Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

That is not all you need.

Yes it is. That is a least 1/2 dozen more external references than you will ever personally provide.

Your claim is (judging by your posts here) is that electrical discharges cause solar flares. You are wrong.

I see that you're trying to backpeddle at light speed again. I simply claimed that electrical discharges occur in solar flare events. You claimed that electrical discharges were impossible. I supported my claim with published, peer reviewed material to back up my claim, whereas you have not provided even a single reference outside of yourself that claimed that electrical discharges are 'impossible' in plasma as you stated. You're never going to produce one either.

The evidence is that magnetic reconnection causes solar flares.

Even if that's actually true, it would still be an "electrical discharge" according to Dungey, and according to Peratt's definition and according to the Russians and according to the Japanese

There are obsolete uses of the term 'electrical discharge' in a few papers by a few authors.

Apparently the only obsolete thing around here is you. Apparently your understanding of physics ended with a KLUDGED understanding of even *classic* physics.

I have never said that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.

Liar.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-82/#post61701393

Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!

You have no intellectual or scientific integrity whatsoever. I have never met anyone that consistently misrepresents their own statements more than you do. It's like a bizarre twilight zone episode, or a political debate rather a discussion about science every time you get involved in a discussion. You speak out of both sides of your mouth, you only cite yourself and your own posts, and you refuse to support any of your bogus claims with *external* references!

You've lost all credibility on this forum RC. Give it up and go home to JREF where someone might actually think you know what you are talking about. Everyone here knows you can't keep your own stories straight and you will *never* cite a reference outside of yourself that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I simply claimed that electrical discharges occur in solar flare events.

So these electrical discharges are just you using an obsolete term for large current densities caused by magnetic reconnection?
If yes then you are just citing modern solar flare theory (MR cuases flares). The implication is the the 'electric suns' part of this thread has nothing to do with solar flares.

There is a further problem with using 'electrical discharges' to describe the images of solar flares from SDO - there are no 'electrical discharges' in those images!
MR accelerates electrons (large current density = 'electrical discharge'). That produces X-rays.

You claimed that electrical discharges were impossible.

You are wrong: I claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. All of your sources suppoort that claim.

Even if that's actually true, it would still be an "electrical discharge" according to Dungey,

That is actually true that the evidence is that magnetic reconnection causes solar flares. That is what Dungey's papers are about! The modern eveidence is even better.
But you are back to not understand what is going on in Dungey's papers and the other papers.
A solar flare is not an "electrical discharge" according to Dungey and the other authors. A solar flare is a solar flare !
A solar flare is caused by MR according to Dungey and the authors you have cited.
That MR has a side effect according to according to Dungey and the other authors.
That side effect is a large current density according to Dungey and the other authors.


Dungey and the other authors use the term 'electrical discharge' to describe this large current density created in this sequence of events

1. Start with the existing current density in plasma.
2. Add a magnetic field with a neutral point. To conserve charge there is more current, i.e. a additional current density.
3. MR happens and the magnetic field changes. This induces electric fields. Thus there is additional current density.

Note that no discharge happens. There is always a non-zero current density. Thus 'electrical discharge' is a bad term for the large current density. That is probably why 'electrical discharge' is an obsolete term.

Liar.

Unable to read English, Michael ?
Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma! states that

• Actual electrical discharges as in lightning (or the other examples of electrical discharges not in plasma listed Peratt's definition) are impossible in plasma by definition.
  This is backed up by there being no papers or textbooks about actual electrical discharges as in lightning in plasma.
• Dungey (and so far a handful of other authors) use the obsolete term 'electrical discharge' for large current densities

you will *never* cite a reference outside of yourself that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.

And that is a lie: I have cited Peratt's definition which makes electrical discharges impossible in plasma. I am not Peratt !

 

[RealityCheck01]

The fact it emits light does not make it "opaque".

The fact that the photosphere emits light is a fact. That leads to is definition that you are still unaware of.

The JREF posters have pointed out to you many times and over a couple of years that the photosphere has an opacity which means that the photosphere is observationally opaque to all wavelengths from about 100 km below its top.

Put an iron surface 4800km below the top of the photosphere and you cannot see any light from it because this is 4700km below the depth where the photosphere is observationally opaque.
Let that iron surface magically emit as muc light as the Sun and the question becomes:
How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
17th October 2012 (21days and counting)

The fact that the photosphere is a plasma means that it is translucent (not transparent and not opaque until you get to a suffucient depth to make it observationally opaque ) and has opacity

Er, no. Iron is a "conductor" like plasma. Electrons can pass through it, like plasma.

Er no - Plasma is not elctrons . Plasma is elactons plus protons + alpha particles + lots of other positive ions. Plasma is a basically a fluid.

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

Still with the assertions. Citation please. What was the actual voltage he gave the Sun?
Your interpretation of Birkeland's solar model just makes it wrong - the Sun is not powered by any "transmutation of elements" known in 1913.
And if you say 'transmutation of elements" = fusion then your iron surface does not exist !

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

That 1200K is a fantasy.
The actual temperature below the photosphere is > 5700K.

Good thing the surface temperature is lower than 5700K.

Bad thing that you are still ignorant about the surface temperature of the Sun!
Michael : What do you think the definition of the photosphere is?
17th October 2012 (21 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 (21 days and counting)

How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
17th October 2012 (21 days and counting)

And the mention of mixing below reminds me of Micheal's idea (borrowed from even worse idea - Olivier Manuel's the sun has a neutron star in it fantasy!) of the Sun being separated into layers by element mass.
Micheal: What is the thickness of your hydrogen layer?
7 November 2012

Micheal: What is the thickness of your helium layer?
7 November 2012

Hey you got something right! Unlike your model, convection isn't even an important power source in a Birkeland model.

Hey you really do not know your solar physics. The Sun is a ball of plasma. Any model that states that the Sun is internally powered is stating that there is convection!
This includes your imagainary solar from Birkeland.

ou mean fantasies like claiming Iron and Nickel stay mixed together with hydrogen and helium in the virtually non-existent convection zone?

I mean that physics (hot plasma mixes!) that shows that iron and nickel and uranium and zinc and ... stay mixed together with hydrogen and helium throughout the Sun.

I mean the simple observation that if there are layers elements separate into layers then these layers will have different densities and be seen in helioseismology analysis.

 

[Michael]

The fact that the photosphere emits light is a fact. That leads to is definition that you are still unaware of.

I'm fully aware of the fact that your entire model, along with all it's definitions have been falsified by SDO. I'm aware your 'definition' of a photosphere is wrong just like your convection claims.

The JREF posters have pointed out to you many times and over a couple of years that the photosphere has an opacity which means that the photosphere is observationally opaque to all wavelengths from about 100 km below its top.

It doesn't *mean* anything in a *Birkeland* solar model, regardless of what it meant in your *falsified* solar theory!

Put an iron surface 4800km below the top of the photosphere and you cannot see any light from it because this is 4700km below the depth where the photosphere is observationally opaque.

That might be true *if* your original *assumptions* were correct, but they were not correct anymore than your convection claims were correct.

Essentially you're a scientific bigot who is incapable of acknowledging that all solar models have to be judged based on their *own* set of 'assumptions'. As long as you insist on stuffing your falsified claims into the discussion, nothing gets accomplished. I guess that's your whole point however.

There is no point in rehashing all the same nonsense with someone that has never read a single book on this topic, who does not care to understand it, who isn't interested in an honest discussion, and who blatantly distorts the truth in virtually every single post! Why should I believe some lame IT guy when I've demonstrated that your claims are refuted by real physicists and real astronomers from all over the planet? You don't care about anyone or anything other than yourself. That is why you will *never* cite an external resource that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, or that photons have no kinetic energy. You just *invent* whatever you want, and you cite yourself ad nausium.

 

[Michael]

I'm still waiting for your non-existent external references that claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. 1 day and counting (and laughing too).

 

[Michael]

So these electrical discharges are just you using an obsolete term for large current densities caused by magnetic reconnection?

The only obsolete thing in this thread is your obsolete (and never correct) understanding of what you claim is 'classical' physics. Can you even come up with an *external* reference (not you this time) that agrees that in some mythical *classical* brand of physics, photons have no kinetic energy and photon redshift is not related to the loss of kinetic energy because photons have no kinetic energy? I'd even take a link from 1929!

Got one? Of course not!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Back to citing *yourself* I see. Oy Vey.

Back to correcting your mistake about what I have written which is impossible without citing myself !
Back to citing what Peratt and Dungey wrote !
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma! The 'electrical discharge' term in MR is not a discharge and is obsolete!

 

[RealityCheck01]

You claimed that kinetic energy could not be related to frequency (red)shift because photons have no kinetic energy.
...usual assertions about Peratt and Dungey snipped...

And once again you do not read what I wrote: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's a *definition* of an electrical discharge *in* cosmic plasma.

Wrong: It is a *title* containig the terms

• electrical discharge
• *in*
• cosmic plasma

Photons yet again: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

You still cannot find any examples of actual electrical discharges in plasma in Peratt's book, in any other textbook or in any paper. So you resort to your usual quote mining of his definition (close to lying about it)! I will have to make this clear for you, Michael:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term in MR is not a discharge and is obsolete!

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's a *definition* of something that you claim is *impossible*!

Read what you wrote Michael:

Here is the definition:
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium

The text you highlighted is the title of the section.

The rest of the quote is the definition (a sentence followed by a qualifying sentence).
The section and his entire book (according to the deafening silence from you) does not have any examples of any actual electrical discharges in plasma.

I've cited more than a 1/2 dozen authors that ...usual rant snipped...quote]
You have cited more than a 1/2 dozen authors that support the second part of:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR is not a discharge and is obsolete!

The obsolete part is easy to confirm:
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) has 32 results for 'electrical discharge solar flares' (starting from 1960) and there are ~30,000 solar flare papers.

Interesting fact: If you had ever bothered to do this basic research then you would be able to cite C. E. R. Bruce's actual papers !

 

[RealityCheck01]

I'm fully aware of the fact that your entire model, along with all it's definitions have been falsified by SDO.
...usual rant snip[ped...

That remains really wrong so you are not aware of this at all. The SDO results mean that the convection part of the standard model needs adjusting or discarding.
Hmmm - this seems about the third time that I have pointed out this part of the scientific process to you. Maybe I should stop wasting my time writing a reply to each of your repeats of this claim and put it into a post.

You still have not answered: Outstanding questions for Michael!
Normally I would wait a day or so to allow you to catch up but you have been asserting that this imaginary Birkeland solar model has a different definition of photosphere. That makes me curious so:

Michael, What does Birkeland state as the definition of the photosphere?
The answer should be easy - look up the solar model in Birkeland's book and quote his definition of the photosphere.

 

[Michael]

Back to correcting your mistake about what I have written which is impossible without citing myself !

You cited yourself claiming that electrical discharges were impossible in plasma while claiming you never said it! What the heck?!?!?!?!?

You have no *external* reference to support your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. I've asked you repeatedly for such references and you have *epically* failed to produce them. I provided you with over a half dozen actual physicists and astronomers that refuted your claim. When can I expect you to admit your mistake or to provide a reference to support your irrational fantasies?

Back to citing what Peratt and Dungey wrote !
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma! The 'electrical discharge' term in MR is not a discharge and is obsolete!

The only thing that is *obsolete* is you and your lack of knowledge in physics, all of which is purely self induced. You've never even provided a "classical" definition of photon that claimed that photons have no kinetic energy and their kinetic energy was always zero. The one WIKI page you cited never even *mentioned* a photon, and it didn't support your claim. That's another perfect example of you being unwilling to provide an *external* reference to support your claim, and another topic where you do nothing but cite yourself or some useless website that doesn't actually support your statement.

Electrical discharges are not "obsolete", but apparently you're intent on making yourself obsolete by never lifting a finger to educate yourself on plasma physics.

 

[Michael]

Read what you wrote Michael:

The text you highlighted is the title of the section.

Yes, the section that describes an electrical discharge *inside* of plasma.

The rest of the quote is the definition (a sentence followed by a qualifying sentence).

True. The rest explains that an electrical discharge in plasma is defined as the sudden release of stored electric or magnetic energy. It's a really *simple* idea. Only someone *intent* on mucking it up could do so. Only an irrational crackpot would claim Peratt's definition supports your claim that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasmas.

The section and his entire book (according to the deafening silence from you) does not have any examples of any actual electrical discharges in plasma.

Oy Vey. I've never seen anyone misrepresent facts as consistently as you do.

The only thing obsolete around here is your knowledge of physics. Not once have you produced a single reference outside of yourself to support your claim that "classical" physics ever claimed photons lack kinetic energy, or that electrical discharges are impossible in plasmas.

The ironic part is you personal searched and found evidence to refute your claims, and you think they somehow support you?????????? Wow!

You're more out of touch with reality than *anyone* I've met on Earth, and that's saying something.

 

[Michael]

That remains really wrong so you are not aware of this at all.

No, it just shows you're stuck in denialville on yet another topic in physics. How many is that now, 4?, 5?, more?

The SDO results mean that the convection part of the standard model needs adjusting or discarding.

Discard away. There goes your right to claim heavy elements like Iron and Nickel stay mixed together with wispy light Hydrogen and Helium at the surface of the photosphere. There goes your opacity. There goes your energy source for all high energy atmospheric activity in mainstream solar theory. What's left? That sinking Iron and Nickel in your now dead theory is bound to snuff out fusion in the core once it gets there.

Hmmm - this seems about the third time that I have pointed out this part of the scientific process to you. Maybe I should stop wasting my time writing a reply to each of your repeats of this claim and put it into a post.

Let me clue you in just in case there's any doubt. You are incapable of teaching me anything on the topics of photon physics or plasma physics, solar physics, or God. You're useless to me in these areas because you have no knowledge of these things. You're wasting your breath here RC if you think you're going to change my opinions on any of those topics.

Michael, What does Birkeland state as the definition of the photosphere?
The answer should be easy - look up the solar model in Birkeland's book and quote his definition of the photosphere.

The surface in question is simply another current carrying double layer of plasma in the solar atmosphere RC. That's just one of several mass separated layers described in the model on my website. Oddly enough however, it was actually Sir William Herschel that claimed it was a 'cloud like' layer that covered a rocky surface.

 

[Michael]

And once again you do not read what I wrote: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

We all know what you wrote. We're all waiting for you to cite someone *outside* of yourself that actually agrees with you. Got a reference from "classical" physics that actually claims that photons have no kinetic energy, or did you just make that up?

 

[Michael]

And once again you do not read what I wrote: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

FYI, we all know what you *actually* wrote RC:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-38/#post61571331

Sure but the photon can also simply pass it's kinetic energy to another particle,

That is more ignorance- if a photon p[asses kinetic energy thehn its speed must change!
The speed of light for a photon in vacuum is constant.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/

Nope. Light only travels at the speed of light.

That was my (rather mangled!) point! Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.

Yes which is why a loss of kinetic energy in a photon is called "redshift",

And there is that "kinetic" again. A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

That's what you *really* said. Got *any* external reference to support any of that nonsense you spewed?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, the section that describes an electrical discharge *inside* of plasma.

I read that section and it describes electrical discharges *inside* of air and solids.
Make me wrong Michael!
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges (and examples)?

True. The rest explains that an electrical discharge in plasma is defined as the sudden release of stored electric or magnetic energy.

False: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR is not a discharge and is obsolete!

Only an irrational crackpot would claim Peratt's definition supports your claim that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasmas.

Actually only an irrational crackpot would claim that my claim is "electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasmas.":
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR is not a discharge and is obsolete!

...usual insults snipped...

Whoops - the fantasy about what I wrote about photons pops up again:.
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

 

[RealityCheck01]

...
There goes your right to claim heavy elements like Iron and Nickel stay mixed together with wispy light Hydrogen and Helium at the surface of the photosphere.

There is your inability to understand that slow convection does not mean no convection !

There goes your opacity.

There is another bit of ignorance: convection does not create opacity.
Opacity is a property of any material.

There goes your energy source for all high energy atmospheric activity in mainstream solar theory.

There is another bit of ignorance: convection is not the energy source for all high energy atmospheric activity in mainstream solar theory.
The energy source for the heating ('high energy') of the solar atmosphere (the temperature minimum, chromosphere, transition region and corona) has not been established but mainstream solar theory has candidates, e.g. Alfvén waves
De Pontieu, B.; et al. (2007). "Chromospheric Alfvénic Waves Strong Enough to Power the Solar Wind". Science 318 (5856): 1574–77. Bibcode 2007Sci...318.1574D. doi:10.1126/science.1151747. PMID 18063784.

What's left?

Everything except convection theories and probaby that too !

You are incapable of teaching me anything on the topics of photon physics or plasma physics, solar physics, or God.

At last something we agree on though my angle is a bit different:
It is impossible to teach you anything on the topics of photon physics or plasma physics or solar physics that you have already made up your mind on. For example:

The temperature of the Sun varies from ~13,000,000K at the center to ~5700K at the top of the photosphere. This is confirmed by measurement that have ~9400K 100 km withing the photosphere. The helioseismology that you are so impressed with works with models that have a plasma that increased with temperature with depth.
​

But you still insist that there is a solid iron surface in the Sun when iron melts at 1811K !

Wait until I get to your 'evidence' for that layer, e.g. images of flares in the transition zone above the photsphere . But that will have to wait for another day when I start to analyze your web pages.

 

[Michael]

There is your inability to understand that slow convection does not mean no convection !

1 percent of predicted convection won't keep iron and hydrogen mixed together at the surface of the photosphere. You're dreaming (again).

There is another bit of ignorance: convection does not create opacity. Opacity is a property of any material.

It's not mixed elements as you imagine, it's mostly neon in a +4 ionization state with other impurities of course.

There is another bit of ignorance: convection is not the energy source for all high energy atmospheric activity in mainstream solar theory.

That's not what the real scientists say RC.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...wer-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/

“Our current theoretical understanding of magnetic field generation in the Sun relies on these motions being of a certain magnitude,” explained Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. “These convective motions are currently believed to prop up large-scale circulations in the outer third of the Sun that generate magnetic fields.”
“However, our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations,” continued Hanasoge, also a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Plank Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. “If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.”

I guess you'll have to resort to quoting *yourself* again on this topic.

At last something we agree on though my angle is a bit different:
It is impossible to teach you anything on the topics of photon physics or plasma physics or solar physics that you have already made up your mind on.

Not true. If you actually *had* any knowledge on these topics, you might teach me something whether I liked it or not. Since you have never read a book on these topics, nor cited any external resource to support any of your bogus claims, I can only assume you're just pulling your statements out of your back pocket. You can't teach someone something about at topic that you know nothing about. Since I'm the only one of us that has actual read a real textbook on plasma physics, you have nothing to teach me on that topic. Likewise, since you believe that photons have no kinetic energy, you clearly know nothing about basic photon physics.

Lot's of people teach me new things all the time on a variety of topics RC. You just aren't one of them.

For example:

For example, you have made no effort whatsoever to actually *understand* the solar model I have presented. You insist instead of using an assumed "definition" from a *falsified theory* to attempt to judge the merits of a completely different theory. The corona is hotter than the thicker, cooler chromosphere. The chromosphere is hotter than the photosphere. The silicon double layer under the photosphere is thicker and cooler than the photosphere. The surface is "only" about 1200K, well under the 4000K limit of solid carbon, and even well under the melting point of calcium ferrite.

Wait until I get to your 'evidence' for that layer, e.g. images of flares in the transition zone above the photsphere . But that will have to wait for another day when I start to analyze your web pages.

So apparently you've never even bothered to even read the website in all these years. Typical.

 

[Michael]

I read that section and it describes electrical discharges *inside* of air and solids.

Bzzt. You apparently can't read:
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma