Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[RealityCheck01]

..usual insult snipped...
..usual rant snipped...

So there is only 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 The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!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 say !

 

[Michael]

Why not?

Because your actions amount to cyber harassment at this point.

But seriously, I am trying to educate people about physics.

A guy that has never read a textbook on plasma physics isn't teaching anyone anything about plasma physics. You don't understand the physics of photon or the physics of plasma, so what kind of "physics" were you intending to teach?

I know that educating you is a lost cause since you have been in denial of some basic physics for years.

No, I've read the plasma physics textbooks, you have not. I understand them. You do not. You're a lost cause, but only because *you* refuse to educate yourself. Apparently you'd rather cyberstalk a single individual in cyberspace rather than anything else you might choose to do, including getting a real education.

But there may be other interested parties.

I think if they're actually interested, they're probably interested in how badly you crash and burn when you finally do fall off the denial go round.

An example of the denial of the physics is the thermodynamics that states that an iron surface is impossible within the Sun.

I've explained that to you dozens of times. The photosphere isn't opaque. Get over it. The chromosphere temperature doesn't dictate the photosphere temperature, and the photosphere has nothing to do with the surface temperature. Your "explanation" is meaningless in a *non opaque* environment RC. Apparently you don't even know enough about it to know that much.

If you try to tweak the physics of the Sun to make it <~ 1811 K (the melting point of Fe) at whatever your latest depth (4800 km?) of the iron surface is then the photosphere cannot be hotter than 1811 K!
I suspect that the Sun will also go out as fusion stops.

No. The heat in the atmosphere is not depending solely upon the temperature of the surface. There are *currents* running from the surface, through the atmosphere, heating up the atmosphere along the way. Have you even tried to understand Birkeland's solar model, or are handwaves all you do?

The coronal loop *discharges*, and the currents from the cathode produce the extra heat in the solar atmosphere. The Birkeland solar model is *not the same* as a standard model RC. When did you intend to accept that fact?

 

[Michael]

So there is only Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma

This false claim was refuted by all 8 authors. It's 8 to zero in terms of references provided.

(unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)!

The guy that's never read his book is doing all the quote mining. No author, and not Peratt either, imposed a requirement of a breakdown of a dielectric. That's an RC requirement apparently.

The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge

BZZZT! This is pure denial on your part. You're bending truth like a pretzel at this point.

and is obsolete!

The only obsolete thing in this thread is the IT guy that refuses to pick up a textbook.

Apparently you're your own "Pope" figure, incapable of making or admitting any mistakes. It doesn't matter if you claim photons have no kinetic energy and no external reference supports you. You stick to your claim regardless of what reality might have to say about it. The same thing applies to the discharge issue. 8 different authors (so far) all claimed exactly the opposite of what you claimed and none imposed a need for a dielectric breakdown. That is an RC requirement. Apparently it's a one IT guys thing, not an actual plasma physics requirement. You wouldn't know that however because you refuse to educate yourself, or look outside of yourself for truth.

 

[Michael]

RC, you've admitted that you've never read a book on the topic of plasma physics. You have never published a paper on the topic of solar physics. You do not know that photons contain kinetic energy. What exactly did you study that was relevant to this thread, and what did you intend to teach others in this thread, blind hater mentality?

 

[Michael]

I do not have a *personal* requirement of a dielectric breakdown in the case of Dungey's usage that these authors share.

Yes you do! Your entire claim has been based upon some *personal need* for a dielectric breakdown in order for it to qualify as an "electrical discharge". That's been your *utterly arbitrary* requirement from day one! Now you intend to do an about face? You're one of a kind RC.

 

[Michael]

Whoops, Michael, you quoted someone who is saying basically what I claim and says that your claim is wrong!

As always you heard exactly what you wanted to hear, not what he said. He used terms like *overhaul*.

Your claim: the entire solar model is broken.

He claimed their model was "broken" RC, not me.

My claim: the theory of solar convection needs updating or replacing.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The quote: &#8220;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,

Oh look, their magnetic power source 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&#8217;s interior.&#8221;

Wow, no compelling theory to explain magnetic fields and the sun needs an internal overhaul. That sounds pretty serious to anyone that understands solar and plasma physics. Of course to an IT guy it probably seems meaningless.

What is broken: the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field.
What is not broken: the entire solar model.

Yes, it's the whole model. The magnetic fields are just *part* of the problem. Convection is supposedly the thing that keeps elements mixed together. Without fast convection, the sun is a plasma diffuser.

 

[Michael]

FYI, it's still 8 references to 0 in terms of the electrical discharge claim. You've never provided any external reference that claims electrical discharges are impossible in plasma as you claimed. All 8 authors that I cited claimed that electrical discharges occur in plasma. None of them imposed your arbitrary, personal, and emotional need for a dielectric breakdown.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...
I've explained that to you dozens of times. The photosphere isn't opaque.

Yes - complete denial of the physics by going off on a rant on the Sun's atmosphere!

Yes the photosphere isn't opaque! It has an opacity of ~20 kilometers (depends on wavelength)
That does not change

• the temperature of the photosphere
• the second law of thermodynamics.
• the melting point of iron

or that these three bits of physics that you have been ignoring for years means that the Sun's interior (the body of the Sun, the part of the Sun that is not it's atmoshere, any way that I can put it so you understand it?) is > ~5700 K hot and your iron suface does not exist.

...The chromosphere...
...more atmosphere stuff snipped...

Whoops, a bit of ignorance is showing: the chromosphere is above the photosphere and we are talking about the body of the Sun (photosphere and below).

 

[RealityCheck01]

This false claim was refuted by all 8 authors. It's 8 to zero in terms of references provided.
...usual torrent of insults and a lie snipped...

I will have to make my link even clearer for you!
Claim 1: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! Claim 2: The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!
My first claim is supported by Peratt.
My second claim is supported by

Micheal has given citations to support the above.

1. James Dungey 1
2. James Dungey 2
3. Ronald Giovanelli (a book reference)
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

Interesting but not directly relevant

1. 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.
2. 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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You do not know that photons contain kinetic energy?
...usual insults snipped...

That statement is a lie: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy! , Michael

 

[Michael]

Yes - complete denial of the physics by going off on a rant on the Sun's atmosphere!

The only one in denial of physics is you when you claimed photons had no kinetic energy and electrical discharges in plasma are "impossible".

Yes the photosphere isn't opaque! It has an opacity of ~20 kilometers (depends on wavelength)

It's less opaque than you believe because it has current running through it! You cannot judge a Birkeland solar model based upon a *falsified* solar *prediction*.

That does not change

• the temperature of the photosphere

The chromosphere is hotter than the photosphere too. So what?

the second law of thermodynamics.

It doesn't apply here because the photosphere is not "opaque" as you claim!

the melting point of iron

The melting point of a *crust* (not just iron) is much higher than 1200K, the surface temperature of the sun.

Whoops, a bit of ignorance is showing: the chromosphere is above the photosphere and we are talking about the body of the Sun (photosphere and below).

That's just it. That's not the "body of the sun" RC. Only in *your falsified model* is that the "body" of the sun. The body of the sun is located 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere in a Birkeland solar model. Since you can't get past your own theories and you can't stop trying to impose them on other theories, you're stuck. Nobody else is stuck, just you.

If and only if the photosphere was "opaque" would your argument have any merit. Since it's not opaque, your comments are meaningless.

 

[Michael]

That statement is a lie: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy! , Michael

We all know what you said originally on the 16th. It was "no good" then, and it's still no good to this day.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350
You're incapable of admitting your mistakes as this conversation and the discharge conversation demonstrate rather clearly.

 

[Michael]

I will have to make my link even clearer for you!
Claim 1: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! Claim 2: The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!
My first claim is supported by Peratt.
My second claim is supported by

False. Your claim was *never* supported by Peratt. Only you imposed an emotional requirement of a dielectric breakdown. Apparently you can't tell a Title from a definition, from an example. The Title told you that you were wrong. The definition insists you're wrong. The example is one *humans might relate to*, and it's not a "requirement" that every discharge involve a dielectric breakdown. Only some obscure IT guy imposes such irrational and highly emotional conditions on an electrical discharge in plasma. None of the 8 authors imposes such requirements in their "electrical discharge" process. Yes, a discharge is a discharge. No, an IT guy who's never bothered to read a book on the topic of plasma physics does not know more about electrical discharges in plasma than the plasma and astronomy communities.

 

[Michael]

FYI, do you really think that none of your readers noted the fact that you've never cited your *own* references, but rather you keep handwaving away at mine?

Not one of those 8 authors actually agrees with you that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible. Not one of them agrees with you that an electrical discharge *must* include a breakdown of a dielectric. Those are both false claims that you have never supported with any *external* references.

Peratt imposed no *emotional* need for a breakdown of a dielectric. His *example*, not his definition happened to include an example of one type of electrical discharge that happens to involve a breakdown of a dielectric because we happen to live on a *planet*!

 

[Michael]

Score as of 11/14/2012

Astronomers and Physicists: 8
RC: 0

When did you intend to provide *your own* external references that agree with you that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible. No, Peratt never made such a claim in his *definition* of a discharge in plasma. You apparently can't tell a definition from an example.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The only one in denial of physics is you when you claimed photons had no kinetic energy and electrical discharges in plasma are "impossible".

Complete denial, Michael
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!
I do not claim that electrical discharges in plasma are "impossible":
Claim 1: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! Claim 2: The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!

It's less opaque than you ...

Nothing to do with what I wrote:
Yes the photosphere isn't opaque! It has an opacity of ~20 kilometers (depends on wavelength) That does not change

• the temperature of the photosphere
• the second law of thermodynamics.
• the melting point of iron

It doesn't apply here because the photosphere is not "opaque" as you claim!

The second law of thermodynamics applies to all materials at all opacities.

The melting point of a *crust* (not just iron) is much higher than 1200K, the surface temperature of the sun.

Wow - an actual delusion, Michael !
To be more exact a number magically pulled out of thin air and with no relationship to actual measurements:
Sun

Physical characteristics
Center (modeled): ~1.57×107 K[1]
Photosphere (effective): 5,778 K[1]
Corona: ~5×106 K
...
[1] Williams, D. R. (2004). "Sun Fact Sheet". NASA. Sun Fact Sheet. Retrieved 2010-09-27.

The body of the sun is located 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere in a Birkeland solar model.

You need to learn your own ideas !

Errors in Micheal's site - first page:

• Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!
• Errors in Micheal's site XIII (3480 km is not 4800 km)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

False. ...

So false that all I can do is link to the refutation (not that you ever read anything in it!):
Claim 1: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! Claim 2: The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!

But you have at least learned one thing after almost 2 years:
11th January 2011: Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
The answer is yes ("Title in Pink, the definition in blue and the *examples* in black"). Now we agree that the title is not a definition of electrical discharges in plasma!
That leaves:

Michael, where in the body of section 1.5 is the actual definition of 'electrical discharges in plasma' (as opposed to e.g. 'electrical discharges in air)?
​

This is related to:
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?

You raise an actual vaild point!
Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
Peratt's second sentence is "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.".
It is that word 'generally' that suggested to me that he listed the exceptions to the the breakdown of a dielectric medium somewhere (e.g. your plasma idea). Thus my questions:
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
and
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?


I do not know more about electrical discharges in plasma than the plasma and astronomy communities. What I do know is that

• There has been no evidence presented that the plasma and astronomy communities think that there is actual electrical discharges (as in lightning and a dielectric breakdown) in plasma.
• There has been no evidence presented that the plasma and astronomy communities use the term 'electrical discharge' in plasma other than a synonym for a large current density, e.g. generated by magnetic reconnection (thanks for the references Michael).

Note the highlighting of plasma and astronomy communities. The definition of terms is a consensual (communal) activity. One author starts calling a phenomena A, the authors that cite him do the same and eventually textbooks are written with phenomena = A.

But what if people recognize that A is ambiguous before the textbook stage, e.g. there is another phenomena also called A? What usually happens is that they rename A to B. A becomes an obsolete term for the phenomena unless it is made explict what A is. The use of A gradually dies out as everyone moves onto using the clearer term B.

This looks like the case with electrical discharges in plasma (see above about your inability to find textbooks).
And in the context of solar flares:
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) has 30296 results for 'solar flare', 89 for 'solar flare discharge' and 32 for 'solar flare electrical discharge'.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Not one of those 8 authors actually agrees with you that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible.

I do not claim that electrical discharges in plasma are "impossible":
Claim 1: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! Claim 2: The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!

We are back to you reading Peratt's mind and implying that he is dumb dumb enough to define something and then ignore it everywhere else in his book!
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?

I assume that Peratt's book has external refernces so the lack of any eamples in the book suggests another question:
Michael, Can you list the references to examples of electrical discharges in plasma in Peratt's book?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Score as of 11/14/2012

Astronomers and Physicists: 8
RC: 0.

Wrong: Claim 1: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! Claim 2: The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!

Astronomers and Physicists: 8
Michael: 0
Peratt never defines "electrical discharges in plasma' or gives examples.
The remaining 6 are large current densities as in Dungey.
You cannot even tell that one reference is about electrical discharges inside comet nuclei !

A score actually related to this thread!
Score as of 11/14/2012
Textbook physics and science errors: 17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!
Michael: 0

The science errors are things like citing authors who are wrong because their theories are obviously invalid.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It is amazing what you find when reading the comments on a science article.
Unexpectedly slow motions below the Sun's surface
And the last comment looks like you Michael:

the silicon plasma layer is over 4000KM thick

You can calculate the thickness of at last on of your layers so:

Michael, Please cite your calculations for the thickness of your layers.
​

Or is this another number pulled from thin air?