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

Status
Not open for further replies.
We have established that the word "discharge" is used in many ways, so one person's definition will differ from another's in a particular context involving electricity. Many of the usages of this word have been published -- any textbook that deals with batteries, capacitors, etc. with have published these differing meanings. Yet Mozina wants someone to give him a *PUBLISHED* definition to continue this discussion. Which one should we choose? And will that choice prove anything?
I now understand why Mozina does poorly with mathematics. Mathematics is nothing more than applied logic.
 
Last edited:
Here is the whole mathematical section from Cosmic Plasma. Note that Alfvén uses circuit, but from the 0.5 L I2, which does not occur in MHD or plasma physics, it is clear he talks about a circuit representation. Unfortunately, the language is (with many an author, me included) often ambiguous, and one needs to be well versed in the topic, not to let first impressions misguide you.

Thanks for clerifying that. According to Alfven, when that circuit energy is released, is it called "induction", or "magnetic reconnection"? Shall we agree that any transfer of stored EM energy into particle kinetic energy is a "discharge"?

If so, I think at least you and I can move forward and we should.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Philosopher


Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,318
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
So if I wave a conducting loop through a magnetic field (as is done in high school physics demonstrations), and create a current (moving electrons), I also have a discharge? How else can I interpret your comment, "any transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is in fact a 'discharge'"?
*IN A PLASMA*, anytime we take *STORED* electromagnetic energy and turn it into particle kinetic energy, it is an "electrical discharge". As The Man explained, the term "discharge" infers a gradual or fast release of that stored energy. In a *PLASMA*, that release is typically 'fast', not "gradual". and it has the effect on the surrounding plasma that Peratt describes in his definition.

Anytime we take 'stored' EM energy and we "discharge" that energy into a plasma we will get "particle kinetic energy' and the effects described by Peratt. Is that clear enough? I am really trying.

How about answering my question? "So if I wave a conducting loop through a magnetic field (as is done in high school physics demonstrations), and create a current (moving electrons), I also have a discharge?"
Is that how you are using this term? If so, say so. It's OK. It will allow us to move on.
 
Last edited:
We have established that the word "discharge" is used in many ways, so one person's definition will differ from another's in a particular context involving electricity. Many of the usages of this word have been published -- any textbook that deals with batteries, capacitors, etc. with have published these differing meanings. Yet Mozina wants someone to give him a *PUBLISHED* definition to continue this discussion. Which one should we choose? And will that choice prove anything?
I now understand why Mozina does poorly wirth mathematics. Mathematics is nothing more than applied logic.

You do realize this is *SCIENCE* forum, right? I did my part. I provided you all with a published definition of a discharge in a plasma. If you *REFUSE (PURE DENIAL) to accept it, you need to *EXPLAIN WHY* and/or provide a *BETTER* one in terms of *SCIENCE*. In a SCIENTIFIC debate, that means you are *OBLIGATED* to provide *PUBLISHED SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM*. Do you comprehend that concept? Yes or no?
 
Last edited:
*IN A PLASMA*, anytime we take *STORED* electromagnetic energy and turn it into particle kinetic energy, it is an "electrical discharge". As The Man explained, the term "discharge" infers a gradual or fast release of that stored energy. In a *PLASMA*, that release is typically 'fast', not "gradual". and it has the effect on the surrounding plasma that Peratt describes in his definition.

Anytime we take 'stored' EM energy and we "discharge" that energy into a plasma we will get "particle kinetic energy' and the effects described by Peratt. Is that clear enough? I am really trying.


So there's an acknowledgment that the electrical discharge under discussion is nothing at all like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. It seems it was pretty irrational, or at the very least, the use of sloppy verbiage to have made that silly comparison in the first place.
 
You do realize this is *SCIENCE* forum, right? I did my part. I provided you all with a published definition of a discharge in a plasma. If you *REFUSE (PURE DENIAL) to accept it, you need to *EXPLAIN WHY* and/or provide a *BETTER* one in terms of *SCIENCE*. In a SCIENTIFIC debate, that means you are *OBLIGATED* to provide *PUBLISHED SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM*. Do you comprehend that concept? Yes or no?

So if I used Aristotle's definition of the word "element," which is certainly *PUBLISHED,* could we then have a scientific discussion about the periodic table?
Just say what you mean by discharge and allow the conversation to continue. That is what scientists do!
 
So there's an acknowledgment that the electrical discharge under discussion is nothing at all like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball.

Do you really have that big of a problem comprehending the English language? When did you intend to explain what Peratt means by a "discharge" in that first sentence, and/or rescind your false claim about discharges not being possible in a conductor? Denial is ugly.
 
So if I used Aristotle's definition of the word "element," which is certainly *PUBLISHED,* could we then have a scientific discussion about the periodic table?
Just say what you mean by discharge and allow the conversation to continue. That is what scientists do!

Your actions are like those of a creationist. Instead of providing a published work to support your own claims, you refuse to do so. Did you ever notice that creationists do that too? Why do you figure they refuse to provide *PUBLISHED WORK* to support their own claims? Why are you refusing to do so?
 
Last edited:
Your actions are like those of a creationist. Instead of providing a published work to support your own claims, you refuse to do so. Did ever notice that creationists do that too? Why do you figure they refuse to provide *PUBLISHED WORK* to support their own claims? Why are you refusing to do so?

What? I don't have any claims! I don't make claims that are out of my area of expertise. Show me where I have made a claim about solar physics -- go for it!
I am merely trying to understand why you say a solar flare is a discharge. So define discharge and explain!
 
Last edited:
Do you really have that big of a problem comprehending the English language? When did you intend to explain what Peratt means by a "discharge" in that first sentence, and/or rescind your false claim about discharges not being possible in a conductor? Denial is ugly.


Just to make sure everyone is on the same plane here, would that be the Anthony Peratt who thinks electrical discharges are depicted in rock carvings of people with genital dicharges?

:dl:

When we're done laughing at the idiocy of that Peratt, remember, this is a yes/no question, not a rhetorical question. Same Peratt?
 
Just to make sure everyone is on the same plane here, would that be the Anthony Peratt...

Yes. Since you DENY all responsibility for your own statements, and you have no clue what the hell you're talking about, you consistently attack the individual. Why? Do you figure that pathetic behavior and dishonest debate tactic is actually helping resolve anything scientifically? Is that even your goal?
 
Last edited:
Since you DENY all responsibility for your own statements, and you have no clue what you're talking about, you attack the individual. Why? Do you figure that's helping resolve anything? Is that even your goal?


(Bolding mine.) It's not about me. It's about this ridiculous claim...

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


The implication made by electric Sun adherents is that the "electrical discharge" in the claim is akin to an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or like sparks in a toy plasma ball. So just to make things clear, is it reasonable to describe the claim as this?...

"A solar flare is an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball."

That's another yes/no question.
 
Before I try to play catch up today, did *ANYONE* post a PROFESSIONAL/PUBLISHED definition of a discharge that *REQUIRES* a dielectric breakdown, yes or no?

Yes, paaaaaaages ago, when I made a comparison of different definitions of discharges.

Another stalling tactic Mikey, so you don't have to do anything real?
 
Thanks for clerifying that. According to Alfven, when that circuit energy is released, is it called "induction", or "magnetic reconnection"? Shall we agree that any transfer of stored EM energy into particle kinetic energy is a "discharge"?

If so, I think at least you and I can move forward and we should.

as the term discharge is totally unimportant, I could not care less about the definition that you want to use. I already said so paaaaaaaaaaaaages ago.

I doubt that Alfven calls an exploding double layer induction, so I guess that is the next term you are going to fight over.

But then I will only give side comments unless you come with something significant in discussing Alfven's circuits etc. Then maybe I might consider a discussion again.
 
Yes, paaaaaaages ago, when I made a comparison of different definitions of discharges.

Was a dielectric breakdown a *REQUIREMENT* or did it claim a discharges cannot occur in a plasma?

Another stalling tactic Mikey, so you don't have to do anything real?

Don't even get me started. *YOU* could and *SHOULD* have cleared this up a long time ago by stepping in with your so called "expertise" and pointing out that discharges can and do occur in a plasma. Since you didn't and never have stated such a thing and explained that to your cohorts, we've been on a denial go round for MONTHS! Talk about stall tactics! You have NOTHING to complain about.
 
The implication made by electric Sun adherents is that the "electrical discharge" in the claim is akin to an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or like sparks in a toy plasma ball. So just to make things clear, is it reasonable to describe the claim as this?

When (IF EVER) can I expect you to explain what Peratt meant in the first sentence?
 
Mozina:
AGAIN:
How about answering my question? "So if I wave a conducting loop through a magnetic field (as is done in high school physics demonstrations), and create a current (moving electrons), do I also have a discharge?"
Is that how you are using this term? If so, say so. It's OK. It will allow us to move on.
Asked because you said, "any transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is in fact a 'discharge.'"
 
Last edited:
Don't even get me started. *YOU* could and *SHOULD* have cleared this up a long time ago by stepping in with your so called "expertise" and pointing out that discharges can and do occur in a plasma. Since you didn't and never have stated such a thing and explained that to your cohorts, we've been on a denial go round for MONTHS! Talk about stall tactics! You have NOTHING to complain about.


(Bolding mine.) It's not about tusenfem. It's about this unsupported claim...

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


The electric Sun adherents have implied that this "electrical discharge" is akin to an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or like sparks in a toy plasma ball. So just to clear up the ambiguity, is it reasonable to describe the claim as this?...

"A solar flare is an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball."

That's a yes/no question.

Just a reminder: Along with Mozina's preferred definition of "discharge" we need his definition of "circuit breakdown."


Yes, a definition of "circuit breakdown" would be helpful, too.
 
as the term discharge is totally unimportant, I could not care less about the definition that you want to use.

It may not be important you, but denial boy seems to want me to defend a statement that requires us to agree on terms. He won't, but that doesn't mean you won't. We'll just move on I suppose.

I doubt that Alfven calls an exploding double layer induction, so I guess that is the next term you are going to fight over.

Nope. I don't need to do that if you're just willing to call it a discharge. We can just agree on that term when a double layer goes ballistic.

But then I will only give side comments unless you come with something significant in discussing Alfven's circuits etc. Then maybe I might consider a discussion again.

The circuit energy is what we need to discuss next, and the transfer of the circuit energy into surrounding plasmas as a "discharge". Once we can agree on how ONE circuit discharges it's energy into plasma, we can move on to two of them "reconnecting".
 
Yes, a definition of "circuit breakdown" would be helpful, too.

Why? You wouldn't agree to it, read it, or comment on it, just like you won't comment on Peratt's first sentence! Where's the support of YOUR claim that "discharge" cannot occur in a conductor? Denying responsibility to support your own statements is still just denial. You do realize that, right?
 
Mozina:
AGAIN:
How about answering my question? "So if I wave a conducting loop through a magnetic field (as is done in high school physics demonstrations), and create a current (moving electrons), do I also have a discharge?"

Possibly. Did you "store" energy that you "discharged' through the *CONDUCTOR* over time, or is it plugged into a wall outlet and therefore it's just a "current"?
 
When (IF EVER) can I expect you to explain what Peratt meant in the first sentence?


Maybe when, if ever, someone makes a sane, intelligent case for why I should pick up the slack when crackpots dishonestly attempt to shirk their responsibility for the burden of proof of their claims.

Oh, and just to make sure everyone is on the same page here, is that the same Anthony Peratt who thinks electrical discharges are depicted in rock carvings of people with genital dicharges? This is a simple yes/no question, not a rhetorical question. Is it the same Peratt?
 
Maybe when, if ever, someone makes a sane, intelligent case for why I should pick up the slack when crackpots dishonestly attempt to shirk their responsibility for the burden of proof of their claims.

Crackpots make claims and then run like hell when asked to support those claims and NEVER provide published materials to back up their claims. Are you EVER going to back up your claims with science, or is this nothing but a personal attack by a troll? I'm waiting.....
 
Possibly. Did you "store" energy that you "discharged' through the *CONDUCTOR* over time, or is it plugged into a wall outlet and therefore it's just a "current"?

OK, let's say I create a magnetic field in an inductor by applying a DC current -- as long as the current is steady the field does not change. . Now, I place in the magnetic field of the inductor a conducting loop with an amp meter making a complete circuit. There is energy stored in that magnetic field. When I remove the current (open the switch) the field collapses causing a current in the circuit with the amp meter. This is a simple high school demonstration of induction.
But you said, any transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is in fact a 'discharge.'"
So do you regard the creation of that induced current a discharge?
 
It may not be important you, but denial boy seems to want me to defend a statement that requires us to agree on terms.


It is insane to attempt to defend a statement without being willing and/or able to define the terms of the statement. There. Another lesson in skepticism. That's the kind of thing that puts the "E" in JREF.
 
Electric Sun & Real Science

Do you really have that big of a problem comprehending the English language?
Speaking of problems comprehending the English language ...
Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is based on ideal MHD, which deals with plasmas that have zero resistivity.
And since no plasma in the universe has "zero" resistivity, he pretty much *ALWAYS* rejected it with the aforementioned items I listed to Mr. Spock involving INDUCTION at the point of PARTICLE reconnection.
So, Alfven rejects magnetic reconnection because Alfven assumes zero resistivity plasma and Mozina tells us, "no plasma in the universe has "zero" resistivity, ...". This is an explicit statement from Mozina that no plasma in the universe is consistent with Alfven's basic assumption of zero resistivity. It follows logically that Mozina should therefore reject Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection, and accept the physical validity of physical magnetic reconnection. However, Mozina goes on to says in full, "And since no plasma in the universe has "zero" resistivity, he pretty much *ALWAYS* rejected it ..." This is not a logically self consistent sentence. In fact, it is explicitly self-contradictory! Alfven rejects magnetic reconnection based on an assumption that Mozina agrees is not valid, but Mozina goes on to claim that the invalidity of Alfven's assumption supports his conclusion that required the validity of the assumption! Not only do I stand by my claim that Mozina does not know enough about plasma physics to discuss the matter intelligently, it appears that he does not know enough colloquial English or simple logic either.


Now, about that "science forum" thing ...
You expect wrong. ...
Ain't that the truth. I thought that *EVERYONE* was obligated to demonstrate their own claims with REAL published materials and that people would discuss those actual materials. Instead, it's just a denial-go-round around here, where the haters of EU theory deny all responsibility for their claims, handwave any claim they feel like and run like hell from any sort of discussion of Alfven's actual work, or Dungey's actual work. I thought this was a science forum. My bad.


Excuse me, but you conveniently forgot that I did exactly what you accuse me of not doing.
The difference between ideal MHD, which was invented by Alfven, and non-ideal MHD (or resistive MHD) was not well developed when Alfven wrote his books. I have and have read Cosmic Plasma and I can find no indication in it that Alfven ever deals explicitly with non-ideal MHD. All of Alfven's work is implicitly in the realm of ideal MHD, which is hardly likely to show up as an explicit statement from Alfven.
That is a correct and valid reason for not quoting Alfven. if you think it is not a correct and valid reason then give a correct and valid criticism.


Whether or not Alfven or anyone else rejected magnetic reconnection as a physical process is no longer relevant and has no place in this discussion. It is at best of only historical interest. Either we talk about relevant current physics as we know it to be or we do not. What's it going to be? I have already pointed out in numerous posts that Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is invalid in the face of current physics as we know it. But All Mozina can do is quote Alfven from 30 years ago, or longer, but Mozina never can, never has and never will actually deal with real physics as we know it. I submit on that basis that Mozina has nothing of value left to contribute to this or any similar discussion.
That is a correct and valid discussion of the science. Why did you accuse me of being unwilling to discuss science?


Indeed, since you are already on record as denying the validity of science in the first place, why do you even care whether or not anyone actually discusses science? The following was posted by me in this forum on 1 february 2010, almost a full year ago. You ignored it. I have re-posted it several times since then. You have ignored all of them as well. Will you ignore it again this time? Only the future will tell.
Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?


Now, let me make myself clear: I really don't give a damn how anybody chooses to define an "electrical discharge" because it is a completely irrelevant point that has nothing at all to do with the actual science (nothing at all).
It seems to me that whether or not one wishes to call the hot plasma an "electrical discharge" is not really the point. It is certainly a poor choice of words, designed to generate confusion in the absence of a constantly repeated definition. But the real issue is the physics that underlies the words. What physically is really happening is the point. This is where Mozina runs into the brick wall of physics and catastrophically fails the test. He rejects magnetic reconnection in favor of exploding double layers, even though physics rejects the latter in favor of the former. He rejects the frozen flux approximation for magnetic fields in a plasma even though physics requires it. These two points are the most fundamental and critical points in this entire discussion. Everything in the physics of coronal heating, coronal loops, flares & CME's stems from these two critical concepts (with some thermodynamics & radiative transfer thrown in, but they don't yet seem to be points of contention).


Despite whining about other people running away from discussions of science (a monumentally false claim, by the way), you are yourself the one who wishes to avoid science at all costs. That's why you push so hard to maintain an inane & pointless argument over the definition of "discharge", and that's why all you can do is copy & paste Alfven, or some other holy authority from the scientifically distant past. You are the one who drives the conversation away from science, and I think it is a deliberate ploy on your part. Since you know that you really don't understand science, you try to hide the fact by avoiding it altogether. And since you don't believe that science is valid anyway, why would you want to have a scientific discussion?


Finally, allow me to repeat myself with emphasis. This is the real bottom line:
As long as Mozina rejects these two critical concepts of physics, magnetic reconnection and the frozen flux approximation, then this discussion and all other similar discussions everywhere are doomed at once to become infinite loops of the same thing over & over & over & over again, ad infinitum, as has become the case for this discussion. Quite simply it's Mozina vs. physics, and I choose physics over Mozina every time.
 
This explanation from Scott settles it for me and see Alfvens Solar Prominence Circuit "Exploding DL produces Solar Flare" ;)
(my bold)

Prominences, Flares, and CME's

All of the above discussion applies to the steady-state (or almost steady-state) operation of the Electric Sun. But there are several dynamic phenomena such as flares, prominences, and coronal mass ejections (CME's) that we observe. How are they produced? Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, although not aware of the Juergens Electric Sun model, advanced his own theory (3) of how prominences and solar flares are formed electrically. It is completely consistent with the Juergens model. It too is electrical.
Any electric current, i, creates a magnetic field (the stronger the current - the stronger the magnetic field, and the more energy it contains). Curved magnetic fields cannot exist without either electrical currents or time varying electric fields. Energy, Wm, stored in any magnetic field, is given by the expression
Wm = 1/2 Li ^2. If the current, i, is interrupted, the field collapses and its energy must be delivered somewhere. The magnetic field of the Sun sometimes, and in some places on its surface, forms an "omega" shaped loop. This loop extends out through the double sheath layer (DL) of the chromosphere. One of the primary properties of Birkeland currents is that they generally follow magnetic field lines. A strong looping current will produce a secondary toroidal magnetic field that will surround and try to expand the loop. If the current following the loop becomes too strong, the DL will be destroyed1. This interrupts the current (like opening a switch in an inductive circuit) and the energy stored in the primary magnetic field is explosively released into space.

It should be well understood (certainly by anyone who has had a basic physics course) that the magnetic field "lines" that are drawn to describe a magnetic field, have no beginning nor end. They are closed paths. In fact one of Maxwell's famous equations is: "div B = 0". Which says precisely that (in the language of vector differential calculus). So when magnetic fields collapse due to the interruption of the currents that produce them, they do not "break" or "merge" and "recombine" as some uninformed astronomers have claimed (e.g., see the quote regarding the mainstream concerns above - in 4. Acceleration of the Solar "Wind" Ions). The field simply collapses (very quickly!). On the Sun this collapse releases a tremendous amount of energy, and matter is thrown out away from the surface - as with any explosively rapid reaction. This release is consistent with and predicted by the Electric Sun model as described above. Some astronomers have proposed that heat is routinely transported out to the lower corona by magnetic fields and released there by "reconnection of magnetic field lines, whereby oppositely directed lines cancel each other out, converting magnetic energy into heat. The process requires that the field lines be able to diffuse through the plasma." This idea is inventive but, unfortunately, has no scientific basis whatever.

Note that although astronomers ought to be aware that magnetic fields require electrical currents or time varying E-fields to produce them, currents and E-fields are never mentioned in standard models. Possibly because they do not seem to be included in astrophysics curricula.

Double layers can be destroyed by at least two different mechanisms: a) Zener Breakdown - The electric field gradient becomes strong enough to rip all charges away from an area, thus breaking the discharge path; b) Avalanche Breakdown - A literal avalanche occurs wherein all charges are swept away and no conducting charges are left - thus the conducting path is opened.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Hannes Alfven's Solar Prominence Circuit
 

Attachments

  • Exploding DL e-sun3.jpg
    Exploding DL e-sun3.jpg
    18.2 KB · Views: 1
It is insane to attempt to defend a statement without being willing and/or able to define the terms of the statement. There. Another lesson in skepticism. That's the kind of thing that puts the "E" in JREF.

Education in a science forum begins by posting published materials to support your case. Since I have done that, and you have not, we are at an impasse. You are effectively "harassing/stalking" me at this point. You continue to demand I support a statement, yet you *REFUSE* to discuss the first sentence of the PUBLISHED DEFINITION of an electrical discharge that I provided. You *REFUSE* to provide one of your own that has been published that supports *ANY* of the *MANY* lies you have told in this thread. Where do we go from here, more harassment, more cyberstalking, more refusal on your part to participate in a SCIENCE forum using SCIENTIFIC and published materials to support your statements?
 
Last edited:
OK, let's say I create a magnetic field in an inductor by applying a DC current -- as long as the current is steady the field does not change. . Now, I place in the magnetic field of the inductor a conducting loop with an amp meter making a complete circuit. There is energy stored in that magnetic field. When I remove the current (open the switch) the field collapses causing a current in the circuit with the amp meter. This is a simple high school demonstration of induction.
But you said, any transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is in fact a 'discharge.'"
So do you regard the creation of that induced current a discharge?

Anytime you "discharge/dissipate" that stored energy through/in a "conductor", it is in fact a "discharge", yes. Alfven explicitly uses the same term you do, INDUCTION, not "magnetic reconnection", but anytime we *RELEASE* that STORED energy, it's a "discharge". I really don't know how much more clear I can be.

Can a discharge occur in a plasma, yes or no? I really need some honest and clear answers now.
 
Anytime you "discharge/dissipate" that stored energy through/in a "conductor", it is in fact a "discharge", yes. Alfven explicitly uses the same term you do, INDUCTION, not "magnetic reconnection", but anytime we *RELEASE* that STORED energy, it's a "discharge". I really don't know how much more clear I can be.

Can a discharge occur in a plasma, yes or no? I really need some honest and clear answers now.

That's great! Finally some clarity!
So, what you have been labeling a "discharge" is the process of electromagnetic induction.
As I have said a few times, I have no expertise in solar physics, so I don't know why my opinion about solar plasmas has any value.
Nevertheless, in answer to your question, I see absolutely no reason why an induced current cannot be created in a plasma, so by your definition of discharge, the answer is yes, a discharge can occur in a plasma.
OK, now why do you say a solar flare is a discharge -- in contrast to saying that discharges occur within flares?
 
Last edited:
By *ALL* I mostly mean GM and RC and *ANYONE ELSE* that *INSISTS* that a dielectric breakdown is an absolute *REQUIREMENT* for a "discharge", or believes that a discharge cannot happen inside of a conductor. Both of those *UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS* are false, and I'm getting off the denial-go-round, even you will not.
Try not to continuously lie about what I write.

According to the definition of electrical discharge generally used in current physics:
A dielectric breakdown is DEFINED as an absolute *REQUIREMENT* in the USUAL DEFINITION of an electrical discharge. By that DEFINITION an electrical discharge cannot happen inside of a conductor.

According to some authors in older publication (and maybe a few in current papers):
No dielectric breakdown is DEFINED as an absolute *REQUIREMENT* in their DEFINITION of an electrical discharge. By that DEFINITION an electrical discharge is just a current.

Both claims are supported: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
 
That's great! Finally some clarity!
So, what you have been labeling a "discharge" is the process of electromagnetic induction.
As I have said a few tines, I have no expertise in solar physics, so I don't know why my opinion about solar plasmas has any value.
Nevertheless, in answer to your question, I see absolutely no reason why an induced current cannot be created in a plasma, so by your definition of discharge, the answer is yes, a discharge can occur in a plasma.
OK, now why do you say a solar flare is a discharge -- in contrast to saying that discharges occur within flares?

Great, that's real progress IMO. I'm happy.

Ok, let's look at the REST of Peratt's definition about the 'effects' of the discharge, what FEATURES we should be looking for. That seems like the next logical step. Bear with me a bit, I'm a bit swamped at work right now, but I'm catching up.
 
Try reading what I state rather then continuously lying about what I write.

According to the definition of electrical discharge generally used in current physics:

Until and unless you can PROVIDE A PUBLISHED DEFINITION to support your claim, your claim to speak for other physicists remains in dispute. Do you recognize that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom