-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
He didn't say a word about "classical" anything until *after* I busted his show. Furthermore, this isn't the "classical" 19th century. GR has ruled cosmology theory for more than 70 years! If it's impossible for photons to lose kinetic energy, then it's impossible for photons to be redshifted at all!
Upvote
0
Absolutely amazing!
You don't say a single word about his "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma" claims, but you butt your nose into the photon kinetic energy issue? Really? Are you interested in actual "truth", or just some "classical" mythology that has no relevance whatsoever in the 21st century?
You don't say a single word about his "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma" claims, but you butt your nose into the photon kinetic energy issue? Really? Are you interested in actual "truth", or just some "classical" mythology that has no relevance whatsoever in the 21st century?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Er...yes I did. You just (repeatedly) don't read. I said "define electrical discharge" and "define plasma" because the dance being done in this thread is over the sloppy definitions that are entirely unsupported by math or empirical evidence. I also pointed out that it isn't an area where I have expertise. Theoretical physics is my thing.
Upvote
0
Since when were photons the purview anything other than quantum mechanics? You didn't "bust" anything...it's pretty clear he understands what he's talking about, especially post-clarification. You're the kind of debater who looks for grammatical errors and crows over them, missing the larger picture. I think you were the one who thought blazars were supernovae, so perhaps those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Upvote
0
Since E=MC^2.
The difference is that I *admit* my errors when I make them, I don't make up lame excuses: "Oh I *really* meant classic yada yada yada" to cover them up! What pure baloney. Without a loss of kinetic energy there is no redshift at all.
Upvote
0
http://www.christianforums.com/t7620486-66/#post62004801
There is no "sloppy" definition. Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma is *perfectly clear*. It's defined as a fast release of stored EM energy. Peratt writes books on MHD theory, whereas RC hasn't ever read a book on the topic. He is no more an 'expert' on this issue than you are.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786440708521050
Dungey's use of the term "electrical discharge" in solar flare activity is unambiguous, as was his use of the term "plasma". How could it be sloppy since all the authors I cited on solar flares agreed that electrical discharges occurred in solar flares? Furthermore, Peratt's definition is *inclusive* of "reconnection" theory! Sloppy my eye. The only sloppy thing around here one guy's personal and emotional need for a breakdown of a dielectric, the same guy that refuses to read a textbook on the topic of MHD theory.
Upvote
0
You need to try to read what was actually written: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II
I know that writing down what actually happened will not help pour delusions about what happened but Maybe I am wrong!
16th October 2012, 05:15 PM
I write that photons have zero kinetic energy (implying classical mechanics to anyone who knows any physics).
16th October 2012, 05:36 PM
You write "A photon *always* has kinetic energy. It's mass that is zero!". This is not quite correct because in classical mechanics an object with mass that is zero always has zero kinetic energy.
16th October 2012, 06:46 PM
I write that that photons have zero kinetic energy because their mass is zero. That is explicitly classical mechanics.
16th October 2012, 07:35 PM
You still do not comprehend that mass = 0 giving photon kinetic energy = 0 is classical mechanics.
16th October 2012, 07:50 PM
I make explicit the difference between the classical and relativistic kinetic energies of the photon.
For the last 2 months, you have been parroting your misinterpretation that I was wrong.
My mistake was in thinking that you could grasp the concept of context, ie.e. mass = 0 giving kinetic energy = 0 for a photon means that the context is classical kinetic mechanics.
Upvote
0
Inability to read English. The question is about
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
I quote from Dungey's papers:
- 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! - 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."
The point is that Dungey 's 'electrical discharges' have no release of stored EM energy! You though remain incapable of understandig this: 13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!
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.Michael cites papers that state that solar flares are magnetic reconnection (debunking his idea)
!
Upvote
0
What dio you know about understanding sceintific papers, eh Michael?
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.
We know that you are not competent enough to know when a paper is talking about comet nuclei rather then plasma. From Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
This looks like another case of: 11th January 2011: Michael still has no idea what a title is or difference between a title and a definition!
Upvote
0
Anthony Peratt:
Read it and weep Michael. Peratt is *inclusive* of all sudden releases of stored *magnetic* or *electric* energy where 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.. The lie about his definition of an electrical discharge is *stupid because it lead to idiotic things like light being electrical discharges*. Get off the ignorance-go-round already.
One question is why are you obsessing about this one book. Even if Anthony Peratt supported your assertion that actual electrical discharges can arc between points on your physically impossible iron surface, that does not mean that he was right.
Every physics textbook in existence that deals with electrical discharges or plasma should also say the same. They do not.
It should be easy to find scientific papers on electrical discharges in plasma (not Dungey's large current densities = electrical discharges). You cannot produce any such papers: 32,000 papers on solar flares, 32 that include the term electrical discharge, the ones you have cited use Dungey's usage).
The only question is why Peratt says "generally". From the rest of his book it is to allow him to call a capacitor-like discharges, 'electrical discharges'
Last edited:
Upvote
0
For the eighth time in simple English, the actual answer is
As stated before on 4th December 2012 (16 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!
Since you cannot understand tthis answer, I will give you "a simple yes or no" answer to your "simple yes or no" question of "Are you *ever* going to read a textbook on MHD theory?": Yes.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
!
So you will never ever ask this already answered question again will you Michael? Duh - of course you will
!I suspect that your next question with be when but then see above!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That is a really stupid question because Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma does not exist unless someone is ignorant enough to think that a title is a definition or to lie about the definition
.
Upvote
0
Wow! Did you read what you just wrote, Michael!
Who is the guy who has been persistently citing a paper on comet nuclei as if it was about plasma even after it was pointed out that the paper was about comet nuclei!
Michael does not know the difference between a plasma and a solid (comet nucleus)! A paper about electrical discharges inside comet nuclei!
Who is the guy who who still thinks that there is a solid iron surface inside the Sun even after it was pointed year ago that this surface would have boiled?
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
Who is the guy who still thinks that if you take 2 images of solar falres happening above the photosphere and subtrtact one for the other then you get an image of iron mountain ranges that are thousands of kilometers below the photosphere?
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
Who is the guy who still thinks that light can be detected from thousands of kilometers below the photosphere when the definition of the photosphere is the region from which light is released from the Sun?
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
Who is the guy who still thinks that light can be detected from thousands of kilometers below the photosphere when astronomers have calculated that you can only see at mot ~100 kilometers into the Sun?
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
Who is the guy ... well the world just can read Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked! for the rest of your many errors, Michael.
Upvote
0
Oh for crying out loud! I handed you 7 papers that demonstrated "electrical discharges" in a *plasma* environment, and you fixate on the *one* that isn't related to solar flares, utterly *ignoring* (literally lying about) the rest. You refuse to read a book on this topic, and therefore you have no idea what you're talking about.
If honesty and scientific integrity were money, you'd be broke.
Upvote
0
That's not even a rational answer! You claim to *know* what Peratt is talking about, but unlike me, you've *never* bothered to read his book. You continue to misrepresent what he said, what Dungey said, what I said and what everyone else said as well. It doesn't matter to you what the Japanese scientists say. It doesn't matter to you what the Russians said. It doesn't matter to you what Dungey said. They all said that electrical discharges occur in solar flares and in plasma. Only some lame IT guy that refuses to read a book on MHD theory has some personal emotional attachment to a dielectric breakdown. Nobody else on planet Earth has such an irrational attitude or an irrational need.For the eighth time in simple English, the actual answer isAs stated before on 4th December 2012 (16 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
You *refuse* to read a textbook on this topic. You *refuse* to read Peratt's work. You have *no right* to comment on this topic or Peratt's *definition*. The worst part of all this is that you simply do not care what anyone says. The only thing you hold as 'truth' is your own opinions, and everyone else is irrelevant to you. You refuse to cite any external resource that claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in flares. You're nothing but a hater and a stalker RC.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That is a really stupid question because Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma does not exist unless someone is ignorant enough to think that a title is a definition or to lie about the definition
Like I said, if honesty were money, you'd be flat broke.
Upvote
0
I know that I have provided you with at least 7 authors that all claimed electrical discharges occur in solar flares and in plasma. I know that you will never produce one that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma as you claim. I know for a fact you'll just quote yourself over and over again like you always do.
You don't understand the first thing about MHD theory because you refuse to study it. You have no qualifications whatsoever on this topic and you've never published a paper on the topic of astronomy in your entire life. You have no interest in truth, just cyber harassment. You've taken "hate" to the point of personal stalking of single individuals. Proud of yourself RC?
Upvote
0
I'm not. I'd be happy if you read *any* book on MHD theory, but haters are never interested in an actual "education", just ignorant hate.
You've misrepresented Peratt, Dungey, Giovanelli, the Russians the Japanese and everyone else on this topic. You've ignored every author I've cited, and you've provided none that claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. Despite numerous published papers that all demonstrate the error of your claims, you have no interest in dealing with them.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
