pictures showed a rigid surface of the sun (this is an unpleasantly convoluted sentence) have been very flippant (and irrelevant to our points) despite the amount of work and detail that some of us put into it.

In terms of the 'work put into' actually explaining the RD image, I would say that it's been limited at best, particularly here on this specific forum. Even after 5 years of debating the issue, I've yet to hear a clear presentation that really 'explained' much about the image from the perspective of "standard" solar theory. When I ask even the most rudimentary of questions about the flare event specifically, I get comments like "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" much like I hear "Electrical discharges in plasma? What discharges?". It's frankly hard to take such individuals seriously in all honesty.

The best "criticism" seems to be temperature related, but all that "criticism" is predicated on the *ASSUMPTION* that the first 500 KM of photosphere acts like a "black body" and is "opaque" to every wavelength at such a shallow depth.

You keep citing the ionization levels as evidence of electrical discharges even though, despite repeated requests, you've provided no evidence that the ionization levels are inconsistent with the corona temperatures,

The only reason they are 'consistent with' coronal temperatures is because they provide the heat *TO* the corona!

and we've already agreed that flares and the corona are hot.

So what makes them so hot? Discharges certainly would have that effect, and do in fact have exactly that effect right here on Earth, including gamma ray emissions we can observe in Rhessi, the same instrument that observes gamma rays in the solar atmosphere.

You keep citing Dungey, though AFAIK you've never challenged my conclusion that Dungey's paper provided no support at all for ES.

Etc, etc.

I frankly don't remember how you even came to that conclusion, but one thing this thread has taught me is that the definition of an 'electric sun' seems to vary quite substantially from one individual to another. If you mean "externally powered sun", no, it doesn't. If you mean "electrically active sun", IMO you're wrong.