Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[RealityCheck01]

...usually insults snipped...
You are not listening to my answers, so why are you posting here RC?

I am listening to your answers and they are so bad that they hardly need commenting on.
For example,

• You want to throw away the definition of the photosphere (the region where light escapes from that Sun) so that the Sun does not have any light escaping from it !
• You have a fantasy that there is an solid iron surface in the Sun when the Sun's internal temperature wouold melt (actually boil!) that surface !
• You imagine that images of solar flares above the photosphere magically become images of a solad iraon surface thoudands of kilometers below the photosphere !
• You think that a paper about comet nuclei is about plasma !

I am posting here to show the readers of this forum just how abysmally bad the idea of a solid iron surface in the Sun that has gigantic electrical arcs from it causing flares is. The awfulness of the idea is listed in: Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

I am posting here to show the readers of this forum just how bad your debating style is since you rarely address the science and typically just attack the questioner with insults and irrelevant stuff.
For example, the plasma physics we are talking about is one section in one book that has been fully quoted. Yet you keep insisting that I do not know any plasma physics because I have not read that book (or any other book dedicated to plasma physics). That is irrelevant to the discussion of that one section in one book that has been fully quoted.

At least you have stopped the dumb repetition of the question about when I will read a plasma physics book to which I repliedon 4th December 2012: The irrelevance of the inane demand that I read Peratt's book): When we get to discussing real MHD rather than one page in one book !

Why are you posting here Michael?
If it is to comment on pretty pictures of the Sun then that is Ok.
But when you try to sneak in an easily and already (for about 3 years!) debunked idea about a solid iron surface in the Sun, the ignorance behind that idea needs to be exposed.

 

[Michael]

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...

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 .

Woah! You mean to tell me that you agree with these statements?

 

[RealityCheck01]

He states *exactly the opposite*.

You still do not comprehend what Dungey and other authors wrote
James Dungey 1

18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Solar flares = magnetic reconnection (debunks your idea!)
​

James Dungey 2

18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Solar flares = magnetic reconnection (debunks your idea!)
​

Charles Bruce

Errors in Michael's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!
​

Ronald Giovanelli

18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Solar flares = magnetic reconnection (debunks your idea!)
​

Tatsuzo Obayashi

Dungey's usage: 18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Solar flares = magnetic reconnection (debunks your idea!)
Michael cannot understand that an abstract is not the paper!
​

J. P. Wild

18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Solar flares = magnetic reconnection (debunks your idea!)
​

E. Ya. Vil'koviskii

18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Solar flares = magnetic reconnection (debunks your idea!)
​

T. S. Kozhanov

18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Solar flares = magnetic reconnection (debunks your idea!)
​

S. Ibadov

A paper about comet nuclei !
Michael does not know the difference between a plasma and a solid (comet nucleus)!
​

 

[Michael]

I am listening to your answers and they are so bad that they hardly need commenting on.
For example,

• You want to throw away the definition of the photosphere

Yes, I fully intend to throw out your bigoted claims about a now falsified solar theory in relationship to a *Birkeland* solar model. Your claims and your theories went up in SDO smoke in 2012.

Light does escape the *NEON* double layer of the solar atmosphere. It's a current carrying double layer in a Birkeland solar model, one of *several* that exist in the solar atmosphere, both above and below that layer. Are you listening to my answers?

You have a fantasy that there is an solid iron surface in the Sun when the Sun's internal temperature wouold melt (actually boil!) that surface !

False. You have a fantasy about the layers under the Neon being *hotter* than the Neon layer. That is false. The chromosphere is *hotter*, not cooler than the photosphere. By your logic, the laws of thermodynamics prohibit such a thing!

The Neon layer is not "opaque" in a Birkeland solar model, but in your bigoted world of falsified solar theory, you don't really care.

You imagine that images of solar flares above the photosphere magically become images of a solad iraon surface thoudands of kilometers below the photosphere

You don't even accurately represent what I tell you, in fact you go out of your way to *lie* about what I say. Why?

The "transition" region isn't located in above that orange chromosphere boundary in the SDO first light images. It's located *under* the photosphere!

You think that a paper about comet nuclei is about plasma

How just like you to ignore all the other *SOLAR FLARE* authors and papers I presented that all destroyed your false claims.

You are nothing more than a hater/cyberstalker RC. Proud of yourself?

 

[Michael]

You still do not comprehend what Dungey and other authors wrote
James Dungey 1

18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
Solar flares = magnetic reconnection (debunks your idea!)​

You have a fantasy going than nobody else can read. Everyone following this thread can read what he wrote and his use of the term "electrical discharges". Every single author that wrote about solar flares *blows your claims away*. You're on a never ending denial-go-round, and you blatantly misrepresent *everyone*!

Why bother with the rest when Dungey by himself *destroys* your claim?
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[Michael]

That's what an electrical discharge looks like in a white light image RC.

 

[Michael]

Hey David,

Why haven't you set RC straight yet over the "electric discharges' in plasma yet?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7620486-30/#post61757292

 

[RealityCheck01]

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Nobody but an ignorant IT guy has an emotional need for a dielectric breakdown in electrical discharges.
...usual insults snipped...

I think that everyone who reads this thread can see who the ignorant IT guy is, Michael: Science that Michael displays ignorance of or just denies!

Nobody but an ignorant IT guy would think that "Discharges are shown to be a possible source of high energy particles, if the current density is very large." is a description of an actual electrical discharges in plasma !

Nobody but an ignorant IT guy would quote mine an abstract

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.

making it look like you are hiding that fact that this is MR causing solar flares and thus debunking your idea.


Nobody but an ignorant IT guy would ignore the actual meaning that Dungey assigns to 'electric discharge' and 'discharge'
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

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

Nobody but an ignorant IT guy would not quote the actual parts of this paper where Dungey states that an electrical discharge is actually lightning in plasma ! Or even the part of this paper where he states what a discharge is.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...
That's what an electrical discharge looks like in a white light image RC.

That is what sonmeone who is ignorant about solar pshycsic would imagine an electrical discharge in the Sun appears like, Michael.
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

That is what someone who relies on 'I see bunnies in the clouds' logic rather than learning about solar physics would imagine an electrical discharge in the Sun appears like, Michael.

What it actually is a picture of is a coronal loop which is a loop of magnetic flux that has poked out of the photosphere.
It is a frame out of a movie in which (if I remember correctly since you have been touting this one move of the millions of images of the Sun for years) the coronal loop emits a flare and that causes the photosphere at the footprints to light up.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hey David,

Why haven't you set RC straight yet over the "electric discharges' in plasma yet?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7620486-30/#post61757292

I will butt in here :

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.

So go on Michael, select the one and only definition of electrical discharge that makes physical sense and that you will stick to forever!
Remember that:
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!

N.B. Quote mining Peratt's first sentence makes the definition physically ridiculous, e.g. makes light into an electrical discharge, a 'sudden' turn of a light dimmer is an electrical discharge, flipping a switch on a heater is an electrical discharge, etc.

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy . This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

 

[Michael]

That is what sonmeone who is ignorant about solar pshycsic would imagine an electrical discharge in the Sun appears like, Michael.

Energy build-up and release mechanisms in solar and auroral flares - Springer

Subsequent electrical discharge takes place in the form of an intense electrojet current flowing in the base of the chromosphere at the altitude where the Cowling conductivity is a maximum. It is suggested that the acceleration of particles by field-aligned electric fields and the Ohmic heating in the chromosphere result in major features of solar flares.

Yep, only some ignorant enough to actually read an actual textbook on MHD theory, like me and Dungey and Bruce and Obayashi and.....

 

[RealityCheck01]

Everyone following this thread can read what he wrote and his use of the term "electrical discharges".

Everyone following this thread, this is what Dungey wrote and his use of the term "electrical discharges":
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

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.

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."

Anyone here think that Dungey is not saying that an 'electrical discharge' is a large current density?

This is actually in the context of magnetic reconnection (the frozen in field + neutral point parts = MR) being the cause of solar flares (thus debunking Michael's idea and yet Michael persists in citing him !) and the cause of high current densities.

What Michael ignores as usual:

• Michael does not know the difference between a plasma and a solid (comet nucleus)! A paper about comet nuclei !
• Michael cannot understand that an abstract is not the paper!

 

[Michael]

making it look like you are hiding that fact that this is MR causing solar flares and thus debunking your idea.

You still do not understand Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma. It is the fast release of store electric *or* magnetic field energy. It's *inclusive* of what you're calling "reconnection" and Alfven called "pseudoscience", it's not exclusive. You're just stuck on that same denial go round. Go read his definition again. It is *inclusive* of reconnection theory, not exclusive of it.

 

[Michael]

Everyone following this thread, this is what Dungey wrote and his use of the term "electrical discharges":

Ya, he wrote that they occurred in solar flares, falsifying your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You're stuck in pure denial. Cue your nonsense rationalization about Obayashi next I suppose.......

 

[Michael]

t density."Anyone here think that Dungey is not saying that an 'electrical discharge' is a large current density?

Strawman. Anyone can see he did not require the breakdown of a dielectric. You're the only sad sorry guy that won't read a textbook and imposes such an irrational and highly emotional requirement. Only the ignorant IT guy that refuses to read a plasma physics textbook needs a dielectric breakdown.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Energy build-up and release mechanisms in solar and auroral flares - Springer

Yep, only some ignorant enough to actually read an actual textbook on MHD theory, like me and Dungey and Bruce and Obayashi and.....

Yep someone ngnorant enough not to read
Energy build-up and release mechanisms in solar and auroral flares - Springer
and see that there no 'electrical discharge' in the paper .
Michael cannot understand that an abstract is not the paper!

 

[Michael]

Anthony Peratt:

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.
The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.
The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere.

Read it and weep RC. Peratt is *inclusive* of all fast releases of stored *magnetic* energy. The definition of an electrical discharge is *inclusive*, not exclusive of magnetic field energy transfers! Get off the denial-go-round already.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

You have reverted to the insane repetition of this question that I have already answered. For the seventh time in simple English:

As stated before on 4th December 2012 (15 days and counting!)
The irrelevance of the inane demand that I read Peratt's book): When we get to discussing real MHD (plasma physics) rather than one section in one book !​

 

[Michael]

You have reverted to the insane repetition of this question that I have already answered. For the seventh time in simple English:

That isn't an answer. It's a simple yes or no question. Are you ever going to get off you lazy backside and actually read a real textbook on this topic or not? If not, get lost.

 

[Michael]

Care to admit that Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma is *inclusive* of "reconnection" theory yet?