Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

I'm still waiting for you to tell us when you intend to actually *read* a textbook on this topic?

 

[RealityCheck01]

I'm still waiting for you to tell us when you intend to actually *read* a textbook on this topic?

I am still telling you never because the mistakes you make are so basic that a high school student can see them, e.g. solar temperature + second law of thermodynamics = no iron surface.
Thus there is no need to give in to your irrational demands that I read the books that you show no signs of understanding.

Michael, when are you going to display any understanding of the textbooks that you claim to have read to have read on this topic?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Considering how badly you mangled Peratt's simple definition of an electrical discharge in cosmic plasmas, ...

You are the one lying about (quote mining) Peratt.

You are the one who is still demonstrating (for almost 2 years !) that you have no idea what a title or definition is (and lied about knowing the difference !). That is so, so sad that Michael still does not know the difference between a title and a definition after almost 2 years!

You are the one incapable of finding any physics, mathematics or examples of an electrical discharge in plasmas in Peratt's book.

You are the one incapable of finding any physics, mathematics or examples of an electrical discharge in plasmas in any textbook.

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'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!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]

You never did answer question A)
...usual rant snipped...

That is a lie - read my posts where I answered questions A, B and C.

Who cares whether you have read some books?
Your posts here and your web site show lots of ignorance of solar, plasma physics and physics in general. It is obvious that you have not understood these books that you have read.


For example

• You do not know what the photosphere is.
• You have the delusion that light is emitted thousands of kilometers below the photosphere when astronomers know that the limit is ~100 kilometers.
• You make the claim that electrical discharges happen in plasma and cannot cite any support for this from your textbooks. No discussion of the physics, mathematics or even examples!
• You show some ignorance of basic English: 11th January 2011: Do you know the difference between a title and a definition? The answer remains no!

Michael: What does the second law of thermodynamics say about your iron surface?
Hint:
8th July 2009: Your hypothetical solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.
17th April 2010: Why this iron crust thermodynamically impossible
17th April 2010: Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV

Michael analyzes a public relations image that has a processing artifact !!!!
This deserves a Duh!!!! because Michael had and still has no idea what was done to the public relations image to make it pretty. He cherry picked the first light public relations image - there is no 'green line' in the other first light public relations images. He has never found that 'green line' in any other image of the Sun - not even a public relations image!

I know for a fact that NASA understands that the green color of the horizon is directly related to the color assignments of the iron ion wavelengths, and it has *nothing* to do with the a green gradient filter. NASA isn't that stupid.

NASA public relations people are not so stupid to produce ugly images that do not show the details to the best effect. So they make them pretty !
You are lying - you have no idea what was dont to the public relations inage because you have not asked any one - that needs a double !

Electrical discharges are the cause of high particle release in solar flares.

Your ignorance about solar flares remains complete !
Magnetic reconnection is the cause of high particle "release" in solar flares.
Read Dungey - whoops you claim to have done so.
Try to understand Dungey or modern solar physics or even Wikipedia: Solar flare

Flares occur when accelerated charged particles, mainly electrons, interact with the plasma medium. Scientific research has shown that the phenomenon of magnetic reconnection is responsible for the acceleration of the charged particles. On the Sun, magnetic reconnection may happen on solar arcades – a series of closely occurring loops of magnetic lines of force. These lines of force quickly reconnect into a low arcade of loops leaving a helix of magnetic field unconnected to the rest of the arcade. The sudden release of energy in this reconnection is in the origin of the particle acceleration. The unconnected magnetic helical field and the material that it contains may violently expand outwards forming a coronal mass ejection.[5] This also explains why solar flares typically erupt from what are known as the active regions on the Sun where magnetic fields are much stronger on average.
Although there is a general agreement on the flares' causes, the details are still not well known. It is not clear how the magnetic energy is transformed into the particle kinetic energy, nor is it known how the particles are accelerated to energies as high as 10 MeV (mega electron volt) and beyond. There are also some inconsistencies regarding the total number of accelerated particles, which sometimes seems to be greater than the total number in the coronal loop. We are unable to forecast flares, even to this day.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The irrelevance of the inane demand that I read Peratt's book:

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!

If we ever get to discuss any actual plasma physics and you show that you understand plasma physics then I may have to read a book. That book will be a current plasma physics textbook. Actually I will probably wander up to my university library.

 

[RealityCheck01]

And a reminder of the science that Michael displays ignorance of or just denies!
That post really should be updated to include more ignorance/denial science from your web site, e.g. you seem to think that the Bog Bang was an actual explosion!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Running Difference Imaging

The TRACE and SOHO programs use very sophisticated software to create what are called "running difference" images ...

The characterization of the running difference image programs that astronomers use as "very sophisticated" indicates Michael ignorance of what a running difference image is, i.e. simply subtracting one image from another
It is basically easy to create running difference images, e.g.

In PhotoShop Elements, for example, both data images must first be converted to grayscale. Then the output levels on both must be reduced to 128. A layer of 128/128/128 gray is placed above one data image, set as a "Linear Dodge (Add)" layer, then merged down to the data image. The result of that is placed as a layer above the second data image, set as a "Difference" layer, and merged down. Apply "Auto Levels" to the result to get a running difference image with a good contrast.

Solar images are relatively easy because the usual difficulties are not present, e,g Difference imaging describes difference imaging for non-solar images:

...alignment of the different images; tracking and removing non-astronomical background changes; scaling the fluxes of objects to optimally match; and allowing for differences in effective seeing between the images.

The making of running difference movies can be done is a few tens of code lines: Making difference movies with SunPy and FFmpeg

 

[Michael]

I am still telling you never because the mistakes

The mistakes you make are in fact "high school" type mistakes, from your claim that photons have no kinetic energy, to your irrational claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You have no clue how physics *actually* works RC. It's like arguing with a teenager that refuses to get themselves a proper education, and who argues from a place of pure blind bigotry!

Not a single one of your criticisms have any merit. You're attempting to judge a Birkeland solar model based upon *falsified* assumptions of mainstream solar theory. You're in pure denial of the fact that the mainstream model has already been falsified by SDO measurements of convection that are only 1 percent of predicted value.

The only reason you are here on Christianforums is to harass a single individual about a topic you know absolutely nothing about!

 

[Michael]

You are the one lying about (quote mining) Peratt.

The only one lying is you, and you're only lying to yourself. Birkeland, Dungey, Bruce, Giovanelli and every author I cited for you used the term "electrical discharge" in conjunction with flares and plasma. You're the only irrational person running around claiming that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma and who refuses to provide any external references to support that claim. You've done nothing but quotemine from a book you've never bothered to read.

There's no point in trying to discuss physics with either you or dad. Neither one of you cares to educate themselves to the actual physics, and both of you quote yourselves when asked for *external* references. You're peas in a pod.

When can I expect you to provide us with a 1/2 dozen or so references that all claim that electrical discharges are *impossible* in plasma RC? The same day your read a plasma physics textbook?

 

[Michael]

That is a lie - read my posts where I answered questions A, B and C.

It is a lie that you have answered *any* of those questions. You have no date as to when you will actually read a plasma physics textbook. You gave no name or quote as to whom GM *lied* about talking to at NASA, and you've done nothing in terms of providing any external support for any of the points in contention.

You know nothing about solar physics, and your bigoted desire to impose a *falsified* solar model on a *Birkeland* solar theory is simply irrational behavior on your part.

 

[Michael]

You are the one incapable of finding any physics, mathematics or examples of an electrical discharge in plasmas in Peratt's book.

That is another example of a blatant lie on your part. His book is absolutely filled with mathematical examples of the release of stored EM energy in plasma, aka *electrical discharges* in plasma. You've never read his book, so you remain ignorant of the contents of his book. Don't blame me for your self imposed ignorance.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The mistakes you make are in fact "high school" type mistakes, from your claim that photons have no kinetic energy, to your irrational claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. ...usual ranting and insults snipped...

You are lying: I do not claim that photons have no kinetic energy.
The photon KE rant yet again !
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

Peratt states that actual electrical discharges (as in his exmple of lightning) are impossible in 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!

 

[RealityCheck01]

It is a lie that you have answered *any* of those questions.

That is an obvious lie since I answered all of the questions.

You have no date as to when you will actually read a plasma physics textbook.

The date was 1985 (third yeay physics at university) when I read my first book containing plasma physics and then passed exams containing questions on plasma physics.

The irrelevance of the inane demand that I read Peratt's book

 

[RealityCheck01]

That is another example of a blatant lie on your part. His book is absolutely filled with mathematical examples of the release of stored EM energy in plasma, aka *electrical discharges* in plasma. You've never read his book, so you remain ignorant of the contents of his book.

That is you repeating blatant lies and delusions on your part:
Peratt states that actual electrical discharges (as in his example of lightning) are impossible in 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!

There is the idoicy of asking me to read his book when we are discussing one fully quoted section in his book!
The full text of the section is here: Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

The irrelevance of the inane demand that I read Peratt's book!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Birkeland, Dungey, Bruce, Giovanelli and every author I cited for you used the term "electrical discharge" in conjunction with flares and plasma.
...usual rant and insults snipped...

You are repeating your denial of a simple fact - different authors use 'electrical discharge' to mean different things !
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!

This denial leads to a couple of delusions:

1. Peratt and Dungey mean the same thing by electrical discharge.
   They do not:
   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!
2. "every author I cited" means that you are incapable of understanding what you cite !
   Large current densities = 'electrical discharge' used by Dungey, etc.
3. "every author I cited" really means that you are incapable of understanding what you cite !
   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.

Michael does not know the difference between a plasma and a solid (the nucleus of a comet) !

If you still are unable to distinguish between solar falres (plasma)and a comet nucleus in a day or so then I will have to add this to Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked! in a new section - basic science that you do not know and casts doubt on your ability to have a scientifically valid idea.

 

[Michael]

You are repeating your denial of a simple fact - different authors use 'electrical discharge' to mean different things

All the "professionals" used the term in conjunction with solar flares and plasma. Only the IT guy that refuses to read a book on plasma physics claims that electrical discharges in plasma are impossible. Only you personally make that claim in fact. You're the odd man out RC, not them and not me.

 

[Michael]

You are lying: I do not claim that photons have no kinetic energy.

You twist the truth so often that you can't even keep your stories straight anymore:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350

Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.

And there is that "kinetic" again. A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

Wrong on both counts and the fact you claim you didn't say it to start with. You are 0 for 3 on the truth scale.

 

[RealityCheck01]

All the "professionals" used the term in conjunction with solar flares and plasma.
...usual rant sniped....

A tiny percentage of the "professionals" use the term in conjunction with solar flares and plasma. A literature search gives 32 papers out of 32,000 papers about solar flares !

The "professionals" used the term in conjunction with solar flares and plasma with three different meanings (the usual as in Peratt, Dungey and 'electroject') !
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!

You have the delusion that Peratt is describing actual electrical discharges in plasma even though

• 11th January 2011: You do not know the difference between a title and a definition!
• 5th February 2011: Peratt's page talks about aurora and lightning i.e. discharges in air!
• 7th December 2010: Peratt never describes the physics and mathematics (or gives examples) of electrical discharges in plasma!
• 26th September 2011: The discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' is not in any other textbook!

N.B. I have given up on describing these are questions since you are obviously incapable of answering them, e.g. by giving a list of actual electrical discharge examples in Peratt';s book.

None of the papers that you have cited are actual electrical discharges in plasma.
Large current densities (Dungey's usage following on from Giovanelli)

1. James Dungey 1
2. James Dungey 2
3. Ronald Giovanelli
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 discharge 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.

Solar flare equivalent of the auroral electrojet

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.
​

Your delusion that a solid (a comet nucleus) is plasma!

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.
​

Citing a crank: Charles Bruce
A crank who thought that there was actual lightning on the Sun: Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

You are still deluded about the "story" about photon classical KE so here it is in more detail.
It starts on 16th October 2012:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-41/#post61575350

That was my (rather mangled!) point! Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.
...
And there is that "kinetic" again. A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero

http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-43/#post61575895
16th October 2012 - Explicit mention of mass thus classical KE!

False. Light can made to travel at less than c in labs and so its speed changes. Its mass is still zero. Its kinetic energy remains as zero.

You ignore what I write and cite somone saying theat the relativistic KE is non-zero which I already knew!
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-43/#post61576117
16th October 2012

Energy Transfer, Photons, and Kinetic Energy
ENERGY OF PHOTON

So I tell you this basic fact:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7688433-43/#post61576200
16th October 2012

I did not say that photons do not have kinetic energy. They have a kinetic energy which is always zero because their mass is always zero.

Or if you want you can use relativistic kinetic energy in which case all of the energy is relativistic kinetic energy. Thus no one bothers with the relativistic or kinetic qualifiers when talking about photons - it is just energy.

Thus on 16th October 2012 (basically the day that this subject came up) the situation is that I have told you that:

• photons have no classical kinetic energy because their mass is zero (1/2mv^2)
• photons have a relativistic kinetic energy that depends on their wavelength.
• Most authors drop the relativistic and kinetic in that phrase.

Do you try to understand what I wrote oon the 16th October 2012?


No you do not. You go on rants about me being ignorant of the basic physics that I have quoted to you:

• photons have no classical kinetic energy because their mass is zero (1/2mv^2)
• photons have a relativistic kinetic energy that depends on their wavelength.

I realized that you did not pick up on the classical kinetic energy part.


You repeated your assertion about my first statement. So I said:

• photons have no classical kinetic energy because their mass is zero (1/2mv^2)
• photons have a relativistic kinetic energy that depends on their wavelength.
• Most authors drop the relativistic and kinetic in that phrase.

You repeated your assertion about my first statement. So I said:

• photons have no classical kinetic energy because their mass is zero (1/2mv^2)
• photons have a relativistic kinetic energy that depends on their wavelength.
• Most authors drop the relativistic and kinetic in that phrase.

And this is the umpteenth time that you have repeated your delusion that I do know know about photon energy and thus:

• photons have no classical kinetic energy because their mass is zero (1/2mv^2)
• photons have a relativistic kinetic energy that depends on their wavelength.
• Most authors drop the relativistic and kinetic in that phrase.

Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy!

I see a giant problem trying to debate the topic of photon redshift with a guy that cannot even read what I write !
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy
External reference:
How can photons have energy and momentum, but no mass?

Physicist: Classically (according to Newton) kinetic energy is given by

and the momentum is given by

, where m is the mass and v is the velocity. But if you plug in the mass and velocity for light you get

. But that’s no good. If light didn’t carry energy, it wouldn’t be able to heat stuff up.

So:

1. I gave the right answer for the classical kinetic energy of a photon (zero).
2. That answer is no good because light heats stuff up. Which is why Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy goes onto relativistic kinetic energy.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You twist the truth so often that you can't even keep your stories straight anymore:...

Continuing with the photon KE rant yet again !
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II