Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

Complete denial, Michael
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

False. Your own reference said a calculation of zero was 'no good' just like your original claim. Your own reference said you blew it and I was right to call you on your nonsense. Somehow a *no good* answer is now the "right" answer in your twisted logic. Then again everything is backwards in RC world.

I do not claim that electrical discharges in plasma are "impossible":

No you claimed another false statement in your own link!

Electrical discharges require breakdown of a dielectric medium (as per Peratt's definition). Plasmas are not a dielectric medium. Thus electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.

His *definition* said nothing of the sort. You made up the dielectric breakdown routine all on your own, and none of it is true! You can't even keep your stories straight anymore. You can't tell a definition from an example either. Only RC, the IT guys has an emotional need for false statements and dielectric breakdowns.

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

That is another false statement. It's an *assumption* from a separate theory that was already falsified by SDO. None of your points are applicable in a non opaque environment. You're repeating more falsified nonsense.

Why are you here RC? You're not listening. You're not interested in a real honest discussion on this topic. You've never read a book on this topic. You've never published a paper on this topic. You know nothing about photons or plasma physics and half of what comes out of your mouth is false.

 

[Michael]

So false that all I can do is link to the refutation (not that you ever read anything in it!):

You told a false statement in your link. Peratt didn't require a dielectric breakdown. You can't make false statements and try to pass it off as true. It was not true then, and it's not true now. Only RC the IT tech has an emotional need for a dielectric breakdown.

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?

You can't tell the difference between a definition and an example!

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!

The answer is no. You're the only one that requires a breakdown. Every other author disagreed with you. RC 0, physicists 8.

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."

That's a *plasma* medium in the case of flares!

You cannot even have an *honest* conversation about a simple definition without twisting it around to say something it doesn't say.

You're ignoring all authors you don't agree with. You ignored my request for *external* support of your claim. You've created your own artificial reality and nothing really matters to you except your own statements. Everyone else that disagrees with you is a crank, a crackpot, a liar, or some pitiful combination of personal insults is heaped upon them in post after relentless post. You're denial routine is simply off scale, and you're not interested in an honest scientific conversation, just a fight. Go cyberharass someone else.

 

[Michael]

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:

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?

My numbers jived with SDO first light images right out of the box RC. I've provided you with these numbers at various forums. Why should I do it again when you don't care anyway?

Why are you here? You've read no books on this topic, and published no papers on this topic. You don't care about my answers and you endlessly repeat the same questions over and over and you constantly waste my time giving you answers that you don't even listen to.

 

[Michael]

Astronomers and Physicists: 8
Michael: 0

More false statements from someone that keeps telling false statements. I provided 8 references that all said electrical discharges occur in plasma and it doesn't require a breakdown of a dielectric. You've got no references to support your nonsense, not even one.

Peratt never defines "electrical discharges in plasma' or gives examples.

That is a blatant lie.

The remaining 6 are large current densities as in Dungey.

They all used the term "electrical discharge". Another false statement from you.

Astronomers 8
RC 0

When did you intend to provide *your own* external references RC?

 

[Michael]

I can't even find a true statement in any of your last posts RC. Apparently you just make up "facts" to suit yourself like any hater on any topic that the hater doesn't understand and hasn't studied.

When might I expect you to actually READ a textbook on the topic of plasma physics?

 

[RealityCheck01]

False.

It is true that Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

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 an *assumption* from a separate theory that was already falsified by SDO.[qouote]
Complete denial of the physics, Michael !
Opacity has nothing to do with the solar model.

The photosphere has opacity because it is measured both on the Sun and in the laboratory!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Peratt didn't require a dielectric breakdown.

You are right - I needed to update the post to reflect the link text (and your understanding aafter almost 3 years that a title is not a definition and what Peratt's defintion 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!

That made me revisit this post and how it reflects the link text and title. Changes in italics.
Actual electrical discharges (like lightning) require breakdown of a dielectric medium (as per Peratt's examples and generally in his definition). Plasmas are not a dielectric medium. Thus actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.

That's a *plasma* medium in the case of flares!
...usual insults and lies snipped...

That's a conducting (not dielectric) *plasma* medium in the case of flares!

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rant and insults snipped....

Really intelligent, polite and coherent response to the question, Michael !
Michael, Please cite your calculations for the thickness of your layers

 

[Michael]

Really intelligent, polite and coherent response to the question, Michael !
Michael, Please cite your calculations for the thickness of your layers

I'll jump right on that for you right after you produce a few papers claiming that electrical discharges in plasma are "impossible".

 

[Michael]

It is true that Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

No it is false that photons kinetic energy can even be *calculated* using what you're calling 'classical' physics. Since the dawn of SR & GR, m=hf/c^2 describes the mass state of a photon, and all photons have kinetic energy. You are utterly *incapable* of admitting any errors, even *blatant* ones.

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!

The only thing that is obsolete is your understanding of physics because you refuse to educate yourself properly on this topic. Nobody except RC imposes any emotional restrictions on a dielectric breakdown on electrical discharges in solar flares. Only one IT guy who's never read a plasma physics textbook does that.

Opacity has nothing to do with the solar model.

Pure denial of scientific facts won't change anything RC. Your claims about opacity relate to *one* solar theory, and only one solar theory, one that has been falsified by SDO helioseismology data in 2012.

The photosphere has opacity because it is measured both on the Sun and in the laboratory!

Where was it 'measured' on the sun? In what lab on Earth did they shoot various wavelengths of light through/at a current carrying *Neon* double layer with a few impurities in it?

 

[RealityCheck01]

I'll jump right on that for you right after you produce a few papers claiming that electrical discharges in plasma are "impossible".

You do know what scientific papers contain, Michael ?
They are to report new or updated science.
They are not written to report obvious, high school level science.

The shortest, paper in history

Electrical discharges like lightning need a dielectric medium to break down.
Plasma is a conductive (not dielectric medium).
Thus electrical discharges like lightning in plasma are impossible.
​

And now you can answer the question: Michael, Please cite your calculations for the thickness of your layers

 

[Michael]

That's a conducting (not dielectric) *plasma* medium in the case of flares!

Yes, and Dungey called it an "electrical discharge" in that environment, as did Birkeland, Bruce, Giovanelli, the Russians, the Japanese, ect. Only you run around claiming that electrical discharges cannot occur in solar flares.

 

[Michael]

You do know what scientific papers contain, Michael ?

Yes, I've written and published them on this very topic in fact. Have you? You've never produced a single reference that *really* (not your kludged claims about Peratt) claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma and in solar flare activities. When can I expect you to do so?

Your excuses are pitiful RC, as are your handwaves at *my* references, all of whom refute your absurd claim.

I'll provide you with more references the moment you start providing me with what I ask you for. If you aren't going to engage in a two way conversation, I won't waste my time and breath rounding up any more links for you.

 

[Michael]

Are you ever going to read a book on the topic of plasma physics, are did you intend to spend the rest of your life crusading against a theory you know absolutely nothing about *by choice*? Arguing from pure ignorance isn't winning you any points, and your blind bigotry in the way you use terms like "electrical discharges" is simply irrational nonsense.

 

[Michael]

dThe shortest, paper in history

It would also be the worlds most *unpublished* paper due to it's scientific errors. All 8 authors used the term "electrical discharge" in solar flares and plasma. Apparently your knowledge of photon and plasma physics is obsolete, in fact non existent.

I love how you're now throwing in the term "like lightning" as though that justifies your personal and highly bigoted use of that term as it relates to solar physics. Never once have you produced an author that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma or in solar flare activity. I'm going to ask you relentlessly for those references until you produce them or recant your absurd claim.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I provided 8 references that all said electrical discharges occur in plasma and it doesn't require a breakdown of a dielectric.

(Emphasis added)
That statement exposes your inability to understand a couple of scientific papers:
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.

The 6 other papers that do state what you wrote and are talking about large current densities (Dungey's usage).
The first two papers are Dungey's !

When did you intend to provide *your own* external references RC?

You want some external refences then ok. Here are 32 paper on electrical discharges in solar flares from the ADS database. Many of them are actually not relevant!
You have cited several of then so here are some more:
Hard Solar Flare Radiations
Universal and important physical process in space plasmas: electric charge separation
An electrograph for measurement of macroscopic electric fields in prominences and flares
Electric fields in the solar atmosphere - A review
A laboratory solar flare simulation using colinear bipolar flux pairs
Electric currents in cosmic plasmas
I am following your example, Michael , and not reading the papers or even their abstracts (see above) !

Scoreboard:
Authors who state that actual electrical discharges (like lightning) happen on the Sun: None (excluding Bruce of course!)

Authors who use Dungeys term for large current densities: Six

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)

 

[RealityCheck01]

All 8 authors used the term "electrical discharge" in solar flares and plasma.
...usual insults snipped...

Wrong: 6 authors used the term "electrical discharge" in solar flares (which are plasma).
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!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, and Dungey called it an "electrical discharge" in that environment, as did Birkeland, Bruce, Giovanelli, the Russians, the Japanese, ect..

Yes I agree.
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!

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rant and insults snipped...

Nothing really to say except you are still unable to undstand the content of:
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 is quite simple, Michael.
"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 exceptions to a dialectic breakdown.
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.

I will add this to the electrical discharges post because I suspect that you will ignorit.

 

[RealityCheck01]

duplicate post deleted