Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

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.

I provided you with Dungey's work. He used the term "electrical discharge" in relationship to solar flares. Giovanelli did that as well. Birkeland beat them both to the punch since he used that term in 1908 as Sol pointed out to you. Bruce used the term electrical discharges. Peratt used that term and in fact defined it as a fast release of stored EM energy. The Russians used it that way as did the Japanese authors I cited for you.

Never have you provided any reference that claimed that "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". You simply shirked your responsibility entirely. You ignored every author cited. You make up your own *requirement* for a dielectric breakdown in a purely bigoted and ad hoc manner. No "professional" made any requirement for a dielectric breakdown in any of the papers I cited. Only some ignorant IT guy that has never read a book on MHD theory has an emotional attachment to a dielectric breakdown.

You can be as verbally abusive and as nasty as you like, but it won't make up for your blind ignorance of this topic due to the fact that you refuse to read a book on this topic!

 

[Michael]

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.

That sudden formation of a conductive path does *not* have to be the result of a dielectric breakdown. Plasma can simply *move*! Dungey made no such requirement for a dielectric breakdown. He simply had a 'neutral' that formed in the plasma, and an "electrical discharge" from that neutral. What you refuse to accept is the fact that only *you personally* have an emotional attachment to a dielectric breakdown. No other author I cited had any such emotional attachment to a dielectric breakdown in electrical discharges in solar flares! Only you personally are emotionally attached to a *false belief*!

Holy cow! It's been over two years and you've never read a book on this topic, nor even acknowledge that electrical discharges occur in flares. Why are you even here RC? You have no interest in *learning* anything about MHD theory or you would have picked up a textbook on this topic by now. You have no interest in listening to anything I've said, and you continue to stalk me around the internet and harass me on a daily basis. What's the point? Do you think anyone cares what a guy who thinks photons have no kinetic energy thinks about physics? Do you think anyone cares what an IT guy that hates PC theory thinks about PC theory when he refuses to even pick up a textbook on MHD theory?

 

[Elendur]

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.

a definition is a definition, it has no value in being denied or not, it simply is.
It certainly cannot be shown wrong (/falsified), at the very best it can be shown to be contradictory (though it would still be valid).

Example:
I define rocks made out of water as "Wrocks".
It's a nonsensical definition yet it cannot be falsified.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're the only one I've seen who's misunderstood that basic concept (or perhaps been a tad sloppy with your choice of words twice).

(The first time in the following post)

...
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. ...

 

[Michael]

a definition is a definition, it has no value in being denied or not, it simply is.

In this case there is a difference between whether or not "electrical discharges" occur in plasma. They absolutely do occur in plasma, yet according to RC they are 'impossible' in a plasma. Only RC has some emotional attachment to a dielectric breakdown. No other solar flare author made any such reference or requirement when discussing electrical discharges in plasma.

In RC's mind of non-physics, it's still "impossible" for electrical discharges to occur in plasma and it's never been shown that electrical discharges occur in plasma. He never has to "deal with" that fact, or admit I was right about that point as long as he simply denies the definition given, or in this case added his own personal requirement to that definition that effectively denies the definition itself!

According to Peratt, a guy that writes books on plasma physics and works at Los Alamos, electrical discharges occur in plasma *by definition*. According to some IT guy that refuses to read a textbook on this topic, not even Peratt's book, "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". They can't both be right, and only one of them understands plasma physics.

 

[Michael]

Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

The only think you're even capable of "debunking" is your own credibility on this topic. You refuse to read a book on this topic. You deny the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasmas. You even tried to cover up your claim about photons having no kinetic energy. You have no credibility left at this point to 'debunk' anything.

 

[Elendur]

In this case there is a difference between whether or not "electrical discharges" occur in plasma. They absolutely do occur in plasma, yet according to RC they are 'impossible' in a plasma. Only RC has some emotional attachment to a dielectric breakdown. No other solar flare author made any such reference or requirement when discussing electrical discharges in plasma.

In RC's mind of non-physics, it's still "impossible" for electrical discharges to occur in plasma and it's never been shown that electrical discharges occur in plasma. He never has to "deal with" that fact, or admit I was right about that point as long as he simply denies the definition given, or in this case added his own personal requirement to that definition that effectively denies the definition itself!

According to Peratt, a guy that writes books on plasma physics and works at Los Alamos, electrical discharges occur in plasma *by definition*. According to some IT guy that refuses to read a textbook on this topic, not even Peratt's book, "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". They can't both be right, and only one of them understands plasma physics.

Then I advice you to work out your definitions because there's only two cases possible (that are of interest):
1. You're using different definitions and both are correct.
2. You're using the same definition and one of you is mistaken.

Start with the definition and argue, as explicitly as possible, based on that.

 

[davidbilby]

The only think you're even capable of "debunking" is your own credibility on this topic. You refuse to read a book on this topic. You deny the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasmas. You even tried to cover up your claim about photons having no kinetic energy. You have no credibility left at this point to 'debunk' anything.

Photons -don't- have Newtonian kinetic energy...they have momentum. It's effectively a meaningless term (or at the very least, confusing) to say they have "kinetic" energy. One could say that all their energy is kinetic, since none of it is "rest" energy and never will be, but it's not the "kinetic" of Newtonian physics, strictly speaking...really calling it kinetic energy is just inviting confusion where none should exist. It's just "energy".

 

[RealityCheck01]

I provided you with Dungey's work. He used the term "electrical discharge" in relationship to solar flares. Giovanelli did that as well.

I know this. What you cannot comprehend is that Dungey, etc. say that your idea that solar flares are electrical discharges is wrong !
All of your relevant citations say that solar flares are magnetic reconnection.
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.

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.

You really insist on citing sources that debunk your own idea !

Birkeland beat them both to the punch since he used that term in 1908 as Sol pointed out to you.

Birkeland used the term electrical discharge to describe his actual electrical discharges in gas experiments using brass balls to simulate the Earth.
He made an analogy between what images of these discharges looked like and the rings of Saturn, solar activity, zoological light abed galaxies.
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Errors in Michael's site X (Birkeland was mostly wrong)!
​

The Russians used it that way as did the Japanese authors I cited for you.
...usual rant and insults snipped...

The Russians used it the way that Dungey used it, i.e.
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
8th November 2011: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!
You really insist on citing sources that debunk your own idea !
The Japanese citations are:

1. Tatsuzo Obayashi (1975)
   This interesting paper has an abstract with MR then an "electrical discharge". But the paper actually does not mention any electrical discharges :o! This looks like an editing choice for an understandable, short abstract. The "electrical discharge" is the solar flare equivalent of the auroral electrojet which they are introducing.
2. S. Ibadov (2012)
   This is double layers induced at the comet having an "electrical discharge potential". However double layers are "destroyed" rather than "discharged". And the abstarct says this happens inside the nucleus not in plasma.

The first citation is at best you really insist on citing sources that debunk your own idea ! At worse it you you unable to undersatnd that there is no "electrical discharge". in the paper!
The second citation is: Michael does not know the difference between a plasma and a solid (comet nucleus)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

You really insist on citing sources that debunk your own idea !
The first Japanese citations is:

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.

The first citation is at best you really insist on citing sources that debunk your own idea ! This is another paper that states that solar flares are magnetic reconnection.
The abstract and paper body explicitly state that there is MR, then an energy release and then an 'electrical discharge' takes place in the form of an intense electrojet current. This is either a third different usage for the term or basically Dungey's usage.

At worse you are unable to understand that there is no "electrical discharge" in the paper, just the one usage in the abstract. In the actual paper this is first time that a solar flare equivalent of the auroral electrojet (a jet of electrons) has been proposed.

The length of time that you have had the delusion that the body of the paper contains any electrical discharges makes it obvious that you have not even bothered to read the paper.
Michael, you seem to be unable to understand that an abstract is not the paper! Or maybe you just do not know what an abstract is?

An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose. When used, an abstract always appears at the beginning of a manuscript or typescript, acting as the point-of-entry for any given academic paper or patent application. Abstracting and indexing services for various academic disciplines are aimed at compiling a body of literature for that particular subject.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Updated Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

Michael's idea predicts that the Sun is hollow and has no energy source!
More of Michael's ignorance/denial of solar physics makes his interpretations so baseless as to be fantasies: Science that Michael displays ignorance of or just denies!
Michael does not know the difference between a plasma and a solid (comet nucleus)!
Michael cannot understand that an abstract is not the paper!
Michael cites papers that state that solar flares are magnetic reconnection, thus debunking his own idea!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Photons -don't- have Newtonian kinetic energy...they have momentum.

This is Michael obsessing on the basic physics that I stated in an attempt to rubbish me rather than addressing any of the physics that debunks his idea.
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II

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:...

Which has nothing to do with the simple fact that the Sun is hot enough to melt iron (so no solid iron surface)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

It looks like this needs to be a formal question

Michael, do you want to show your understanding of physics by pointing out the (fairly obvious) omission that I usually make when describing the reason that the iron surface is a fantasy? It does not affect the result though!

Here it is again:

• Sun's surface ~5700 K.
• Warm and cold bodies (like plasma) in thermal contact come to a common temperature (second law of thermodynamics).
• Thus the interior of the Sun has a temperature of at least ~5700 K

Michael

What (fairly obvious) omission do I usually make when describing the reason that the iron surface is a fantasy (as above)?
​

This is a question that I will not give the answer to since it is easy to find out what the second law of thermodynamics. If you cannot answer it I will have to assume that you do not know (or cannot be bothered to learn) the second law of thermodynamics. That would be very sad.

 

[Michael]

Photons -don't- have Newtonian kinetic energy...they have momentum. It's effectively a meaningless term (or at the very least, confusing) to say they have "kinetic" energy.

They are nothing *but* kinetic energy:

ENERGY OF PHOTON
Energy Transfer, Photons, and Kinetic Energy
Gamma Rays and Kinetic Energy

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Question: Does gamma radiation have kinetic energy?

Replies: Yes, it does. In fact, since photons have zero rest mass, all their energy is kinetic.

[/FONT]

I think you should invest your time setting RC straight about electrical discharges in plasmas.

 

[Michael]

It looks like this needs to be a formal question

I've answered you questions *dozens of times* and you are not interested in the answer.

The question you refuse to answer:

Are you *ever* going to read a textbook on MHD theory?

 

[Michael]

This is Michael obsessing

The only one obsessing is the guy that stalked me from JREF. The only one obsessing is the guy that doesn't participate in *any* threads on this forum except mine.

 

[davidbilby]

This is Michael obsessing on the basic physics that I stated in an attempt to rubbish me rather than addressing any of the physics that debunks his idea.
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II


Which has nothing to do with the simple fact that the Sun is hot enough to melt iron (so no solid iron surface)!

Oh yeah, was aware it was Michael claiming you'd made some mistake, when in fact you actually hadn't, but he seemed to think he could crow over some kind of victory...

 

[Michael]

Updated Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

You are incapable of "debunking" anything related to this topic since you refuse to educate yourself. You are not listening to my answers, so why are you posting here RC?

 

[Michael]

I know this. What you cannot comprehend is that Dungey, etc. say that your idea that solar flares are electrical discharges is wrong !

You don't even know how to tell the truth. Nobody but an ignorant IT guy has an emotional attachment to a dielectric breakdown. Dungey blows your claim about discharges being "impossible" away. He states *exactly the opposite*. You're spewing nothing but pure nonsense at this point and you have *never* produced an external reference to support your false claims.

 

[Michael]

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786440708521050

LXXVI. Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems

Summary



Discharges are shown to be a possible source of high energy particles, if the current density is very large.

Nobody but an ignorant IT guy has an emotional need for a dielectric breakdown in electrical discharges. It's the same IT guy that has *refused* to read a single (not any) textbook on MHD theory. Either James Dungey is wrong, or RC is wrong, but one of you cannot tell the truth. I trust Dungey because his work is published. You've never written anything on the whole topic of astronomy in your entire life.

 

[davidbilby]

They are nothing *but* kinetic energy:

Hmm...you have a curious obsession with googling stuff when you don't know the answer or are incapable of expressing it from your own knowledge.

I'm guessing your search string was along the lines of - "kinetic energy" photon - and you simply picked results number 2 and 3 (and ignored no. 1 because it's a forum). Right? Let's hear a big whoop for you and your awesome google skills.

If you had actually read my reply and knew anything about quantum mechanics - this is pretty basic - you'd have noticed I said "Newtonian kinetic energy". I don't throw terms around lightly the way you do. Classical kinetic energy is an approximation, albeit a useful one, that can only be defined in terms of rest mass (1/2 mv squared), and the faster one travels the binomial approximation method is exponentially less accurate as one accelerates.

Thus, I'm merely pointing out that you have no victory to claim over RC, since nobody would take seriously the notion that omitting 'Newtonian' or 'Classical' in front of an energy term for a photon is significant - because photons are exclusively the domain of quantum mechanics. You're harping over a completely irrelevant detail as if it had importance or meaning.

Being that you brought up billiard balls as a serious analogy for photons colliding with electrons not so long ago, I'd venture you never actually took a quantum mechanics class. Am I right?

I think you should invest your time setting RC straight about electrical discharges in plasmas.

Not my area of expertise, but I'd suggest you define 'electrical discharge' and 'plasma' since everything you've stated on the subject that I read in this thread seems to dance around those points without actually addressing them; and if you're as haphazard with terminology as you are when you address quantum mechanics then I've got to give RC the benefit of my doubt.