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

Status
Not open for further replies.


Nothing in that article supports the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

Again, this is your own strawman. It is *YOUR* claim that *NO* discharge processes occur in solar flares. You are wrong.


This has already been discussed and understood by all the other participants in this conversation. The quote from the article would be properly interpreted as this...

Pinches occur naturally in (electrical discharges such as lightning bolts,[6]) (the aurora,[7]) (current sheets,[8]) and (solar flares.[9])


It has been rejected as support for the electrical discharge CME claim. It is a poorly assembled phrase that only EU/PC crackpots, and perhaps a handful of others wholly unqualified to understand the science involved, would misinterpret to mean electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

Notably the reference source does, however, support the consensus opinion that magnetic reconnection is responsible for solar flares.
 
Bruce refuted:

Got a link to a paper where gamma rays were created by "magnetic reconnection" in a lab Tim? You've always been such a great source of info on such topics. You seem to be dismissing "discharges" as an option based on this specific criticism as I understand it:

Electric discharge, as I understand the words, is not physically reasonable. In order to have "electric discharge", you have to mechanically separate charges to build up a strong electric field (that's what Bruce tries to do). Then you get breakdown and discharge arcs. Then you have to do it all over again. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between that scenario and a perpetual motion machine. If the energy we see is all supposed to come from the discharges, then where does the energy come from, and what is the mechanism, that produces charge separation in the first place? And since you are separating charges in an electrically conductive environment, how do you prevent quick discharge, and manage to build up strong electric fields?

Alfven handles that by suggesting it's connected to different points on the photosphere and the movements of plasma around the footprints continues and therefore continues to generate the charge.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963IAUS...16...35
 
No mention of electrical discharges.
[/B]Just [/COLOR]plasma discharges and the discharge currents used to create the plasma.
The abstract mentions discharges.

The introduction makes it clear that they are talking about plasma discharges

Split hairs much? What point are you attempting to make? A discharge is a discharge is a discharge.

I'd like some confirmation that you actually read the paper RC. What ONE x-ray emission difference between their discharge experiments and solar flare knowledge at the time did he discuss in that paper, and is that still true today?

A continued insistence on thinking that this paper is about electrical discharges is evidence of a "denial process".

Your denial that electricity was involved in the discharge is the "denial process" RC. :)
 
Split hairs much? What point are you attempting to make? A discharge is a discharge is a discharge.
A dam discharges water: Is that an electrical discharge?
A plasma discharge is not an electrical discharge

I'd like some confirmation that you actually read the paper RC. What ONE x-ray emission difference between their discharge experiments and solar flare knowledge at the time did he discuss in that paper, and is that still true today?
That is way silly - read the post where I quote the introduction. But just in case here it is again:
Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena (1974)
No mention of electrical discharges.
Just
plasma discharges and the discharge currents used to create the plasma.
The abstract mentions discharges.

The introduction to the paper makes it clear that they are talking about plasma discharges
As reported here, a simple laboratory plasma discharge, which is believed to have a number of phenomenological similarities with solar flares, has been studied in order to demonstrate that some of the physical processes involved could be common to both cases.

But I'd like some confirmation that you actually read the paper Michael Mozina. What ONE x-ray emission difference between their discharge experiments and solar flare knowledge at the time did Tong Nyong Lee discuss in that paper, and is that still true today?

Your denial that electricity was involved in the discharge is the "denial process" RC. :)
My ability to read the paper and see that they are talking plasma discharges is basic reading comprehension - not denial. I also can comprehend that electricity was used to create the plasma discharges.
 
Really!

Read the atricles: These are about the creation of plasma , IOW discharges of plasma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc
An electric arc is an electrical breakdown of a gas which produces an ongoing plasma discharge, resulting from a current flowing through normally nonconductive media such as air.
(emphasis added)
One more time: Plasma is a conductive media. Thus an electric arc or electrical discharge is by definition impossible in a plasma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_discharge
An electric glow discharge is a plasma formed by the passage of current at 100 V to several kV through a gas at low pressure, such as argon or another noble gas.
(emphasis added)

Here is an example. Note that the creation of the plasma is called a discharge.
Tokamak Plasma discharge
Prior to the discharge there is a high vacuum of 10-8 millibar in the vacuum vessel. First the external magnetic field is built up and the current started up in the transformer coil. Shortly before the discharge is initiated, hydrogen gas is admitted to the vessel, whereupon the pressure rises to a few 10-5 millibar. The transformer is then discharged; i.e. the current is slowly reduced. In this way a peripheral voltage of about 10 volts is induced, which triggers the discharge: The hydrogen gas is ionised – it transforms into a plasma built up by feedback-controlled adjustment of the plasma position, plasma cross-section, and plasma current. In keeping with the current rise, the plasma density is brought to the required value by gas intake. Once plasma heating has commenced, the actual experiments then proceed in the state with constant plasma current that has now set in.
(emphasis added)
So to create the plsama there is
  1. the discharge of the transformer (electrical discharge) followed by
  2. the creation of the plasma: the plasma discharge.
 
Hoy Vey!

RC the *ELECTRON FLOW* is what ionizes the elements! The arc sustains an ongoing PLASMA DISCHARGE!
 
An electric arc is an electrical breakdown of a gas which produces an ongoing plasma discharge, resulting from a current flowing through normally nonconductive media such as air. A synonym is arc discharge.

Which part in yellow do you not understand RC?
 
Which part in yellow do you not understand RC?
All of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc
An electric arc is an electrical breakdown of a gas which produces an ongoing plasma discharge, resulting from a current flowing through normally nonconductive media such as air.
Which part in yellow do you not understand MM?
This is an electrical discharge through normally non-conductive media creating plasma. The technical term for creating plasma in such a manner is a plasma discharge.
I know MM: it is confusing to have
  • an electrical discharge through an non-conductive media and
  • the plasma created by that electrical discharge called a plasma discharge.
But you will just have to live with it.
 
Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection I

Got a link to a paper where gamma rays were created by "magnetic reconnection" in a lab Tim? You've always been such a great source of info on such topics.
No, but then again, so what? You fall victim to the extreme logical fallacy that anything which cannot be recreated exactly in a laboratory cannot be an example of valid empirical science. On that point, as has been exhaustively pointed out in the past, you are dead wrong (e.g., What is "Empirical" Science? III). The universe at large, and the astrophysical systems in it are far larger than any laboratory could possibly be. The universe at large, and the astrophysical systems in it are capable of far larger energies than any laboratory could ever generate or contain. Therefore it is a logical necessity that the universe at large, and the astrophysical systems in it can and will generate phenomena which cannot possibly exist in any conceivable Earth-based laboratory. It is therefore not relevant whether or not magnetic reconnection generates gamma rays in a lab.

It is relevant that magnetic reconnection has actually been observed in Earth-based laboratory experiments (e.g., Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III), a fact which you brazenly continue to deny, which says more about the relationship between you and ignorance personified, than anything else. It is relevant that accelerated charged particles will emit electromagnetic radiation, as a necessary consequence of the laws of physics. And it is relevant that, given a high enough acceleration, those charged particles will emit gamma rays. We have been over all of this before, and on this point you remain steadfastly as wrong now as you were then, and will always be.

You seem to be dismissing "discharges" as an option based on this specific criticism as I understand it:
Electric discharge, as I understand the words, is not physically reasonable. In order to have "electric discharge", you have to mechanically separate charges to build up a strong electric field (that's what Bruce tries to do). Then you get breakdown and discharge arcs. Then you have to do it all over again. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between that scenario and a perpetual motion machine. If the energy we see is all supposed to come from the discharges, then where does the energy come from, and what is the mechanism, that produces charge separation in the first place? And since you are separating charges in an electrically conductive environment, how do you prevent quick discharge, and manage to build up strong electric fields?
Alfven handles that by suggesting it's connected to different points on the photosphere and the movements of plasma around the footprints continues and therefore continues to generate the charge.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963IAUS...16...35
Once again, you are entirely wrong. Alfven is talking about electric currents, not electric discharges. Bruce talks about electric discharges as a result of friction between dust particles, and Bruce's argument is absolute garbage that violates the laws of physics with gusto & determination. As for the electric currents, neither I nor the standard model of solar physics have any problem with electric currents flowing throughout the photosphere of the sun and above. Indeed, electric currents are a necessary requirement of the standard model.

Bruce and his work can be dispensed with as a joke pure & simple. Alfven was right that electric currents flow in the sun, but his manner of describing them is not well suited for modern plasma physics, which is far more complicated than anything Alfven dealt with. But you don't accept Alfven anyway, so why do you even bother with him? It is the primary claim of the electric sun theory that nuclear reactions inside the sun are either a minor source of energy, or absent altogether, and that the sun is powered by electric currents flowing into the sun from the outside. It is crucial to point out that this electric sun hypothesis is not consistent with anything Alfven ever said or did. So, if you accept the electric sun, then as a necessary logical consequence, you must reject Alfven. Likewise, if you accept Alfven, then you must reject both the electric sun, and in particular everything from Bruce. Make up your mind.

I stand fast by the conclusion I voiced over a year ago:
It makes far better physical sense to realize that magnetic reconnection will transfer a great deal of kinetic energy directly to the plasma, and that Faraday's Law will also generate strong (but temporary) electric fields as a result of the ubiquitous and unavoidable dynamo magnetic fields in the photosphere. This completely avoids all of the physical difficulties related to discharge mechanisms, is all completely consistent with known basic physics, and is all completely consistent with the wide variety of observed properties of the sun.

In short, the mainstream models work well and make physical sense, whereas the electrical discharge mechanism does not work and does not make physical sense. Hence, unless you can come up with far stronger arguments than you have managed to muster thus far, I will stick to the mainstream.
 
Alright, I was just trying to clarify and understand what you meant. Wouldn't their longevity be related to the source and stability of the current flow to some degree?

the longevity of current carrying DLs depends on the current, their strength, possible instabilities in the plasme, etc. etc. etc.
 
Um, essentially what you're saying is that the path of least resistance is to "go with the flow" (of the filament).

no not "go with the flow" but "go along the field whilst gyrating around it"

Ok, but when Alfven discusses and quantifies the energy transfer process he discusses and includes the energy of the whole circuit(s).

All kinds of plasma behaviour, especially magnetic loops that have currents flow along them can be represented by a circuit representation which consist of a battery V, a resistor R, a capacitance C, a possible double layer DL (with the foot of the L pointing in the direction of the current). Now, this gives a very global description of the system, the long wavelength approximation. You just throw away all the plasma physics that is in there and replace it with a resistivity and a battery and a capacitance, and you forget about the small scale stuff, like plasma waves, wave-particle interactions etc etc, everything that is small on the scale size of the magnetic loop is combined in the global parameters V, R and C.

And yes, you can find the energy of that circuit, and what could be released by some process, however that process will be too small to be described by the circuit representation.

Not every element or molecule is ionized in the solar atmosphere. That's all I meant. Then again that filament is "dark" for a reason.

The mainstream definition of dust is not just not ionized elements of molecules, there is a size definition, and non-ionized atoms and simple molecules are much (up to 2 orders of magnitude) smaller than the size of dust. This has been pointed out to you before (by myself and others) but appparently, you don't want to accept this.
 
Um, T, you seem to be suggesting that something *OTHER THAN* current flow creates filaments and double layers in plasma. What?

Where on Earth do I claim that? Don't put words in my mouth to make yourself come out good or feel good. Please quote me specifically.

Also, double layers need not be produced by currents, they can also be created between plasmas of different quality, how about reading Alfvén and his successors, especially Raadu, on this topic?
 
Now, this gives a very global description of the system, the long wavelength approximation. You just throw away all the plasma physics that is in there and replace it with a resistivity and a battery and a capacitance, and you forget about the small scale stuff, like plasma waves, wave-particle interactions etc etc, everything that is small on the scale size of the magnetic loop is combined in the global parameters V, R and C.
Do the plasma waves excluded include Alfvén waves?

MM: The theory of Alfvén waves (later confirmed in experiments and observations) contributed to Alfvén being granted the Nobel Prize. They are a probable energy source for coronal heating and the solar wind.
I suspect that you stating that the circuit representation is the only valid representation of plasma physics rules out Alfvén waves. In that case, do you think that Alfvén's Nobel Prize was wrongly granted?
 
No, but then again, so what?

So what is the point of going for "magnetic reconnection" as a viable "explanation", if you've never seen it done? We know for a fact that discharges/pinches will emit these wavelengths already. Why do we need any "exotic" explanations, when a "simple" explanation already exists and we know it occurs in the atmosphere of every large body in the solar system with a magnetic field?

FYI, you and I both know that your magnetic reconnection 'lab" techniques involve "discharges" through elements to "heat up" the plasma, to create "pinches" in the plasma. Those "pinches", or what Alfven called "circuits", were simply run into one another. Turn off the electrical current and the show is over in an instant Tim. It's "current flow" that drives the parade, not "magnetic lines".
 
Last edited:
the longevity of current carrying DLs depends on the current, their strength, possible instabilities in the plasme, etc. etc. etc.
So what *EXACTLY* creates a "double layer", and a "pinch" that might emit x-rays and gamma-rays and neutrons and stuff we observe in solar events?
 
And yes, you can find the energy of that circuit, and what could be released by some process, however that process will be too small to be described by the circuit representation.

I know you've read Alfven's work, so I know that you know that you and he are in disagreement on this point. That also seems to be the basic disagreement between our two positions. Could you elaborate as to how the
B orientations delivers any more "energy" to the event than the E orientation?

I don't get it.
 
So what is the point of going for "magnetic reconnection" as a viable "explanation", if you've never seen it done? We know for a fact that discharges/pinches will emit these wavelengths already. Why do we need any "exotic" explanations, when a "simple" explanation already exists and we know it occurs in the atmosphere of every large body in the solar system with a magnetic field?


The claim is that electrical discharges are or are the cause of solar flares and CMEs. Given the current state of solar physics it's a ridiculous claim, downright stupid. And if there was anything to it, so far in all these posts in this thread nobody has been willing to take the time and invest the necessary scientific effort to support it.

A bunch of unsupported assertions and waving around some outdated material while completely ignoring contemporary science doesn't seem to be getting the "simple" message across. The "simple" explanation from the crackpots is apparently not simple enough for them to actually describe it in a legitimately scientific way, quantitatively and objectively. Could it be that it's not that "simple"? Maybe that "simple" explanation is just plain bogus? Or do the crackpots just not have what it takes to explain something "simple"?
 
Absolutely.

Just go away. At least T has read the materials in question. He also explains his position clearly and directly and scientifically. You on the other hand dodge every direct scientific question put to you, like why Alfven used the term circuits in that paper I cited, because you never did your homework.
 
Last edited:
The claim is that electrical discharges are or are the cause of solar flares and CMEs.

First of all, who claimed that? Quote me!

Given the current state of solar physics it's a ridiculous claim, downright stupid. And if there was anything to it, so far in all these posts in this thread nobody has been willing to take the time and invest the necessary scientific effort to support it.

That's all false information. You just refuse to read or respond to any papers presented. You handwave it all away in a sentence or two.
 
Also, double layers need not be produced by currents, they can also be created between plasmas of different quality, how about reading Alfvén and his successors, especially Raadu, on this topic?

Could you briefly explain what you mean by "quality' and how that term (condition) might apply to the solar atmosphere?
 
Last edited:
Could it be that it's not that "simple"? Maybe that "simple" explanation is just plain bogus? Or do the crackpots just not have what it takes to explain something "simple"?

When does Occum's razor apply to this argument? Electrical current/discharges through plasma can generate and do generate x-rays and gamma rays on Earth and other bodies in the solar system every single day. Why do I need something "exotic" and something Alfven labeled "pseudoscience" to explain what nature does with electricity every single day of the year?
 
That is a way to a means!

Yes, and nature does that all the time.

In astrophysical plasmas there is no discharge in a Bennett pinch.

It's certainly a "current carrying device" that is powered by "current flow". The pinch stops the moment we turn off the "current flow" and the plasma turns right back into a gas.
 
Alfven was right that electric currents flow in the sun, but his manner of describing them is not well suited for modern plasma physics, which is far more complicated than anything Alfven dealt with.

Huh? He "dealt with" every topic under the sun (and universe) in terms of "circuits". It's only 'complicated" now because you overcomplicate what should be and is an otherwise straight forward (electrical) process.

But you don't accept Alfven anyway, so why do you even bother with him?

In terms of his descriptions of corona loops, and solar atmospheric behaviors like flares and CME's, I *ABSOLUTELY* agree with his position. In terms of power sources ect, not so much.
 
Yes, and nature does that all the time.
No: Nature does not construct big metal chambers to generate discharges of plasma.
Nature does use electric currents all of the time to create plasma, e.g. lighning.
Nature does use heat all of the time to create plasma, e.g. stars.

It's certainly a "current carrying device" that is powered by "current flow". The pinch stops the moment we turn off the "current flow" and the plasma turns right back into a gas.
Plasma generating apparatus in labs are powered by electricity.
In some lasers are used to create plasma.
In some electrical currents are used to create plasma.
So what?
 
First of all, who claimed that? Quote me!


Here are some of the easier to find quotes that certainly infer staunch support for that claim....

*YOU* are the one that made specific claims about CME's and flares *NOT* being related to discharges. I've shown you evidence to the contrary. You can't even keep your stories straight anymore and you certainly have no idea how to "tell the truth". Who (which moderator) told you that this thread had the purpose that you claimed? Let me guess. You just "made it up" like you make up all of your ridiculously false statements.

The effect of these electrical discharges on the surface of the photosphere is most visible in 1600A SDO images. The flare process clearly begins *UNDER* (not above) the photosphere and the mass flow through the photosphere light up the surface in 1600A. The same effects can be seen in the 1700A images as well, but they are most visible in the 1600A images/videos.

If you've got bandwidth to burn, the 94A SDO images have a very interesting feature in them today. You can watch the active region on the right at about the 2:30 position "glow discharge" to an area in the north. It looks virtually identical to the ray like discharges that my "small" plasma ball makes when you touch the sides. The discharge is unusual in size, and very interesting IMO.

It's really called a "discharge" inside of a plasma.

Alfven describes these magnetic ropes as *CURRENT CARRYING CIRCUITS*. The mainstream points RHESSI at the Earth and sees x-rays and gamma rays from *DISCHARGES* in the Earth's atmosphere. It points the same device at the sun, sees those same high energy signatures and claims "magnetic reconnection did it". Baloney. Electrical discharges work in nature and they work in the lab, and your beloved "magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than "circuit reconnection" with a stupid name. Magnetic lines form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end and without the ability to "disconnect" or "reconnect" to any other magnetic line. Circuits disconnect and reconnect all the time in nature.

Of course it could be that the claim has been abandoned and I just don't recall seeing the post. So do we all agree now that electrical discharges are not, or are not the cause of, solar flares and CMEs?

That's all false information. You just refuse to read or respond to any papers presented. You handwave it all away in a sentence or two.


Since I don't refuse to read any papers presented, that comment is another lie. The fact is the material presented has been so thoroughly misunderstood and dishonestly misrepresented by the PC/EU nuts and electric Sun crackpots that it hardly merits a legitimately scientific response. That doesn't mean I haven't read it. It means I don't care to indulge some crank's desire to talk all sciency when it's clear that the crackpots clearly don't possess the qualifications necessary to understand real science anyway.
 
Double layer answers the first question.
It is obvious that the solar atmosphere has plasma with different properties.

A double layer is a structure in a plasma and consists of two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge

I was looking for something *OTHER THAN* charge separation RC. You guys just told me that no plasma can have a net "electrical" charge, all it can do is "carry current". Which is it?
 
Here are some of the easier to find quotes that certainly infer staunch support for that claim....

Thanks. Now I at least know you're reading *SOMETHING*. :) Of course you never dealt with your claim and you handwaved away all the physical evidence, including Alfven's work. What's left to discuss?

Of course it could be that the claim has been abandoned and I just don't recall seeing the post.

Nope. Evidently you folks are getting all upity over the terms "plasma discharge" and "electrical discharge". It's still a flow of electrons through the plasma and the filaments won't and don't form without the "current flow" through the plasma. Do any of you even know the name of the device Bennett used to create pinches?

Let's see:

You sort of handwaved away at those lab test with iron. You don't care that discharges and "pinches" due to "current flow" generate gamma rays. You have no evidence at all that "magnetic reconnection' is even capable of such a stunt *in the absence of the pinch itself*. In fact you have no evidence that *ANY* of your theories work in the absence of "current flow" because each and every one of the lab experiments done to date *REQUIRE* 'current flow" to sustain them.

Current flow, discharge, call it whatever you like, but it's the one force of nature that not only creates plasma from gases, but also cause them to generate gamma rays and pinches and double layers in plasmas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom