• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
It doesn't *IMPLY* anything. It clearly *STATES* that it's an "electrical discharge". You're intentionally "interpreting" whatever you want to hear now, and not addressing the words written in the paper. How exactly can I deal with pure denial?
Click to expand...
That is pure ignorance:
The standard definition of an electrical discharge in physics involves the breakdown of a dielectric medium.
Dungey clearly *WRITES* the words "electrical discharge" but never defines the term. The context where he *WRITES* the term is current densities.
 
Reality Check said:
There is no such thing as a circuit interruption in plasma.
Click to expand...

D. Solar Prominence Circuit. Solar Flares

The circuit consists of a magnetic flux tube above the photosphere and part of photosphere (see Fig. 10). The generator is in the photosphere and is due to a whirl motion in sunspot magnetic field. Generator output increases circuit energy which can be dissipated in two different ways: ( 1 ) When current density surpasses critical value, an exploding DL is produced in which most of the circuit energy is released. This causes a solar flare. Hénoux (1985) has recently given an interesting study of solar flares and concludes that a current disruption by DL's is an appealing explanation of solar flares. (2) Under certain circumstances the electromagnetic pressure of the current loop may produce a motor which gives rise to a rising prominence (Alfvén and Carlqvist, 1967; Carlqvist, 1982b).
Click to expand...

So whom shall I believe, the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics, or the guy that's never read (at at least not commented much) on his work related to this topic?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Which statement do you disagree with RC?

1) Electrical discharges happen in plasma
2) Dungey (and others) wrote about them in relationship to solar flares
Click to expand...
What defintion of electrical discharge are you using?

Electrical discharge has a standard definition used generally in physics but as has been pointed out many times this excludes electrical discharges from plasma.

If you mean the standard definition then I disagree with both statements.
If you mean the definition as used by Alfven and Dungey (a large current) then I agree with both statements.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What does your personal need for a "dielectric breakdown" have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
You talked about a system where the release of energy was caused by the breakdown of a dialectric medium. Systems where there is no dialectric medium to break down are not analogous.

Which claim are we discussing now? The one I was trying to support was the claim that flares *ARE* electrical discharges.
Click to expand...
We are discussing the fact that you tried to argue that a discharge through a dialectric medium was the same as a discharge through a conducting medium despite the fact the definitions of discharge in each case are different.


That is just silly. They are both related by "powerful current flows' and "sudden releases of stored EM energy". One release of energy occurs in a gas, the other occurs in plasma. Other than that they are still EM processes were stored EM energy is released "suddenly' into the medium.
Click to expand...
It is just silly, I agree. You are trying to say that the properties observed specifically when a dielectric medium breaks down are also observed in the Sun, despite the fact this has completely opposing properties and the same kind of break down cannot possibly happen.

ETA: Breakdown of a dialectric media refers to an insulator becoming a conductor.
Breakdown of a conductur usually means the conductive properties have worsened.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Which statement do you disagree with RC?

1) Electrical discharges happen in plasma
2) Dungey (and others) wrote about them in relationship to solar flares
Click to expand...


The complete lack of honesty in the current line of argument here is despicable. The claim is...

Michael Mozina said:
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.
Click to expand...


All the lying and bending definitions and arguing semantics and trying to claim a point by contorting what Peratt and Alfvén and Dungey wrote and what they meant is a complete sham. There is nothing whatsoever in this line of argument that could even remotely be considered scientific... or honest.

That claim is...

Michael Mozina said:
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.
Click to expand...


If it can't be supported without fishing for individual words and phrases in 50 years old documents and replies to other people's research, then it can't be supported. No dishonest redefining of terms and cherry picking phrases is going to make it happen. None of this dishonest semantics game playing is going to support it. Something that might be called a discharge only by bending and stretching and reaching for definitions is absolutely not the same as saying "a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge." It simply is not. And it would be a lie, another in a long string of repeated arguments which have been shown to be lies, or the epitome of stupidity to claim it is.

There is no quantitative objective support for this claim...

Michael Mozina said:
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.
Click to expand...


Abandon it already. Every single attempt to support it has failed.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
So whom shall I believe, the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics, or the guy that's never read (at at least not commented much) on his work related to this topic?
Click to expand...
I believe the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics as in your quote
D. Solar Prominence Circuit. Solar Flares

The circuit consists of a magnetic flux tube above the photosphere and part of photosphere (see Fig. 10). The generator is in the photosphere and is due to a whirl motion in sunspot magnetic field. Generator output increases circuit energy which can be dissipated in two different ways: ( 1 ) When current density surpasses critical value, an exploding DL is produced in which most of the circuit energy is released. This causes a solar flare. Hénoux (1985) has recently given an interesting study of solar flares and concludes that a current disruption by DL's is an appealing explanation of solar flares. (2) Under certain circumstances the electromagnetic pressure of the current loop may produce a motor which gives rise to a rising prominence (Alfvén and Carlqvist, 1967; Carlqvist, 1982b).
Click to expand...
and
  • Does not use your imaginary "circuit interruption" term.
  • Does use the term "current disruption".
You do know that the words "current" and "circuit" are different :rolleyes:?
  • Different spelling.
  • Different meanings.
 
Tubbythin said:
You talked about a system where the release of energy was caused by the breakdown of a dialectric medium. Systems where there is no dialectric medium to break down are not analogous.
Click to expand...

But I can't even just "assume" that *NO* dielectric breakdown occurs. Notice how Bruce defines the process. It requires *SOLIDS* and such. I can't be certain that no dielectric breakdowns occur during such events.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
 
GeeMack said:
The complete lack of honesty in the current line of argument here is despicable. The claim is...
Click to expand...

The complete lack of honesty among PC/EU haters is despicable. They never comment on Alfven's use of circuits, circuit energy or flares more than just to handwave at it. They use ad homs in post after post. They ignore their own false claims, deny everything they read, lather rinse repeat. They're just like haters of evolutionary theory. It's a belief system based on pure ignorance protected by the human defense mechanism of denial. Yawn.
 
Solar flares are *NOT ARE CAUSED BY* electrical discharges

Michael Mozina said:
Which claim are we discussing now? The one I was trying to support was the claim that flares *ARE* electrical discharges.
Click to expand...
I will butt in here to point out some things yet again:
  • Solar flares are *NOT ARE* electrical discharges. They are large expolsions in stellar atmospheres.
  • Solar flares are *NOT ARE CAUSED BY* electrical discharges.
    Standard electrical discharges need the breakdown of a dielectric medium.
    The "electrical discharges" (large currents) in plasmas used by some authors to explain flares have underlying causes, e.g.
    • exploding double layers (Alfven).
    • magnetic reconnection (Dungey).
Thus flares are caused by
  • exploding double layers and/or
  • magnetic reconnection (the currently supported cause) and/or
  • something else that creates large currents.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The complete lack of honesty among PC/EU haters is despicable. They never comment on Alfven's use of circuits, circuit energy or flares more than just to handwave at it. They use ad homs in post after post. They ignore their own false claims, deny everything they read, lather rinse repeat. They're just like haters of evolutionary theory. It's a belief system based on pure ignorance protected by the human defense mechanism of denial. Yawn.
Click to expand...


Another 75 words spent complaining about those who recognize the complete failure to support the crackpot electric Sun claims, but not a single speck of supporting argument for this claim...

Michael Mozina said:
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.
Click to expand...


Apparently there is no objective quantitative support.
 
Michael Mozina said:
But I can't even just "assume" that *NO* dielectric breakdown occurs. Notice how Bruce defines the process. It requires *SOLIDS* and such. I can't be certain that no dielectric breakdowns occur during such events.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Click to expand...
You can assume" that *NO* dielectric breakdown occurs on the Sun because it is made of plasma. The simple fact is that plasmas are already broken down dielectrics. Thus they cannot break down! They sustain currents not standard electrical discharges.
Bruce's theory is ruled out because
  1. "It requires *SOLIDS* and such."
  2. *SOLIDS* cannot exist at the temperatures of the Sun's surface (~5700 K).
 
Michael Mozina said:
What difference does it make?
Click to expand...
Electrical discharge has a standard definition used generally in physics but as has been pointed out many times this excludes electrical discharges from plasma.

If you mean the standard definition then I disagree with both statements.
If you mean the definition as used by Alfven and Dungey (a large current) then I agree with both statements.

See the difference?
 
Reality Check said:
I believe the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics as in your quote
and

Does not use your imaginary "circuit interruption" term.
Does use the term "current disruption".
Click to expand...

Oy Vey. The denial thing is just getting old now. Nitpick much? Do you really think that's a clever argument?

You do know that the words "current" and "circuit" are different :rolleyes:?
Click to expand...

What does he mean by "circuit energy" being suddenly released, and how does that *NOT* fit Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma and/or Dungey's use of the term "discharge"?
 
Reality Check said:
Electrical discharge has a standard definition used generally in physics but as has been pointed out many times this excludes electrical discharges from plasma.
Click to expand...

No. You're simply in denial of Peratt's DEFINITION and Dungey's use of the term "electrical discharge" *IN* (INSIDE OF) a plasma. PERIOD.
 
Michael Mozina said:
But I can't even just "assume" that *NO* dielectric breakdown occurs. Notice how Bruce defines the process. It requires *SOLIDS* and such. I can't be certain that no dielectric breakdowns occur during such events.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Click to expand...


Michael you're claiming:
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.
Click to expand...

and then picking and choosing inconsistent definitions of "discharge" and "breakdown" and then comparing completely different media with different properties and saying they must be the same things. And then you're saying that the break down of an insulating medium leading to conduction is the same as an exploding double layer where a conductor refuses to carry any current.
 
GeeMack said:
Another 75 words spent complaining about those who recognize the complete failure to support the crackpot electric Sun claims, but not a single speck of supporting argument for this claim...
Click to expand...

This statement just demonstrates the lies you repeat, and the pathological nature (denial based nature) of those repetitious lies. The fact you refuse to comment on or deal with Alfven's use of circuits and Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma does not mean the information has not been presented to you. Wake up and smell the coffee.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The complete lack of honesty among PC/EU haters is despicable. They never comment on Alfven's use of circuits, circuit energy or flares more than just to handwave at it. They use ad homs in post after post. They ignore their own false claims, deny everything they read, lather rinse repeat. They're just like haters of evolutionary theory. It's a belief system based on pure ignorance protected by the human defense mechanism of denial. Yawn.
Click to expand...

:id:
 
Tubbythin said:
Michael you're claiming:


and then picking and choosing inconsistent definitions of "discharge" and "breakdown" and then comparing completely different media with different properties and saying they must be the same things. And then you're saying that the break down of an insulating medium leading to conduction is the same as an exploding double layer where a conductor refuses to carry any current.
Click to expand...

I would urge you to reread Bruce's work. It's entirely possible that a dielectric breakdown *DOES* occur. The definition that Peratt provided is an *EXCELLENT* definition. The only reason it's being ignored/rejected is because it absolutely includes "magnetic reconnection" and therefore there's no "out", no "escape" and no way to avoid the inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
What difference does it make?
Click to expand...


What difference does it make? That has to be about the silliest comment anyone has posted in this thread so far. If the term "electrical discharge" is defined as "chocolate pudding", then the electric Sun crackpots' claim is...

Michael Mozina said:
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge chocolate pudding.
Click to expand...


And that would be a truly ridiculous thing to say, of course. But the term "electrical discharge" is apparently being defined as "solar flare" in an effort to make the claim...

Michael Mozina said:
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge a solar flare.
Click to expand...


... which is, of course, despicably dishonest. As I mentioned above, this particular line of argument is a sham, a fraud. It's not working because it's a transparent attempt to use the logical fallacy of circular argument (not to mention cherry picking and several other logical fallacies) to support an otherwise unsupportable claim.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I would urge you to reread Bruce's work. It's entirely possible that a dielectric breakdown *DOES* occur. The definition that Peratt provided is an *EXCELLENT* definition. The only reason it's being ignored/rejected is because it absolutely includes "magnetic reconnection" and therefore there's no "out", no "escape" and no way to avoid the inevitable.
Click to expand...

It isn't be ignored. I'm afraid you are extremely delusional if you believe it has been. Would you like a link to the posts where it has been discussed?
And I completely fail to see how anything here is inevitable. Specifically, how is it inevitable that the transition from current carrying conductor to not current carrying conductor should produce the same signatures as the transition from insulator to conductor?
 
Last edited:
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...
To give credit where due, it was actually Tim Thompson who pointed out that Dungey's 1958 paper involved magnetic reconnection. I'd also like to point to this post by Ziggurat. I won't even try to list the many relevant posts by tusenfem.

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...
The first of those explains what's wrong with Michael Mozina's attempts to redefine magnetic reconnection as circuit reconnection or current reconnection or induction.

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...
Magnetic reconnection can occur with fixed circuit topologies, so "circuit reconnection" would be a stupidly misleading name for it. No wonder you prefer it.

Michael Mozina said:
IMO the term "magnetic reconnection" is inappropriate since Dungey makes it quite clear that it involves 'electrical discharges", meaning it's an "electromagnetic" process. The term "magnetic" is simply a "dumbed down" term.
Click to expand...
In that case, how do you explain Dungey's use of that "dumbed down" adjective? From just one of his 1953 papers:
Dungey said:
...magnetic fields...magnetic field...magnetic fields...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic flux...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic force...magnetic force...magnetic force density...magnetic field..."magnetic pressure"...magnetic force...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic force...magnetic field...magnetic lines of force...magnetic energy...magnetic energy...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic force...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic field...magnetic pressure...magnetic field...magnetic fields...

In conclusion, the model described in this paper is useful as an illustration of the effect of the magnetic force. Although it is too simple to apply directly to prominences, the points of similarity encourage the belief that the same physical effects are important in prominences.
Click to expand...
I didn't bother to mention all the Bs, Hs, and magnetic "lines of force" in that article. Here's the citation:

J W Dungey. A family of solutions of the magneto-hydrostatic problem in a conducting atmosphere in a gravitational field. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, volume 113, number 2, 1953, pages 180-187.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1953MNRAS.113..180D
 
Michael Mozina said:
This statement just demonstrates the lies you repeat, and the pathological nature (denial based nature) of those repetitious lies.
Click to expand...


The persistent uncivil personal attack is noted.

The fact you refuse to comment on or deal with Alfven's use of circuits and Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma does not mean the information has not been presented to you.
Click to expand...


The lie and dishonest attempt to deflect the burden of proof is noted.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
Click to expand...


The steadfast avoidance of addressing this claim...

Michael Mozina said:
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.
Click to expand...


... is, as always, noted. So far all evidence points to it being an unsupportable claim.
 
GeeMack said:
What difference does it make?
Click to expand...
They used *EXACTLY* the same term! DUH! Cross off electrical discharge and put "electrical discharge" in it's place and see how well your deception works.

That has to be about the silliest comment anyone has posted in this thread so far.
Click to expand...



No, that goes to you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

Are you ever going to answer that direct question or are you going to dodge it again and again, and again?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oy Vey. The denial thing is just getting old now. Nitpick much? Do you really think that's a clever argument?
Click to expand...
Oy Vey. The delusional thing is just getting old now.
You are lying about what is in the quote by using the imaginary term "circuit interuption".

Michael Mozina said:
What does he mean by "circuit energy" being suddenly released, and how does that *NOT* fit Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma and/or Dungey's use of the term "discharge"?
Click to expand...
He means the energy in the model being suddenly released - that is fairly basic.

It does *NOT* fit Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma because Peratt's defintion includes breakdown.

It *DOES* fit Dungey's use of the term "discharge" becuse the exploding double layer creates a current.
 
Michael Mozina said:
They used *EXACTLY* the same term! DUH! Cross off electrical discharge and put "electrical discharge" in it's place and see how well your deception works.
Click to expand...


Yet after all the effort people have made to get a clear, concise, and objective definition of the term as used by the electric Sun cranks for purposes of this discussion, nobody has been willing to offer such a definition. So who is responsible for this complete lack of effective communication, those who continue to ask for an understandable definition or those who refuse to provide one? Seriously.

No, that goes to you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

Are you ever going to answer that direct question or are you going to dodge it again and again, and again?
Click to expand...


Persistent and dishonest attempt to deflect the burden of proof is again noted.
 
Doing a quick search on ADS on the literature concerning solar flares and electrical discharges (i.e. the abstract contains the words "solar flare electric discharge" I find that there are a total of 9 papers in peer reviewed journals, and the latest is from 1991 (which would be the Foukal & Hinata paper, that I already commented on a few pages back, the one that shows that the A&C double layer model is invalid in real solar prominences).

Now, it is pretty clear from the whole discussion here why one does not use the term discharge anymore in solar and space physics. The definition for a discharge is just all over the place, many an author just used her/his own definition (look at the list I gave in post 1441. This is clearly unworkable, say I accept Peratt's definition, then I read one of Dungey's papers, I see the word discharge and then I cannot find any of the general characteristics that Peratt (e.g. where is the break down of the medium?), Dungey just describes an increase in current.

(space/plasma/astro)physics is all about clarity, and that does not exist with this term discharge, which is a relic of the first half of the last century, where huge capacitor banks were used to study whatever electrical phenomena in the lab (basically the only sensible way to perform those experiments, when you need huge potential differences). But then you can discharge the capacitors e.g. through a metal, and see how it melts or you can drive it through a liquid (see e.g. the production of aluminium). Or you can send it through the air and create lightning in the lab. All very different ways of discharging a capacitor bank.

Therefore, we move away from such an ambiguous term, and replace it with clearer, more descriptive terms: electrostatic fields, induced electric fields, motional electric fields (see the paper by Foukal & Hinata where they specifically list these various electric fields and call any process with a parallel electric field a discharge), which are all related to specific structures and much less ambiguous than the term discharge.

Next time: A simple description of circuit reconnection how a hater views it and a believer cannot show it.
 
Perpetual Student said:
How's your demonstration of the evidence for this claim coming?
Click to expand...

The evidence is fine, it's the "acceptance" part that's tricky, much like getting creationists to accept "evidence" of evolutionary theory. The denial process is tough. When I ask any intelligent questions like what Alfven meant by "circuits" and "circuit energy" in relationship to flares, everyone runs and hides or handwaves a bit and then runs and hides.

It's pretty much the same exact process as discussing evolutionary theory with deniers of that theory. The amount of evidence presented become irrelevant at some point because they simply don't address it. The same is true of PC haters. It's pretty much an ignorance oriented belief system, protected with the human self defense mechanism of denial.

Is *ANYONE* going to admit that "electrical discharges" occur in a plasma? Yes or no? This is getting extremely tedious.
 
GeeMack said:
Yet after all the effort people have made to get a clear, concise, and objective definition of the term....
Click to expand...

Peratt already provided us with that. It's simply that none of you wish to accept it, because the moment you do, this debate is over. It's therefore a twilight zone episode around here where denial reigns supreme. No amount of lab evidence, like that iron ionization paper, or mathematical presentations like Alfven's use of exploding double layers can or will ever be addressed. It's just a denial-merry-go-round around here because none of you will accept Peratt's very simple, very clean, very elegant *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma. Round and round and round we go, ad-homs and denial in post after post after pointless post.
 
Last edited:
Of those who will not accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, how many of you have a Phd in plasma physics?
 
Reality Check said:
It does *NOT* fit Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma because Peratt's defintion includes breakdown.
Click to expand...

So does Alfven's definition of a flare RC.....

D. Solar Prominence Circuit. Solar Flares

The circuit consists of a magnetic flux tube above the photosphere and part of photosphere (see Fig. 10). The generator is in the photosphere and is due to a whirl motion in sunspot magnetic field. Generator output increases circuit energy which can be dissipated in two different ways: ( 1 ) When current density surpasses critical value, an exploding DL is produced in which most of the circuit energy is released. This causes a solar flare. Hénoux (1985) has recently given an interesting study of solar flares and concludes that a current disruption by DL's is an appealing explanation of solar flares. (2) Under certain circumstances the electromagnetic pressure of the current loop may produce a motor which gives rise to a rising prominence (Alfvén and Carlqvist, 1967; Carlqvist, 1982b).
Click to expand...

Notice the terms "surpasses critical value" and "circuit energy is released"? What does Alfven mean by that?
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
This is clearly unworkable, say I accept Peratt's definition, then I read one of Dungey's papers, I see the word discharge and then I cannot find any of the general characteristics that Peratt (e.g. where is the break down of the medium?), Dungey just describes an increase in current.
Click to expand...

It's completely "workable' if you want it to work with it. Peratt uses the term "generally" in his definition by the way. He does not use the term ALWAYS.

The only reason it's "unworkable" is that his definition sinks your ship. The definition is inclusive of "magnetic reconnection" theory (by any name) and therefore you cannot accept it. The instant you do accept it, it makes that connection between a flare and a discharge process. Instead of 'working with it", it's all about denying the validity of that *DEFINITION* of a discharge in a plasma.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The evidence is fine, it's the "acceptance" part that's tricky, much like getting creationists to accept "evidence" of evolutionary theory. The denial process is tough. When I ask any intelligent questions like what Alfven meant by "circuits" and "circuit energy" in relationship to flares, everyone runs and hides or handwaves a bit and then runs and hides.
Click to expand...

How would "what Alfven meant" be evidence?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's completely "workable' if you want it to work with it. Peratt uses the term "generally" in his definition by the way. He does not use the term ALWAYS.

The only reason it's "unworkable" is that his definition sinks your ship. The definition is inclusive of "magnetic reconnection" theory (by any name) and therefore you cannot accept it. The instant you do accept it, it makes that connection between a flare and a discharge process. Instead of 'working with it", it's all about denying the validity of that *DEFINITION* of a discharge in a plasma.
Click to expand...

The definitions for "discharge" and "breakdown" you are tying to impose on people simply aren't consistent in any manner with the evidence you tried to present. That is all there really is to it as far as I'm concerned.
Note: I've not seen much quantitative evidence yet.
 
Riding my bike home this evening, about a 10km ride, something popped up in my mind about exploding double layers. According to Alfvén the current in the loop is interrupted and then all energy is released in the double layer (exploding double layer).

Now, the important word here is interrupted, and thus we must conclude, with any definition of a discharge, that this would constitute an anti-discharge, as no charge is dissing anymore.

How interesting!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom