Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

The materials that neutron stars should be made of have never been detected in the lab thus neutron stars (according to you)

Completely and utterly false as usual! Neutrons show up in the lab, including their layered structure which has also been observed in the lab:

Discovery Changes Understanding of Neutrons | LiveScience

All cosmology theories must be 'scaled to size'. If you scale neutrons and gravity, I have no doubt that you'll get a "neutron star". You can't even cite a single experiment where a SUSY particle showed up in a LHC experiment or I would be happy to let you scale SUSY particles to size. It's a pity that you have a qualification problem, not just a scaling problem.

 

[Michael]

This conversation is pointless RC, because you:

A) haven't read a single textbook on this topic,
B) won't read a book on this topic, so you
C) have no desire for an *honest* conversation on this topic

When can I expect you to read a book on this topic, or to stop harassing me personally all over the internet about a topic that you know *nothing* about?

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual ranting and insults snipped...

The answer to your question is that only an really ignorant person (not you Michael unless you ask the question again ) would ask for external references for a question whose answer is so obvious.
Since you could not understand how obvious the answer was here it is again:
Start by reading:
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'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!
where I have added

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.

Then:

There are 'electrical discharges' (as in Peratt) that need a dielectric medium to break down.
Plasma conducts and so is not a dieelctric medium.
Thus 'electrical discharges' are impossible in plasma.
​

The lack of any external refernces to actual electrical discharges in plasma:
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics (and examples!) of actual electrical discharges in real plasma?
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?
confirms that actual electrical discharges in plasma are impossible.

An experif in electricl dicharges (DrCharges Bruce)

Michael, Please cite your calculations for the thickness of your layers
First asked 14th November 2012
It is becoming more and more obvious that this number was just made up.

 

[RealityCheck01]

When can I expect you to read a book on this topic, or to stop harassing me personally all over the internet about a topic that you know *nothing* about?

That is really strange when I can show that I know much more about the topic of the Sun than you have written on your web site or in this thread :
17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!


I know that I can state facts about the Sun and back them up with citations, including ones that you have supplied!

1. I know what the photosphere is.
   You are in denial of what the photosphere is and want to replace the scientific definition with some undefined thing (Birkeland solar what?)
2. I know that it is impossible to see below the photosphere (How deep can we see into the Sun.).
   You have the fantasy that images of activity above the photosphere are of activity below the photosphere.
3. I know that the temperature of the photosphere is greater then the melting point of iron, that the Sun is heated from within and so the temperature of the Sun increases with depth. This rules out a solid "iron surface" in the Sun.
   You deny this basic physics.
4. I know that the temperature of the Sun has been measured to increase with depth thus ruling out a solid "iron surface" in the Sun.
   You deny this basic physics.
5. I know that actual electrical discharges (as in common usage, Peratt and supported by Dr Charles Bruce) in plasma are physically impossible.
   You keep on insisting that this is possible even you you cannot cite any textbooks stating that it is possible.
   You keep on insisting that this is possible even you you cannot cite any paper explicit stating that (see below about an alternate meaning for 'electrical discharges').
6. I know that a few authors label large current densities as 'electrical discharges'.
   You keep insisting that these authors are taking about actual electrical discharges when they are not.
7. I know that a paper that is about electrical discharges inside comet nuclei is not about electrical discharges in plasma.
   You keep ignoring this.
8. I know that when a term appears in 32 out of 30,000 papers on solar flares then that term is obsolete.
   You go on about those 32 papers as if they are holy text !
   You ignore the content of these papers, i.e. that the papers you cite are using Dungey's usage (including Dungey!).
9. I know that the TRACE 171 A passband collects light from material at > 160,000 K, i.e. plasma.
   You think that this is from solid iron!
10. I know that the TRACE 195 A passband collects light from material at > 500,000 K, i.e. plasma.
    You think that this is from solid iron!
11. I know that the photosphere is mixed by by convection bacause that are images of the convections cells and measurements of the movement of plasma.
    You deny this.
12. I know that the measured composition of the photosphere is mostly H and He.
    You deny this for a fantasy if mostly Si and Ne.
13. I know that the Sun has been measured to rotate non-uniformly.
    You deny this.
14. I know what penumbra and so penumbral means w.r.t. the Sun, e.g. Twisting Motions of Sunspot Penumbral Filaments.
    You do not: Errors in Micheal's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!
15. I can read Birkeland's book and see that he had no scientific model of the Sun.
    You imagine that he had a model but cannot produce that model: Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!

And do not get me going about your denial of general physics, e.g. negative pressure!

 

[Michael]

The answer to your question is that only an really ignorant person

Only an ignorant person would believe that photons have no kinetic energy, electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma and conductors, and the understand plasma physics without ever reading a book on the topic. Unfortunately that describes you to a tee.

(not you Michael unless you ask the question again ) would ask for external references for a question whose answer is so obvious.

The only thing that is obvious is your unwillingness to embrace reality and to site references *outside* of yourself that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. Around you go on your personal denial go round, utterly incapable of finding *anyone* that supports your absurd claims, so of course you're going to belittle anyone asking you for any support of your claims.

Since you could not understand how obvious the answer was here it is again:
Start by reading:
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!
where I have added

I asked you for *external* references, not your own statements *again*! Oy Vey. You quote yourself more than anyone else on planet Earth! Your knowledge of physics is obsolete. That is the only thing that is obsolete, and it's a self inflicted form of ignorance. When are you going to read a book on plasma physics RC? Ever?

There are 'electrical discharges' (as in Peratt) that need a dielectric medium to break down.

Pure unadulterated lies! You personally are the *only* individual to *require* a dielectric breakdown. Dungey nor the Russians required any such thing. That's pure snake oil that you're selling.

Plasma conducts and so is not a dieelctric medium.Thus 'electrical discharges' are impossible in plasma.

False. Dungey's work falsifies your claims. The Russians falsified your claims. Every author I cited falsified your claims. You've shown no *professional* author that makes such a requirement in the first place. Only one ignorant IT guy insists on that requirement of a dielectric breakdown, and nobody else.

The lack of any external refernces to actual electrical discharges in plasma:
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics (and examples!) of actual electrical discharges in real plasma?

I've given you that answer a dozen times now. It's in the very book you cite yet refuse to read! You are ignorant of plasma physics by choice and you only have yourself to blame. I'm not your physics mommy. Go read his book. When can I expect you to rectify your ignorance problem and actually read a textbook on the topic of plasma physics? I've been waiting for over a year for a direct answer to that question. When can I expect you to actually read a textbook on this topic RC? Quit dodging and answer that question.

 

[Michael]

That is really strange when I can show that I know much more about the topic of the Sun than you have written on your web site or in this thread :
17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!
I know that I can state facts about the Sun and back them up with citations, including ones that you have supplied!

1. I know what the photosphere is.
   You are in denial of what the photosphere is and want to replace the scientific definition with some undefined thing (Birkeland solar what?)

You only know what one *falsified* definition of that surface was RC. Unfortunately your beloved solar theory went up in smoke this year, and your claims about opacity are completely false. I don't care how you define anything in your falsified solar theory because it's dead!

I know that it is impossible to see below the photosphere (How deep can we see into the Sun.).

False. You *assume* it's impossible, just as you assume it's impossible for photons to lose kinetic energy and it's impossible for electrical discharges to occur in plasma and flares.

You have the fantasy that images of activity above the photosphere are of activity below the photosphere.

You have the FANTASY that you know anything about solar physics, or that your know where those images originate in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. In fact, every SDO images blows your claims away starting with the very first light images.

I know that actual electrical discharges (as in common usage, Peratt and supported by Dr Charles Bruce) in plasma are physically impossible.

I know for a fact that you have know idea what you're talking about and that you've never even read Peratt's book. Every author I cited claimed electrical discharges occur in plasma and conductors and in flare events. You're the only IT claiming that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma and that's why you can't find any professional that agrees with you that you can actually cite on this topic. Peratt states *exactly the opposite* of what you claim he said. You've batting 1000. You've been consistently wrong on every point thus far.

You keep on insisting that this is possible even you you cannot cite any textbooks stating that it is possible.

That is a blatant lie. I cited Peratt. You're twisting his words to suit yourself, just like you twisted Dungey's words to suit your obsolete self.

You keep on insisting that this is possible even you you cannot cite any paper explicit stating that (see below about an alternate meaning for 'electrical discharges').

Pure lies. I cited 8 authors that all agreed that electrical discharges occur in plasma and 7 that claimed they specifically occurred in solar flare events. You're blatantly lying on that point and everyone knows it.

I know that a few authors label large current densities as 'electrical discharges'.

I know of only one IT guy that claims electrical discharges cannot occur in conductors and in plasma. Few is better than none which is what you've provided.

You keep insisting that these authors are taking about actual electrical discharges when they are not.

This is another blatant misstatement of fact. The used the terms "electrical discharges". You can't handle it so *you* stuff words in their mouth and make your own claims about what they "really meant". What a joke.

I know that a paper that is about electrical discharges inside comet nuclei is not about electrical discharges in plasma.

I know that you you're still batting 1000.


It's late and the rest of your points are all false too. I've waited a year for an honest answer now RC. When can I expect you to actually read a textbook on the topic of plasma physics?

I've also been waiting for you to cite *real* (not imagined) references that claimed that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma, or that a dielectric breakdown is a "requirement" in electrical discharge solar physics events. Only one ignorant, self linking IT guy ever made the those claims and all 8 authors I cited *insist* you have no idea what you're talking about. When can I expect you to get off your lazy backside and read a book? How many countless hours have you already spent arguing about plasma physics, a topic you've never studied?

 

[Michael]

When are you going to provide any professional astronomy papers that claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma as you keep ranting? When are you going to read a book on this topic? When are you going to stop harassing me about a topic you clearly know nothing about *by choice*? How many years have you spent playing the role of PC critic now RC? 5 years? 10 years? Longer? Not once have you bothered to pickup a real textbook on the topic of plasma physics, yet you have all this free time to argue about at topic you know *nothing* about!

When can I expect you to read a real book on this topic? Quit dodging my direct questions!

 

[Michael]

FYI, not one of those 32,000 papers makes the claim that electrical discharge do not occur in flares or in plasma. Your knowledge of plasma physics is obsolete. That is the only thing that is obsolete, and you have no one to blame for that problem but yourself. When were you going to cite a single author that agrees with you that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma?

 

[Michael]

I know that the TRACE 171 A passband collects light from material at > 160,000 K, i.e. plasma. You think that this is from solid iron

That statement is another example of a knowingly and blatantly false statement on your part. You personally have no right to speak for me or for anyone else, particularly after I've seen what you've done to Peratt's words and Dungey's words and the Russians and the Japanese. You consistently misrepresent *everyone* in this conversation! A discharge isn't really a discharge because you say so. Discharges are impossible in plasma because you say so. Photons have no kinetic energy because you say so. Every time you're asked for *external* references to support your erroneous claims you run or you cite yourself *endlessly*. You are not interested in an honest conversation on this topic, and you blatantly misrepresented my statements even after *years* of trying to explain them to you. You aren't even honest about my beliefs RC. Why are you here blatantly misrepresenting my statements?

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rant snipped...

I know that the TRACE 171 A passband collects light from material at > 160,000 K, i.e. plasma.
You think that this is from solid iron (or whatever you fantasize your surface is made up).

 

[Michael]

I know that the TRACE 171 A passband collects light from material at > 160,000 K, i.e. plasma.
You think that this is from solid iron (or whatever you fantasize your surface is made up).

False. That is utterly and completely false and it has nothing to do with what I *actually* believe. I never made that claim, you made it for me. You did the same thing to Peratt and you did the same thing to Dungey. You stick words in people's mouths!

You don't even debate ethically and you really don't even listen to my answers. You certainly don't state my opinions correctly, nor do you have any intention of doing so.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual ranting and lies snipped...

The ignorance that there are (at least!) two different definitions of 'electrical discharge that authors use continues:
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 fantasy of thinking that I am citing myself continues - I cite many authors.

That is not the *only* type of 'electrical discharge' RC.

Way to show that you cannod read, Michael !
I know that there are different authors mean different things by the term 'electrical dicharge'.
Of course within the context of each usage there is only ine 'type' of electricl discharge'
The two types of 'electrical discharge' we are talking about are:
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!

So are lightning rods and they still experience 'electrical discharges' through them!

Wrong: lightning rods 'experience' electrical current through them. The electrical discharge is the lightning that hits them .
A clue is that Wikipedia image showing a rod distorted by the electric current that flowed though it that you are fond of!

You have never read his book, and you therefore misunderstand a simple definition that *by definition* proves that you are wrong!

That is an irrelevant demand - I have read section 1.5 in full and that is all there is about electrical discharges in his book:

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
​

There is are no mentions of electrical discharges in plasma at all in the book according to your silence:

5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?
​

Whoops you are back to not knowing basic English :
11th January 2011: Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?

 

[Michael]

The ignorance that there are (at least!) two different definitions of 'electrical discharge that authors use continues:

All the professionals used the term consistently and defined it consistently. The only one using a different definition is you. You refuse to (can't) support your claims with any external published references that claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasmas or conductors, so you cite yourself over and over again!

The fantasy of thinking that I am citing myself continues - I cite many authors.

You have not cited one that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma as you claimed. You're incapable of doing so. You are incapable of even being honest about the fact that you've provided no *external* references to backup your statements.

I know that there are different authors mean different things by the term 'electrical dicharge'.

You know nothing of the sort. You're making it up to suit yourself. All the professionals show that you're dead wrong.

You can't find one author that claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma as you claimed. You can't even keep your stories straight anymore.

 

[Michael]

That is an irrelevant demand - I have read section 1.5 in full and that is all there is about electrical discharges in his book:

No, it's not an irrelevant demand, particularly since you are claiming exactly the opposite of what Peratt actually said. You made up the *emotional need* of a dielectric breakdown all on your own. You blatantly misrepresented the facts too when you said Peratt requires it. Dungey sure didn't require it. The Russians didn't require that either. Only the ignorant IT guy thinks that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible.

 

[Michael]

Both the photon kinetic energy issue and the discharges in plasma issue demonstrate that you are unwilling and unable to embrace reality when it's shown that you're dead wrong. You defended your erroneous claims about photons having no kinetic energy for weeks, even though it was shown to be an erroneous claim from day one. Likewise, you've misrepresented every professional use of the term "electrical discharge' used by every author since Birkeland and Dungey.

 

[RealityCheck01]

False. That is utterly and completely false and it has nothing to do with what I *actually* believe.

Then what do you *actually* believe?
Your web site states that you believe that you can see mountain ranges on an 'iron surface' that is below the photosphere. That is just a fantasy as in 17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!
What is actually in the image is the light emitted from plasma in the transitions region above the photosphere.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You only know what one *falsified* definition of that surface was RC.
...delustions about the standard solar model being falsified snipped...

A definition can never be falsified. That the photosphere is defined as the region where the light escapes from a star Will always be true.

Of course, in your universe there is no photosphere and light never escapes from a star !

False.
...usual insults and ranting snipped...

False:

• Actual electrical discharges in plasma are ruled out by their defintion- see Peratt.
• Actual electrical discharges in solar plasma was ruled out by Bruce. He had to introduce dust (and ignore the actual temperature of the photosphere of 4500 K to 600 K, effectively 5777 K) to get lightning on the Sun.
• The lack of any scientific literature about electrical discharges happening in plasma is the evidence that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma

You still cannot understand:
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]

FYI, not one of those 32,000 papers makes the claim that electrical discharge do not occur in flares or in plasma.

FYI, Michael, not one of those 32,000 papers makes the claim that electrical discharge do occur in flares or in plasma.

FYI, Michael, not one of those 8 papery you have cited papers makes the claim that electrical discharge do occur in flares or in plasma.

FYI: Michael, No textbook in existence makes the claim that electrical discharge do occur in flares or in plasma.

FYI: The only usages of electrical discharge in solar flares are Dungey's large current densities

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]

...snipped usual rant and insults...

The solar physics that Michael displays ignorance of or just denies

Added:

• I know that the temperature of the photosphere is greater then the melting point of iron, that the Sun is heated from within and so the temperature of the Sun increases with depth. This rules out a solid "iron surface" in the Sun. You deny this basic physics.
• I know that the temperature of the Sun has been measured to increase with depth thus ruling out a solid "iron surface" in the Sun.
  You deny this basic physics.

 

[RealityCheck01]

All the professionals used the term consistently and defined it consistently.
...usual rant snipped...

So now Peratt is not a professional, according to you !

You really insist on staying ignorant about Dungey's papers:
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!

One of these days you may actually comprehend English and see that there are two different meaning of electrical discharge bing used:
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!