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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Breakdown in a plasma

Alfven's double layer paper describes a "breakdown" of plasma. That is the only term that Peratt actually used. Peratt's definition of an "electrical discharge *IN* a plasma makes NO mention of a breakdown of the dielectric medium. PERIOD. Persistent denial isn't going to change that fact. Dungey's use of the term electrical discharge in association with flare events in no way required a breakdown of any dielectric medium, and it all occurs in a "conductor".
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
He never defines what an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma is in that section.
Click to expand...

I"m afraid that's a classic case of pure denial on your part. The whole paragraph is a *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge *IN* (INSIDE OF) a plasma. It is 100 percent consistent with Dungey's use of exactly that same term.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I"m afraid that's a classic case of pure denial on your part. The whole paragraph is a *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge *IN* (INSIDE OF) a plasma. It is 100 percent consistent with Dungey's use of exactly that same term.
Click to expand...

Except he isn't because plasmas can't break down.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. EU haters keep lying about the actual words that Dungey and Peratt used. They argue from pure and extreme ignorance of the material and never comment on it more than to handwave at it. They argue with nothing but logical fallacies, specifically ad homs galore, and they shift the burden of proof whenever they feel like it. All the while they refuse to read the materials, or at least rationally respond to the materials like Calqvist's use of circuits. They refuse to deal with the discharge aspects of any of the materials or even *ACKNOWLEDGE* Dungey's *USE* of the term 'electrical discharge in a plasma. The whole thing is argument by pure denial. EU haters are exactly like haters of evolutionary theory. They argue from exactly the same place, (ignorance) and with exactly the same primary defense mechanism, AKA *DENIAL*.
Click to expand...


Argument by ranting gibberish, feigned indignation, and personal attack noted.

Recall that tusenfem said this...

tusenfem said:
So from your comments I see you want to use the idea that a discharge is "a current in a plasma." I could live with that, if you would just have the balls to make a stand and say, I think it is this, which you will not do.
Click to expand...


So the "electrical discharge" has been defined for purposes of this discussion, unless this was a lie...

Michael Mozina said:
Does he? It seems as though he and I are both comfortable with the terms "discharge" in a plasma at this point. What does tusenfem mean by that which is somehow different from my position?
Click to expand...


And the agreement to that definition, unless that expression of agreement was a lie, excludes any stupid notions about solar flares being the kind of electrical discharges like lightning or the sparks in a toy plasma ball.

Michael Mozina said:
Is anyone here willing to step beyond denial and have a rational conversation on this topic? Right now this conversation is simply not worth my time.
Click to expand...


Tim Thompson, W.D.Clinger, D'rok, Perpetual Student, Ziggurat, dasmiller, Tubbythin, Skwinty, DeiRenDopa, The Man, nvidiot, Reality Check, sol invictus, and I have been far beyond denial here in a sane, intelligent world free of delusional thinking, and have been involved in a rational conversation, in a manner of speaking, since at least mid-November. Those who don't understand or who haven't been involved rationally are encouraged to catch up.
 
Michael Mozina said:
They refuse to deal with the discharge aspects of any of the materials or even *ACKNOWLEDGE* Dungey's *USE* of the term 'electrical discharge in a plasma.
Click to expand...

Since you brought up Dungey again, I've read through that paper a couple of times and I'm still not seeing anything compelling about it. As others have pointed out, it's a rebuttal to a criticism of a previous paper, so without the previous papers, it's hard to take it too seriously. Are we supposed to simply assume that Dungey sufficiently refuted Cowling? Doesn't Cowling get a say in the matter?

As for the content of the paper, Dungey may (or may not; I don't know enough about plasma physics to really say) have shown that some aspects of observed flare behaviour may not have been inconsistent with an electric flare model, but even Dungey used the phrases "might be explained by," "may be accounted for," "could result from," "may have energy comparable to," etc. He evidently didn't consider the data to be compelling.

The thing that could have made his paper compelling would have been some nice, quantified predictions that could have been verified/falsified by subsequent observations. Unfortunately, there aren't any. (He tacitly acknowledged that the single quantifiable prediction - the 1 meter thickness - was difficult to reconcile with the observations of the day).

So all we have is few pages from the middle of a debate, stating that the observations available in 1958 were not definitely inconsistent an electric discharge flare theory.

Are you seeing something stronger?
 
So all we have is few pages from the middle of a debate, stating that the observations available in 1958 were not definitely inconsistent an electric discharge flare theory.
Click to expand...
So, nothing of importance has been said about this question since 1958?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Man, I have seen denial in a debate before, but never this bad, never in such numbers, and never to the exclusion of common sense and logic to this sort of an extreme.
Click to expand...

Ah well the nile is more that a river in Egypt.

Michael Mozina said:
Peratt's whole paragraph is a "definition" of an "electrical discharge* *IN* a plasma. It relates *TO* plasma. It's all *ABOUT* plasma. It's *ENTIRELY* consistent with Dungey's use of an "electrical discharge IN a plasma.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph is the definition and then, apart from the lightning, he discusses nothing about the generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

Really, go through the bloody text and show the how and what in full explanation.

Though I do agree that all the other things he discusses are Dungey's definition (from his reply to comment paper) that a discharge is just a current in a plasma, but that was not Peratt's own definition!!!!!


Michael Mozina said:
I guess the whole problem is that the moment you agree to Peratt's definition the debate is over. You'd rather live in pure denial of a "definition", and Dungey's consistent use of that very same term. Wow!
Click to expand...

Has nothing reached your gray matter, Mikey? I say I can live with any definition of a discharge, if one holds to it. If Peratt defines it in that first part of the first paragraph of section 1.5, and then just a few lines further down in that section perfectly deviates from his own definition, than it is not workable at all.

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, the IRS made *REALLY* bizarre payroll changes this year and since I sell an accounting program, it effects many hundreds (thousands?) of my payroll users. The updates are financially lucrative, but exhausting and time consuming. I'm not going to waste much more of my breath around here until we can all agree that:
Click to expand...

I don't care a frak what the IRS does or does not do. That basically means you will have to take some more time before you answer any questions or start a discussion.


Michael Mozina said:
A) electrical discharges occur in plasma
B) Dungey and others wrote about them
C) They have been associated with flares by Dungey and other authors.

Is anyone here willing to step beyond denial and have a rational conversation on this topic? Right now this conversation is simply not worth my time.
Click to expand...

Ah I am so glad I am in your positive list of people you might consider to discuss with, even tho I am in the nile.

If you would be so kind as to state which definition you want to use for discharges, then finally there could be a discussion. However, it does not really matter if you call it a discharge or not. Especially in the Dungey definition (that you seem to want to move to now, instead of the Peratt definition) it is really so what of unimportant if you call it a discharge or a current, because basically Dungey wants to have a current.

So, fine I will state from now on a discharge is to be considered a current in a plasma.

So now you can start discussing Dungey, but please start with the original paper, to which the comment was made, to which the reply was written, so we know what the context of the whole discussion is.

Please, take it away Mr. Mozina, the stages is yours.
 
Perpetual Student said:
So, nothing of importance has been said about this question since 1958?
Click to expand...

Well, the more modern papers will not call it a discharge, therefore MM needs to go to the 50s of the last century to get his right. And he received it, in my last post I gave the penultimate definition of discharge for this thread.

In all my 20 or so modern books on space plasma physics there is no mention of discharges, but there is lots and lots about currents, reconnection, circuits, particle acceleration, instabilities etc. etc. etc.
 
Just a reminder what the "Electric Sun Theory" is all about and what your debating. Apologies to those who have already seen this 2006 video but I've viewed it for the first time today and find it stunning.

Brilliant Noise
The visual noise in the images is caused by natural and man made interferences. The white noise is cosmic rays impacting the CCD of the satellite camera, we also see frame dropouts and one frame taken from a ground based observatory which shows the silhouette of a plane as it crosses the path of the observatory. We wanted to leave these flaws in as they reveal something about the tools man uses to capture these images and makes them more tangible. These disturbances are routinely removed by NASA to create a cleaner image, they then go on to colourise them.
The sound is derived from solar natural radio and controlled via digitally sampling the intensity of the brightness of the image. The sound is intrinsically born from the image, creating a symphony by the Sun.
By doing this we wanted to enhance the sun as natural phenomena. Working with a documentary approach, we wanted to indulge in the raw material that is our Sun, using the image to control the fluctuation of the sound would emphasize the transitions and processes taking place
Click to expand...
http://www.semiconductorfilms.com/root/Brilliant_Noise/BNoise.htm
 
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition

Michael Mozina said:
I"m afraid that's a classic case of pure denial on your part. The whole paragraph is a *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge *IN* (INSIDE OF) a plasma. It is 100 percent consistent with Dungey's use of exactly that same term.
Click to expand...
I"m know that's a classic case of pure denial and the inability to understand what you read on your part.
The only mention of *IN* is in the title.
The whole paragraph is a *DEFINITION* of electrical discharge:
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 detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiatiοη.
Click to expand...
as
  • a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy that
  • generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown
i.e. the standard usage of electrical discharge that rules it out in plamas which are already broken down.

What Peratt neglects to mention is that some authors refer to large current densities (e.g. caused by magnetic reconnection) as electrical discharges, e.g. Dungey.

Peratt's definition is different here is from Dungey's use of exactly that same term which he uses in context of a large current density.
See Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma which points out that Peratt's book ignores the physics and mathematics of "electrical discharges" *IN* (INSIDE OF) plasma.


Michael Mozina
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?

Or do you think that the entire titled section is the defintion of "electrical discharges in cosmic plasma"? In that case lightning is an electrical discharge and air is "cosmic plasma" :rolleyes:
 
Haig said:
Just a reminder what the "Electric Sun Theory" is all about and what your debating. Apologies to those who have already seen this 2006 video but I've viewed it for the first time today and find it stunning.

Brilliant Noise

http://www.semiconductorfilms.com/root/Brilliant_Noise/BNoise.htm
Click to expand...
You are totally mistaken, Haig: That video has nothing to do with the "Electric Sun Theory".

It is a good video showing activity on the Sun. You can really see the plasma erupting from the photosphere and flowing along magnetic fields. The coronal loop arcade about a minute in is especially impressive.
 
Reality Check said:
You are totally mistaken, Haig: That video has nothing to do with the "Electric Sun Theory".
Click to expand...
You've misunderstood me RC. I'm not trying to score points here but the thread is about the "Electric Sun Theory" and this video shows the Sun in really close up action.
It is a good video showing activity on the Sun. You can really see the plasma erupting from the photosphere and flowing along magnetic fields. The coronal loop arcade about a minute in is especially impressive.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree it's a good video for those interested in the Sun
 
Hey Michael, what do you think of this as a definition for electric discharge in plasma:

A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.
Click to expand...

Sounds kind of like current to me, but this is all above my pay grade.
 
Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits - Hakan Önel, Gottfried J. Mann (Submitted on 6 Aug 2009)
abstract
A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.
Click to expand...
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Full PDF is here http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.0813v1.pdf
 
The physical processes that occur in and on the sun do not depend on what someone meant by the word "discharge" in 1958.
Real physicists discuss and debate such questions using the body of knowledge gained within the disciplines of "astrophysics, and computer science, including fluid dynamics, plasma physics including magnetohydrodynamics, seismology, particle physics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, stellar evolution, space physics, spectroscopy, radiative transfer, applied optics, signal processing, computer vision, and computational physics." (from Wikipedia)
A real discussion about this subject would involve mathematical models, something of which we know Mozina is not capable.
 
Perpetual Student said:
The physical processes that occur in and on the sun do not depend on what someone meant by the word "discharge" in 1958.
Click to expand...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32448

Of course not. Then again all those *ELECTROmagnetic reconnection papers still completely conform to Peratt's definition and Dungey's use of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma. Of course the denial quotient around here is so high anyway, what difference does that make to any of you anyway? :)

A real discussion about this subject would involve mathematical models, something of which we know Mozina is not capable.
Click to expand...

OMG. Since you *REFUSE* to comment on Alfven's or Calqvist's use of "circuits" and none of the "haters" will accept the concept that discharges *CAN* occur in plasma, the whole conversation turns into one giant personal attack, as though *ANY* scientific theory rises or falls on my personal math skills. What did Alfven mean by the use of "circuits" in reference to coronal loops PS? What did he mean by an exploding double layer? How does not *NOT* fit the definition of a discharge in plasma provided by Peratt? Do you haters intend to dodge the math's presented forever and ever?
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Hey Michael, what do you think of this as a definition for electric discharge in plasma:



Sounds kind of like current to me, but this is all above my pay grade.
Click to expand...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32448

IMO you're underpaid. :)

That definition fits with these sorts of observations, but a plasma is a plasma not a gas. We can still "discharge" electromagnetic energy through a plasma, just like we do it through a gas. It's still the same physical process, we simply begin with a plasma. I'm open, but I must say I'm pretty bored around here right now. I'm so busy at work, this conversation is simply not a high priority. Once we can agree that "discharges happen", even in a plasma, the conversation might be able to move forward. I know that you and several others are willing to do that, but some of the hard core "haters" with previously false statements to worry about are continuing to drag their feet. At this point the conversation simply isn't moving forward simply because a few haters are in hardcore denial that discharges happen, even inside a plasma. Oh well....
 
tusenfem said:
Well, the more modern papers will not call it a discharge,
Click to expand...

You're right. Today they "pseudoscientifically" refer to the process as a "magnetic reconnection" event. Then again we all know Alfven rejected that concept in current carrying plasma in favor of an E oriented "exploding double layer" event.

therefore MM needs to go to the 50s of the last century to get his right.
Click to expand...

No, I can demonstrate a *50 YEAR HISTORY* of "discharge theory" which none of you can or will touch with a ten foot poll. I can also demonstrate a 50 year history of where "discharge" theory and "reconnection" theory have been directly associated, and associated by the very individuals that championed "reconnection" theory.

As long as you all remain in hard core denial of that 50+ year history of the association between "discharges" and "reconnection", we're just stuck in denialville and this conversation is hopeless.

Note that "reconnection" theory fits Peratt's definition of a 'discharge' and it will forever fit Peratt's definition of a "discharge". You can't erase Dungey's beliefs from history. You can't remove that "connection" between 'reconnection" and "discharge" theory, no matter how much denial you try to heap upon the pile.

Man I'm bored. Yawn.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32448

IMO you're underpaid. :)

That definition fits with these sorts of observations, but a plasma is a plasma not a gas. We can still "discharge" electromagnetic energy through a plasma, just like we do it through a gas. It's still the same physical process, we simply begin with a plasma. I'm open, but I must say I'm pretty bored around here right now. I'm so busy at work, this conversation is simply not a high priority. Once we can agree that "discharges happen", even in a plasma, the conversation might be able to move forward. I know that you and several others are willing to do that, but some of the hard core "haters" with previously false statements to worry about are continuing to drag their feet. At this point the conversation simply isn't moving forward simply because a few haters are in hardcore denial that discharges happen, even inside a plasma. Oh well....
Click to expand...
I think we've pretty much settled on the fact that you are using a definition of discharge that simply means current. As tusenfem said:

So, fine I will state from now on a discharge is to be considered a current in a plasma.
Click to expand...
If you can confirm that this is what you mean, then we can move on.

BTW: The definition I posted is Dungey's. His definition looks indistinguishable from a current to me, but what do I know? It is from his paper Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems and, in full, is this:

Dungey said:
In the following no particular system is discussed, but any system of interest can be described for our purposes as a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion. A 'discharge' will be a region in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.
Click to expand...

It's a general astrophysical definition and does not refer to plasma specifically.
 
Michael Mozina said:
OMG. Since you *REFUSE* to comment on Alfven's or Calqvist's use of "circuits" and none of the "haters" will accept the concept that discharges *CAN* occur in plasma, the whole conversation turns into one giant personal attack, as though *ANY* scientific theory rises or falls on my personal math skills. What did Alfven mean by the use of "circuits" in reference to coronal loops PS? What did he mean by an exploding double layer? How does not *NOT* fit the definition of a discharge in plasma provided by Peratt? Do you haters intend to dodge the math's presented forever and ever?
Click to expand...

Your "personal math skills" have everything to do with your ability to understand all these favorite authors you continually mention and your "personal math skills" have everything to do with your ability to understand the responses made to you by those posters who have some knowledge about solar physics.
Your "personal math skills" are also a measure of your depth of understanding of physics and your overall credibility here as well as other discussions concerning physics and cosmology.
 
dasmiller said:
Since you brought up Dungey again, I've read through that paper a couple of times and I'm still not seeing anything compelling about it. As others have pointed out, it's a rebuttal to a criticism of a previous paper, so without the previous papers, it's hard to take it too seriously. Are we supposed to simply assume that Dungey sufficiently refuted Cowling? Doesn't Cowling get a say in the matter?
Click to expand...

Of course. In fact Dungey gave him a say in the matter and addressed his concerns. The primary point of having you start with Dungey is for you to notice that 50+ year history of the association between what Dungey calls a "reconnection" event and what he also refers to as an "electrical discharge' events. Dungey was an early champion of BOTH reconnection theory *AND* discharge theory and he personally and directly associated these two events.

There is a direct correlation between what Dungey calls "reconnection" event and the formation of a "discharge" in plasma.

I'll get you some more papers to read. I think I'll get Calqvist's work into the discussion. He approaches the process from a "circuit" orientation, and treats the flare as an "induction" event. The whole "reconnection" concept is in fact "induction" with a very stupid name IMO. We'll get there, but again, you'll need to be a bit patient with me this week, it's my busiest month of the year, and unusually busy due to the social security tax table changes.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You can't erase Dungey's beliefs from history. You can't remove that "connection" between 'reconnection" and "discharge" theory, no matter how much denial you try to heap upon the pile.
Click to expand...
Wow.

Hey Mike. It was W.D. Clinger that pointed out that Dungey is really talking about magnetic recognition, not you. Now, you have somehow internalized that bit of analysis into your own portfolio as if it was something you came up with and you are now trying to throw it back into our faces as something we are ignoring/denying.

Pathetic.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Your "personal math skills" have everything to do with your ability to understand all these favorite authors you continually mention and your "personal math skills" have everything to do with your ability to understand the responses made to you by those posters who have some knowledge about solar physics.
Click to expand...

What "knowledge"? When I tried to start a discussion on that RD image, all I ever got was "Flying stuff? What flying stuff"? When I started a conversation about 'discharge" theory, I get "discharge theory"? What "discharges" in plasma?" When I talked about dark filament eruption CME, I got "dark filament? What dark filament"? The "knowledge' of solar physics presented by the "haters" of EU/PC theory are zero. They/you all argue from a place of complete ignorance, none of you touch the circuit orientation of plasma physics, more than to handwave at it. None of you have presented a *SINGLE FLAW* in the actual written materials that have been presented. In fact all the haters seem to be able to do is spew their hate at the *INDIVIDUAL* rather than the topic. How sad.
 
D'rok said:
Wow.

Hey Mike. It was W.D. Clinger that pointed out that Dungey is really talking about magnetic recognition, not you. Now, you have somehow internalized that bit of analysis into your own portfolio as if it was something you came up with and you are now trying to throw it back into our faces as something we are ignoring/denying.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

FYI, this conversation has actually spanned about 4 or 5 boards, and prior to this conversation, the last one was at space.com. At space.com I was introduced to several papers on "reconnection" theory. I rejected at least one of them based on a violation of a *LAW* of physics. I was however introduced to a paper by Birn which I could not reject on any such grounds. His presentation was physically and mathematically correct. He did however make it quite clear that there were "current flows" inside the "magnetic lines' and therefore he directly associated it right back to Alfven's "circuit" orientation to coronal loops. I realized then that what they were talking about was "circuit reconnection" and that is what I have called it for the last several years, even before debating these ideas on this particular website.
 
D'rok said:
Wow.

Hey Mike. It was W.D. Clinger that pointed out that Dungey is really talking about magnetic recognition, not you.
Click to expand...

Actually Dungey is talking about *ELECTROmagnetic reconnection", not simply "magnetic lines". There's a "particle flow" involved in that process, not just the transfer of magnetic field energy to kinetic energy of charged particles (properly called induction).
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, this conversation has actually spanned about 4 or 5 boards, and prior to this conversation, the last one was at space.com. At space.com I was introduced to several papers on "reconnection" theory. I rejected at least one of them based on a violation of a *LAW* of physics. I was however introduced to a paper by Birn which I could not reject on any such grounds. His presentation was physically and mathematically correct. He did however make it quite clear that there were "current flows" inside the "magnetic lines' and therefore he directly associated it right back to Alfven's "circuit" orientation to coronal loops. I realized then that what they were talking about was "circuit reconnection" and that is what I have called it for the last several years, even before debating these ideas on this particular website.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with W.D. Clinger's posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6637486&postcount=499
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6628028&postcount=349
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6654184&postcount=339
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually Dungey is talking about *ELECTROmagnetic reconnection", not simply "magnetic lines". There's a "particle flow" involved in that process, not just the transfer of magnetic field energy to kinetic energy of charged particles (properly called induction).
Click to expand...
Have you read this paper by Dungey: Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems

You know, the one on which you are hanging your hat so confidently these days.
 
D'rok said:
Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with W.D. Clinger's posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6637486&postcount=499
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6628028&postcount=349
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6654184&postcount=339
Click to expand...

What do you expect me to say about it? I had to explain to our dear Mr. Spock that unlike Alfven, I don't personally reject "reconnection' theory as "pseudoscience", I simply refer to it as "circuit reconnection" (my preference) or "electromagnetic reconnection". I don't actually outright "reject" it the way Alfven did, and I haven't now for many years.
 
D'rok said:
Have you read this paper by Dungey: Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems

You know, the one on which you are hanging your hat so confidently these days.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it was many years ago. I can't can't find my original copy or I would have posted it here instead of that paper. Since I can't find the original, I simply posted his response to criticisms that were bound to be raised sooner or later anyway.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
What do you expect me to say about it? I had to explain to our dear Mr. Spock that unlike Alfven, I don't personally reject "reconnection' theory as "pseudoscience", I simply refer to it as "circuit reconnection" (my preference) or "electromagnetic reconnection". I don't actually outright "reject" it the way Alfven did, and I haven't now for many years.
Click to expand...
I expect you to have the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty and not falsely accuse your interlocutors like this:

Mozina said:
You can't erase Dungey's beliefs from history. You can't remove that "connection" between 'reconnection" and "discharge" theory, no matter how much denial you try to heap upon the pile.
Click to expand...

It would also be nice if you had the intellectual honesty to admit that your analysis boils down to boutique or ill-defined versions of terms rather than actual science, but I'm not optimistic about that.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, but it was many years ago. I can't can't find my original copy or I would have posted it here instead of that paper. Since I can't find the original, I simply posted his response to criticisms that were bound to be raised sooner or later anyway.
Click to expand...
Are you confident that that paper supports your case in the way that you have claimed?
 
Michael Mozina said:
As long as you all remain in hard core denial of that 50+ year history of the association between "discharges" and "reconnection", we're just stuck in denialville and this conversation is hopeless.
Click to expand...

Fine, then I can put you on ignore, and save myself a lot of time.
Your chance for a real discussion that you so longed for, that I was willing to give to you, a scientific discussion, is over.

Michael Mozina said:
Note that "reconnection" theory fits Peratt's definition of a 'discharge' and it will forever fit Peratt's definition of a "discharge". You can't erase Dungey's beliefs from history. You can't remove that "connection" between 'reconnection" and "discharge" theory, no matter how much denial you try to heap upon the pile.
Click to expand...

I would have actually asked you to show that reconnection fits with Peratt's definition of a discharge, but the point is moot, as you would have to do some real science here, and actually think and I would never ever have gotten an answer from you anyway, you prefer other people to do the work for you.

Bye bye loser.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What do you expect me to say about it? I had to explain to our dear Mr. Spock that unlike Alfven, I don't personally reject "reconnection' theory as "pseudoscience", I simply refer to it as "circuit reconnection" (my preference) or "electromagnetic reconnection". I don't actually outright "reject" it the way Alfven did, and I haven't now for many years.
Click to expand...

To anyone else but MM.
But then, whenever someone talks about magnetic reconnection, MM starts yelling that Alfven called is pseudoscience, and thus we are wrong to think about reconnect.

Then he paddles back and then says the process happens, but I prefer to call it circuit reconnection (also because now he read a paper by Joachim, who says there are currents associated with reconnection, but appartently he never read real reconnection paper, because the all have associated currents).

Not that he is ever going to present an actual model for this laughable circuit reconnection (for one thing, circuit representation of plasma processes is a long wavelength approximation, and thus inherently cannot describe the meso and micro scale processes in the plasma).

Well, I heard it all before here, and there, the same old same old, yawn.
 
D'rok said:
I expect you to have the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty and not falsely accuse your interlocutors like this:



It would also be nice if you had the intellectual honesty to admit that your analysis boils down to boutique or ill-defined versions of terms rather than actual science, but I'm not optimistic about that.
Click to expand...

Well, since you brought up the topic, let's talk about intellectual honesty.

An intellectually honest individual can recognize that induction or an electric discharge can and does happen in an existing plasma. An intellectually honest person can observe a *SIMPLE* definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma and they will go with it for purposes of a conversation. Since none of that is happening here, what exactly do you expect me to do?

I can't make anyone *accept* a "definition" of an "electrical discharge'. I can't *MAKE* anyone accept that Dungey used the term in reference to flares as did other authors like Bruce. I can't MAKE you folks accept their work. I can't MAKE you folks comment on their work. About all I can do is present *EVIDENCE*, "statements", "definitions" and HOPE that individuals deal with that information in an intellectually honest manner. Since I see nobody really more than handwaving at Alfven's use of circuits and double layers, I see no evidence that this is an intellectually honest conversation.
 
tusenfem said:
I would have actually asked you to show that reconnection fits with Peratt's definition of a discharge, but the point is moot,
Click to expand...

It's only moot because you *REFUSE* to address it:

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 detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.
Click to expand...

But of course somehow "magnetic reconnection" isn't a sudden release of stored magnetic energy in your mind somehow? Give me a break.
 
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32448

As long as we're talking about intellectual honesty, let's talk cause/effect relationships established here on Earth. Here on Earth we observe that "discharges" occur in our atmosphere. Such "discharges' emit gamma rays, x-rays, high energy photons galore. They heat plasma to millions of degrees in the lab. They ionize iron to high states of ionization. They do *ALL* the things we observe in flares. An intellectually honest person would simply note that when we observe gamma rays, x-rays, and other high energy photon emissions from *ANY* atmosphere from any body in space, it's most like a "discharge" process involved.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Are you confident that that paper supports your case in the way that you have claimed?
Click to expand...

Yep. It's pretty much the same presentation. There has been a 50+ year association between "electrical discharges' and "reconnection" theory (ELECTROmagnetic reconnection), and 50+ year association between "discharges" and flares.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom