Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

Space Science Reviews, Volume 17, Numbers 2-4 - SpringerLink

The energy release during the explosive phase is initiated by a sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology and the X-type magnetic neutral point is created in the corona. Subsequent electrical discharge takes place in the form of an intense electrojet current flowing in the base of the chromosphere at the altitude where the Cowling conductivity is a maximum. It is suggested that the acceleration of particles by field-aligned electric fields and the Ohmic heating in the chromosphere result in major features of solar flares.

So whom shall I believe about electrical discharges in plasma, some IT guy that thinks photons have no kinetic energy, or Dungey and Obayashi, AKA real astronomer/solar physicists?

 

[Michael]

1963IAUS...16..115W Page 116

The mechanism of the flare eruption is not known, but several theories yielding sudden electrical discharges have been described. It is widely believed that the discharge takes place above the complex field configurations near the surfaces where the magnetic energy is zero; observational evidence has been given which directly supports this hypothesis (5).

So should I believe the IT guy, or someone gainfully employed at the CSIRO Radiophysics lab in Australia?

 

[Michael]

1974SvA....17..640V Page 640

In this study will will example the complex occurrences upon an electrical discharge in the chromosphere and show that a simple physical model permits interpretation of the characteristic features of the phenomenon and attainment of a coherent general view of the process.

So shall I believe the retired IT guy, or the Russian physicists?

 

[Michael]

1973SvA....16..662V Page 662

Electrical discharges have rightly been considered one possible mechanism for accelerating electrons in a flare.

Gee, the Russian physicists sure don't sound like they think it's impossible for electrical discharges to occur in solar flares. Are you absolutely positive that electrical discharges are impossible in a plasma IT guy?

 

[Michael]

ScienceDirect.com - Advances in Space Research - Space observations of comets during solar flares: A possible explanation for comet brightness outbursts

More Russians in 2012 refuting your claim about electrical discharges in plasma.

 

[Michael]

From the thread you keep trying to hijack:

He seems to be the only scientist in the history of the world to have called these large current densities 'electrical discharges'.

Pure unadulterated denial of scientific fact as the last few links demonstrate. Apparently you're just living in a fantasy world where Google was never invented and outright distortions of the truth weren't so easily debunked.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Photons *always* have kinetic energy!

Try reading what I wrote, Michael:
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
Photons *never* have classical kinetic energy!
Photons *always* have relativistic kinetic energy!

....is apparently based on pure osmosis since you've never read it.

You seem to have the delustion that I need to read his book. I do not have to when you have it and can cite the relevant bits. But...
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges (and examples)?

....
I've answered your questions a hundred times already.

No you have not.
You have asserted things about his book. You have not cited or quoted his many pages of the physics, mathematics or examples of electrical discharges in plasma.

Peratt's book is about plasma. There will be formulas that describe the sudden release of EM field energy.

Peratt never states that electrical discharges in plasma are possible:
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge

Dungey again:

Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
18th October 2011
​

Dungey 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.

Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution

Oh dear, Michael! You cannot see how totally wrong Bruce was?

• He has actual lightning happening on the Sun!
• You are citing a company in-house journal - no peer review and guaranteed to be not seen by scientists!

As Peratt explains, *any fast release of stored EM energy" is called an 'electrical discharge'.

Wrong:
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge

 

[Michael]

Try reading what I wrote, Michael:

I read exactly what you wrote:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350

That was my (rather mangled!) point! Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.
....
And there is that "kinetic" again. A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

You didn't say squat about "classic' anything until I busted you on your false claims. In fact you claimed rather bluntly that a loss of kinetic energy was not related to redshift because kinetic energy cannot change because kinetic energy is always zero. I've also watched you backpeddle ever since. You don't know a thing about real physics RC.

You seem to have the delustion that I need to read his book. I do not have to when you have it and can cite the relevant bits.

Spoken like a true hater. "Education on a topic? I don't need no stinking education....."

But...
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges (and examples)?

They are in the book you refuse to read!

No you have not.
You have asserted things about his book. You have not cited or quoted his many pages of the physics, mathematics or examples of electrical discharges in plasma.

What point is there quoting from a book you haven't read and do not understand? The parts I have quoted, you've butchered to hell.

Peratt's book is about plasma. There will be formulas that describe the sudden release of EM field energy.

Then there will be formulas that describe "electrical discharges in plasma" as Peratt *defined* them!

Peratt never states that electrical discharges in plasma are possible:

Liar. He states they are possible *by definition" as did Dungey and the Russians and the Japanese authors too.

Dungey discussed the theory that solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection.

He also explain that reconnection results in (drum roll) "electrical discharges"!

Oh dear, Michael! You cannot see how totally wrong Bruce was?

No, I see how wrong *you* are RC. The rest of the authors all agree that electrical discharges can and do occur in flares. You're only a rouge IT guy claiming they are 'wrong'. They're fine. The problem isn't them, it's obviously you.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The photosphere is not "opaque" in a Birkeland solar model.

Thank you for showing that this Birkeland solar model is totally wrong, Michael.
In the real world the photosphere is opaque by definition.
It is also opaque in fact. It has a finite opacity that means that a light source with intensity I reduces by 1/e each increment of opacity.

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.

You remain wrong as pointed out in Iron Sun Surface idea is Thermodynamically Impossible!
It is simple enough

• Temperature of photosphere plus
• Second law of thermodynamics plus
• Power source (fusion) at the core equals
• Your iron surface melts and then boils!

False. There are currents and magma upwelling in those areas of a Birkeland solar model.

You stll have a fantasy about a Birkeland solar model?
It it is not a fantasy then cite the paper or textbook describing it.
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, ...

Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (e.g. below the photosphere)!

Again, this statement is demonstrably false.

Demonstrate that convections currents can pass though your iron surface without it breaking (actually melting and boiling).
Unexpectedly slow motions below the Sun’s surface
granules

It is *heliosiesmology data* that shows that your iren surface does not exists because it is not detected.

The SDO images show that Kosovichev's subsurface stratification layer indeed located under the photosphere

Wrong: No images of the Sun look below the photosphere.
But then you seem to have no idea what the photosphere is!
Outstanding questions for Michael
Michael : What do you think the definition of the photosphere is?
17th October 2012 (20 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 (20 days and counting)

How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
17th October 2012 (20 days and counting)

 

[RealityCheck01]

I did find it hysterically funny that Tim had to begrudgingly admit that a solid surface would last for years!

I also find it hysterically funny that you are still unaware of the physics that states that an iron surface cannot exist in the Sun after many years !

...more ignoring physics snipped...
They don't increase with depth.

You really need to learn some solar physics, Michael.
The measurement that temperature increases with depth is based on a widely used photosphere reference model -Maltby, et al., 1986.

Michael, Show where the convection numbers are in in Maltby, et al., 1986.
​

The more relevant solar physics that you need to learn Michael is that the Sun is heated by fusion at its core.

• The laws of physics means that a gravitationally bound ball of (mainly) hydrogen plasma has a hot dense core.
• The laws of physics say that this hot dense core of hydrogen will undergo fusion.
• We detect the neutrino flux from that fusion. The flux matches what we expect if the Sun is powered by fusion.
• We do not detect the gamma rays from that fusion thus confirming that the fusion is deep within the Sun.

The temperature of ~13,000,000 K at the core of the Sun decreases to a temperature of ~5700 K at the top of the photosphere.
Oddly enough, Michael, this means that the temperature increases with depth !

Of course someone might have the fantasy that fission powers the Sun. They would be wrong, e.g. not enough U or other fissionable material for a Sun that has been stable for billions of years and conditions do not allow fission (think about why we are not worried about uranium mines exploding!).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Dungey got the whole idea of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere from Giovanelli in the 1940's:

I have read one of Giovanelli's paper on solar flares - no mention of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.
Even if he did - it is still an obsolete term for a large current density caused by magnetic reconnection.

Where are the rest of the many 'electrical discharges solar flares' result in that book, Michael?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Space Science Reviews, Volume 17, Numbers 2-4 - SpringerLink
So whom shall I believe about electrical discharges in plasma, some IT guy that thinks photons have no kinetic energy, or Dungey and Obayashi, AKA real astronomer/solar physicists?

You should stop lying about this IT guy: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

You should believe Dungey and Obayashi, AKA real astronomer/solar physicists.

You should also try to understand Dungey and Obayashi, AKA real astronomer/solar physicists:
Energy build-up and release mechanisms in solar and auroral flares by Tatsuzo Obayashi (1975)

Flare phenomena in the solar atmosphere and in the terrestrial magnetosphere exhibit many similarities. The mechanical energy of enhanced photospheric motion is converted and stored in the form of magnetic potential energy in sunspot fields, which is analogous to the case of the growth phase of magnetospheric substorms. The energy release during the explosive phase is initiated by a sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology and the X-type magnetic neutral point is created in the corona. Subsequent electrical discharge takes place in the form of an intense electrojet current flowing in the base of the chromosphere at the altitude where the Cowling conductivity is a maximum. It is suggested that the acceleration of particles by field-aligned electric fields and the Ohmic heating in the chromosphere result in major features of solar flares.

(my emphasis added)
So what happens is MR then a solar flare then a 'Subsequent electrical discharge'.

Thus I will be citing as another reference debunking your idea that electrical discharges cause solar flares !

Congratulations, Michael: You have found the third author who seems to call large current densities, 'electrical discharge'. Though the context suggests this is not the usage of Dungey!

 

[Michael]

Thank you for showing that this Birkeland solar model is totally wrong, Michael.

You wouldn't even know Mr "photons have no kinetic energy".

In the real world the photosphere is opaque by definition.

That is a "definition" from *a different* theory. It's a form of blatant bigotry to attempt to refute Birkeland's solar model based upon an *assumption* from another theory.

It is also opaque in fact.

No, it's not. It's "opaque' to some wavelengths, not so opaque to others. It has tons of current running through it which you refuse to acknowledge or even consider.

It has a finite opacity that means that a light source with intensity I reduces by 1/e each increment of opacity.

That's fine and all for *your* theory but it has nothing to do with mine. You'll need to start with *different* assumptions to actually 'understand' a different model and to properly judge it. You aren't interested in understanding it in the first place.

You remain wrong as pointed out in....

"my personal (false) proclamation which I intent to cite forever and ever".

You keep citing *yourself* ad nasium.

Oy Vey. Learn a new trick already.

Temperature of photosphere plus

The temperature of the photosphere doesn't tell us the temperature under that layer anymore than the chromosphere temperature dictates the photosphere temperature.

Second law of thermodynamics plus

The second law is fully satisfied because the photosphere is not 'opaque' as you believe, nor does convection happen at the speeds you claimed. BZZT!

Power source (fusion) at the core equals

Huh? Birkeland's model is/can be fusion powered.

Your iron surface melts and then boils!

No, it doesn't melt or boil and it's not solid iron in the first place, it a rocky surface like the Earth with more metals in it. You've never even *correctly* represented my statements in all these years!

You stll have a fantasy about a Birkeland solar model?

Do you still have some "fantasy' about knowing more about electrical discharges in plasmas than Dungey, Bruce, Birkeland, Peratt, the Russians and the Japanese put together?

It it is not a fantasy then cite the paper or textbook describing it.

arXiv.org Search

It does. That's why convection is only 1 percent of your predicted value and not 100 percent!

FYI, I loved how you just skipped over this point entirely! Wow. Your model bites the dust in SDO data and where do you turn? Denialville of course, just like always.

Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (e.g. below the photosphere)!

RC quotes *himself* yet again, and yet again fails to support his claim with any *external* statements. It's all *internal circular feedback loop*. You only *pretend* to have external links to support half of your claims RC. This is a perfect example. I've cited a half dozen different authors that all claimed that electrical discharges in plasmas are possible. You have yet to provide an *external published source* that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasmas as you keep ranting on about. Do you really think nobody notices that fact that you can't cite an *external* reference to back up your claim RC? How stupid do you think the average reader of this tread is anyway? Do you think they missed that half dozen links I provided?

Demonstrate that convections currents can pass though your iron surface without it breaking (actually melting and boiling).

They don't 'pass through' in the way you're insinuating. The magma/plasma moves, but the *electrons* do most of the mass transfer through the surface.

It is *heliosiesmology data* that shows that your iren surface does not exists because it is not detected.

You know...

Your entire arguments seem to be predicated upon pure denial of scientific fact.
[astro-ph/0510111] Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle

It certainly does show up in heliosiesmology data. It's euphemistically referred to as a 'stratification subsurface' where all the wavelengths just so happen to transform themselves.

Apparently your only trick is to attempt to use a definition from one theory that has already been falsified by SDO data to attempt to "debunk" an entirely different solar theory that isn't the least bit affected by those same SDO findings and makes no such predictions about that layer of the solar atmosphere.

Count all you like. I'll start counting the days now of how long you go without ever quoting a published source that actually claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. I've been waiting for years of course, so I'm not really holding my breath. I just want everyone else to see what a joke your claims are in terms of actual physics. You will not and cannot find an external published source that claims that electrical discharges cannot happen in plasma. Zero days and counting....and counting....and counting....

Tick, tick, tick RC. Where is your published reference that claims electrical discharges are *impossible* in plasma?

 

[Michael]

You should stop lying about this IT guy: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

You claimed that kinetic energy could not be related to frequency (red)shift because photons have no kinetic energy. You're backpeddling at light speed.

You should believe Dungey and Obayashi, AKA real astronomer/solar physicists.

Great. They all agree with me that electrical discharges occur in plasmas, and they all refute your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasmas.

You should also try to understand Dungey and Obayashi, AKA real astronomer/solar physicists:

You should try to understand Peratt and Dungey (and other authors) when they explained to you that 'reconnection' and 'electrical discharges' are not mutually exclusive processes. Peratt specifically defined a discharge as a release of stored electric *or* magnetic energy. They are not mutually exclusive definitions RC! You haven't come to terms with that reality. You're still stuck in denialville.

 

[RealityCheck01]

1963IAUS...16..115W Page 116
So should I believe the IT guy, or someone gainfully employed at the CSIRO Radiophysics lab in Australia?

You should believe someone gainfully employed at the CSIRO Radiophysics lab in Australia.
You should also learn that a conference proceeding from 1963 is not the best citation. You should look for his published paper.
Fast Phenomena in the Solar Corona by Wild, J. P. (1963)

ADS has 30,210 papers on solar flares. SO far you have a handful of solar flare papers that have the term 'electrical discharge' in them.
None of then state that 'electrical discharges' cause solar flares.
The majority state that MR cause these 'electrical discharges' .

Keep on going, Michael - only 15,000 more papers to find and demonstrate that 'electrical discharges' is a common term to use in the solar flare literature !

 

[Michael]

You should believe someone gainfully employed at the CSIRO Radiophysics lab in Australia.

Great because he agrees with me that electrical discharges occur in flares and they are not impossible in plasmas like you claimed.

You should also learn that a conference proceeding from 1963 is not the best citation. You should look for his published paper.
Fast Phenomena in the Solar Corona by Wild, J. P. (1963)

And? Did that help you to understand electrical discharges in plasma any better now that you located it for yourself in a "better" way?

ADS has 30,210 papers on solar flares. SO far you have a handful of solar flare papers that have the term 'electrical discharge' in them.

It's all I need! Reconnection and electrical discharges were never mutually exclusive processes in the first place, and you've yet to present even *one* published paper that supports your claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. When can I expect you find all the readers of this thread a handful of such papers RC?

Time's a ticking RC!

 

[RealityCheck01]

That is a "definition" from *a different* theory.

It is a definition used in astrophysics. It is not based on any theory. It is based on the observation that the Sun emits light!

No, it's not. It's "opaque' to some wavelengths,

Well !
The opacity of plasma varies with wavelength.
That is why astronomers have looked at the photosphere at various wavelengths trying to see as deep as they can into it. The limit seems to be ~100 km:
How deep can we see into the Sun

The temperature of the photosphere doesn't tell us the temperature under that layer anymore than the chromosphere temperature dictates the photosphere temperature.

The temperature of the photosphere tells us that the temperature under that layer is at least the eams

The second law is fully satisfied because the photosphere is not 'opaque' as you believe, nor does convection happen at the speeds you claimed. BZZT!

The second law has nothing to do with whether something is not 'opaque' as you believe, nor have I claimed any speeds for convection, nor does any claims for the speeds have anythoing to do with the sencond law..
BZZT!

It is simple enough - currents that pass through your iron surface means that It is not there!

Huh? Birkeland's model is/can be fusion powered.

Birkeland's model does not exist so it cannot be powered by anything.

No, it doesn't melt or boil
...

Yes is does melt and boil.
And caliming that is is made up other metals does not help - no solids can exist at temperatures greater then 5700 K.

FYI, I loved how you just skipped over this point entirely! Wow.

FYI, I cannot believe that you do not know that this is a thread about your idea !

Your model bites the dust in SDO data:
Iron Sun Surface idea is destroyed by convection!

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.

I cannot believe that you do not know that your model has absolutely no predictions for these convection currents or their speed !

It is a problem for the current models about convection currents but resorting to physically impossible fantasies is not the answer.
The solution is to confirm the observations and the modeling using the standard solar model (there is a tiny chance that they may be wrong). Then we will use valid physics to fix the model (that is the scientific method).

Your entire arguments seem to be predicated upon pure denial of scientific fact.
[astro-ph/0510111] Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle

Your entire arguments seem to be predicated upon pure denial of scientific fact. A 'stratification subsurface' within plasma (i.e. more dense plasma) appears in the data.
The currents from Unexpectedly slow motions below the Sun’s surface pass through this 'stratification subsurface'. It is not solid, liquid or even gas.

Tick, tick, tick RC. Where is your published reference that claims electrical discharges are *impossible* in plasma?

11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
This is ordinary electrical discharge - he gives the example of lightning.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's all I need! Reconnection and electrical discharges were never mutually exclusive processes in the first place, and you've yet to present even *one* published paper that supports your claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.

That is not all you need.
Your claim is (judging by your posts here) is that electrical discharges cause solar flares. You are wrong.

• The evidence is that magnetic reconnection causes solar flares.
• Magnetic reconnection also causes large current densities.
• The majority of scientists call the large current densities caused by MR ... large current densities!
• There are obsolete uses of the term 'electrical discharge' in a few papers by a few authors.

I have never said that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.
Actual electrical discharges makes them impossible in plasma by definition (no dielectric medium to breakdown).
In the context of MR, 'electrical discharges' (large current densities) always happen but that is an obsolete term.
Read: Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!

Or since you do not seem to be capable of clicking on my link :
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma! The 'electrical discharge' term in MR is not a discharge and is obsolete!

So if you want to refer to solar flares just use the term large current density rather than the obsolete term 'electrical discharge'. That just makes you seem ignorant of current solar physics.

 

[Michael]

It is a definition used in astrophysics. It is not based on any theory. It is based on the observation that the Sun emits light!

The fact it emits light does not make it "opaque". Dark energy is also a definition used in astronomy. So what?

Well !
The opacity of plasma varies with wavelength.
That is why astronomers have looked at the photosphere at various wavelengths trying to see as deep as they can into it. The limit seems to be ~100 km:
How deep can we see into the Sun

Yes RC, I know how your *falsified* theory worked on paper. It's a pity it didn't work so well in the helioseismology data.

The temperature of the photosphere tells us that the temperature under that layer is at least the eams

False. The chromosphere is hotter than the photosphere, the photosphere is not hotter than the chromosphere.

The second law has nothing to do with whether something is not 'opaque' as you believe, nor have I claimed any speeds for convection, nor does any claims for the speeds have anythoing to do with the sencond law..
BZZT!

All of that is false, but why should I bother to explain it to someone that still claims electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, and who claimed photon redshift is not related to kinetic energy because photons have no mass and no kinetic energy! It's like trying to explain QM to my cat.

It is simple enough - currents that pass through your iron surface means that It is not there!

Er, no. Iron is a "conductor" like plasma. Electrons can pass through it, like plasma. Oh wait, next you'll be telling me that electrons cannot flow through conductors?

Birkeland's model does not exist so it cannot be powered by anything.

It does exist. He described it himself, including voltages and the power source (transmutation of elements).

Yes is does melt and boil.

No, the surface doesn't melt or boil at 1200Kelvin.

And caliming that is is made up other metals does not help - no solids can exist at temperatures greater then 5700 K.

Good thing the surface temperature is lower than 5700K.

Your model bites the dust in SDO data:
Iron Sun Surface idea is destroyed by convection!

Oh joy, another proclamation by RC followed by endless links to his own false statements. You're a one trick pony apparently. I'm not holding my breath waiting for any papers on how electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.

I cannot believe that you do not know that your model has absolutely no predictions for these convection currents or their speed !

Hey you got something right! Unlike your model, convection isn't even an important power source in a Birkeland model. It's essentially irrelevant in Birkeland's model, but it's critical in your falsified solar model.

It is a problem for the current models about convection currents but resorting to physically impossible fantasies is not the answer.

You mean fantasies like claiming Iron and Nickel stay mixed together with hydrogen and helium in the virtually non-existent convection zone? Please. Standard solar model is like a trip to Fantasy Island.

The solution is to confirm the observations and the modeling using the standard solar model (there is a tiny chance that they may be wrong). Then we will use valid physics to fix the model (that is the scientific method).

I'm simply way ahead of you in "fixing" the problem.

Your entire arguments seem to be predicated upon pure denial of scientific fact. A 'stratification subsurface' within plasma (i.e. more dense plasma) appears in the data.

It's more dense material already.

The currents from Unexpectedly slow motions below the Sun’s surface pass through this 'stratification subsurface'. It is not solid, liquid or even gas.

The fact that an amount of mass that is made of electrons passes through solid metal doesn't mean the metal isn't solid metal! The movement of mass isn't necessarily related to the type of material!

11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
This is ordinary electrical discharge - he gives the example of lightning.

He gave an example of something "possible", namely an "electrical discharge in plasma". His use of the term is consistent with Dungey, the Russians, the Japanese and me. You're the only one in denial of empirical physics RC.

 

[Michael]

I'm still waiting (and so is your audience) for you to do what I did, namely provide at least 1/2 dozen published references to support your erroneous claim that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma. I gave you several references that all claimed you're wrong. Got even half that number that support your irrational and absurd claims? Even one?