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.
That is a lie - read the definition where he talks about dielectric breakdown.
and is obsolete!The term that authors actually used was "electrical discharge" and "electrical discharge potential". I did not ignore what they wrote.
Pure denial: 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and is obsolete!
If you understood it than you would agree with it
!There is no issue or debate: The photosphere has opacity
!Wow, Michael!
Your in denial that electrical discharges occur in plasma *in spite* of their claims to the contrary! What else can you call it? Pure denial of scientific fact?
A "competent person" would have read a book on this topic. You are an *incompetent person* on this topic!
What they "meant" was that RC is full of baloney when he claimed that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible. That's what they meant.
Peratt's definition of a discharges does not require a dielectric breakdown. It only requires a fast release of EM energy. You've kludged his definition to suit yourself as usual.
Dungey specifically used the term "electrical discharge" RC, not "large current density". He blew you ignorant claims out of the water in the 50's!
Only RC has his own definition of terms, like photons without kinetic energy and electrical discharges that aren't actually electrical discharges.
The answer was obvious. They all agree on terms. You're the one that can't handle the term "electrical discharge" as written.
They all used the term "electrical discharge". You can't handle their *real* comments.
In your case the term "debunk" apparently means 'handwave at while in pure denial of the fact that the standard solar theory was falsified by SDO helioseismology data in 2012. In fact, it would seem that your entire belief system is predicated upon living in the past as it relates to scientific information.
Yes you are. You're in pure denial of the scientific fact that electrical discharges happen in plasma. You're in pure denial of the scientific fact that photons have kinetic energy. You're in pure denial of the scientific fact that standard solar theory was *falsified* by SDO data. You're in pure denial of the scientific fact that you cannot understand a topic properly without *studying* it properly which typically involves reading a textbook on the topic.
As usual you keep ignoring the difference between the minimum *formation* mass of a neutron star (theoretical), and it's *minimum potential size after it starts to decay*. Why bother explaining anything to you since it all goes in one ear and out the other? You do nothing but keep citing yourself repeatedly, and asking the very same questions over and over and over again. Is there any point in trying to have a conversation with a true "hater" who's never read a single book on the topic in question, and who refuses to provide *external* links for any points in dispute? I've honestly seen YEC proponents do a *far* better job in debate in terms of making real points than you are doing. All you're doing is going in endless circles related to your own internal belief systems, and no other opinion on the whole planet matters to you.
If you understood it than you would agree with it
There is no issue or debate: The photosphere has opacity
No, even if that were true (it's not), it just makes Bruce and Dungey and Giovanelli and others a minority opinion, and it makes you a verbally abusive crackpot. You are also ignorant by choice on this particular topic and everyone knows it, so the *actual* "crank" is you, not the guy that published several papers on solar physics.
I do not claim that: 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! I am not citing myself. I am linking to my post which contains the citations to the scientific literature and the questions that you are unable to answer about electrical discharges in the literature.
and is obsolete!As usual you forget about the actual physics!
The Sun is a typical star so should conatin a typical neutron star.
!Wrong: 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! It means that I am right
The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge
You keep linking to yourself and here is the utterly irrational claim you made about a book you never read:
You personally created a "requirement" related to a dielectric breakdown which Peratt did not make. You keep insisting an *EXAMPLE* is a definition, when in fact the definition is one sentence, specifically the first one.
ingentaconnect A model of low-mass neutron stars with a quark coreBut
Supernovae vary and so the Chandrasekhar Limit can be exceeded, e.g. SMC X-1 is one of the few neutron stars that are at the minimum mass expected from a supernova (~1 solar mass).
I know we've already had this conversation at JREF and you're still repeating the same nonsense, even when I spend the time to actually *answer* your question. What is the point of finding you *external* references to support low mass neutron stars when you refuse to consider them, or consider that issue "answered". Around you go on that never ending denial go round as though I've never cited low mass neutron star material for you. Why do you ask questions if you don't listen to, or register the answer?
There is no issue or debate: The photosphere has opacity
This description of hater obstinate behavior and intolerance sounds remarkably like your stance on PC theory in general, the topic of electrical discharges in plasma, photon kinetic energy, and the 'opacity' of the photosphere claims that you make.
You are doing all the quote mining. There is no *requirement* for a breakdown of a dielectric in Dungey's use of the term 'electrical discharge' or in Peratt's definition. You really are obstinate beyond any hater I've met on any topic in terms of *refusing* to listen to an *external* resource on a topic of science you know nothing about because you've never read a textbook on the topic.
Yes, it is. Only an irrational hater would go around putting words in authors mouths. They use the term "electrical discharge" exactly like Peratt defined it, namely a fast release of stored EM energy.
Your denial process is obsolete RC. You can't define terms the way you wish and refuse to allow others the same courtesy.
Do you know the difference between a definition and an example RC? His examples all just so happen to occur on Earth so that humans can relate to them! Oy Vey! You're impossible.
