Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
so you are using the wrong term (but so do some others!). Most authors just use energy.
I am still aware thet Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!
I am still aware that you have not provided any evidence for actual electrical discharges in plasma after over a year!
Where are the descriptions of this in textbooks?
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?
Remember that Peratt is talking about lightning and other sources of plasma: 7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
Upvote
0
I'm thinking that these "most authors" you keep handwaving about are another one of your "we" claims. Who are these unnamed authors that claim photons have no kinetic energy RC? I just showed links to several authors that all used the term 'kinetic energy' in relationship to photons. Can you provide even one that claims that photons have no kinetic energy or zero kinetic energy? You don't seem capable of finding references outside of yourself that make such claims.
Right, now the retired IT guy knows more about plasma physics than the guy that works at Los Alamos and studied under Hannes Alfven, and wrote entire books on plasma physics. (Anthony Peratt). Dream on. If you hadn't just shot you whole scientific credibility in the foot over the photon kinetic energy issue, it wouldn't be so very very sad.
I'm well aware that you've been in denial of Dungey's work and use of the term electrical discharge in solar plasma for over a year now. I'm well aware that you're in pure denial of Peratt's definition in plasma to this day RC. It's no skin off my nose if you wish to remain in denial of any and all scientific facts, but don't expect anyone to believe anything you've said after that photon kinetic energy fiasco.
Physics of the Plasma Universe: Anthony L. Peratt: 9781461276661: Amazon.com: Books
Look familiar? I'm still waiting for you to provide one that claims it's impossible for electrical discharges to occur in plasmas! You pulled that claim right out of your back pocket!
I already provided it to you. I'm not required to make you read it or respond intelligently to it however. That's your call, not mine. Dungey provided maths you ignored, as did Bruce and even Birkeland.
Upvote
0
RC cites himself *again* and fails to produce any external reference that claims that photons have no kinetic energy.
Upvote
0
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
Is Newton a good enough reference for you
?Classical kinetic energy = 1/2 mv^2 and thus photons have no (or zero) classical kinetic energy.
Wrong: the working IT guy who spent 7 years at university learning physics can understand what Anthony Peratt wrote:
Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!
Wrong, Michael.
I have actually read Dungey's papers and there is no mention of actual electrical discharges in solar plasma. He is one of the few (and maybe only!) authors who used the term "electrical discharge" for large current densities:
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!
8th November 2011: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!
I am well aware that you still have not got past the first sentence in Peratt's description of electrical discharges like lightning. The problem with only looking at that sentence is that it makes mundane things into an "Electrίcal Discharge in Cosmic Plasma". Turn on any switch and we have a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy - Electrίcal Discharge in Cosmic Plasma
!Looks like exactly what you have been ignoring:
11th January 2011: Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
So it looks like you still think that the title of the section is a definition!
The section contents makes it clear that he is talking about the generation of plasma:
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
Aurora are not plasma - the generat plasma.
Lightning is not plasma - it generates plasma.
That is easy: 11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
No you have not provided any citations to Peratt's many (or even a few!) pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges.
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
Dungey (who was not Peratt) provides mathematics about magnetic reconnection.
Bruce (who was not Peratt) was a crank who thought that everything was lightning!
Birkeland (who was not Peratt) never published anything about electrical discharges in plasma (in 1913 no one even thought of plasma as a new state of matter!). His experiments were about electrical discharges. It is probable that these created "radiant matter" but he ignored this.
Look at the question again. You seem to have Peratt's book. Cite the chapter(s) on the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges in plasma.
Upvote
0
What I actually wrote was: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy! - classical kinetic energy, Michael.
I am citing Newton and the scientists that followed him: photons have no classical kinetic energy because their mass is zero (1/2mv^2).
I am citing high school science textbooks.
I an citing undergraduate physics textbooks.
I am even citing Wikipedia (look up classical kinetic energy)
!I could even cite Google (look up classical kinetic energy)
!
Upvote
0
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
Is Newton a good enough reference for you
Not in a GR/QM world, no. How far left behind in the past are you anyway? Do you still own a horse and buggy or what?
Your original post never included a peep about "classical" and you've got that part wrong too. Even the newbie got it right! Rest mass isn't the "be-all-end-all" in any photon theory.
Apparently not. You're in staunch denial of what he actually wrote. By definition electrical discharges *do* occur in plasmas! You're on a never ending denial-go-round.
How can I politely say this? You didn't read it particularly well then:
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
1958IAUS....6..135D Page 135
Who on Earth doubt that electrical discharges involve large current densities? Duh! The point is that you have no idea what you're talking about IT guy. Leave solar physics to competent solar physicists like Dungey, not to an IT guy that doesn't know squat about photons, kinetic energy and anything beyond some kludged understanding of "classic" physics apparently.
The one and only one obvious pattern I'm seeing is that you keep citing *yourself* in every dispute, whereas I've been citing *external* (to myself) references. Why is that RC? Are you incapable of presenting an argument that is not based upon your own personal claims?
Yep, same pattern. You keep citing yourself being in pure denial of both Dungey's words (he explicitly used the term electrical discharge), and Peratt's very definition of an electrical discharge in plasma. Have you actually read Peratt's book or Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma RC?
Lightning was *one* example he cited. Get past it.
Ya, if you had a big enough switch to release gamma rays and x-rays, and tons of material from the solar atmosphere, you go for it.The problem with only looking at that sentence is that it makes mundane things into an "Electrίcal Discharge in Cosmic Plasma". Turn on any switch and we have a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy - Electrίcal Discharge in Cosmic Plasma
I'm frankly bored of you advertizing yourself and JREF on this forum. Do you *any* external references to cite, yes or no?
The book is full of all sorts of descriptions of releases of EM energy RC. Go read it for yourself as I have done, or quit pretending to be any sort of "expert" on this topic. You don't know anything about physics, not photons, not plasma, nothing relevant at all to this topic. That's why you keep remaining in staunch denial of what Dungey and Peratt actually wrote. That's also why you are incapable of citing a resource outside of yourself to support your claims about photons have no kinetic energy and electrical discharges being impossible in plasmas. You're just making it up as you go apparently, and no reference outside of yourself is heard, or matters to you as the photon kinetic energy issue and the electrical discharge in solar flares issue demonstrates. The solar physicist uses the term 'electrical discharge', but you claim it's "impossible". One of you isn't telling the truth, you or Dungey. Who is the crackpot RC?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786440708521050
Upvote
0
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae180.cfm
ENERGY OF PHOTON
Gamma Rays and Kinetic Energy
You're right. RC is apparently incapable of citing a reference outside of himself that makes any of the claims he makes.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thta is right: Not in a QM world as I state in: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
I never said that it did: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
Wrong: That is only true if you thing a title is a defintion, quote mine the actual definition and ignore what he actually wrote:
Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!
- 11th January 2011: Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
- 5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
- 7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
Wrong, Michael.
I have actually read Dungey's papers and there is no mention of actual (e.g. as defined by Peratt) electrical discharges in solar plasma.
There is:
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!
8th November 2011: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!
Wrong: I keep linking to the posts that I have made over the years that I have known you. These contain citations to and quotes from the actual scientific papers (e.g. Dungey) and textbooks (e.g. Peratt).
If you expect me to waste my time by writing exactly the same debunking of your arguments again then you are wrong. I will Link to the original debunking of your arguments.
Lightning was *one* of several examples he cited of a breakdown of a dielectric medium causing an electrical discharge and generating plasma.
But this raises a new question:
Michael:
Where are Peratt's examples of actual electrical discharges in plasma in the "1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" section?
First asked 1 November 2012.
This is really an extension of 7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
to
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges and examples?
It is really simple: Quote mining Peratt's definition to be the first sentence ("An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.") means that turning on a switch is an electrical discharge.
That is what plasmas tend to do, Michael, e.g. magnetic pinches, magnetic reconnection, etc.
But that is not an answer to:
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
And Peratt is not the only scientist who has ever existed so:
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?
And we are back to Dungey - see above!
Upvote
0
Sorry, I thought that you knew what classical kinetic energy is, Michael, and so there was no need to cite a reference to it
!Here you go: Newtonian (classical) kinetic energy
ETA
One more time: I link to existing posts containing the approprioate external references so that I do not have to repeat arguments.
For example: You claim that the SUn has a solid iron layer. It is easy to show that this is physically impossible. But if I listed all of the physics that makes this is physically impossible than it would be a multi-page post. Luckily it has already been done
! So all I need is:And searching for that gives some possibly unanswered questions for you Michael:
Michael : What do you think the defintion of the photosphere is?
17th October 2012 (14 days and counting)
(the actual definition means that it is impossible so see any light from below it as you claim)
What is the photosphere temperature and melting point of Fe?
17th October 2012 (14 days and counting)
How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
17th October 2012 (14 days and counting)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Your first statements didn't say a word about "classical" anything RC. You've been backpeddling for weeks on that issue now, and even that is nothing but a red herring. I've shown you three external resources that all claimed photons have kinetic energy. You've never cited one that claimed otherwise. Why is that?
They have *kinetic* energy according to Kong! You're in pure denial of every external resource on this topic!
http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave/energy%20of%20photon.htm#WD.1.0
Whom shall I believe, you or Kong? Answer that question rationally.
You wrote nonsense at JREF and you've written more nonsense here! You're entirely incapable of accepting reality, or even *reading* the material in question! Have you read Peratt's book, yes or no? How the hell would you know anything about it contents? Quit advertizing JREF here on Christianforums. If you can't handle a real debate here, don't expect me to be impressed with you citing links to false claims that you made at JREF.
Pure unadulterated DENIAL! Dungey explicitly used the term "electrical discharge" in association with solar flare and reconnection events. You're claiming it's *impossible* whereas Dungey claimed exactly the opposite. Dungey knows solar physics. You're a clueless IT guy.
You are only capable of citing *YOURSELF* apparently! What you are incapable of doing is citing an external reference that claims electrical discharges are impossible in plasma or that photons contain no kinetic energy. You'll just keep citing yourself over and over now and you'll never cite an external reference for either claim.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7620486-19/#post61667245
I provided you with three external references from myself that all claimed photons have kinetic energy, and you've provided none that claim otherwise. Why is that RC? Running from reality by chance?
Denial is not "debunking". You apparently "debunk" empirical physics the way a YEC "debunks" evolutionary theory by going into pure denial of scientific facts. Have you read Peratt's book, yes or no? Quit dodging the question.
The definition Peratt provides is about the *release of stored energy*. The breakdown of a dielectric is irrelevant! You've taken *one* example and ignored the rest of the *definition* to suit yourself. You did the same thing with Dungey's work. You did exactly the same thing with Bruce's work and Birkeland's original work as well!
You wouldn't have to ask that question if you'd done your homework. The whole book is filled with examples of the release of stored EM energy in various ways. You don't have a clue however, because you're a couch potato critic that never actually reads any appropriate materials.
You're the one doing all the quote mining because you've never read his book! How irrational can you possibly be anyway? You're like the atheist who refuses to read any passage from the Bible but fancies himself as the worlds greatest "debunker" of "Christianity". "Jesus? Who's that?" Oy Vey!
You're personally right back to denying everything Dungey said when he associated solar flares with electrical discharges. Whereas Dungey claimed it *was* possible for electrical discharges to occur in the solar atmosphere, you keep claiming exactly the opposite! You're clueless on this entire topic by willful ignorance, and in you're in pure denial of scientific and historical fact.
Upvote
0
Sorry, I thought that you knew what classical kinetic energy is, Michael, and so there was no need to cite a reference to it
Here you go: Newtonian (classical) kinetic energy
Oh, for pete sake, at least join the 21st century and embrace GR and QM! Again, nothing on your reference claimed that photons have no kinetic energy, and in fact the term "photon" doesn't even appear on the entire page! Give me a break. You're grasping at any straws now to try to cover up your error instead of just admitting a mistake. You're impossible to deal with because you refuse to accept reality as it exists, you simply make it up as you go and then you keep citing yourself, or citing unrelated links that don't actually support your claims!
Your argument were bogus then and they are bogus now because you keep trying to judge a Birkeland solar model based on *mainstream assumptions* about the photosphere! You're not willing to judge the theory based upon it's *own* merits and it's *own* set of assumptions.
No it would require that you *assume* that the photosphere is "opaque" which it's not.
Apparently all you intend to do here is cite your own posts and your own claims from JREF, while ignoring that whole SDO heliosiesmology fiasco from this year related to slow convection speeds. Is that about it?
Care to address any *new* data that's come out since my virtual lynching at JREF? You can keep running from the data that came out in 2012 if you like, but it won't just go away. When did you intend to address the fact that mainstream theories related to convection speeds were falsified in 2012? 2022?
Upvote
0
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
What I know about the contents of Peratt's book is section 1.5 because you quoted section 1.5!
Why should I read a book that you have not? If you have read it then you would answered :
years ago!
So far the implication is that there are no examples, mathematics or physics of actual electrical discharges in plasma in Peratt's book.
And from Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?
And
28th October 2011: Michael: Google Books list for electrical discharges within plasma?
28th October 2011: Michael : Google Scholar articles on electrical discharges within plasma?
So far the implication is that there are no examples, mathematics or physics of actual electrical discharges in plasma in any scientific paper or any textbook.
It looks like you do not really get the point about
Dungey never associated solar flares with electrical discharges. He discussed the theory that solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection. Magnetic reconnection turns small current densities into larger current densities. Dungey seems to be the only author (or maybe one of a few authors) to apply the term "electrical discharge" to these large current densities.
So Dungey has magnetic reconnection as a cause of 2 separate effects:
- A release of energy from the magnetic field that heats plasma, i.e. the flare.
- An increase in current density.
Upvote
0
Oh, for pete sake, at least read my post and see the SR in it!
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
GR and QM have nothing to do with the issue of photon energy.
Actually I was about to get to that because it is you putting yet another nail in this "electric sun" idea of yours
!Let us start with reminding you that the Iron Sun Surface idea is Thermodynamically Impossible! and in case you go on about old JREF posts again
- The temperature of the Sun has not changed since the iron surface idea was debunked on JREF!
- The second law of thermodynamics has not changed since the iron surface idea was debunked on JREF!
This is what Michael has been citing (the press release from some of the authors insttitute rather then a blog entry or news article):
Unexpectedly slow motions below the Sun’s surface
This convection is flowing at a walking pace straight through the iron surface and destroying it!
IOW: If this iron surface existed then it would stop the convection and the SDO data would show that! There would be no signs of the convection at the top of the photosphere and it would be impossible for helioseismology to reconstruct the convection.
But there is more!
Look at the photosphere and you see the tops of convection cells called granules
And even more: The analysis within helioseismology should detect that iron surface. It does not. There is nothing affecting waves traveling through the Sun except plasma.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Iron Sun Surface idea is Thermodynamically Impossible!
Iron Sun Surface idea is destroyed by convection!
What does science tell us about the actual variation of temperature in the photosphere?
For this we need to go to the textbooks and luckily Tim Thompson did this on the JREF forum: 26th September 2010: Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IX
23rd April 2010 Photospheric Opacity
Limb darkening needs increasing temperature with depth:
Iron Sun Surface idea is destroyed by convection!
What does science tell us about the actual variation of temperature in the photosphere?
For this we need to go to the textbooks and luckily Tim Thompson did this on the JREF forum: 26th September 2010: Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IX
or
23rd April 2010 Photospheric Opacity
Limb darkening needs increasing temperature with depth:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You're becoming ridiculously predictable in terms of only citing yourself as a reference, ignoring the external references that refute your claims, and basically making up reality to suit yourself. Photons *always* have kinetic energy!
....is apparently based on pure osmosis since you've never read it.
I've answered your questions a hundred times already. The formulas that describe the "sudden release" of EM field energy are *in the book*. You'd know that already if you'd done your homework, but you refuse to do so. Since you won't actually read or respond to his materials, you're basically in pure denial of his *definition* of the *possibility* electrical discharges in plasmas. You're essentially claiming discharges in plasma are *impossible* when in fact they *are* possible *by definition* in Peratt's book, and Dungey used the term as well as Bruce and Birkeland!
False. I quoted a textbook for you and the *definition* of any electrical discharge in plasma. Apparently the IT tech guy doesn't read plasma physics textbooks, but apparently knows more about plasma physics than published authors of plasma physics textbooks.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
1958IAUS....6..135D Page 135
That is a blatant lie RC! Proud of yourself? You might as well be claiming that Jesus never talked about God. You're full of horse-pucky. James Dungey certainly associated electrical discharges with solar flares. He even used the term "electrical discharge" by name. Your denial of history is simply pathetic.
Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution
Again, this is *another blatant and easily disproven lie*. Birkeland used that term to describe solar atmospheric events as did Bruce.
No. Your second point 'should read' "An electrical discharge". He wasn't afraid of calling an electrical discharge an electrical discharge. As Peratt explains, *any fast release of stored EM energy" is called an 'electrical discharge'. Both the plasma physicist/electrical engineer, and the solar physicist use the term "electrical discharge" in plasma. So did Bruce. So did Kristian Birkeland. You're the odd man out RC, and you're nothing but an IT guy that thinks photons have zero kinetic energy!
Upvote
0
Considering the fact that you're claiming it's impossible for photons to have kinetic energy, and it's impossible for electrical discharges to occur in plasmas, I'd just call that "strike three".
It's borderline bigoted of you to attempt to judge a Birkeland solar model based upon a standard solar theory that has in fact already been *falsified* by SDO heliosiesmology data in 2012.
The photosphere is not "opaque" in a Birkeland solar model. When did you intend to accept that fact? The fact it's 'opaque' in your useless belief system is irrelevant. Mainstream theory was already falsified the moment they found convection occurred at about 1 percent of predicted value. Wake up and smell the coffee. You can't keep Iron and Nickel mixed up with hydrogen an helium in crushing gravity without convection. Your theory is toast.
Since the photosphere is *not* opaque, it's *entirely* "possible" for cooler plasma layers to exist under the photosphere, just as it's possible for cooler plasma layers to exist under the chromosphere, and under the corona.
Stop advertizing JREF. It's filled with nothing but EU haters that having nothing useful to help you with here. Advertize much? Your posts are pure spam at this point, because apparently you need to site yourself in every post.
JREF never "debunked" anything. They remain in denial of basic physics, including the fact that "reconnection" requires plasma! That place is the bastion of ignorance when it comes to plasma physics. "Discharges? What discharges? Photon kinetic energy? What photon kinetic energy? Reconnect in plasma? What plasma?" Sheesh!
False. There are currents and magma upwelling in those areas of a Birkeland solar model. The mass of electrons from the core to the surface alone requires *some* amount of convection!
It does. That's why convection is only 1 percent of your predicted value and not 100 percent!
False. In a Birkeland solar model, most of the electrical discharges take place *under* the surface of the photosphere, releasing heat and energy into the solar atmosphere that has to convect to the surface with the flow of electrons moving toward the heliosphere. There must be *some* convection in a Birkeland model.
False again. I won't bother with the other nonsense.
Again, this statement is demonstrably false. It was *heliosiesmology data* that I used to locate the ''subsurface stratification" (AKA 'surface') layer. The SDO images show that Kosovichev's subsurface stratification layer indeed located under the photosphere and it is the point of origin for all coronal loop activity right at that 4800KM figure that I got from Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data.
[astro-ph/0510111] Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle
A Blog About Solar Theory-The Solar Coronal, The Chromosphere And The Photosphere.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast07nov_1/
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I did find it hysterically funny that Tim had to begrudgingly admit that a solid surface would last for years!
As usual Tim (and pretty much all haters) refuse to judge a Birkeland model based upon it's *own* assumptions. As long you and Tim and the rest of the haters refuse to give up your undying faith in mainstream solar model claims (like opacity), it's not possible to have logical conversation with you.
MM: The world is round and rotating around the sun like all the other planets
RC: Everyone knows that's crackpot idea! Stop lying! The Earth is flat and it's the very center of the entire universe. Everyone but a lying crank knows that! Burn the witch!
They don't increase with depth. That is the "assumption' made in mainstream theory based on convection numbers that were already falsified.
Apparently astronomy is intent on attempting to roll back and utterly ignore the technological revelations of the past 10 years and do nothing about it.
Upvote
0
Dungey got the whole idea of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere from Giovanelli in the 1940's:
http://books.google.com/books?id=5v...&q=electrical discharges solar flares&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=5v...&q=electrical discharges solar flares&f=false
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
