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

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

It doesn't matter what you've read if you don't possess the qualifications to understand it.

Let's recap for a second. You simply DENY the existence of Bruce's work, and Birkeland's work and/or the legitimacy thereof. Without so much as *READING* Alfven's material you reject his CIRCUIT approach to solar physics events. My position is congruent with Alfven's position and I've read his materials myself. Somehow based on clairvoyance and a "faith" in your superior math skills, you've not only set yourself up as the authority figure, you deny any and all other opinions on the topic, including the Nobel Prize winning physicist that WROTE MHD theory. Notice any flaw in your notion of self proclaimed 'expertise' when you haven't even read Alfven's materials for yourself?

Quote:

And after being challenged time and again, you haven't yet shown that you have any such qualifications.

It turns out you haven't even read Alfven's work, and therefore you have no idea what a "current carrying" plasma might be, or how to model it mathematically, even when I've handed you all the math, including that paper from China that talks (correctly) about a "discharge filament". The plasma is a "current carrying" plasma GM. Alfven certainly had the "qualifications" that you and I both lack, and he rejected your concepts of "pseudoscience". Alfven treated you "magnetic line" as a "circuit" that could be interrupted and thereby release the electromagnetic kinetic energy into the flare. You have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't even bothered to read the material in question. Don't even *THINK* about lecturing me about your clairvoyant MHD "qualification". When you've read the material, let me know. Until then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you haven't studied the material in question, and you have yet to point out any flaw in Alfven's work. Until you *DO* point out a flaw in Alfven's work (and oh ya, READ IT), you won't have any credibility on this topic.

Quote:

Your failure to understand solar physics isn't Alfvén's responsibility.

As it relates to coronal loops being "plasma pinches" and "circuits", my position is completely congruent with Alfven's position, whereas your position is not. Denial is such an ugly thing.....

Quote:

It's not Birkeland's responsibility.

FYI, Birkeland's model was a "discharge" solar model the moment he called it a "cathode".

Quote:

It's not Bruce's responsibility.

It's not Bruce's fault you didn't read his material either, or point out any flaws in his work. Keep in mind that your mythical transition region has been destroyed by those 1600 and 1700A SDO images. The coronal loops ARE THE HEAT SOURCE OF THE CORONA, along with the "discharge process" from a cathode sun.

Quote:

Those guys are dead.

Sure, but their work is preserved for anyone to read for themselves. Then again they can choose the path of ignorance too and never bother to educate themselves to the work of scientists of the past.

Quote:

Science has progressed since they were involved in the process.

In terms of computer (electrical engineering) technologies and tangible goods, sure. In terms of astronomy however, there's nothing new under the sun. The mainstream is still peddling what Alfven called pseudoscience. You're running "circuits" into each other claiming that "magnetic reconnection" is the proper term for "circuit reconnection', and ignoring 100 years of scientific efforts, including empirical experiments. You still can't explain solar wind even though Birkeland "predicted it" a hundreds years ago.

Quote:

Much of what they believed has been shown to be wrong. And most of what you attribute to them was simply not their actual positions. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is dishonest.

When are you going to support your claim of "knowledge" that is refuted by Bruce (and others)?

It's one thing to claim for instance that 'I lack belief in God'. It's quite another to claim that "God does *NOT* exist". Do you see the distinction between these two positions? Your *CLAIM* is one of "knowledge". You *CLAIM* to be sure that no discharge processes are involved in flares and CME's, whereas Alfven, Bruce and many other *BEGAN* with "current flow" and the flare is a direct result of changes to that current flow. When are you going to retract your ridiculous claim? You're only making yourself look bad. Even *IF* magnetic reconnection isn't just a stupid name, in no way can you be absolutely certain that NO discharge processes (AKA CURRENT FLOW PROCESSES) are involved in flares?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

No. Regardless of your incessant and dishonest effort to shift the burden of proof, and regardless of your temper tantrum, it was your claim that electrical discharges are involved in solar flares and CMEs.

And I supported my claim with the writings of SEVERAL authors, including the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory. You however are dishonestly ignoring your responsibility to support *YOUR* claim of *KNOWLEDGE*.

Quote:

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.

I have directly supported my statements with the writings of Bruce, Alfven, and other authors. When did you intent to retract your claim of knowledge? You don't KNOW any such thing and the authors I cited directly refute your claim and they also reject your beliefs that magnetic lines 'disconnect' or 'reconnect' to other magnetic lines. The only "lines" that "reconnect" in the lab are called "circuits". Circuits disconnect and reconnect. Magnetic lines do not.

I *HAVE* supported my claim. When did you intend to support yours?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

[list][*]On the Filamentary Structure of the Solar Corona (1963) by Alfvén, Hannes
He never states that there are electrical discharges on the Sun.All he mentions is plasma currents.

When those "currents" are disrupted, the EM kinetic energy is released as a "flare". The flare is a direct result of a BENNETT PINCH/plasma pinch that is itself a "current flow" that is "disrupted"! Nothing like ignoring the whole "circuit" orientation of MHD theory when it suits you eh?

When did you intend to come clean an deal with Bruce's work openly? This "toss out the opposing viewpoints" is getting old.

The filament is a "current carrying" plasma pinch filament. It's just like the kind of filament you are running into one another in the lab too. It's created by "current flowing" through the filament. Alfven treats that as a *CIRCUIT* and looks at the TOTAL CIRCUIT ENERGY in terms of the flare energy. How long did you intend to simply deny that FACT?

[Michael Mozina]

Since both of you seem to believe that Alfven's circuit orientation to solar flare events is flawed, please point out a single flaw in any paper on this topic, or anything written on this topic from his book Cosmic Plasma. Ditto on Bruce. Please point out the specific flaw in his work, chapter and verse.

Until the two of you have found actual errors in Alfven's work and Bruce's work (chapter and verse), I really have no reason to believe that either of you know what you're talking about when claiming a KNOWLEDGE that NO electrical discharge processes are involved in solar flares.

[Michael Mozina]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00467.000.html

Were you two just intending to ignore this work *ENTIRELY*?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Your citations reveal that you are incapable of understanding what you read: [list][*]A 1946 paper by C.E.R. Bruce.
And links to his other work on the same invalid model.
His invalid model has been discussed a few times in the forum. He had a physically impossible solar model of dust particles causing "lightning strikes" that are solar prominences

There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun.

What pray tell prevents dust from forming above the photosphere and in low temperature sunspots? Do you actually believe that iron is highly ionized and emits lots of light at 94A that SDO might see for instance at 6000K?

Quote:

There is no dielectric medium to breakdown.

Something is highly ionizing that iron *THROUGHOUT* the loop. Alfven chalked that up to a plasma pinch and "current flow". What "lights up" a single coronal loop in 94A?

[Michael Mozina]

Quote:

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.

GM did NOT claim that he lacked belief that electrical discharge processes occur in flares and CME's. He made a STATEMENT OF FACT about the NONEXISTENCE of discharge processes in flares and CME's.

This is the same difference between strong and weak atheism. One can "lack belief" all they want *IN ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL ON THE TOPIC*. One can choose to "lack belief" in something for a variety of reasons, including simply lacking information on the topic.

It's completely different however to CLAIM that NO discharge processes are involved in solar CME's. There are plenty of authors that have written materials on this topic. GM is welcome to ignore them (and Alfven) all he likes, but it would not be correct to claim that no literature exists to support the belief that discharges are associated with solar flares.

[Michael Mozina]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00467.000.html

Did either of you two even COMMENT on this paper?

[Michael Mozina]

Quote:

Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena (1974)
No mention of electrical discharges. Just plasma discharges and the discharge currents used to create the plasma.

That's it? Hello? How exactly did you intend to explain a single coronal loop reaching millions of degrees without a discharge and currents?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

An electrical discharge occurs when there is a failure in an electrical circuit or a breakdown of an insulator. The solar atmosphere is plasma, a conducting medium. There is no insulating medium to breakdown.

FYI, the "electrical circuit" is the "plasma pinch". The "insulator" is created by the evacuated areas around those high density filaments. The breakdown of the circuit (it's pinched off) is what generates the flare. The kinetic energy and EM energy of the filament and the *ENTIRE* circuit is released as a flare. The insulation comes from the fact that the filament acts to create a "pinch" where all matter is pulled into the filament and the areas directly around the filament have been evacuated of matter by that EM field and filamentation process. I've already quoted the relevant comments from Alfven from Cosmic Plasma. If you want the relevant maths, read the book for yourself.

[Michael Mozina]

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/...current_c3.mpg

FYI, the last two CME/flares that we saw on the 23rd and 24th directed toward the 11:00 and 5:00 directions were *CAUSED* by filament eruptions in DF000003 and DF000001 respectively. DF..001 finally blew (full eruption) on the 24th UT. It took long enough. If you noticed, it moved up into the atmosphere over a few hours of time and then finally blew. That's why a 24 hour prediction window is somewhat questionable. Their change over time (from low to high altitude) is a clear sign of a pending eruption. Unfortunately that tends to take place over hours, not days.

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html

You'll notice that DF eruptions are not the same kind of 'flare" as a standard EM flare. They do NOT create large x-ray spikes like EM flares, but they do spew a lot of mass. That mass is concentrated in the filament due to the "pinch" effect. Once that mass "erupts" it can (eventually) be seen in Lasco and/or COR images.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Let's recap for a second. You simply DENY the existence of Bruce's work, [...]

I don't deny the existence of Bruce's work, so you're lying.

Quote:

[...] and Birkeland's work [...]

... or the existence of Birkeland's work, so you're lying again.

Quote:

[...] and/or the legitimacy thereof.

... or the legitimacy thereof, so you're lying once more. That's the third lie in this post and you haven't even gotten past the first sentence. When Birkeland was asked to support a claim did he lie instead of support it? When Alfvén was asked to support a claim did he lie?

Quote:

Without so much as *READING* Alfven's material you reject his CIRCUIT approach to solar physics events. My position is congruent with Alfven's position and I've read his materials myself. Somehow based on clairvoyance and a "faith" in your superior math skills, you've not only set yourself up as the authority figure, you deny any and all other opinions on the topic, including the Nobel Prize winning physicist that WROTE MHD theory. Notice any flaw in your notion of self proclaimed 'expertise' when you haven't even read Alfven's materials for yourself?

I notice that you've lied several more times, first in stating that I haven't so much as read Alfvén's material, when all I said about that was I don't recall reading much for many years. My position isn't based on clairvoyance, so there's another lie. My position isn't based on any sense of superiority in my math skills, so you're into your, what, fifth lie of this post? Was Birkeland a liar? Was Bruce? Was Alfvén?

Oh, and I don't care if Alfvén wrote the theory of general relativity or even the Christian Bible. If he was wrong about plasma cosmology, he was wrong.

Quote:

It turns out you haven't even read Alfven's work, and therefore you have no idea what a "current carrying" plasma might be, or how to model it mathematically, even when I've handed you all the math, [...]

You haven't handed me any math, so you're lying again. Shall we keep counting?

Quote:

[...] including that paper from China that talks (correctly) about a "discharge filament". The plasma is a "current carrying" plasma GM.

The plasma in the solar atmosphere is electrically conductive.

Quote:

Alfven certainly had the "qualifications" that you and I both lack, and he rejected your concepts of "pseudoscience". Alfven treated you "magnetic line" as a "circuit" that could be interrupted and thereby release the electromagnetic kinetic energy into the flare. You have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't even bothered to read the material in question.

And how has Alfvén done keeping up with solar physics over the past fifteen years or so? Oh, that's right, the poor old bastard died. Too bad for those idiots who worship him that the entire field of plasma physics didn't just grind to a halt in 1995. But science has this way of continuing onward with more and better explanations for the workings of the Universe.

Quote:

Don't even *THINK* about lecturing me about your clairvoyant MHD "qualification".

Obviously I haven't claimed to have clairvoyant MHD "qualification", so your comment is gibberish.

Quote:

When you've read the material, let me know. Until then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you haven't studied the material in question, and you have yet to point out any flaw in Alfven's work. Until you *DO* point out a flaw in Alfven's work (and oh ya, READ IT), you won't have any credibility on this topic.

Whether you've read or "studied" anything Alfvén wrote is irrelevant unless you have the qualifications to understand the simple scientific concepts and the specifics of the science under discussion. You've been asked many times to demonstrate that you possess those qualifications and you have failed to do so.

Quote:

As it relates to coronal loops being "plasma pinches" and "circuits", my position is completely congruent with Alfven's position, whereas your position is not. Denial is such an ugly thing.....

FYI, Birkeland's model was a "discharge" solar model the moment he called it a "cathode".

Birkeland never proposed a solar model. His interest was the Earth, the auroras, and how the Sun affected those. Outside of that he just dabbled in solar science, your constant dishonest misrepresentation of his work notwithstanding.

Quote:

It's not Bruce's fault you didn't read his material either, or point out any flaws in his work. Keep in mind that your mythical transition region has been destroyed by those 1600 and 1700A SDO images. The coronal loops ARE THE HEAT SOURCE OF THE CORONA, along with the "discharge process" from a cathode sun.

Yet you still haven't been able to demonstrate that your "cathode Sun" is even remotely possible. According to the known laws of physics, it isn't. You need to show quantitatively and objectively how these entirely new and never before described principles of physics work. Just saying so isn't going to make it.

Quote:

Sure, but their work is preserved for anyone to read for themselves. Then again they can choose the path of ignorance too and never bother to educate themselves to the work of scientists of the past.

Science didn't stop when your heroes died. Tens of thousands of professional physicists that have been intimately involved in plasma and solar physics and related fields haven't found those dead guys' work to be compelling enough to discard decades of legitimate research and abandon contemporary physics in favor of some dusty old unworkable ideas from the past. You know you could get them on board if you'd make your case objectively and quantitatively, so that it explains the violations of the known laws of physics or somehow works within the known laws.

Quote:

In terms of computer (electrical engineering) technologies and tangible goods, sure. In terms of astronomy however, there's nothing new under the sun.

That is simply one of the stupidest things anyone involved in science could possibly claim.

Quote:

The mainstream is still peddling what Alfven called pseudoscience. You're running "circuits" into each other claiming that "magnetic reconnection" is the proper term for "circuit reconnection', and ignoring 100 years of scientific efforts, including empirical experiments. You still can't explain solar wind even though Birkeland "predicted it" a hundreds years ago.

It has been demonstrated many, many times in this and other threads that you do not possess the qualifications to properly interpret or understand Birkeland's work, or Alfvén's or Bruce's for that matter. Your comments on what he/they did or didn't predict may be dismissed as unqualified and unsupported opinions.

Quote:

When are you going to support your claim of "knowledge" that is refuted by Bruce (and others)?

Plasma is a conductor. For a discharge to occur there needs to be an insulator and a breakdown. There is no electrical discharge happening in the plasma of the solar atmosphere. You have yet to provide that entire re-write of the physics of plasma and/or electricity that would show quantitatively and objectively that the situation is otherwise.

Quote:

It's one thing to claim for instance that 'I lack belief in God'. It's quite another to claim that "God does *NOT* exist". Do you see the distinction between these two positions? Your *CLAIM* is one of "knowledge". You *CLAIM* to be sure that no discharge processes are involved in flares and CME's, whereas Alfven, Bruce and many other *BEGAN* with "current flow" and the flare is a direct result of changes to that current flow. When are you going to retract your ridiculous claim? You're only making yourself look bad. Even *IF* magnetic reconnection isn't just a stupid name, in no way can you be absolutely certain that NO discharge processes (AKA CURRENT FLOW PROCESSES) are involved in flares?

My claim is that you have been wholly, completely, and totally unable to support your claim. You claimed that electrical discharges are, or are responsible for solar flares and CMEs. Flapping around some links to some dead scientists' work doesn't support your claim. Until you can support your claim it can be dismissed as untrue.

Now why is it you keep ignoring the actual subject of this thread in favor of derailing it with all that crackpot nonsense about plasma cosmology and an electric Sun? Could it be you've realized your previous claims are simply unsupportable? Would Birkeland have run away like a little girl if he made claims he couldn't support? Would Alfvén have thrown tantrums and lied in order to avoid supporting any of his claims? Are you ever going to describe that objective quantitative method you claimed to have developed that allows you to "predict" CMEs? Or will you ever have the decency and honesty to admit that you had no such method?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

I don't deny the existence of Bruce's work, so you're lying.




... or the existence of Birkeland's work, so you're lying again.

Er, then how exactly did you justify this claim again?

Quote:

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.

If you don't deny the existence of Bruce's discharge theory, or the legitimacy of Birkeland's cathode sun statements, how do you justify the claim that no discharge processes are involved in solar flares?

I'm tired of being called a liar by someone that hasn't even read Alfven's work for themselves. You have no idea what you're talking about and you can't even make up your mind!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

My position isn't based on clairvoyance, so there's another lie.

Since you haven't read his book, you haven't pointed out a specific chapter or verse from any relevant paper or book on this topic, what else can it be except "clairvoyance"? Cite a flaw, chapter and verse. Any relevant paper or book will do.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

When those "currents" are disrupted, the EM kinetic energy is released as a "flare".

Wrong: When those "currents" are disrupted, the EM kinetic energy ie released. This release is too small to be the energy released in flares as already pointed out in the magnetic reconnection thread.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

When did you intend to come clean an deal with Bruce's work openly? This "toss out the opposing viewpoints" is getting old.

How idiotic of you MM: Bruces's work was not thrown out because is is old. It was thrown out because it is wrong:
His invalid model has been discussed a few times in the forum. He had a physically impossible solar model of dust particles causing "lightning strikes" that are solar prominences

• There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun.
• There is no dielectric medium to breakdown.
• Electrical discharges emit narrow band X-rays that have never been observed from the Sun.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Alfven treats that as a *CIRCUIT* and looks at the TOTAL CIRCUIT ENERGY in terms of the flare energy. How long did you intend to simply deny that FACT?

Alfven treats that as a *CIRCUIT* and looks at the TOTAL CIRCUIT ENERGY in terms of the flare energy. How long did you intend to simply deny that FACT, Michael Mozina?
I do not deny this. I know the difference between

• *CIRCUIT* and
• *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE*

because I can spell !

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

You haven't handed me any math, so you're lying again. Shall we keep counting?

Every single one of those links had relevant maths. Either you didn't read them, or you didn't understand what you read. Did you see Bruce use the term "discharge" anywhere in those papers I cited? Did you see any maths related to "discharge pinches" in that or any paper including that paper from China? They (the Chinese) clearly understood how Alfven's pinches operated. Did you see how plasmas pinches can generate gamma rays? Did you notice that Rhessi observes them here in Earth's atmosphere and in the solar atmosphere?

Either you aren't capable of comprehending what you read, or you are not telling the truth. Yes or no was there any math in any of those papers I cited?

Quote:

The plasma in the solar atmosphere is electrically conductive.

So what? It's not equally conductive everywhere and electrical current always follows the path of least resistance. That's in the pinch, not the evacuated areas around the pinch.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Birkeland never proposed a solar model.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...DA405B838DF1D3

Virtually nothing you say is true or can be trusted to be entirely accurate and fair. Birkeland even described the voltages related to his cathode sun theories and did lots of maths for you, not that you'll necessarily ever read them.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Yet you still haven't been able to demonstrate that your "cathode Sun" is even remotely possible.

*I* don't personally have to do that because Birkeland already did that 100 years ago!

Quote:

According to the known laws of physics, it isn't.

Er, except it actually "works in the lab" you mean? You do realize that Birkeland actually did all these experiments 100 years ago, right?

Quote:

You need to show quantitatively and objectively how these entirely new and never before described principles of physics work. Just saying so isn't going to make it.

What voltage did Birkeland select for his cathode sun, and how did he arrive at that figure?

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, that cathode sun/globe, and discharge process (to the heliosphere/sides of box) is what enabled all of Birkeland's discharge filaments (the ones he wrote about) to appear around the terella. No "current flow/discharge", no loops in the atmosphere, no jets, no solar wind.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Er, then how exactly did you justify this claim again?

The solar atmosphere is a conducting medium. Consequently there are no electrical discharges. That's how. Now whenever you can demonstrate quantitatively and objectively that everything we know about plasma physics is wrong, then you might be onto something. Until then your claim that solar flares and CMEs are, or are caused by electrical discharges is unsupported and all your arguments are a load of manure.

Quote:

If you don't deny the existence of Bruce's discharge theory, or the legitimacy of Birkeland's cathode sun statements, how do you justify the claim that no discharge processes are involved in solar flares?

The solar atmosphere is a conducting medium. Consequently there are no electrical discharges. That's how. Now whenever you can demonstrate quantitatively and objectively that everything we know about plasma physics is wrong, then you might be onto something. Until then your claim that solar flares and CMEs are, or are caused by electrical discharges is unsupported and all your arguments are a load of manure.

Quote:

I'm tired of being called a liar [...]

Then stop lying. Duh.

Quote:

[...] by someone that hasn't even read Alfven's work for themselves. You have no idea what you're talking about and you can't even make up your mind!

I can make up my mind, and I've been very clear about it. Your qualifications to understand solar physics have been challenged, and you have been entirely unable to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. You have made several outrageous claims, many of which are directly contrary to the known laws of physics, and you haven't been able to offer any valid arguments to support any of them.

I'm still waiting for you describe your alleged quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs. Would Birkeland have run away like a coward instead of supporting his claims? Would Alfvén have stuffed his fingers in his ears and pussied out on supporting his claims? Are you going to describe your method, or admit that you don't have one?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...DA405B838DF1D3

Virtually nothing you say is true or can be trusted to be entirely accurate and fair. Birkeland even described the voltages related to his cathode sun theories and did lots of maths for you, not that you'll necessarily ever read them.

A solar model is a mathematical description of the Sun which attempts to describe the Sun's thermal characteristics, luminosity, density, material makeup, and physical function. Kristian Birkeland never had a solar model. I'm sure we can agree he dabbled with some looks-like-a-bunny experiments. But your constantly posting links to that article, written by who-the-hell-knows-who, in 1913 for god's sake, does not support your silly claim that he had a solar model.

And if you really don't see how totally unscientific that nonsense is, it leads me to challenge your qualifications to understand science, the process, the methods, the results, the elementary principles and concepts, at any level. So now how about you tell us where you went to grade school. Who were your math and science teachers between fourth and eighth grade? What grades did you get in science and math classes? Can you post copies of your report cards so we can verify that you actually had any science or math education at all before high school?

Then, let's get back to the topic of this thread which you seem intent on derailing. Please describe your supposed quantitative and objective method, the method you claim to have, for "predicting" CMEs. Please describe quantitatively and objectively how dark filament eruptions cause CMEs. Include all relevant math. Thanks.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00467.000.html

Did either of you two even COMMENT on this paper?

Yes I did.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That's it? Hello? How exactly did you intend to explain a single coronal loop reaching millions of degrees without a discharge and currents?

That's it! Hello!
I would exactly explain every single coronal loop reaching millions of degrees using valid science, not using physically impossible electrical discharges

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

GM did NOT claim that he lacked belief that electrical discharge processes occur in flares and CME's. He made a STATEMENT OF FACT about the NONEXISTENCE of discharge processes in flares and CME's.

GM was correct to make a STATEMENT OF FACT about the NONEXISTENCE of discharge processes in flares and CME's.

Michael Mozina
First asked 25 November 2010
Can you understand the definition of electrical discharges rules them out in plasmas?

Here it is: Electrical discharges

Quote:

A spark is triggered when the electric field strength exceeds approximately 4–30 kV/cm[2] — the dielectric field strength of air. This may cause a very rapid increase in the number of free electrons and ions in the air, temporarily causing the air to abruptly become an electrical conductor in a process called dielectric breakdown.

This is in the context of sparks (electrical discharges) through air. But the requirement is clear:

In order for an electrical discharge to happen, there must be a dielectric medium to break down.

Plasmas are highly conducting. They are not dielectric medium. Thus by definition, electrical discharges cannot happen through them.

Of course you can get varying currents (more commonly current sheets) through plasmas. During magnetic reconnection the change in the topology of the magnetic field causes the currents to vary wildly.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

There are plenty of authors that have written materials on this topic..

So far your citations to the "plenty of authors" who have written on electrical discharge processes in flares and CME's has been pitiful.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What pray tell prevents dust from forming above the photosphere and in low temperature sunspots? Do you actually believe that iron is highly ionized and emits lots of light at 94A that SDO might see for instance at 6000K?

The temperature is higher above the photosphere.
The temperature is still high in sunspots (~3100 K) but that does not matter because flares do not just happen in sunspots.
The 94 A passband detects light from Fe XVIII. SDO never detects this as a temperature of 6000K.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What "lights up" a single coronal loop in 94A?

What lights up any coronal loop in 94A is light from the loop!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Since both of you seem to believe that Alfven's circuit orientation to solar flare events is flawed, please point out a single flaw in any paper on this topic, or anything written on this topic from his book Cosmic Plasma. Ditto on Bruce. Please point out the specific flaw in his work, chapter and verse.

We will not because the flaws have already been addressed in this forum.
If you are too lazy to look for the posts then we are not going to do your work for you.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

The solar atmosphere is a conducting medium.

Which part of the atmosphere are you referring to? Do you think they all conduct equally including the the umbra, the penumbra, the chrosmosphere and every part of the corona? Keep in mind that your mythical transition region in the sky concept was blown away by the 1700A and 1600A SDO images.

Maybe you should reconsider what Alfven (that Nobel Prize winning physicist you keep ignoring) wrote about this topic specifically?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963IAUS...16...35

More specifically did you notice *WHY* the filaments formed and his use of the term 'circuits'? What does he mean by a "circuit" in that paper?

[Michael Mozina]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00467.000.html

FYI, I'm still waiting for some intelligent commentary on this paper. So far the two of you have completely avoided this paper in terms of it's actual scientific content.

In fact neither of you has bothered to point out a *SINGLE* flaw in *ANY* of Alfven's papers or his book on this topic. Why not? If you claim that math is king, and Alfven's theories are wrong, where is his mathematical error? Please be specific (paper, chapter, verse(s)).

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Which part of the atmosphere are you referring to? Do you think they all conduct equally including the the umbra, the penumbra, the chrosmosphere and every part of the corona? Keep in mind that your mythical transition region in the sky concept was blown away by the 1700A and 1600A SDO images.

Maybe you should reconsider what Alfven (that Nobel Prize winning physicist you keep ignoring) wrote about this topic specifically?

I don't keep ignoring Alfvén, so your comment is another lie. Would Birkeland have lied when asked to support his claims? Would Alfvén have lied instead of supporting his claims?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00467.000.html

FYI, I'm still waiting for some intelligent commentary on this paper. So far the two of you have completely avoided this paper in terms of it's actual scientific content.

In fact neither of you has bothered to point out a *SINGLE* flaw in *ANY* of Alfven's papers or his book on this topic. Why not? If you claim that math is king, and Alfven's theories are wrong, where is his mathematical error? Please be specific (paper, chapter, verse(s)).

You've made an outrageous claim, and you're trying to pass the responsibility for supporting your ridiculous claim onto other people. So again...

And if you really don't see how totally unscientific that nonsense is, it leads me to challenge your qualifications to understand science, the process, the methods, the results, the elementary principles and concepts, at any level. So now how about you tell us where you went to grade school. Who were your math and science teachers between fourth and eighth grade? What grades did you get in science and math classes? Can you post copies of your report cards so we can verify that you actually had any science or math education at all before high school?

We need to start by verifying your scientific qualifications.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00467.000.html

FYI, I'm still waiting for some intelligent commentary on this paper. So far the two of you have completely avoided this paper in terms of it's actual scientific content.

The list of my intelligent commentary on all of your citations did not get moved here. So here it is again:

• A 1946 paper by C.E.R. Bruce.
  And links to his other work on the same invalid model.
  His invalid model has been discussed a few times in the forum. He had a physically impossible solar model of dust particles causing "lightning strikes" that are solar prominences
  • There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun.
  • There is no dielectric medium to breakdown.
  • Electrical discharges emit narrow band X-rays that have never been observed from the Sun.
• Current Limitation and Solar Flares by Carlqvist, P.
  currents - not electrical discharges
• Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation by Carlqvist, P.
  currents - not electrical discharges
• Polarization in Gamma-Ray Bursts Produced by Pinch Discharge by Wu, Mei; Chen, Li; Li, Ti-Pei
  This paper is about gamma ray bursts not solar activity.
• The reason for magnetospheric substorms and solar flares (1983).
  currents - not electrical discharges
• The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism (1958).
  Al last you demonstrate that you can read an old outdated paper!
  A pity that you cannot understand that it is outdated and not supported by modern evidence.
• Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena (1974)
  No mention of electrical discharges.
  Just plasma discharges and the discharge currents used to create the plasma.
• On the Filamentary Structure of the Solar Corona (1963) by Alfvén, Hannes
  He never states that there are electrical discharges on the Sun. All he mentions is plasma currents.
• Double layers and circuits in astrophysics (1986) by Alfvén, Hannes. currents & circuits - no electrical discharges mentioned in the abstract.

So you lied - see the bit in red.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

In fact neither of you has bothered to point out a *SINGLE* flaw in *ANY* of Alfven's papers or his book on this topic. Why not? If you claim that math is king, and Alfven's theories are wrong, where is his mathematical error? Please be specific (paper, chapter, verse(s)).

You seem to be mistaken (to state it politely) about Alfven's papers and books.

• He never published any work on an electric sun idea.
  Otherwise you would have cited them.
• He never published any work on electrical discharges on the Sun. Otherwise you would have cited them.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

I don't keep ignoring Alfvén, so your comment is another lie. Would Birkeland have lied when asked to support his claims? Would Alfvén have lied instead of supporting his claims?

You completely dodged every single relevant question from every single relevant paper. Neither you nor RC can find a single flaw in any relevant paper or book by Alfven on this topic. Neither of you wants to acknowledge or deal with a circuit orientation to solar flares.

You know, *ANY DECENT SKEPTIC* would begin by acknowledging the paper or work (Bruce and Alfven), and point out whatever relevant flaw(s) might apply. You don't do that. You simply *IGNORE* the material entirely, set yourself up as "judge and jury", without even so much as citing a single flaw in the relevant papers on this topic. Alfven attributed solar flares to "circuit disruptions" and exploding double layers. When one of you can cite some flaw in Alfven material, let me know. Until you do, I can can only assume you are both arguing from ignorance at this point and have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't read the relevant material, nor cited any flaw in any of the materials presented to date.

[Michael Mozina]

On second thought....

[Michael Mozina]

Forget my last comment. I guess I don't care.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ummmm.......

Since the whole concept here comes back to a "current carrying" plasma, vs. a "neutral" plasma, there's no way to completely avoid all mention of Alfven and/or Birkeland and/.or Bruce as it relates to solar flares They all discussed them in papers and books. I fail to see the point of splitting the thread arbitrarily since there's no way to completely avoid all concepts related to solar theory in flare theory.

Ummmm.......No.
There is not such thing as a "current carrying" plasma, vs. a "neutral" plasma (with your quotes).

All plasmas carry currents - they are conductive!
All plasmas are quasi-neutral.

Alfven had valid contributions to solar theory.


Birkeland and Bruce had invalid contributions to solar theory.

• Birkeland: The Sun is not a brass ball (containig a magnet) in a glass chamber filled with a thin gas and a big electric field applied.
  There is no plasma in his experiments, just the electrical discharges that we expect from the breakdown of a dielectric medium (the gas).
• Bruce: see above.

The thread was split not because of any concepts related to solar theory in flare theory.
It was split because you mentioned the physically impossible concept of electrical discharges on the Sun contained in the Electric Sun theory. That belongs in a ... Electric Sun theory thread!

Forget this post. MM had second thoughts

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Ummmm.......No.
There is not such thing as a "current carrying" plasma, vs. a "neutral" plasma (with your quotes).

Ya RC, ultimately that is the WHOLE debate. There is no such thing as a "neutral" plasma that's moving a million miles an hour! It's a form of "current flow" to any stationary object like the Earth.

Quote:

All plasmas carry currents - they are conductive!

Ok.

Quote:

All plasmas are quasi-neutral.

That's like saying that a lightening discharge is "quasi-neutral". I guarantee you it will fry you if you get in it's way.

Quote:

Alfven had valid contributions to solar theory.

You'll never adequately acknowledge them! Neither of you (nor the mainstream) talks about "circuits" but that is virtually all Alfven ever talked about in space related plasmas!

Quote:

Birkeland and Bruce had invalid contributions to solar theory.

Boloney. Your strawmen are irrelevant. Thanks to SDO we now know that your magic transition region in the sky doesn't exist and Alfven treated the coronal filaments differently than the interfilamentary regions. In no way can you rule out Bruce's work. In fact you refuse to even acknowledge it. You and GM set yourselves up as judge and juror, and neither one of you has *EVER* pointed out a flaw in any relevant paper or book by Alfven on this topic. Never!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ya RC, ultimately that is the WHOLE debate. There is no such thing as a "neutral" plasma that's moving a million miles an hour! It's a form of "current flow" to any stationary object like the Earth.

Ya MM, ultimately that is the WHOLE result of your ignorance of physics. There is such thing as a neutral plasma that's moving a million miles an hour! It is called the solar wind. It is a form of mass flow to any stationary object like the Earth.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That's like saying that a lightening discharge is "quasi-neutral". I guarantee you it will fry you if you get in it's way.

More ignorance: lightning is not plasma. Lightning is an electrical discharge. I guarantee you it will fry you if you get in it's way.

Plasma is quasi-neutral. On scales above the Debye length the chargrges in it are screened.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You'll never adequately acknowledge them! Neither of you (nor the mainstream) talks about "circuits" but that is virtually all Alfven ever talked about in space related plasmas!

That is stupid - I adequately acknowledge them!
The mainstream talks about circuits in solar physics quite often. This has been pointed out to you before but you seem unable to remember anything other than your fantasies about what the mainstream publishes.

Your ignorance about what circuits are has lead to your delusion that Alfven was talking about the pseudo-science that is the electric sun theory.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Boloney. Your strawmen are irrelevant

Boloney. The facts are relevant:

• Birkeland: The Sun is not a brass ball (containig a magnet) in a glass chamber filled with a thin gas and a big electric field applied.
  There is no plasma in his experiments, just the electrical discharges that we expect from the breakdown of a dielectric medium (the gas).
• Bruce: see above and below.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Thanks to SDO we now know that your magic transition region in the sky doesn't exist

That is your unsupported assertion.

• I do not have any "magic transition region in the sky".
• There is a transition region in the solar atmosphere.
• You have presented no scientific evidence from SDO or any other source that the transition region does not exist.

It has just clicked what you mean by "Thanks to SDO": It is your fantasy about the SDO publicity image and the green line processing artifact.
Question 53 in Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked is

Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.
The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

In no way can you rule out Bruce's work. In fact you refuse to even acknowledge it.

That is stupid, MM: I acknowledge it. It exists! It is trivially wrong! It is ruled out!

• There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun. FYI, MM this is ~5700K.
  Even sunspots have a temperature of ~3100K.
• There is no dielectric medium to breakdown and allow electrical discharges.
• Electrical discharges emit narrow band X-rays that have never been observed from the Sun.
• Also: 50 years of observing the Sun has never detected the dust.

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...6/fulltext.pdf

Not that some folks will actually read it or respond to it.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Do you understand the term "denial", yes or no? Go ahead and handwave away at Bruce's discharge theories all you like, but whatever minuscule amount of credibility you have left is only going to take another hit.

No one is handwaving.
I suspect that GeeMack can read and see the flaws that invalidate Bruce's theory:

• There is no dust at the temperature of the Sun. FYI, MM this is ~5700K.
  Even sunspots have a temperature of ~3100K.
• There is no dielectric medium to breakdown and allow electrical discharges.
• Electrical discharges emit narrow band X-rays that have never been observed from the Sun.
• Also: 50 years of observing the Sun has never detected the dust.