Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[RealityCheck01]

This statement is blatantly and completely false. Dungey proves you're wrong. ...

That statement is blatantly and completely ignorant:
From: 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'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is Dungey's large current density (not really a discharge ) and is obsolete!

• 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!

I agree with Dungey, Giovanelli and the flare authors that you correctly cited as using Dungey and Giovanelli's usage of the term:

Magnetic reconnection causes large current densities . These few authores call large current densities 'electrical dicharges.
​

32,000 other papers on solar flares do not mention electrical discharges related to flares.

You have *never* produced any external references that agreed with the assertion that actual electrical discharges occur in plasma, Michael. When will you do so?

FYI, Michael, one bit of the scientific process that you seem unaware of is that it is up to the person with an idea to defend that idea by addressing any questions about it.
You have the idea according to your web site that there is a solid iron surface inside the Sun from which there are 'electrical arcs' going through plasma. You thus need to show that it is possible for 'electrical arcs' to travel through plasma.
Of course real electrical arcs are actual electrical discharges requiring the breakdown of a dielectric medium !

I do not have to produce any literature - it is your idea that you are defending. There is unlikely to be any literature that states that actual electrical discharges occur in plasma because it is obvious that this is impossible. An electrical discharge is the sudden formation of a conductive path between separated charges, e.g. the breakdown of a dielectric medium. Thus Peratt in Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma states that an electrical discharge generally happens through the breakdown of a dielectric medium. Later Peratt de3fines the other way that an electrical discharge:

The poster (tusenfem) then goes theough the rest of the book and finds

So, basically Peratt is rather inconsequent in his usage of discharge, as it can either mean the discharging of a stored charge in a capacitor like situation in a circuit, or it can be a discharge with break down.

The definition of actual electrical discharges means that they cannot happen in plasma because there is always a conductive path between separated charges.

However:

• An expert in actual electrical discharges did not state that they happen in plasma. C.E.R Bruce had to introduce dust. That means that this expert thought about pure plasma and discarded the idea.
• Peratt wrote a book in which actual electrical discharges in plasma are not mentioned.
• No other books exist that mention actual electrical discharges in plasma otherwise you would cite them .
• No scientific papers that mention actual electrical discharges in plasma otherwise you would cite them .

 

[Michael]

You have *never* produced any external references that agreed with the assertion that actual electrical discharges occur in plasma, Michael. When will you do so?

You apparently do not even know how to tell the truth for your own irrational statements, nor can you separate your own fantasies from reality. In *reality* I have provided you with *multiple* external references to support the fact that electrical discharges occur in solar flares. In reality you have *never* provided any references that supported your erroneous and outrageous claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You've never told the truth on this topic, not ever.

When are you going to read an actual textbook on plasma physics, or did you intend to spend the rest of your natural life arguing from a place of pure ignorance of this topic?

 

[Michael]

You are wrong: I have several interests for being in this forum.

It may be that other people in the forum have not experienced the wonder that is an Internet physics crank ! So.....

So apparently you've decided to show them how it's done by never reading an actual textbook on this topic, but insisting on arguing from pure ignorance anyway. When asked to provide *external* or *published* support of your claims you *refuse* to cite anyone but yourself!

I guess you intend to be the poster boy for internet cranks.

 

[Michael]

The only reason you are here RC is to play the role of cyberstalker. You have no other reason for being here. You know *nothing* about this topic *by choice*, and you have no desire to *learn* anything as your refusal to read a textbook on this topic for several years now clearly demonstrates. You are not interested in "truth' RC, you're just here on this forum to play the role of cyberstalker. You followed me over here from JREF, and you've ignored everything I've said for over 2 solid years.

 

[Michael]

Giving other posters an insight into the behaviour of an Internet physics crank. For example:
Ignoring basic physics, e.g.

• When given basic facts about the Sun (surface temperature of ~5700K) and iron (melting point of ~1811 K) you still assert that there is a solid iron surface below that photosphere, ignoring basic thermodynamics (2nd law).
• When given the definition of the photosphere (the region where light is emitted from the body of the Sun), you still insist that there is light in solar images from 1000's of km below the photosphere. You cannot understand that this light by definition is being emitted from the photosphere!

This is a perfect example of your complete disinterest in every answer I have given you over the past two years. Instead of judging this model based upon it's own merits, and it's *own* assumptions, you *insist* on judging it based upon a now *falsified* solar theory that has *nothing* do with the solar model I support. You have no desire or interest in a real or honest scientific discussion of this topic.

In *this* model, your *falsified* definition of the photosphere is *irrelevant*. It does not apply to this solar model, nor is it accurate in the first place. This model does indeed make *accurate* predictions about the location of the 'transition' region, whereas your dead model did not. It was falsified by SDO earlier this year RC. Wake up and smell the coffee. Without 'fast" convection, Iron and Hydrogen will not stay mixed. Nickel and Helium will not stay mixed.

No atmospheric layer of the sun is "opaque", just the *crust*.

There is really no point in trying to have a conversation with you since you are not even interested in the answer.

 

[Michael]

Of course real electrical arcs are actual electrical discharges requiring the breakdown of a dielectric medium !

No professional author that I cited requires a breakdown of a dielectric for discharges to occur in plasma. Only one retired IT guy thinks that is a *necessary* requirement and he's never read a book on plasma physics, and apparently never intends to do so.

I do not have to produce any literature - it is your idea that you are defending.

Yes you do! You made a "knowledge claim", specifically you claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You're absolutely and utterly wrong. You refuse to produce any external reference that supports you irrational fantasies, and you never will.

 

[Michael]

Thus Peratt in Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma states that an electrical discharge generally happens through the breakdown of a dielectric medium.

That is a complete fabrication. Peratt defines an electrical discharge in plasma as a fast release of stored EM energy. *PERIOD*. That is entirely consistent with Dungey's use of the term and every other author I cited. Only one highly ignorant IT guy *has an emotional attachment* to a breakdown of a dielectric. No professional does that.

 

[Michael]

The definition of actual electrical discharges means that they cannot happen in plasma because there is always a conductive path between separated charges.

That is an "actual RC" kludged "definition" of an electrical discharge as it relates to plasma. It's a highly ignorant definition too. The fact that plasma is a conductive environment is irrelevant to the concept of a "fast release of stored EM energy". It doesn't matter. The electrical discharges in flares are not related to a breakdown of a dielectric. The are related to a *release* of *stored energy*, specifically electric or magnetic energy. Until you *get* the *actual* definition Peratt gave you, you'll never understand the first thing about plasma physics. You don't even want to understand or you would have read a book on this topic by now!

 

[Michael]

The poster (tusenfem) then goes theough the rest of the book and finds

So, basically Peratt is rather inconsequent in his usage of discharge, as it can either mean the discharging of a stored charge in a capacitor like situation in a circuit, or it can be a discharge with break down.​

It's ironic, and down right pathetic IMO that you cannot understand the key point in tusenfem's response. He clearly explained that Peratt could mean the discharging of a stored charge in plasma, *or* he can be inclusive of an electrical discharge *with* a break down of a dielectric. It's entirely *optional* in Peratt's definition, whereas you have tried to make it a *requirement*, which it is *not* in Peratt's actual definition. Even tusenfem "got it", whereas you still do not.

Now kindly quote tusenfem where he claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's ironic, and down right pathetic IMO that you cannot understand the key point in tusenfem's response.
...

It's ironic, and down right pathetic IMO that you cannot comprehend the English in tusenfem's post.
He clearly explained that Peratt never discusses any electrical discharges in cosmic plasma.


He lists every usage of the term discharge in the book and they were either

• just high currents.
• the breakdown of an insulator followed by a discharge.

11th January 2011: Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

As the whole section dealing with Electical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma is negligibly small in Peratt's book, I decided to copy it whole, to see what actually is said in that section.
...
That is the whole section. So, basically, Peratt does not discuss any discharges in cosmic plasma as defined in the first paragraph in this section. He basically discusses currents driven in a plasma through an EMF. The only real discharge he discusses shortly is lightning.

To call the aurora a discharge (something that Alfvén also did) makes sense only if you define a discharge as a current in a plasma. (and then we will forget about his dubious explanation of how these Birkeland currents are created and the comments about the polar horn where these currents should flow, this is hardly up to date with modern knowledge about magnetospheric physics).

Searching further in the book, you find the term discharge in the Schoenherr Whirl stabilisation (2.5.7) but that does not really add to anything in our understanding of the term, except that Peratt says a high current discharge.

Then we get already to 4.6.1 surface discharges, where there actually find the following:
...
and then there are two possibilities, (semi)conductors
...
or it is a insulator:
...
So, in (semi)conductors there is just a current flow taking away the charge difference, but in a insulator something drastic can happen, a break down of the material, and the a discharge happens.

Then it moves to plasma gun arc discharges which also works with a breakdown of the gas.

Then something about Io's volcanic plumes:
...
And the latter would make more sense, after reading the discussion about surface discharges earlier in the book (not shown here).

Then discharges creating double layers, where there is plasma created by a discharge.

Then discharges and synchrotron radiation in Z pinches, were discharge merely stands for high current.

So, basically Peratt is rather inconsequent in his usage of discharge, as it can either mean the discharging of a stored charge in a capacitor like situation in a circuit, or it can be a discharge with break down.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That is a complete fabrication. Peratt defines an electrical discharge in plasma as a fast release of stored EM energy. *PERIOD*. ...

You are lying and displaying abysmal ignorance of English
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
This is ordinary electrical discharge - he gives the example of lightning and aurora.
11th January 2011: Michael still has no idea what a title is or difference between a title and a definition!
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?

There is no definition of 'electrical discharge in cosmic plasma' in that section or anywhere else in the book.

The idiocy of quote mining (lying about) Peratt's definition of ordinary electrical discharge is that things like the "fast release of stored EM energy by electrons" when they change orbitals becomes an electrical discharge!

So Michael, you must think that light is an electrical discharge !

 

[RealityCheck01]

No professional author that I cited requires a breakdown of a dielectric for discharges to occur in plasma.

Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
For the umpteenth time you will not understand this simple English:

No professional author that you cited thinks that electrical arc (discharges) are possible in plasma. They think that magnetic reconnection causes large current densities and they label that an 'electrical discharge'.
​

Your fantasy has nothing to do with MR and so noting to do with this usage of the term. Citing them is idiotic because it is evidence against your fantasy.

You made a "knowledge claim", specifically you claimed that electrical discharges are possible in plasma over 6 yeras ago. You're absolutely and utterly wrong (plasma conducts so actual electrical discharges are impossible in them). You refuse to produce any external reference that supports your irrational fantasies, and you never will.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That is an "actual RC" kludged "definition" of an electrical discharge as it relates to plasma.
...snipped usual ignorance of physics...

It is an actual RC description of the way that actual electrical discharges happen, i.e. the sudden formation of a conductive path between separated charges allows a sudden curent to form which releases stored EM energy.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...rant snipped...
In *this* model, your *falsified* definition of the photosphere is *irrelevant*.
...usual rant and insults snipped...

You really should not try to demonstrate your ignorance so clearly, Michael !
The definition of the photosphere is not part of the standard solar model.
The definition of the photosphere is derived from a simple observation - the Sun emits light !
Thus there is a region from which light escapes the Sun !
This region from which light escapes the Sun is called the photosphere !

Michael, Do you deny that the Sun emits light?

 

[RealityCheck01]

In *reality* I have provided you with *multiple* external references to support the fact that electrical discharges occur in solar flares. ?

In *reality* you have provided the world with *multiple* external references to support the fact that magnetic reconnection causes solar flares and debunks your already debunked idea:
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Magnetic reconnection also causes large current densiities. A handful of authors call these large current densiities 'electrical discharge'. You seem unable to understand the concept that a term can have a different meaning according to its context.
Even with your quote mine of (lie about) Peratt's definition, 13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!.

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!


Micheal has given citations to support the above.

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."
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.

 

[Elendur]

Excuse me, but a definition has no possibility of falsification. Just FYI.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
The simple fact that the Sun's surface temperature is ~5700 K and the melting point of iron is 1811 K destroys the iron surfrace idea.

Michael has never produced an reference to any scientific literature that states that the actual electrical discharges (i.e. lightning) that his idea includes are possible in plasma. His web site actually uses the term electrical arcs as in arc welding!

Michael rarely tries to address the actual science. When he does he usually gets it wrong, for example the fantasy he keeps parroting about Anomalously Weak Solar Convection.

You have a tendency to cite news articles which suggests that you did not look at the scientific literature. In this case a more proper citation would be to the pre-print (or to PNAS but that requires payment):

Anomalously Weak Solar Convection
Shravan Hanasoge, Thomas L. Duvall Jr, Katepalli R. Sreenivasan
​

You tend to make up stuff about the citation. In this case, you assert that this result somehow invalidates the standard solar model. It does not - it implies that the convection part of the model is somehow wrong, i.e. it needs fixing.
That is what the paper states. The authors do not say that the standard solar model is debunked by this result.

P.S. Let say there is an observation that does invalidate the standard solar model. that does this mean? It means that your ideas is still debunked! Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

 

[Michael]

You really should not try to demonstrate your ignorance so clearly, Michael !

I don't see why not. You do it on a *daily* basis. You've stuck your foot in your own mouth over your *bogus* claim that photons have no kinetic energy, and the whole discharges in plasma issue. In fact you've been in pure denial of physics for over two solid years! Since day one, Dungey, the guy that coined the term 'reconnection', associated that process with a preexisting current flow he called a "neutral", and an electrical discharge from that neutral.

The only guy on the entire planet that has an emotional need for a dielectric breakdown is the same guy that refuses to read a textbook on this topic. Every other author I cited *blows you bogus claims away*. All of them associated "electrical discharges" with solar flares. All of them demonstrate that your claim "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma" is false. You're stuck in pure denial and have been stuck there for two solid years.

Apparently you're a very 'bitter' human being that is unwilling to educate themselves to plasma physics, and you *insist* in a verbally abusive manner that everyone else live in ignorance with you. Forgetaboutit. You can choose to live your life *never* having read a textbook on MHD theory. Those of us that have an actual education in physics and plasma physics understand that photons have kinetic energy and understand that electrical discharges occur in plasma. I've even posted YouTube videos of electrical discharges in plasma for you, and even that was irrelevant to you.

Your ignorance has been showing for *years* RC. Nobody on Earth but you has an emotional need for a dielectric breakdown in solar flares or electrical discharges in plasma. Just some retired IT guy has that ridiculous emotional attachment.

You're also a blatant bigot. No definition from a *falsified* solar model matters in a *different* solar theory. By *definition* your definition is falsified along with the rest of your theory by SDO data in 2012. You'll probably ignore that fact for another decade or two of course, but so what? You've ignored physics for your entire life apparently.

When did you intend to pickup a textbook on this topic?

 

[Michael]

Excuse me, but a definition has no possibility of falsification. Just FYI.

It apparently has a possibility of being met with pure denial. Apparently RC has an emotional attachment to a dielectric breakdown in solar flares, unlike Dungey, and unlike Peratt, and unlike any of the other authors I cited. Since he can't 'falsify' Peratt's definition of electrical discharges in plasma, he simply remains in pure denial of that definition.

 

[Michael]

You are lying and displaying abysmal

Thus sayeth the guy that has put words in every authors mouth for over two solid years, and has never bothered to read a textbook on MHD theory!

You're sort of a classic "hater" RC. The topics change but the behaviors are identical. It begins with ignorance, and ends with verbal abuse. That's apparently your 'debate style' in a nutshell. You're ignorant by choice and verbally abusive in every post. Yep, classic hater behavior.