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

Michael Mozina · Dec 27, 2010

Ziggurat said:
If a theory gets modified to fit the data, it's not the same theory anymore. The original version is falsified. The fact that a similar theory may match the data doesn't mean the theory was not falsifiable.

So was standard theory *immediately* falsified the moment its "predictions" about the number of electron neutrinos didn't match "observation", or was it given a "free pass" for awhile until they figured out why it didn't jive?

But "electric universe" ideas are largely unfalsifiable, because they're mostly so vague they're untestable.

Huh? Compared to your "dark" thingies? Please!

The few that are testable are mostly already falsified (for example, the 10 billion volt sun).

Er, how did you "falsify" Birkeland's figure exactly?

But you still haven't come to terms with that.

Evidently not. I fail to see how you falsified *ANY* internally powered electric sun concept.

Not so. The disparity between the total power output and the possible power available from electric sources is so many orders of magnitude that electric sources cannot contribute even a significant fraction to the total power output. Again, you'd know this if you actually looked at the numbers. But you avoid the numbers at all cost, in order to avoid confronting what's really a pretty obvious reality.

The only thing that *you* seem to be unwilling to "confront" is the fact that an "electric sun" can and might be powered by "fusion". Until you come to grips with that possibility, you will continue to post useless and meaningless maths that don't actually "falsify" *ALL* (like you claimed) electric sun theories.

Michael Mozina · Dec 27, 2010

GeeMack said:
That argument is, of course, another lie.

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.

Which part in yellow do you not understand?

GeeMack · Dec 27, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Before I go any further, I want to make sure we're clear on where I stand vs. where Alfven stands.

Alfvén doesn't stand anywhere. He's dead. Croaked. Dust. But there have been whispers from the electric Sun nutters that they don't have any theory of their own anyway. After all, they claim to only be trying to present Alfvén's theory, or Birkeland's theory, or Bruce's theory, or pretty much anyone else's theory that gets them off the hook for supporting their own crazy claims. Why should anyone care where someone stands who doesn't have a model of their own?

Michael Mozina · Dec 27, 2010

GeeMack said:
Why should anyone care where someone stands who doesn't have a model of their own?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

I don't need to have my "own model" of GR anymore than I need to have my own model of QM or my own model of a cathode sun. The fact you're in hard core denial of their existence won't make any of these materials disappear.

GeeMack · Dec 27, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

I don't need to have my "own model" of GR anymore than I need to have my own model of QM or my own model of a cathode sun. The fact you're in hard core denial of their existence won't make any of these materials disappear.

Birkeland is dead, too. And 1913 was a long time ago. But as to Birkeland and his crazy idea that the Sun was powered by fusion and electricity both...

Michael Mozina said:
I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

Where does Birkeland specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were Birkeland's thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did he fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? "I don't know," is an acceptable scientific answer. Mouthing off isn't.

tusenfem · Dec 27, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Let's both be *really* careful that we don't stick words in each other's mouth's, and be sure you aren't confusing my position with Alfven's position. I don't believe there is any *physical* difference between what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection". Alfven believed (and stated on numerous occasions) that MR theory was "pseudoscience". Are we both clear on the distinction between my position and Alfven?

So, when are we finally going to get the details of your circuit reconnection, the thing that Alfven would also call pseudoscience? I have only been asking this for about 3 years if no longer.

W.D.Clinger · Dec 27, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Evidently since you folks have a lot of math skills, you've decided to judge the value (and sanity actually) of all human beings based upon their personal math skills.

Wrong again. Your problems with math don't have anything to do with your value as a person, but they have a lot to do with the value of your posts in this subforum. Your inability to understand the distinction between your own value and the value of your posts in this subforum is not our fault.

Michael Mozina said:
Collectively you also tend to judge physics theories you don't like based on how some *amateur* (that you can ridicule) presents the material to you on some message board in cyberspace instead of taking a few months to properly educate yourselves to Alfven's own works, and Birkeland's written materials.

Yes, we should judge Hannes Alfvén and Kristian Birkeland by their own theories instead of judging them by your distortions of their theories. Both come off a lot better that way.

Michael Mozina said:
You're essentially laughing at Alfven and Birkeland, not me. Laugh all you want, but unless you have a Nobel Prize sitting on your bookshelf, you really at least should read the materials before passing judgement on them rather than laughing at mere amateurs in cyberspace in some bizarre attempt at personal ego gratification.

Now you're making an argument from false authority. Your false authority is your misunderstanding of what Alfvén and Birkeland wrote, coupled with whatever mistakes they actually did make without your help.

Unlike you, I understand the basics of electromagnetism and have the mathematical chops to evaluate the nonsense you allege your heroes have written. If your heroes actually wrote the nonsense you claim they wrote, then they were wrong---and yes, I am qualified to conclude that Maxwell's equations trump your allegations.

Michael Mozina said:
The are not just *MY* opinions. This is like saying *If* I could justify my opinions about QM to your personal satisfaction mathematically *then* (and only then) would QM be a legitimate form of "science".

Nope. QM is legitimate science regardless of any nonsense you may spout. Similarly, magnetic reconnection is a consequence of Maxwell's equations regardless of any nonsense you may spout.

Michael Mozina said:
Ya, but according to you I don't know squat about QM or GR either, but no scientific theory is rises or falls on my skills.

Agreed. You don't know anything about QM or GR, but that says nothing about either.

Michael Mozina said:
Please quote Dungey where he used the term "magnetic reconnection". I saw him discuss *discharges* that "reconnect".

Dungey spoke of magnetic field lines that reconnect, and showed what he meant using a figure that's essentially the same as the one in the current Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection^WP. At this point, you're trying to argue that the reconnection of Dungey's magnetic field lines has nothing to do with what we nowadays refer to as magnetic reconnection.

Your argument is purely semantic. If you understood Dungey's mathematics, you'd see that he's talking about magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
Let's both be *really* careful that we don't stick words in each other's mouth's, and be sure you aren't confusing my position with Alfven's position. I don't believe there is any *physical* difference between what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection". Alfven believed (and stated on numerous occasions) that MR theory was "pseudoscience". Are we both clear on the distinction between my position and Alfven?

Your position is nonsense, because magnetic reconnection can be demonstrated using a fixed circuit. (I have done the math and run the numbers myself. You haven't, because you can't.)

The position you attribute to Alfvén---that MR theory is "pseudoscience"---is nonsense, but I am aware that what you say Alfvén believed/wrote and what Alfvén actually believed/wrote are two different things. I am also aware that your only source for Alfvén's dismissal of MR as "pseudoscience" is an informal keynote address in which he is criticizing the uncritical use of a pedagogical concept he himself had popularized.

On the other hand, I know that some of Alfvén's written opinions with respect to cosmology were uninformed and incorrect. It is possible that Alfvén's opinions with respect to magnetic reconnection were just as wrong, but that's a little harder to believe because Alfvén knew a lot more about electromagnetism than he knew about cosmology. I suspect that Alfvén's condemnation of magnetic reconnection was intended as a condemnation of some particular theory about the interaction of magnetic reconnection with plasmas; he might have been wrong about that also (I'd have to ask tusenfem), but Alfvén could have been wrong about that without being as ignorant as you've been alleging him to be.

Ziggurat · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
So was standard theory *immediately* falsified the moment its "predictions" about the number of electron neutrinos didn't match "observation", or was it given a "free pass" for awhile until they figured out why it didn't jive?

The combination of the standard solar theory and the theory of neutrinos was falsified. The observation alone didn't tell us which was wrong, only that one was. Subsequent observations have revealed that our initial neutrino models were wrong.

The observation that the sun does not explode falsifies the combination of standard electromagnetism and the idea that the sun has a potential of 10 billion volts. So which is wrong, Michael? Is that EU model wrong, or is standard electromagnetism wrong? I know which way I'm betting.

I fail to see how you falsified *ANY* internally powered electric sun concept.

Of course not. I used math. And you... don't understand math.

The only thing that *you* seem to be unwilling to "confront" is the fact that an "electric sun" can and might be powered by "fusion".

First, that's not what Haig was talking about, and second, you have no model for how that fusion can happen.

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

tusenfem said:
So, when are we finally going to get the details of your circuit reconnection, the thing that Alfven would also call pseudoscience? I have only been asking this for about 3 years if no longer.

Um, what *exactly* are you waiting for anyway? Alfven already explained "exploding" "double layers" for you several decades ago. Did you not read that paper?

Any sort of "reconnection" that might be happening inside of a plasma is explained in that paper. He simply prefers to explain it as an explosive double layer.

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

W.D.Clinger said:
Yes, we should judge Hannes Alfvén and Kristian Birkeland by their own theories instead of judging them by your distortions of their theories. Both come off a lot better that way.

But with the exception of T, *none* of you did! Worse yet, some of you evidently have no intention of *ever* reading his materials for yourselves. How sad is that?

Now you're making an argument from false authority. Your false authority is your misunderstanding of what Alfvén and Birkeland wrote, coupled with whatever mistakes they actually did make without your help.

So please point out the mistakes in any of the papers or books of Alfven that I have cited.

Unlike you, I understand the basics of electromagnetism and have the mathematical chops to evaluate the nonsense you allege your heroes have written. If your heroes actually wrote the nonsense you claim they wrote, then they were wrong---and yes, I am qualified to conclude that Maxwell's equations trump your allegations.

How are you more qualified to judge the application of Maxwell's equations in MHD theory than Hannes Alfven? Where's your Nobel on this specific topic anyway? What about Maxwell's equations did Alfven not understand? He'd certainly seen plenty of "reconnection' papers during his lifetime.

Nope. QM is legitimate science regardless of any nonsense you may spout. Similarly, magnetic reconnection is a consequence of Maxwell's equations regardless of any nonsense you may spout.

You still don't seem to get it. PC theory is also legitimate science, regardless of anything I might say. No amount of bashing unrelated individuals in cyberspace is going to change that fact.

Agreed. You don't know anything about QM or GR, but that says nothing about either.

So take the next logical step Mr. Spock. If my personal opinions and mathematical skills have nothing to do with any branches of "science", why haven't your read Alfven's book for yourself and picked out the actual "flaws" in his work? FYI, there are some flaws IMO, but they are not mathematical in nature.

Dungey spoke of magnetic field lines that reconnect,

He spoke of "discharges" that "reconnect"! Where did he say "magnetic reconnection"?

and showed what he meant using a figure that's essentially the same as the one in the current Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection^WP.

Alfven's exploding double layer looks like that same process Mr. Spock. It's an "intersection" of "discharges" through plasma according to Dungey.

At this point, you're trying to argue that the reconnection of Dungey's magnetic field lines has nothing to do with what we nowadays refer to as magnetic reconnection.

No, not at all. I'm saying they have *EVERYTHING* to do with what is today called "magnetic" reconnection, but it can also be seen as a "discharge" in plasma!

Your argument is purely semantic. If you understood Dungey's mathematics, you'd see that he's talking about magnetic reconnection.

No, actually *your* argument is purely 'semantic'. A particle collision in plasma is not "magnetic reconnection". Induction already has a proper scientific name too. What you're essentially doing is mislabeling a "discharge" as a "magnetic reconnection" event and Dungey clearly shows the connection better than any other author I've ever read, including Birn's paper that convinced me your talking about "circuit reconnection" many years ago.

Your position is nonsense, because magnetic reconnection can be demonstrated using a fixed circuit. (I have done the math and run the numbers myself. You haven't, because you can't.)

You don't seem to get it. I don't have any problem with anyone's "numbers". I have a "problem" with you mislabeling "induction" and "exploding double layers" as "magnetic reconnection". So did Alfven and he certainly could "run the numbers" just as well as you can.

The position you attribute to Alfvén---that MR theory is "pseudoscience"---is nonsense, but I am aware that what you say Alfvén believed/wrote and what Alfvén actually believed/wrote are two different things.

I have quoted him for you. Care to do me the same courtesy to support your position for us?

I am also aware that your only source for Alfvén's dismissal of MR as "pseudoscience" is an informal keynote address in which he is criticizing the uncritical use of a pedagogical concept he himself had popularized.

Ya, and it was late in his life and long after he'd been exposed the Sweet and Parker's (and other) brands of 'reconnection' theory. He clearly explains in his paper from that same conference how it is *SUPPOSED* to be expressed and described mathematically. Did you find a mathematical flaw in his work Mr. Spock?

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
But with the exception of T, *none* of you did! Worse yet, some of you evidently have no intention of *ever* reading his materials for yourselves.

That argument is, of course, a lie.

How sad is that?

How sad, indeed.

Michael Mozina said:
I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

Where does Birkeland specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were his thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did he fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? "I don't know," is an acceptable scientific answer. Mouthing off isn't.

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

Ziggurat said:
The combination of the standard solar theory and the theory of neutrinos was falsified. The observation alone didn't tell us which was wrong, only that one was. Subsequent observations have revealed that our initial neutrino models were wrong.

So the mainstream *immediately* stopped teaching the standard solar model the moment the neutrino problem was first noticed? Come on!

The observation that the sun does not explode falsifies the combination of standard electromagnetism and the idea that the sun has a potential of 10 billion volts.

Um, no, it doesn't demonstrate either of those things.

So which is wrong, Michael? Is that EU model wrong, or is standard electromagnetism wrong? I know which way I'm betting.

I'm betting on Birkeland who actually "tested" his ideas in a lab with real scales models. I know that your side bets on "pure math" all the time, just like Chapman did for decades. Chapman was still wrong about aurora and Birkeland was right. He wasn't a couch potato scientist like today's (and yesterday's brand) of "math only" physicists. I doubt any of you have actually sat down and read through his full set of experiments.

Of course not. I used math. And you... don't understand math.

That is an irrelevant lie that happens to make you feel better emotionally evidently. Alfven understood math better than any of you. Almost none of you have actually read it, and he had a Nobel prize in plasma physics! Who cares about me anyway?

First, that's not what Haig was talking about, and second, you have no model for how that fusion can happen.

Bruce's solar model was no different than the one your using in terms of the power supply!

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

GeeMack said:
That argument is, of course, a lie.

Care to pick out the mathematical error in *ANY* of the papers or books by Alfven that I have cited?

To quote you:

"I don't know," is an acceptable scientific answer. Mouthing off isn't.

tusenfem · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Um, what *exactly* are you waiting for anyway? Alfven already explained "exploding" "double layers" for you several decades ago. Did you not read that paper?

Of course I read that paper. However, up to now no exploding double layers have been observed in nature nor in reconnection experiments. And an exploding double layer is no "circuit reconnection" because that is your idea, and not Alfvén's, so I am waiting for you, obviously.

Michael Mozina said:
Any sort of "reconnection" that might be happening inside of a plasma is explained in that paper. He simply prefers to explain it as an explosive double layer.

Let's see what is said about "exploding double layers" in Peratt (an easier access as one can easily obtain a pdf of the book)

Peratt said:
Every circuit that contains an inductance L is intrinsically explosive . The inductive energy Eq.(3.39) can be tapped at any point of the circuit. Any interruption of the current I results in the transfer of the inductively stored energy to the point of interruption. By its nature, this point is most
often a double layer which then releases energy at a rate:

P = I φ_DL (5.28 )

where φ_DL is the voltage drop across the double layer. This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles, with a small percent released in the generation of noise . Secondary effects associated with the particle acceleration include localized heating and radiation.

(Eq.(3.39) is W_B = 0.5 L I², the magnetic energy in a circuit with current I and induction L)

So, what we see here is interruption of the current, so in the loop the current is stopped and that makes that the stored magnetic energy is released explosively.

Then let's go to Fig. 5.13 c on page 193, where we see a twisted loop with a double layer at the top. However, Peratt does not really do anything with this model (actually the Carlqvist 1976 model) and so we switch to Michael Raadu's paper Energy release in double layers where in section 5 it is explained how a double layer in a coronal loop can unwind the twisted flux tube. The total energy that is released is divided into the acceleration of the beams and the rotation of the bulk, and the rate is limited by the Alfvén speed. I will not go through the math, anyone can look at the paper, and I cannot copy/paste from this scanned article.

So no, I don't think that exploding double layers fly, nor that they describe *CIRCUIT RECONNECTION*.

tusenfem · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
But with the exception of T, *none* of you did! Worse yet, some of you evidently have no intention of *ever* reading his materials for yourselves. How sad is that?

Well, if anything, that should read, actually, *none* of us did!

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Care to [...]

Dishonest argument by attempting to deflect the burden of proof noted.

So where does Birkeland specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were his thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did he fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? "I don't know," is an acceptable scientific answer.

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Bruce's solar model was no different than the one your using in terms of the power supply!

So where does Bruce specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were his thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did he fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? And how does that square with Birkeland's "model" which was a Sun made of brass, hollow, and connected to the Universe by wires? "I don't know," is an acceptable scientific answer.

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

GeeMack said:
Dishonest argument by attempting to deflect the burden of proof noted.

There's no shifting of anything. I have been presenting a steady stream of evidence, and you remain in hard core denial of that same evidence. What did Alfven mean by describing coronal loops as "circuits"?

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

tusenfem said:
Well, if anything, that should read, actually, *none* of us did!

I own the book and I've read the book and I understand it. That is also true of Peratt's book (and definitions), which is more than I can say for most of the detractors around here. I've yet to see you pick out any flaws in Alfven's work. Care to?

This whole conversation is a little surreal since most of the participants haven't even read the materials and *none* of *US* has found any mathematical flaws in any of Alfven's papers or books.

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
There's no shifting of anything. There's me presenting evidence, and you in hard core denial of that same evidence. What did Alfven mean by describing coronal loops as "circuits"?

The uncivil personal attack is, as always, noted.

To stay on topic...

Michael Mozina said:
I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

... the question was: Supposedly the electric Sun crackpots aren't presenting their own "model", but are simply trying to convince people that Birkeland's "model" was correct. So, where does Birkeland specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were his thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did he fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges?

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

GeeMack said:
The uncivil personal attack is, as always, noted.

To stay on topic...

Considering every single one of your posts includes loaded language, like "crackpot", "crazy", "nutters", etc, you have no right to accuse me of anything. I have been far more "civil' than any of my detractors.

.. the question was: Supposedly the electric Sun crackpots

Case in point. The term "crackpot" is a pure personal attack. In fact every response you post includes such personal attacks.

As I have stated a number of times now, Birkeland's solar model did *NOT* require *ANY* external energy sources. Aren't you paying any attention at all? What is even the point of you engaging in these conversations since you refuse to address the actual points being raised? Alfven's use of "circuits" is an important first step in understanding PC theory, but not one of you is willing to openly and honestly discuss these ideas. You all sort of handwave at it a little and you go right back to the personal attacks. Yawn.

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

GeeMack said:
Dishonest argument by attempting to deflect the burden of proof noted.

No, you are DISHONESTLY IGNORING the information, the issues, and the maths that you don't like. That is the only blatantly and overtly dishonest behavior going on here. I can't even get you personally to acknowledge a *STANDARD PHYSICS DEFINITION* of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma! It's therefore *IMPOSSIBLE* to have a "scientific" conversation about an "electrical discharge" and you remain in hard core denial that flare *IS* an electrical discharge!

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
As I have stated a number of times now, Birkeland's solar model did *NOT* require *ANY* external energy sources. Aren't you paying any attention at all?

I'm paying attention. Birkeland's "model" was a brass ball with an electromagnet inside, and it absolutely required an external energy source. To suggest otherwise would be a lie, ignorant, or just plain stupid. It could not have worked without wires connected to a power supply outside of his "Universe", a Universe which was a glass box with a steel frame.

What is even the point of you engaging in these conversations since you refuse to address the actual points being raised?

The point would be to support the wacky claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs. That would be the point. And in over 1000 posts in this thread not one solitary legitimate piece of evidence or any valid scientific support has been offered to that end. The point would be some electric Sun cranks have made some ridiculous claims that generally violate the laws of physics as we know them, and yet are unable to demonstrate that their claims are even remotely true. The point would be we're still waiting after 1000 posts for a shred of evidence. Mostly we're waiting for that rewrite of physics that would be required to make the electric Sun conjecture possible.

Michael Mozina said:
I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

And if this is, as has been claimed, simply Birkeland's or Alfvén's or Bruce's "model", where do they specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were their thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did they fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges?

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

GeeMack said:
I'm paying attention. Birkeland's "model" was a brass ball with an electromagnet inside, and it absolutely required an external energy source.

Are you confused between the terms "solar model" and "lab/scale model"?

To suggest otherwise would be a lie, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Notice how you *always* rely upon loaded (aka uncivil) language in your posts? Why do you do that?

The point would be to support the wacky claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

Did you read Alfven's exploding double layer paper, yes or no? If so, where is the flaw in that paper?

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.

Do you accept Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in a plasma, yes or no?

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
No, you are DISHONESTLY IGNORING the information, the issues, and the maths that you don't like. That is the only blatantly and overtly dishonest behavior going on here. I can't even get you personally to acknowledge a *STANDARD PHYSICS DEFINITION* of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma!

There is no '*STANDARD PHYSICS DEFINITION* of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma!', and with no regard to exclamation points, quote marks, or font size. Plasma is a conductor. For an electrical discharge to occur there must be an insulator, or more precisely a dielectric medium, and the insulating properties of that medium must breakdown to the extent that it allows the passage of current. Again, plasma is a conductor not a dielectric medium, so regardless of argument by tantrum, freestyle application of punctuation, or otherwise, there is no standard physics definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma.

It's therefore *IMPOSSIBLE* to have a "scientific" conversation about an "electrical discharge" and you remain in hard core denial that flare *IS* an electrical discharge!

I'm not in denial of that, the persistent lie to that effect notwithstanding. I'm waiting for that to be demonstrated by way of legitimate science. And since we're over 1000 posts into this thread with no valid evidence presented yet to support the nutty claim that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs, it looks like it might be a very long wait.

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Do you accept Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in a plasma, yes or no?

See post #405 for a resoned response to this persistent argument by spamming Peratt.

W.D.Clinger · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
But with the exception of T, *none* of you did! Worse yet, some of you evidently have no intention of *ever* reading his materials for yourselves. How sad is that?

What's sad are your pathetic/dishonest denials of what we have read. I, for example, have read Alfvén's article on "Cosmology -- Myth or Science?", and have commented upon it in a thread that was split by the moderators from the thread that contains my original comments on that paper. Here's the split thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6219538#post6219538

Having read that paper, I already know Alfvén is uninformed about cosmology and does not understand the relevant mathematics. I don't need to confirm those conclusions by reading his book.

Michael Mozina said:
So please point out the mistakes in any of the papers or books of Alfven that I have cited.

In the paper mentioned above, Alfvén argues as though there were only one Friedmann-style solution for Einstein's field equations. That's a mistake.

That mistake has been pointed out to you on several occasions, but you continue to pretend we have not identified any of Alfvén's mistakes. Your argument is dishonest.

Michael Mozina said:
How are you more qualified to judge the application of Maxwell's equations in MHD theory than Hannes Alfven?

The only thing I've said about the application of Maxwell's equations to MHD theory is that you need to understand Maxwell's equations before you try to understand MHD theory.

I have also pointed out that Maxwell's equations imply magnetic reconnection even in the absence of plasmas or MHD. That's a fact. If Alfvén denied that fact, then he was just as wrong about magnetic reconnection as he was about general relativity and the Friedmann solutions.

As I have repeated several times now, I think it's more likely that you are misrepresenting Alfvén's views on magnetic reconnection. I am certainly more qualified to judge Alfvén's technical opinions than you are, and I have noted several times that the only citation you have offered for Alfvén's rejection of the fact of magnetic reconnection (as opposed to its relevance) is an informal keynote address in which he appears to be criticizing uncritical use of a pedagogical simplification he himself had promoted.

Michael Mozina said:
So take the next logical step Mr. Spock. If my personal opinions and mathematical skills have nothing to do with any branches of "science", why haven't your read Alfven's book for yourself and picked out the actual "flaws" in his work? FYI, there are some flaws IMO, but they are not mathematical in nature.

Because I have already identified enough "flaws" in Alfvén's papers on cosmology to know his book is rubbish.

Michael Mozina said:
He spoke of "discharges" that "reconnect"! Where did he say "magnetic reconnection"?

Dungey speaks of "magnetic lines" that reconnect, and of "lines of force" that reconnect.

Are you lying about what Dungey wrote, or were you lying when you said you had read Dungey's paper? Those seem to be the only two possibilities here.

Michael Mozina said:
No, not at all. I'm saying they have *EVERYTHING* to do with what is today called "magnetic" reconnection, but it can also be seen as a "discharge" in plasma!

No. You can recreate the magnetic reconnection shown in Dungey's Figure 1 even if there is no plasma. Dungey himself alludes to that fact. Since the magnetic reconnection can occur even without plasma, your insistence that magnetic reconnection is really a "discharge" in plasma is nonsense---and obvious nonsense, at that.

Michael Mozina said:
No, actually *your* argument is purely 'semantic'. A particle collision in plasma is not "magnetic reconnection". Induction already has a proper scientific name too. What you're essentially doing is mislabeling a "discharge" as a "magnetic reconnection" event and Dungey clearly shows the connection better than any other author I've ever read, including Birn's paper that convinced me your talking about "circuit reconnection" many years ago.

As explained above, your argument is nonsense. The magnetic reconnection described by Dungey occurs even if there is no plasma.

Michael Mozina said:
You don't seem to get it. I don't have any problem with anyone's "numbers". I have a "problem" with you mislabeling "induction" and "exploding double layers" as "magnetic reconnection". So did Alfven and he certainly could "run the numbers" just as well as you can.

Show us, then, where Alfvén ran the numbers.

What's going on here is that you know you are incapable of countering our calculations with a scientific argument (because you yourself don't know how to run the numbers), so you're just pretending/hoping that one of your heroes had run the numbers and that they had come out in your favor. That's pathetic/dishonest.

Michael Mozina said:
Alfven understood math better than any of you.

Unlikely.

Alfvén's interests and academic training were roughly comparable to those of a modern PhD in electrical engineering, and that assessment is confirmed by his technical writings. Why do you think someone whose PhD is in electrical engineering would understand math better than someone with a PhD in mathematics?

I have known and still work with quite a few EE PhDs. Many of them understand some particular subarea of mathematics, such as differential equations, better than I do, but it would be quite unusual for someone with a PhD in EE to have a better understanding of the broad field of mathematics. I've read enough of Alfvén's work to know he is not an exception to that rule.

Michael Mozina said:
Care to pick out the mathematical error in *ANY* of the papers or books by Alfven that I have cited?

Yes, and we've done so several times. Alfvén's belief that there is only one Friedmann-style solution to Einstein's field equations was a mathematical error.

If Alfvén really denied the reality of magnetic reconnection, as you continue to allege, then that too would have been a mathematical error, but I think you're wrong about that. I suspect Alfvén was merely denying the relevance of magnetic reconnection to certain physical processes; he was probably wrong about that, too, but being wrong about the physical relevance would be a scientific error, not a mathematical error.

Michael Mozina said:
I've yet to see you pick out any flaws in Alfven's work. Care to?

This whole conversation is a little surreal since most of the participants haven't even read the materials and *none* of *US* has found any mathematical flaws in any of Alfven's papers or books.

Your argument is dishonest. We have cited fundamental flaws in Alfvén's work, including mathematical errors.

Michael Mozina said:
There's no shifting of anything. I have been presenting a steady stream of evidence, and you remain in hard core denial of that same evidence.

Michael Mozina said:
No, you are DISHONESTLY IGNORING the information, the issues, and the maths that you don't like. That is the only blatantly and overtly dishonest behavior going on here.

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

GeeMack said:
See post #405 for a resoned response to this persistent argument by spamming Peratt.

I did not ask you anything other than *Do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma?" Yes or no?

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

Where is the flaw in Alfven's exploding double layer paper gentlemen?

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

W.D.Clinger said:
What's sad are your pathetic/dishonest denials of what we have read.

You have *not* read his book. Period. You are therefore mostly arguing from a place of pure ignorance based on one 'issue' you took with one sentence from the paper evidently.

I, for example, have read Alfvén's article on "Cosmology -- Myth or Science?", and have commented upon it in a thread that was split by the moderators from the thread that contains my original comments on that paper. Here's the split thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6219538#post6219538

Having read that paper, I already know Alfvén is uninformed about cosmology and does not understand the relevant mathematics. I don't need to confirm those conclusions by reading his book.

In the paper mentioned above, Alfvén argues as though there were only one Friedmann-style solution for Einstein's field equations. That's a mistake.

That's it?!?!?!?!? That's the *BEST* criticism you have?

That mistake has been pointed out to you on several occasions, but you continue to pretend we have not identified any of Alfvén's mistakes. Your argument is dishonest.

That one "mistake" as you call it hardly warrant's tossing out his *entire life's work*! Holy cow!

The only thing I've said about the application of Maxwell's equations to MHD theory is that you need to understand Maxwell's equations before you try to understand MHD theory.

Don't you figure Alfven did that?

I have also pointed out that Maxwell's equations imply magnetic reconnection even in the absence of plasmas or MHD.

Now *THAT* is a physical demonstration I would *LOVE* to see. In other words if you could demonstrate "magnetic reconnection' in the absence of a plasma, I'd love to see it. I'd love to see it produce million degree temps in a lab too.

That's a fact. If Alfvén denied that fact, then he was just as wrong about magnetic reconnection as he was about general relativity and the Friedmann solutions.

I'm still waiting to you to quote Alfven where he claimed it a was a good idea.

As I have repeated several times now, I think it's more likely that you are misrepresenting Alfvén's views on magnetic reconnection.

So please demonstrate that for us from Alfven's writings.

Because I have already identified enough "flaws" in Alfvén's papers on cosmology to know his book is rubbish.

Give me a break! You found *ONE* flaw in *ONE SENTENCE* of ONE paper. How exactly that does that translate to "all his work is rubbish" in your mind?

I'll respond to the the Dungey issues in a separate post.

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

FYI, your so called "criticism" of Alfven's *ONE* solution claim is really nothing more than him "oversimplifying" things to point out the fact that the mainstream has *FIXATED* on *ONE* "bang" theory to the *UTTER EXCLUSION* of *all* other cosmology theories. That is still true today.

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

So it has been claimed that this electric Sun nonsense is simply Birkeland's or Alfvén's or Bruce's "model". Where do they specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were their thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did they fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? I'm particularly interested in how Birkeland felt about nuclear fusion being one of the two alleged power sources for the Sun and specifically where he discussed the matter.

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Do you accept Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in a plasma, yes or no?

This has been addressed. See post #405 and post #1105 for reasoned responses to the incessant and dishonest argument by spamming Peratt.

The claim was made that electrical discharges are or are the cause of CMEs and solar flares. No valid scientific support for that claim has been provided yet. If there is any such support, now would be a good time to post it.

W.D.Clinger · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
You have *not* read his book. Period. You are therefore mostly arguing from a place of pure ignorance based on one 'issue' you took with one sentence from the paper evidently.

No, Michael. You wouldn't understand this, because you don't understand general relativity or mainstream cosmology, but Alfvén's mathematical error undermines a substantial fraction of his paper. In reality, empirical evidence was used to select mainstream cosmology's preferred Friedmann-style solution. That directly contradicts Alfvén's claim that mainstream cosmology has been ignoring the empirical evidence.

Michael Mozina said:
That one "mistake" as you call it hardly warrant's tossing out his *entire life's work*! Holy cow!

It's dishonest of you to pretend I am "tossing out his *entire life's work*!"

Alfvén's main contribution was magnetohydrodynamics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in physics. By any rational assessment, MHD was Alfvén's life's work.

I have not rejected MHD at all, and it is outrageously dishonest for you to pretend I have. The only things I have rejected are

Alfvén's proposed plasma cosmology as an alternative to general relativity and mainstream cosmology
Michael Mozina's interpretation of Alfvén's alleged rejection of magnetic reconnection

As I have noted several times, I believe Michael Mozina has been misrepresenting Alfvén's position on magnetic reconnection, so that second item is more likely to be a rejection of Michael Mozina's theory than Alfvén's.

Michael Mozina said:
I have also pointed out that Maxwell's equations imply magnetic reconnection even in the absence of plasmas or MHD.

Click to expand...

Now *THAT* is a physical demonstration I would *LOVE* to see. In other words if you could demonstrate "magnetic reconnection' in the absence of a plasma, I'd love to see it.

Then run the experiment in your lab. Here are the parts you'll need:

two DC power supplies
two power rheostats
four current-limiting resistors
four conducting rods or stiff wires
clamps to position those four rods/wires
enough heavy-duty wire to complete the circuit
a magnetometer

Michael Mozina said:
I'd love to see it produce million degree temps in a lab too.

The equipment required for that would be substantially more expensive.

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

W.D.Clinger said:
No, Michael. You wouldn't understand this, because you don't understand general relativity or mainstream cosmology,

I understand that you keep stuffing invisible entities into a GR formula and you keep calling it "GR" anyway. I know that the mainstream "cosmology" theory is dependent on three invisible entities that are in no way related to GR theory in the sense that GR is in no way dependent upon your invisible friends. Alfven didn't watch you stuff GR theory full of "dark energy", but that was just the latest invisible ad hoc ad on.

but Alfvén's mathematical error undermines a substantial fraction of his paper.

It wasn't a "mathematical" error in the first place, it was an "oversimplification" error if anything! You (the mainstream) are the ones that keep fixating on *ONE* bang theory.

In reality, empirical evidence was used to select mainstream cosmology's preferred Friedmann-style solution. That directly contradicts Alfvén's claim that mainstream cosmology has been ignoring the empirical evidence.

You didn't read Alfven's own "bang/expansion" theories I presume?

It's dishonest of you to pretend I am "tossing out his *entire life's work*!"

Where the flaw in his exploding double layer papers, or any of his papers related to events *INSIDE* this solar system?

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

GeeMack said:
This has been addressed. See post #405 and post #1105[/url

All I asked for was *YES* or *NO* answer to a very simple question. I did not ask for a rant. I still want a straight answer. Yes or no do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma? Yes or no?

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

If a crackpot throws a tantrum because legitimate scientific concerns are allegedly being ignored, then persistently and intentionally ignores legitimate scientific concerns, would that ignorance be irony, hypocrisy, or dishonesty?

Michael Mozina said:
I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

The claim has been made that this electric Sun craziness is Birkeland's, Alfvén's, and/or Bruce's "model", or perhaps some bastardized amalgamation thereof. So the above quote more or less forces the question, where do those guys specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were their thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did that fit their idea that solar flares and CMEs are caused by electrical discharges? I'm particularly interested in how Birkeland felt about nuclear fusion being one of the two alleged power sources for the Sun and specifically where he discussed the matter.

W.D.Clinger · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
I understand that you keep stuffing invisible entities into a GR formula and you keep calling it "GR" anyway.

Albert Einstein did that.

You have been corrected on that many times. It is dishonest for you to continue to pretend that we have altered Einstein's field equations.

GeeMack · Dec 28, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
All I asked for was *YES* or *NO* answer to a very simple question. I did not ask for a rant. I still want a straight answer. Yes or no do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma? Yes or no?

Apparently my comments are not being understood. If there is some specific part of post #405 or post #1105 that isn't clear, please let me know and I'll try to reword them.

Michael Mozina · Dec 28, 2010

FYI Mr. Spock,

I am still waiting for a quote from Alfven that demonstrates that I have in any way misrepresented his position on "reconnection/merging" theories.

I provided quotes to support my statements. I think you own me the same, particularly since you are accusing me of misrepresenting his position on this topic!

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

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Banned