Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[RealityCheck01]

No, it's not an irrelevant demand,
..usual insults snipped....

Yes it is because: I have read section 1.5 in full and that is all there is about electrical discharges in his book. It is a waste of time to look though the book for something that does not exist in the book !

I will not waste my money buying an old textbook that you claim describes electrical discharges in plasma when you cannot cite or quote any such descriptions or even an explicit definition:
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'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!

 

[Michael]

Yes it is because: I have read section 1.5 in full and that is all there is about electrical discharges in his book.

False. The definition is in 1.5 and he cites *many* examples of a "fast release of stored EM energy" (aka electrical discharges in plasma) in the remainder of his book, including all the maths. You of course would know nothing about any of that because you're a couch potato physicist.

Your knowledge of physics is obsolete by choice, and you only have yourself to blame. That's why you personally require a dielectric breakdown to occur, and no solar or plasma physicist on the planet requires such a thing. It's one IT guy that refuses to read a plasma physics textbook that has an emotional need for a dielectric breakdown to occur in solar flare discharges. No *professional* author required that a dielectric breakdown to occur in electrical discharges. You've kludged section 1.5, and you refuse to educate yourself. You misrepresent everyone on every part of this topic, myself included. In your whacked out would of couch potato physics, photons have no kinetic energy, electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, and textbooks on the topic are not worth reading.

You're not interested in an honest discussion RC. Why are you here stalking me personally at Christianforums?

 

[RealityCheck01]

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.

The photon KE rant again !
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

The reality is that:

• Birkeland's electrical discharges are the usual breakdown of a dielectric medium (the gas in his chamber).
• 18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
  And since you are incapable of clicking on links :
  

  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.

• You gave 6 citations to papers using Dungey's meaning:
  • James Dungey 1
  • James Dungey 2
  • Ronald Giovanelli (a book reference)
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 currents supports this.

You do know that Dungey wrote James Dungey 1 and James Dungey 2 !

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!

ETA:
I suspect that there will be a paper where the authors explicitly state that there they think that there are electrical discharges in plasma. Or even as many as 32! That is just an opinion until there is evidence that they actually happen.

 

[Michael]

Just more citation to yourself, my references, and you handwaving away at them. Never once have your produced an author in the realm of plasma physics or solar physics that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. Never have you produced a paper that claimed that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma. You're not interested in a real discussion on this topic RC, you're a classic "hater", in this case you're stalking a single individual through cyberspace apparently.

Yes or no can you produce an *external* reference that *explicitly* (not by you stuffing words in their mouth) states that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma? Yes or no? Stop dodging that question. When are you going to read a textbook on this topic? Stop dodging that question too!

 

[RealityCheck01]

False. The definition is in 1.5 and he cites *many* examples of a "fast release of stored EM energy" (aka electrical discharges in plasma) in the remainder of his book, including all the maths.
...usual rant (and paranoia) snipped...

So this post for you is a lie:
Michael after over 2 years has at last understood that Peratt's section title is not a defintion and that Peratt's definition has two parts
What a surprise !
And you are back to quote mining (lying about) Peratt's definition
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
You end up with a ridiculous meaning that makes turning on a switch an electrical discharge' !

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rant, insults, demand that I waste money on an old textbook, etc. snipped...

Actual electrical discharges such as lightning cannot happen in plasma because they need the breakdown of a dielectric medium.
I will cite my evidence that actual electrical discharges in plasma are impossible yet again

• 11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
  This is ordinary electrical discharge - he gives the example of lightning and aurora.
• Peratt never decribes this:
  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?
• 26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?
• 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.
• No scientific papers have been produced that state that actual electrical discharges such as lightning happen in plasma.

And that "handwaving" fantasy of yours suggests that you still have not understood cited papers. For example:

1. James Dungey 1
   
   "Discharges are shown to be a possible source of high energy particles, if the current density is very large. The growth of the current density is discussed using the fact that the magnetic lines of force are approximately frozen into the ionized gas. It is shown that discharges are unlikely to occur anywhere except at neutral points of the magnetic field. Neutral points are found to be unstable in such a way that a small perturbation will start a discharge in a time of the order of the characteristic time of the system. Such discharges may account for aurorae, and may also occur in solar flares and the interstellar gas"
   Emphasis added. His 'discharge' is an existing current density that grows, i.e. not a discharge!
2. James Dungey 2
   "The suggestion that an solar flare resuts from an electrical discharge situated in the neighbourhood of a neutral point of the magnetic field was made by Giovanelli [2].
   ...
   The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density."

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site: The Birkeland Solar Model

For instance, it has failed to explain the million degree heat source of the solar corona, the outer most layer of the sun. I has failed to explain the cause of coronal mass ejections, solar flares and many other observed and well documented solar phenomenon. Even the idea of sustained fusion has eluded us here on earth in the lab.

The standard solar model actually has multiple explanations for the coronal heating problem.

The standard solar model does explain solar flares (with some details to be worked out), coronal mass ejection, and many other observed and well documented solar phenomenon.

The laws of physics say that sustained fusion is possible in the Sun. No one thinks that solar-type 'sustained fusion' (gravitational confined )will be done in the lab.
Also see Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!

17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site: The Birkeland Solar Model
The labeling of the standard solar model as Galileo's observation that the Sun is a ball of gas as if centuries of scientific progress means nothing!

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

Micheal has "the photosphere is composed of dense plasma" but does not realize that this dense plasma is what stops light from under the photosphere (where the plasma is even denser!) from escaping.

Lots more "I see bunnies in the clouds' logic by lining to various movies (even for the photosphere) rather than the scientific literature.

17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

Errors in Micheal's site XVIII (solar model explains lots)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site: The Birkeland Solar Model

There is a problem however with gas model theory, and it begins at .995R, or just under the visible photosphere.

Errors in Micheal's site XII (Kosovichev (2005) shows no iron surface)!
This is a paper about detection of variations of subsurface density stratification in plasma at various radii. It is not the detection of a physically impossible ireon surface:
Iron Sun Surface idea is Thermodynamically Impossible!
Iron Sun Surface idea is destroyed by convection!
Solar temperatures increase with depth thus no iron surface!

This is not a problem with the standard model - it is observations about the Sun that are then modeled using the standard model to determine how the plasma moves at various depths.

17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

Errors in Micheal's site XVIII (solar model explains lots)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIX (the Galileo gambit , etc.)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site: The Birkeland Solar Model

These arcs emit light consistent with a number of iron ferrite ions, suggesting this surface is composed of ferrite based materials.

What various instruments have measured are iron ions like Fe IX.
These are usually at temperatures well above the melting point of iron (or iron ferrites!), e.g. > 160,000 K for the 171 A passband.

It is totally ignorant to infer the existence of any Fe compounds from the existence of dissociated Fe ions.

Ferrite (iron) ions do not exist.

Ferrite also known as α-ferrite (α-Fe) or alpha iron is a materials science term for iron, or a solid solution with iron as the main constituent, with a body-centered cubic crystal structure.

The body-centered cubic crystal structure vanahes in a gas or plasma.

17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

Errors in Micheal's site XVIII (solar model explains lots)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIX (the Galileo gambit , etc.)!
Errors in Micheal's site XX: an observation confirming the standard model!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site: The Birkeland Solar Model

The sun's inner fission reactions act as a battery, releasing free protons and electrons, while the surface acts as a giant conductor.
...

I will hope that "fission" is a typo since the Sun has internal fusion reactions.
Batteries do not "release free protons and electrons". They 'release' free charges from one terminal which goes around a circuit to the other terminal.

Fusion does not release protons and electrons. It is the heat from fusion that dissociates hydrogen into protons and electrons.

The Sun is made of plasm so every part of the Sun conduct, including the surface !

The rest of the paragraph is fantasies about streams of electrons, cracks in the iron surface, a magical neon layer, etc.

17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

Errors in Micheal's site XVIII (solar model explains lots)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIX (the Galileo gambit , etc.)!
Errors in Micheal's site XX: an observation confirming the standard model!
Errors in Micheal's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site: The Birkeland Solar Model

The photosphere is certainly one of it's most enigmatic and misunderstood layers of the sun. It is commonly, and quite mistakenly, referred to as the "surface" of the sun. It is not the surface of the sun at all. It is a liquid-like neon plasma layer more commonly referred to as penumbral filaments.

Yet another link to a movie. It is almost as if Micheal has never heard of Wikipedia !

The photosphere is one of the clearer and easily understood regions of the Sun if someone bothers to learn about it.

The photosphere of an astronomical object is the region from which externally received light originates. The term itself is derived from Ancient Greek roots, φῶς, φωτός/phos, photos meaning "light" and σφαῖρα/sphaira meaning "sphere", in reference to the fact that it is a spheric surface perceived to emit light. It extends into a star's surface until the gas becomes opaque, equivalent to an optical depth of approximately 2/3.[1] In other words, a photosphere is the deepest region of a luminous object, usually a star, that is transparent to photons of certain wavelengths.

The popular press does tend to call the photosphere the surface of the Sun as if it was a solid surface.

It is though the "surface" of the Sun as in the bit that emits light. Micheal's next sentence has nothing to do with that :
Errors in Micheal's site II (photosphere is not Ne and Si)!
Errors in Micheal's site III (Penumbral filaments belong to sunspots)!


17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

Errors in Micheal's site XVIII (solar model explains lots)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIX (the Galileo gambit , etc.)!
Errors in Micheal's site XX: an observation confirming the standard model!
Errors in Micheal's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!
Errors in Micheal's site XXII: Batteries do not "release free protons and electrons"!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site: The Birkeland Solar Model

Neon not only produces the light we see, it also is used as a cryogenic refrigerant which is the primary reason a solid surface can form beneath it.

Wow - the first sentence seems amazingly ignorant.
The light we see is not from neon. Neon has a easily identified spectrum with distinctive emission lines. It is from a mixture of H and He with traces of other elements including neon.

But the second sentence is just strange. Neon that is at temperatures above ~5700 K is not a "cryogenic refrigerant" - it is really really hot!

17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

Errors in Micheal's site XVIII (solar model explains lots)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIX (the Galileo gambit , etc.)!
Errors in Micheal's site XX: an observation confirming the standard model!
Errors in Micheal's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!
Errors in Micheal's site XXII: Batteries do not "release free protons and electrons"!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIII: the photosphere is easily understood!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Micheal's web site: The Birkeland Solar Model

Underneath this neon layer is a gooey layer of silicon which insulates the arcs, and crusty plasma layer of calcium underneath, right along the ferrite surface.

The ignorance of thinking that silicon plasma insulates is obvious - plasmas are ionized and conduct.

Really scientific terms, Micheal : Just how gooey is "gooey"? Just how crusty is "crusty"?

This is Micheal regurgitation of Olivier Manuel's ides that the Sun somehow sorts atoms by mass. This is rulled out by convection
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!

1. His layers are ruled out by helioseismology which agree with the standard solar model - a relatively smooth increase in density with depth, not dozens of abrupt changes in density.
2. His layers are ruled out in the photosphere by the fact of convection - granules.
3. His layers are ruled out in the convection zone by ... convection!
   See below.
4. His layers are ruled out in the convection zone by the measurement of convection!
   For example: Anomalously Weak Solar Convection

For someone who thinks that he knows about the Sun, Micheal, displays ignorance of a feature that is easily seen in solar images.
But he avoids real problems by having no idea about the actual arrangement of theses layers:
Michael, Please cite your calculations for the thickness of your layers
First asked 14th November 2012

Granules

Granules on the photosphere of the Sun are caused by convection currents (thermal columns, Bénard cells) of plasma within the Sun's convective zone. The grainy appearance of the solar photosphere is produced by the tops of these convective cells and is called granulation.
The rising part of the granules is located in the center where the plasma is hotter. The outer edge of the granules is darker due to the cooler descending plasma. In addition to the visible appearance, which would be explained by convective motion, Doppler shift measurements of the light from individual granules provides evidence for the convective nature of the granules.
A typical granule has a diameter on the order of 1,000 kilometers and lasts 8 to 20 minutes before dissipating. At any one time, the Sun's surface is covered by about 4 million granules.

There are also supergranules

Supergranulation is a particular pattern of convection cells on the Sun's surface called supergranules. It was discovered in the 1950s by A.B.Hart using Doppler velocity measurements showing horizontal flows on the photosphere (flow speed about 300 to 500 m/s, a tenth of that in the smaller granules). Later work (1960s) by Leighton, Noyes and Simon established a typical size of about 30000 km for supergranules with a lifetime of about 24 hours.[1]

I suspect that a single layer of granules will rule out layers down to 100 km, supergranules down to 3,000 km (The width-height ratio of large convection cells PDF).

17 Errors in Micheal's site on the first page alone!

Errors in Micheal's site XVIII (solar model explains lots)!
Errors in Micheal's site XIX (the Galileo gambit , etc.)!
Errors in Micheal's site XX: an observation confirming the standard model!
Errors in Micheal's site XXI: iron ferrite ions do not exist!
Errors in Micheal's site XXII: Batteries do not "release free protons and electrons"!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIII: the photosphere is easily understood!
Errors in Micheal's site XXIV: The light we see is not from neon!

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

Completely and utterly ignorant as usual!
Isolated neutrons or neutrons in nucleii are not 'neutronium'.

Neutron stars consists is matter that is electrons that have been forced into nuclei where they join with protons to make a "nucleus" that just consists of neutrons. That has never been observed in the lab.
''neutronium' is not scaled-up neutrons.
The facts are:

• Neutrons stars are made of ''neutronium''
• ''neutronium'' has not been detected in the lab.
• Thus by your non-science definition of empirical: Neutrons stars do not exist!

Thus my addtion to:
Errors in Micheal's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!

1. Michael, you have the non-scientific requirement that things be detected in the lab before that can exist, e.g. dark matter. This is non-scientific because it does not exist in science. Science allows things to exist when their existence can be deduced from observations and the laws of physics, e.g. quarks have never been detected in the lab.
   What if we follow your little fantasy though?
   The materials that neutron stars should be made of have never been detected in the lab thus neutron stars (according to you) cannot exist. They are "mythical sky entities"! In this case it is hypocritical of you to site a theory that you cannot believe in.

However you are free to use the scientific definition of empirical. Then neutron stars and dark matter will exist.

Or you can clarify what your own personal definition of empirical that no one else in the world uses is. And then show that it excludes dark matter while including ''neutronium'' and so neutron stars.

 

[Michael]

Peratt's definition
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
You end up with a ridiculous meaning that makes turning on a switch an electrical discharge' !

Gee, you apparently understand, yet you refuse to accept, a *ridiculously easy* definition of an electrical discharge in plasma!

Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma is based upon a release of stored energy, *not* a *requirement* of a dielectric breakdown. That is also true of Dungey and every other author I cited. Only the IT guy can't deal with, or accept an extremely *easy* to understand *definition* of an electrical discharge in plasma. Only you personally "muck it up" by stuffing in your own personal emotionally motivated requirement for a dielectric breakdown. Your personal "definition" is not congruent with Dungey's use of the term "electrical discharge" in solar flares, or any of the other 6 authors that described solar flare *discharges*. That's why you're reduced to trying to stuff words in their mouth and ignoring what they actually said to suit yourself. It's also why you're completely incapable of finding a reference that actually claims that electrical discharges are impossible in a plasma. You're unwilling to read a single textbook on this topic, and you have no desire for an honest conversation on this topic. Why are you here? You can't *possibly* teach anyone something you know nothing about due to pure willful ignorance and a refusal to educate yourself.

 

[Michael]

Completely and utterly ignorant as usual!

Yes, your own. It stems from the fact that you've never read a single textbook on the related topics. You've never published any papers related to astronomy, and you're unwilling to concede your errors when you make them, even when you cannot support your claims with external references, and they are shown to be in error based upon external references.

Isolated neutrons or neutrons in nucleii are not 'neutronium'.

Duh! You can get the former on Earth. You can't get the later on Earth due to *scaling* problems. I likewise can't produce a fully functional "sun" in a lab, or a fully operational quasar in the lab, or fully functional pulsar in a lab. Give it a rest. You're comparing empirical oranges to poisonous metaphysical apples. Neutrons show up in the lab, so scaling them to size is fine. Susy particles have failed every test and therefore scaling them to size is a form of *sky mythology* that defies the laws of physics as we know them from the lab.

You refuse to concede any point RC, so why are you here? You certainly are not interested in an *honest* scientific discussion, or even an *honest* discussion of our opinions. You keep stuffing false claims in my mouth. You keep stuffing false claims in Peratt's mouth. You keep stuffing false claims in the Russian's mouths. You keep stuffing false claims in the mouth of everyone you disagree with in fact. What's up with that nonsense?

If you keep making claims about my opinions that you know are not true, what does that make you RC?

 

[Michael]

The ignorance of thinking that silicon plasma insulates is obvious - plasmas are ionized and conduct.

Electrons follow the path of least resistance in *all* cases, even in *plasma* and even in *conductors". Wherever the path is less resistant than any other, there the electrons will flow. In *relative* terms, the silicon plasma is *more* resistant to the flow of current than the plasma inside the coronal loops.

Again, we all know I'm wasting my breath talking to a guy who refuses to even say when he *might* remove his ignorant log from his own eye by actually reading a textbook on plasma physics. When might I expect you to do so?

You keep citing yourself repeatedly. You haven't updated a single point in any of them. You've ignored everything I've said for more than two years now. You've never read a book on this topic in all that time. You've never published a paper on this topic in your entire life. You refuse to cite your own references that actually (not by you sticking your words in their mouth) claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasmas as you insists. You refuse to accept a *ridiculously easy* scientific definition of an electrical discharge in plasma that any child can understand. You stick words in Dungey's mouth. You do the same to all the external references I cite, and you refuse to cite *your own* references that support your claims.

Your behavior is that of a classic "hater". Unfortunately it's directed in this case at an *individual* that you seem to feel the need to harass throughout cyberspace. What is your motive for being here RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Gee, you apparently understand, yet you refuse to accept, a *ridiculously easy* definition of an electrical discharge in plasma!

Gee, you apparently have lied about understanding the distinction between a title and a definition, yet you continue to support a *ridiculously ignorant and lying (quote mining)* assertion about Peratt's definition about an electrical discharge that is nothing to do with plasma!

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!

ETA (26 Nov 2012): Michael apprently lied in Michael after over 2 years has at last understood that Peratt's section title is not a defintion since he is back to the ridiculous claim that this section defines electrical discharges in cosmic plasma when the only mention of that in Peratt's entire book is in the title of this section!
...

Thus the following is relevant yet again!

11th January 2011: Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
He does not (see above!)

So will Michael understand that there is no discussion or examples of electrical discharges in plasma in Peratt's book or any other textbook anytime in the next 3 years ?
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
And
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?

Peratt is not the only scientist who has ever existed so:
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?

The liee about what Dungey wrote are obvious (there is no release of EM energy in his usage of the term 'electrical discharge')

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!

Your ignorance of what the "6 authors" wrote continues.
No Giovanelli paper is cited.
The first 3 followed Dungey who apprently followed Giovanelli:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

The next author is

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.

If I shout this at you then you may understand it:
The last citation is idiotic because it is about electrrical discharges in comet nuclei:

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 abstract says this happens inside the nucleus not in plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Duh! ...irrelevantrant snipped..

Continuing your ignorance of what neutron stars are made of, Michael !

They are not made of a state of matter (electrons squeezed into protons to make neutrons) that has been seen in labs.
We have not even taken neutrons and squeezed then together to form anything close to the propertiesof 'neutronium'.
ThusMichael: by your non-science definition of empirical: Neutrons stars do not exist!