-
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
Pstt ... it is heading for a paper by someone who is ignoring or ignorant of a basic part of astrophysics - the Schwarzschild criterion.
The rest of his Iron Sun idea is "not even right"!
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!
Your fantasy that "fast" convention is needed for mixing is just that a fantasy.
Any convection will mix things up.
Your "Fe, Ni mixing with H and He" is close to a delusion because it is actually observed in the mixed up photosphere (genial).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ok, Michael: How big is this *huge* amount of "mixing"?
Citatuions to the scientific literaure plase.
You are still in denial of the fact that wispy thin hydrogen and helium to mixed together with Carbon, Lead, Iron, Nickel, Gold is actually detecte din the photosphere thus showing that it is mixed up!
You are still ignorant of the idiocy of looking at PR images that have been processed to be pretty.
And wrong: Errors in Micheal's site XIII (3480 km is not 4800 km)!
Still in denial, Michael: The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
And now all you have lect, Michael, is accusing someone of lying:
The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
You cannot even understand that your "green line" is missing from another PR image:
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.
You seem to be unable (afraid?) to actually find out what was done to the PR image.
MM: Why have you never in over 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image?
Now you can read minds
!You have no idea what the PR team did to get the image and your fantasy about what they did misses out the source of the green line:
The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team.
MM: Why have you never in over 2 years, contacted the SDO team about the image?
Still persisting in your denial of phsics, Michael.
Iron Sun Surface idea is Thermodynamically Impossible!
The chromosphere being hotter than the photosphere has been explained to you before and you are still unable to understand it!
From JREF:
17th April 2010: I've explained to you MANY times why you're totally wrong about this. ...
That an iron surface in the Sun is impossible has been explained comprehensively by Tim Thompson:
Upvote
0
Let us see the science that you pointed out to make Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)! wrong .
Repeated your fantasies about what is in the RD movie of a solar flare and CME in the transition zone.
There are "persistent" features in the movie - Duh
! They are persistent areas of changing light (temperature).A new fantasy: that a Coronal Mass Ejection is an electrical discharge!
Usual Dungay rant:
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 idoicy of looking at the SDO public relations image without checking what the SAD team did to it.
Usual denial of science: Every astronomer in the world places the transition zone above the photosphere.
Usial quote mine (lie) about Peratt's defintion.
Problems with mnumbers: Errors in Micheal's site XIII (3480 km is not 4800 km)!
Seeming ignorance of what lights up plasma is the plasma! Plasma emits light
.So the "light sources" of the original TRACE images is every ion and electron recombining to emit a photon in all of the plasma being imaged.
At last a valid critism (no science though). See the edited post,
These areas increase or decrease in size as the the flare changes shape.
These areas rotate as the flare rotates.
And back to denial of physics, Michael!
The RD image is a record of changing light intensity in the flare and CME. Light intensity is a measure of temperature in images. Or are you denying that sunspots appear dark because they are cooler than the surrounding photosphere, etc.? Or that your imaginary "electrical discharges in plasma" (actually magnetic reconnection and other EM effects) heat up the plasma so the parts appear brighter than other parts?
Or can you explain why solar images are not uniformly bright?
The page with TRACE description of the movie has for example at the top:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well Duh, Michael
!You need to look at what the speed of sound is in solids. It has wo components (longitudinal and shear).
Plasma just has shear speed of sounds.
Helioseismology works without any longitudinal speed that is required in solids.
There is also the problem that the speed of sound and its variation with temperature and pressure is different with solids and plasma.
Thus Helioseismology will not work with a solid Sun.
And as in ordinary seismology, Helioseismology will detect any abrupt chnages in density because waves will reflect off the zone, i.e. your iron surface.
You are the one with the claim that an iron surface exists so it is up to you to support it:
Michael: Show that your iron surface will have no effect on helioseismology
Upvote
0
Micheal's web site
Last image on the web page with the caption:
Birkeland's image is in visble light. The Yohkoh image is in X-rays.
More problems with this comparison of images:
Birkeland's image is of electrical discharges around a brass ball. The Yohkoh image is of X-rays being emitted from the accelerated electrons in plasma around the Sun.
They do not look alike! They have 'arcs (curves) ' in common but this is wha images is expected of charged particles following magnetic lines of forces as Birkeland notes on page 665.
Micheal does not give the specific sources for the images (another error!) but the Birkeland image looks almost like fig. 247a. This is in his section about the Sun but figure 247a is actually a picture produced during creating an anlogy to Saturn.
Thus Micheal's first figure is not really of the Sun - it is Saturn
(sort of)!
When I told Micheal about this on JREF on 14th July 2009 his response was going off on derails and ignoring the issue for over 3 years now.
Yet a couple of pages later there is Figure 253 which looks the same as 247a (but maybe cleaned up a bit or the the two figures may be a pair of images taken around the same time) that is explicitly compared to the Sun. A pity that Micheal's sloopy referencing meant that he did not know what he had cited!
Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!
Errors in Micheal's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!
Errors in Micheal's site IV (below? the photosphere)
Errors in Micheal's site V (transition region is above photosphere)!!
Errors in Micheal's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!
Errors in Micheal's site VII (Sun rotates non-uniformly)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Micheal's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XII (Kosovichev (2005) shows no iron surface)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIII (3480 km is not 4800 km)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!
Errors in Micheal's site XV (no surface structures in SOHO RD movie)!
Errors in Micheal's site XVI (no surface in flare)!
Last image on the web page with the caption:
The answer is: Not coincidence - comparing apples and pears.
Birkeland's image is in visble light. The Yohkoh image is in X-rays.
More problems with this comparison of images:
Birkeland's image is of electrical discharges around a brass ball. The Yohkoh image is of X-rays being emitted from the accelerated electrons in plasma around the Sun.
They do not look alike! They have 'arcs (curves) ' in common but this is wha images is expected of charged particles following magnetic lines of forces as Birkeland notes on page 665.
Micheal does not give the specific sources for the images (another error!) but the Birkeland image looks almost like fig. 247a. This is in his section about the Sun but figure 247a is actually a picture produced during creating an anlogy to Saturn.
Thus Micheal's first figure is not really of the Sun - it is Saturn
(sort of)!When I told Micheal about this on JREF on 14th July 2009 his response was going off on derails and ignoring the issue for over 3 years now.
Yet a couple of pages later there is Figure 253 which looks the same as 247a (but maybe cleaned up a bit or the the two figures may be a pair of images taken around the same time) that is explicitly compared to the Sun. A pity that Micheal's sloopy referencing meant that he did not know what he had cited!
Errors in Micheal's site I (minor revision needed)
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!
Errors in Micheal's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!
Errors in Micheal's site IV (below? the photosphere)
Errors in Micheal's site V (transition region is above photosphere)!!
Errors in Micheal's site VI (RD processing does not move original images)!
Errors in Micheal's site VII (Sun rotates non-uniformly)!
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Micheal's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!
Errors in Micheal's site XII (Kosovichev (2005) shows no iron surface)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIII (3480 km is not 4800 km)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!
Errors in Micheal's site XV (no surface structures in SOHO RD movie)!
Errors in Micheal's site XVI (no surface in flare)!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
As usual, you have everything backwards. Your "mixing" claims are predicated upon "fast" reconnection so you can overcome the Schwartzchild criterion in terms of plasma separation. Since you don't have fast reconnection, your "mixed together" claims just sank.
There are in fact trace elements in the solar atmosphere, but they are simply trace elements caused by coronal loop activity that strips things from the surface. That fact that trace amounts of Iron are found in the atmosphere is not evidence that all the plasmas stay mixed together. You're basically using a non-sequitor of an argument.
Upvote
0
Well Duh, Michael
You need to look at what the speed of sound is in solids. It has wo components (longitudinal and shear).
Plasma just has shear speed of sounds.
*External* reference for that claim please.....
I'm not holding my breath.
Reference please. It sounds like you're just making stuff up again.
Upvote
0
Someone with a pot leaf for an avatar is a trustworthy reference? The individual in question never once cited a name of anyone at NASA, and nobody at NASA would ever say something so utterly ridiculous. Nobody at NASA would say something so completely ignorant about the cause of the "green" line. Only one guy that I know would make that claim.
Who at NASA made that claim RC? Oh wait, it's against your religion to cite an external resource!
Upvote
0
Where is your *external* support for the claim that *any* convection will keep Iron mixed with Hydrogen in the crushing gravity and magnetic fields of the sun?
Upvote
0
There's no problem "understanding" it, there's a problem *agreeing* with it!
The mainstream's *claim* about the "opacity" or lack thereof, of the photosphere is the issue and the debate. Since convection does *not* occur at the rates your theory "predicts", there's no way you're going to achieve a mixing of elements.
There are also trace amounts of heavy elements in the Earth's atmosphere, but that doesn't demonstrate that the Earth doesn't mass separate or that it doesn't have a surface.
Likewise if we remove one *assumption* from your now falsified mainstream theory, your entire thermodynamic argument goes up in smoke. You can't handle that possibility so you keep ignoring it and repeating yourself over and over again.
Upvote
0
Electrical discharges in plasma proponents:
James Dungey 1
James Dungey 2
Charles Bruce
Ronald Giovanelli
Tatsuzo Obayashi
J. P. Wild
E. Ya. Vil'koviskii
T. S. Kozhanov
S. Ibadov
So RC, when can I expect you to provide a list of similar published papers or books claiming that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible since all 8 of these authors disagree with you. Remember now, we need *external* references, not links to your own posts.
If you can't be "trusted" on this topic, why should I believe anything you have to say on the topic of solar physics?
James Dungey 1
James Dungey 2
Charles Bruce
Ronald Giovanelli
Tatsuzo Obayashi
J. P. Wild
E. Ya. Vil'koviskii
T. S. Kozhanov
S. Ibadov
So RC, when can I expect you to provide a list of similar published papers or books claiming that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible since all 8 of these authors disagree with you. Remember now, we need *external* references, not links to your own posts.
If you can't be "trusted" on this topic, why should I believe anything you have to say on the topic of solar physics?
Upvote
0
Never because you are lying about what the authors state: This is all electrical discharge = large current density.
And there is the idiocy of citing Bruce yet again (actual lightning on the Sun!)
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
But I will update
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!to include the valid citations that you have supplied to support me.
Upvote
0
ETA (26 Nov 2012): Michael apprently lied in Michael after over 2 years has at last understood that Peratt's section title is not a defintion since he is back to the ridiculous claim that this section defines electrical discharges in cosmic plasma when the only mention of that in Peratt's entire book is in the title of this section!
ETA: Michael after over 2 years has at last understood that Peratt's section title is not a defintion and that Peratt's definition has two parts:
ETA:
"Electrical discharge" is a rather ambiguous term in physics with multiple meanings depending on the context. For example it is used in the context of double layer destruction in cometary nuclei (S. Ibadov (2012).)
The meanings that we are arguing over are
Peratt has no examples of any electrical discharge in plasma.
The implication is that there are no electrical discharges (other than large current densities) in plasma. This is confirmed by the lack of discussion of electrical discharge in plasma in any textbook.
Does this have any physical significance to solar flares?
There are over 30,000 results for 'solar flare' in the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS). But there are only 32 results for 'solar flare electrical discharge'.
When we look at a sample of these 32 results then all we have is Dungey's meaning (so far), i.e. the standard MR causes solar flares theory.
Thus the answer is basically none. If electrical discharges had any physical significance in solar flares then there would be hundreds or thousands of results.
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
This is ordinary electrical discharge - he gives the example of lightning and aurora.
The full text of the section is here:
Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
This section title is "1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" so I should mention that this is the title not a definition. Do you know the distinction now, Michael?
11th January 2011: Michael still has no idea what a title is or difference between a title and a definition!
So will Michael understand that there is no discussion or examples of electrical discharges in plasma in Peratt's book or any other textbook anytime in the next 3 years?
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
And
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
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?
There is Dr Charles Bruce and his invalid idea about lightning on the Sun (Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!).
This expert in electrical discharges did not just state that there are electrical discharges in plasma on the Sun. He stated that his requirement for electrical discharges in plasma on the Sun was that the plasma must contain dust particles.
You may go on about Dungey again so:
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!
Michael has given citations to support the above.
Charles Bruce
A crank who thought that there was actual lightning on the Sun: Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
ETA: Michael after over 2 years has at last understood that Peratt's section title is not a defintion and that Peratt's definition has two parts:
- a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy which
- generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium"
ETA:
"Electrical discharge" is a rather ambiguous term in physics with multiple meanings depending on the context. For example it is used in the context of double layer destruction in cometary nuclei (S. Ibadov (2012).)
The meanings that we are arguing over are
- Peratt: release of energy + generally dielectric breakdown.
Thus my emphasis on an actual electrical discharge. - Dungey: Magnetic reconnection causes solar flares and induces changes in electrical fields. The changes in electrical fields cause large current densities. He calls these 'electrical discharges'
- There may be other meanings hidden away in the literature on solar flares.
Peratt has no examples of any electrical discharge in plasma.
The implication is that there are no electrical discharges (other than large current densities) in plasma. This is confirmed by the lack of discussion of electrical discharge in plasma in any textbook.
Does this have any physical significance to solar flares?
There are over 30,000 results for 'solar flare' in the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS). But there are only 32 results for 'solar flare electrical discharge'.
When we look at a sample of these 32 results then all we have is Dungey's meaning (so far
), i.e. the standard MR causes solar flares theory.Thus the answer is basically none. If electrical discharges had any physical significance in solar flares then there would be hundreds or thousands of results.
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
This is ordinary electrical discharge - he gives the example of lightning and aurora.
The full text of the section is here:
Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
This section title is "1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" so I should mention that this is the title not a definition. Do you know the distinction now, Michael?
11th January 2011: Michael still has no idea what a title is or difference between a title and a definition!
So will Michael understand that there is no discussion or examples of electrical discharges in plasma in Peratt's book or any other textbook anytime in the next 3 years
?5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
And
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
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?
There is Dr Charles Bruce and his invalid idea about lightning on the Sun (Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!).
This expert in electrical discharges did not just state that there are electrical discharges in plasma on the Sun. He stated that his requirement for electrical discharges in plasma on the Sun was that the plasma must contain dust particles.
You may go on about Dungey again so:
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!
Michael has given citations to support the above.
- James Dungey 1
"Discharges are shown to be a possible source of high energy particles, if the current density is very large. The growth of the current density is discussed using the fact that the magnetic lines of force are approximately frozen into the ionized gas. It is shown that discharges are unlikely to occur anywhere except at neutral points of the magnetic field. Neutral points are found to be unstable in such a way that a small perturbation will start a discharge in a time of the order of the characteristic time of the system. Such discharges may account for aurorae, and may also occur in solar flares and the interstellar gas"
Emphasis added. His 'discharge' is an existing current density that grows, i.e. not a discharge! - James Dungey 2
"The suggestion that an solar flare resuts from an electrical discharge situated in the neighbourhood of a neutral point of the magnetic field was made by Giovanelli [2].
...
The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density." - Ronald Giovanelli (a book reference)
- J. P. Wild (1963)
A conference proceeding so not peer- reviewed. A mention of "Several theories yielding sudden electrical discharges..." and the theories referenced (Sweet;Gold and Hoyle) are MR inducing large currents. IOW Dungey's usage. - T. S. Kozhanov (1973)
The title is "Nonthermal X Rays and Electric Currents in Solar Flares." One "electrical discharge" with a reference back to Giovanelli so this is his and Dungey's usage. - E. Ya. Vil'koviskii (1974)
A section title "Electrical dicharge in the chromosphere" which not enough to tell whether this is Dungey's usage. The assumption of existing curents supports this. No astronomer would be stupid enough to think that there is lightning on the Sun so it is either Dungey's usage or their own.
Michael has now stated that this is Dungey's usage of the words 'electrical discharge' for large current densities which is an option that I list above!
So I need to mention that this is part of the ridiculous act of Michael cites papers that state that solar flares are magnetic reconnection, thus debunking his own idea!
- Tatsuzo Obayashi (1975)
This interesting paper has an abstract with MR then an "electrical discharge". But the paper actually does not mention any electrical discharges :o! This looks like an editing choice for an understandable, short abstract. The "electrical discharge" is the solar flare equivalent of the auroral electrojet which they are introducing. - S. Ibadov (2012)
This is double layers induced at the comet having an "electrical discharge potential". However double layers are "destroyed" rather than "discharged". And the abstarct says this happens inside the nucleus not in plasma.
Michael seem to have never read the abstract so here it is in full:
Charles Bruce
A crank who thought that there was actual lightning on the Sun: Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Not me. That's your game, not mine. They used the same terms I use, specifically the term "electrical discharge". It's you that keep lying and claiming they didn't really mean "electrical discharge" when the used the term "electrical discharge".
This is all an example of you hearing what you want to hear and ignoring the authors themselves. That's not new behavior of course, but it's certainly rather pathetic (and obviously so) behavior.
The idiocy is an IT guy claiming to know more about solar physics than those 8 authors without ever even reading a textbook on the topic of plasma physics. That's the real idiocy going on.
...your own words and links and you'll keep linking to your own words forever and ever and you'll keep hoping nobody notices you're stuck in a circular feedback loop and you're incapable of citing external references that support your claims. You're the one trying to "quote mine" a *definition of electrical discharges in plasma* as some kind of support for your erroneous claims about discharges being impossible in plasmas.
Peratt's definition is 100 percent consistent with Dungey's (and all other 7 author's) use of the term "Electrical discharges". You're the odd guy out RC, not me.
Upvote
0
You simply deny that Dungey's use of the term "electrical discharge" really means "electrical discharge". In short you change his words and meaning to suit yourself whenever you feel like it, for whatever reason you want.
Another book reference that claims you're all wet and you never addressed it.
Utterly and totally false:
You'll never deal with them.
FYI, name calling it not a scientific rebuttal.
Upvote
0
Peratt's definition says nothing of the sort. You're doing to him exactly what you did to Dungey. You're changing his words to suit yourself as you see fit *without* ever reading his book!
False! The definition of a discharges is *not* a breakdown of a dielectric. The definition is a "fast release of stored EM energy". You're butchering and changing the definition of an electrical discharge in plasma to the point of utter ridiculousness. You're trying to claim what is possible *by definition* is not possible. That's irrational nonsense and it's just the same as you did to Dungey and it is the same thing that you'll try to do to every other author that I cited!
You're worse than anyone I've ever met in cyberspace in terms of simply *changing words* in people's papers and books to suit yourself. Dungey said "electrical discharges". You can't handle that term, so you simply change it to suit yourself and call it a "big current". Peratt claims that electrical discharges *do* occur in plasma, and you change his definition to suit yourself without ever reading his book. The Russians used the term "electrical discharges" too. I wonder what words you will put into the mouth of our Russian comrades?
RC: "The Russians don't know anything about space! They're all crackpots!"
Upvote
0
Well double duh, Michael
- they used the same term that you and I use, specifically the term "electrical discharge"! A competent person then reads the papers to see the context in which the term was used
!Six papers in which the context is MR cuasung large currents.
One paper whose body does not mention any electrical discharge.
One paper on DLs in comets. A reference to a ""electrical discharge potential" in DLs.
An incompetent person retains a fantasy that lightning can happen on the Sun and cites Bruce: Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!One paper whose body does not mention any electrical discharge.
One paper on DLs in comets. A reference to a ""electrical discharge potential" in DLs.
The updated
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 (various papers) is not a discharge
and is obsolete!to include the valid citations that you have supplied
Upvote
0
Well double duh, Michael
A competent person then reads the papers to see the context in which the term was used
A competent person has read some textbooks on the topic under discussion, and knows that photons have kinetic energy. Unfortunately you aren't competent in plasma physics.
Six papers in which you simply ignored the terms the author *actually* used, and inserted the term you preferred to hear. How irrational can you get? I've seen bad cases of pure denial, but you're in a league of your own.
Yes it did and I quoted it for you. It was a reference to Alfven/Carlquvist's work. Your denial thing has no bounds and no shame apparently.
....one can be an 'expert' on any topic without actually lifting a finger to educate themselves on that topic. You've never read a book on plasma physics. You've never published a paper on solar physics. You've never admitted that electrical discharges occur in plasmas. Your opinions of published authors on the topic of plasma physics is therefore irrelevant.
Peratt's definition of electrical discharges *in plasma* is 100% consistent with the use of each of the 8 *other* authors that I cited. Not one of them is in agreement with your claim. Every single one of them (and me) disagrees with your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. Whom shall we believe RC, the IT guy that's never read a single book on the topic of plasma physics, or the astronomers, physicist and solar physicists of the world?
Upvote
0
That is a dumb statement:
Dungey's use of the term "electrical discharge" really means "electrical discharge".
Now what does "electrical discharge" mean?
The answer is:
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 (various papers) is not a discharge
and is obsolete!FYI, denying that actual lightning is impossible on the Sun is just ignorant.
Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
The scientific rebuttal is
The fact is his idea was so bad that only a few people have cited it in the last 50 years:
An invalid idea that is largely ignored is what makes Bruce a crank.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
