• 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
This is a classic case of denial at it's finest. ...usual rant snipped...
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 The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge :doh: and is obsolete!
is complete acceptance of what authors have written:
  • Peratt's definition is 2 sentences: release of EM energy + dielectric breakdown.
  • Peratt's examples are release of EM energy + dielectric breakdown, e.g. lightning and the aurora.
  • 18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
    Originally Posted by Dungey (1953 paper)
    A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Before I go onto the next page in Micheal's web site, here is the list of errors on the first page:

It's pretty much pointless for me to respond *again* to your various points. We've been through them several times now, both here and at JREF. You really don't care about the answers I give you, so what is you point in engaging me in a conversation on this topic RC?

SDO destroyed your solar theory whether you like it or not. I did not do it. It just happened. The designers and engineers of SDO did a great job. It will take *years* to sort out all the data coming back from SDO at the moment, but one thing is quite clear already. Mainstream solar theory is toast. Without convection there's no power supply for your 'reconnection/discharge' processes to occur in mainstream models. Likewise there is no hope of keeping iron mixed up with hydrogen inside a slow convection process. It falsifies *two parts* of mainstream theory at one time RC.

Birkeland's model however is completely supported by the every SDO image, from the very first light images, to the images of electrical discharges in 1600A and all the iron ion wavelengths.

Birkeland was an "empirical" scientist, the likes of which astronomy hasn't seen in a 100 years. His work stood the test of time. All the mainstream predictions went up in SDO flames.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Peratt's definition is 2 sentences: release of EM energy + dielectric breakdown.

No. Can't you tell the difference between a *title*, a *definition* and an *example* RC? The breakdown is your own. It's your own denial process kicking in apparently since Dungey certainly never required such a thing, nor did the Russians or the Japanese. Only RC, the IT guy that's never read Peratt's book or *any* book on the topic of plasma physics imposes such a lame, and highly PERSONAL requirement.

Apparently you can't tell a *title* from a *definition* from an *example*.

Wow! Why are you refusing to cite external references after I've handed you 14 of them that all say you are wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma

False. 8 authors claimed that your statement is absolutely false and you have yet to provide any external authors that claim that a dielectric breakdown is a *requirement* for electrical discharges to occur *in plasma*! Do you understand the difference between a title, a definition and an example RC?

and is obsolete!
The only thing obsolete around here is your knowledge of plasma physics because you refuse to read a book on the topic. When can I expect you to remedy that problem RC? Ignorance is not bliss.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
It means that I am right :doh:

No, it means you're so absurdly wrong that astronomers and physics from around the world write papers that disagree with you. ;) Not one seems to have written a single paper claiming that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You therefore cite yourself repeatedly.
Dungey's use of the term "electrical discharge" really means "electrical discharge".

Yeah! You're wrong then when you claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!

When you read Dungey's papers then one
Translation: When RC is done stuffing words in his mouth and bending his statements like a pretzel, RC has some ridiculous rationalization as to why an electrical discharge as described by 8 authors isn't *really* an electrical discharge in RC's twisted logic.

It's been a week. You've yet to provide a single reference on *any* of the points in contention. You refuse to "accept' anyone's use of the term electrical discharges in plasma, not Dungey, Bruce, Birkeland, Giovanelli, the Russians or anyone else! Only you own opinions matter to you apparently.

Are you *ever* going to read a book on the topic of plasma physics, or did you intend to spend the rest of your life arguing this topic from a place of pure ignorance? It's really getting old at this point.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
No. If it has a "typical" sized core, it would have a lot more mass than it does.
I am talking about the core of the Sun. Repace the core of the Sun (a typical star) with a typical neutron star and you get ~2.4 solar masses.

As I recall the minimum mass of a neutron core before it becomes unstable is something around .1-.2 solar masses
What is a "neutron core" and what has it got to do with neutron stars?
If this is the neutron star that replaces the core of stars on Manuel's theory than your recollection is wrong: Neutron star.

A nice bit of theoretical physics from 2002.
A pity that these low mass neutron stars have never been detected in the lab - your criteria for something to exist :p !
These low mass neutron stars have never been observed. So in your language - you have just invoked a dead sky entity :doh:.

Can you give the citation in Manuel's papers to that paper?



Oh dear - you have just invoked another dead sky entity :p.

Can you give the citation in Manuel's papers to that paper?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I am talking about the core of the Sun.

The core of *our* sun *cannot* be greater than 1 solar mass. In fact it cannot come anywhere close to that number. I've shown you many different references over the years to low mass neutron core papers. YOu refuse to consider them, so why keep repeating the same ridiculous nonsense. I proposed a *small* core. I have no idea where you get your numbers. Apparently its your own strawman.

What is a "neutron core" and what has it got to do with neutron stars?

Some neutron cores are "naked" and have no outer crust or atmosphere. Some small cores are *covered* by a crust and by a number of plasma layers. The rotation of that core produces the electrical discharges that drive fusion in the core.

If this is the neutron star that replaces the core of stars on Manuel's theory than your recollection is wrong: Neutron star.

What is the *minimum* stable neutron star RC, not the minimum required for formation, but the minimum *stable* size of a neutron star?

A nice bit of theoretical physics from 2002.
A pity that these low mass neutron stars have never been detected in the lab - your criteria for something to exist :p !

Actually the pure neutron theories aren't must larger in terms of the minimum mass needed. It's still .1-.2 solar masses.

These low mass neutron stars have never been observed.

Ya, actually some lower (than 1.4) solar mass neutron stars have been observed.

Can you give the citation in Manuel's papers to that paper?

Why? It wasn't necessary. Most folks who actually know anything about neutron stars understands the implication and the need for a low mass version of a neutron star. Only you would create your own strawman claims and burn them.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Usual rant and insults, Michael.
Usual statement of my claim backed by citations to the literature that you will deny again in yet another rant :p:
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 :doh: and is obsolete!
You did not provide a single reference that supports your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You cited *my* references, all of which *falsify* your claim. You're just linking back to yourself handwaving at the material as though it somehow went away by virtue of that single post. Wake up and smell the coffee RC. The astronomers all used the term "electrical discharges" in plasma, falsifying your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You're on a denial-go-round that never end apparently.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
It's pretty much pointless for me to respond *again* to your various points. We've been through them several times now...
You have merely repeated your unsupported asseertion endlessly.
I have stated the statndard textbook science that says that there are many errros in your web site.
I have given references to the standard textbook science that your web site denies.

Errors in Micheal's site - first page!
The following have never been given by you:
  • anything can be seen below the photosphere in solar images.
  • Evidence that the transition zone is below the photosphere.
  • Evidence that merely taking the difference between 2 images of a solar flare above the photosphere will show mountain ranges below the photosphere.
  • Detection of Bruce's dust on the Sun.
  • Evidence for the existence of very low mass neutron stars (much less that 1 solar mass).
  • Papers that show that the photosphere does not have convection in it (despite the convection cells that are visible!) and so is not mixed up H, He, Li, Fe, Si, etc.
SDO destroyed your solar theory whether you like it or not.
Yet another unsupported assertion :doh:!
My guess is that this is the itdiotic assertion that the slow convection calculated from SDO data means that nothing that we know about the SUn is right. That is obviously wrong - slow convection means that the theories about convection are wrong.

So:
Michael: What is the prediction of solar convection from your model?

Without convection there's no power supply for your 'reconnection/discharge' processes to occur in mainstream models.
Yet another unsupported assertion :doh:!
And you really cannot remember what you read - it is not no convection that has been found. It is slow convection that has been found.

Birkeland's model ...
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
Errors in Micheal's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
You have merely repeated your unsupported asseertion endlessly.

No, you keep engaging in pure bigotry as you see fit.

I have stated the statndard textbook science that says that there are many errros in your web site.

You "made up' every claim! You've never read a book on the topic of plasma physics. You've never published a paper on the topic of astronomy! You've got no clue about photon physics. Your opinions are therefore utterly irrelevant.

anything can be seen below the photosphere in solar images.

Pick a paper:
arXiv.org Search

Besides, the very first light SDO images shows us where those emissions begin, specifically 4800KM *under* the photosphere/chromosphere boundary.

Evidence that the transition zone is below the photosphere.

Have you ever read any of my papers RC? They were published.

In fact all of your points (except dust) are covered in those published papers you keep asking me for.

Lots of non ionized material exists in the solar atmosphere. Show me a paper that claims that *no* non-ionized materials exist in the photosphere RC. You keep shifting the burden of proof to me and you shirk your own responsibilities to provide references when asked.

When can I expect you to read a book on the topic of plasma physics RC?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
No. Can't you tell the difference between a *title*, a *definition* and an *example* RC?
Yes:
Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
Title = "1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma"
Examples = "lightning" and "aurora"
Definition = "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 detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium."

Quote mining (lying about) the definition: = "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy."

Wow! Why are you refusing to cite external references after I've handed you 14 of them that all say you are wrong?
Wow - you really cannot click on links:p.
Ok then as you demand I will cite the external references evey time I link to the post:
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 :doh: and is obsolete!

Peratt's use of "electrical discharge" (lightning)
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)!)

Dungeys usage of "electrical discharge" (large current density)
  1. James Dungey 1
  2. James Dungey 2
  3. Ronald Giovanelli (a book reference)
  4. J. P. Wild (1963)
  5. T. S. Kozhanov (1973)
  6. E. Ya. Vil'koviskii (1974)
Interesting but not directly relevant
  1. Tatsuzo Obayashi (1975)
  2. S. Ibadov (2012)
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
False. ...usual rant snipped...
As you demanded I will cite the external references evey time I link to the post:
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 :doh: and is obsolete!

Peratt's use of "electrical discharge" (lightning)
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)!)

Dungeys usage of "electrical discharge" (large current density)
  1. James Dungey 1
  2. James Dungey 2
  3. Ronald Giovanelli (a book reference)
  4. J. P. Wild (1963)
  5. T. S. Kozhanov (1973)
  6. E. Ya. Vil'koviskii (1974)
Interesting but not directly relevant
  1. Tatsuzo Obayashi (1975)
  2. S. Ibadov (2012)
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Yet another unsupported assertion :doh:!
My guess is that this is the itdiotic assertion that the slow convection calculated from SDO data means that nothing that we know about the SUn is right. That is obviously wrong - slow convection means that the theories about convection are wrong.

You're just an IT guy with plasma physics textbook to his name, not a real astronomer, so I don't expect you to understand the implications of weak convection, however some folks are real "experts" on this topic, so of course they disagree with you:

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

“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.”
You really have no idea what you're talking about on this topic RC. From photons with no kinetic energy, to discharges that aren't really discharges, you just make stuff up as you go without regard to science, physics, or external references of any sort.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Not one seems to have written a single paper claiming that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.
...usual ignorance of my electrical discharge claim snipped...
...usual insults snipped...
No one would write a paper showing that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma because that is obvious from the usual (Peratt's) definition of electrical discharges!
As you demanded I will cite the external references evey time I link to the post:
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 :doh: and is obsolete!

Peratt's use of "electrical discharge" (lightning)
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)!)

Dungeys usage of "electrical discharge" (large current density)
  1. James Dungey 1
  2. James Dungey 2
  3. Ronald Giovanelli (a book reference)
  4. J. P. Wild (1963)
  5. T. S. Kozhanov (1973)
  6. E. Ya. Vil'koviskii (1974)
Interesting but not directly relevant
  1. Tatsuzo Obayashi (1975)
  2. S. Ibadov (2012)
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Electrical discharges require breakdown of a dielectric medium (as per Peratt's definition).

Blatantly false. I'm color coding the Title in Pink, the definition in blue and the *examples* in black:

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. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.
The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.
The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere.

Can't you tell a title from a definition from an *example* RC?

Plasmas are not a dielectric medium. Thus electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.

You added your own personal requirement for a dielectric breakdown that none of the other 8 authors made, thus you're wrong again, and your statements are blatant examples of blind bigotry.

Not a single other author you handwaved at required a dielectric breakdown for an electrical discharge to occur. That's *your* strawman, not *their* claim!
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
No one would write a paper showing that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma because that is obvious from the usual (Peratt's) definition of electrical discharges!

No one but you made that claim. Peratt did not make that claim. You're putting words in his mouth. You did that to Dungey too. You pretty much ignored all 8 authors, not one of which required a dielectric breakdown to occur in an electrical discharge in plasma. You're the only one making such a *ridiculous* claim. You've never read Peratt's book and there is no such requirement.

As you demanded I will cite the external references evey time I link to the post:
That's not an external reference that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, that's you handwaving at 8 authors that all claimed you're wrong!

RC: A crank who's never read a book on the topic of plasma physics or published any papers related to solar physics. We all know the real crank is you. You earned that title when you claimed photons have no kinetic energy.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Dungeys usage of "electrical discharge" (large current density)

There you go putting words into his mouth and refusing to acknowledge the actual words he used! You're not even debating point *rationally* anymore, you just make it up as you go.

Dungey required no breakdown of the dialectric for an "electrical discharge' to occur in a flare. Why are you smarter than Dungey when you've never read a book on plasma physics?

You never even touched Wild's work. I guess that paper scared you?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.