Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

Gee, another rant from a guy who has an inane demand that I read books on topics that we are not talking about.

Alfven even discussed voltages and such, not that you'd know, never having actually read his book or Peratt's book or anyone's book on PC or MHD theory.

When can I expect you to provide an *external* (to yourself) paper that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma?

Two *years* and counting!

 

[RealityCheck01]

I've talked to you online for two years are you *still* cannot *correctly* describe the Birkeland solar model, I've described on my website and that I've talked about in cyberspace

Wrong: We have never talked about any "'Birkeland solar model". But maybe you are talking about your asserions abut what he wrote?
From 18th May 2010 Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked

The question of MM's lies and misinterpretations about Birkeland's book has come up again so I have separated his unsupported assertions about the book. An honest person would just say "I was wrong - Birkeland did not write that" in answer to most of these.

1. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
2. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
3. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
4. Is Saturn the Sun?
5. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
6. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
7. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
8. Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?
9. Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?
10. Why is the iron crust iron and not Birkeland's brass?

...usual rant and insults snipped...

There are your personal fantasies about the Sun on your web site and it mentions Birkeland. There is no "'Birkeland solar model".
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!

As you say: You keep citing yourself over and over and over again. It's irrational nonsense. arXiv.org Search to get 2 papers to which you contributed an irrational non-science image.

You do not even know what theory you contributed to! This is Oliver Manuels invalid neutron star (to power the Sun) + layers idea. Errors in Michael's site XI (Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong)!

His figure 1 ("The top section is a "running difference" image of the Sun's iron-rich sub-surface from the Trace satellite using a 171 Å filter sensitive to Fe (IX) and Fe (X) emissions.") is just physically wrong. He either included it without thinking about the physics involved or is ignorant of a simple bit of physics: The TRACE instrument 171 A passband is collecting light from >160,000 K plasma in the transition zone, i.e. above the photosphere. Ditto for the bottom 4 images in the 195 A passband (>500,000 K plasma).
Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Alfven even discussed voltages and such, ..

So what?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Then you answered your own last question!.

So you admit you are wrong because Alfvén never discusses currents along coronal loops in some old papers? If he does then point me to the discussion because I have obviously missed it.

 

[Michael]

So you admit you are wrong because Alfvén never discusses currents along coronal loops in some old papers? If he does then point me to the discussion because I have obviously missed it.

If you missed it, you missed it by 'choice' because I've personally handed you this paper many times:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

 

[Michael]

So what?

So you've obviously never really read or understood his work or you'd realize he uses currents to describe coronal loops.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

 

[RealityCheck01]

So you've obviously never really read or understood his work or you'd realize he uses currents to describe coronal loops.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

So you've obviously never really read or understood his work or you'd realize there are no coronal loops in that paper !
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Al...r Flares.pdf is about an idea that Alfven had for solar flares being caused by currents getting stronger and stronger in the solar atmosphere until there is a 'current disruption' that releases energy.
He had this idea in 1966. That idea was wrong. Solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection as the papers that you have cited state.
From Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

1. James Dungey 1
2. James Dungey 2
   Ronald Giovanelli
3. J. P. Wild (1963)
4. T. S. Kozhanov (1973)
5. E. Ya. Vil'koviskii (1974)

A good review of the evidence for MR in solar activity is Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection (2004).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Still no addressing of the science in Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked! from Michael.
As an example, if Michael has been unable to understand
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
to the point that he has not been able to point out the flaw in these posts .

Still no answer to Show your calculation that there is a surface at~1200 K inside the solar bodyfrom Michael.
First asked 11 January 2013. 3 days and counting.
This is beginning to look like some kind of delusional asseertion from out of thin air.

Still no answer to Michael: Citations to support your assertion of a flow of current through the loopsfrom Michael.
First asked 11 January 2013.
It is easy to see that there will be currents around coronal loops. Coronal loops are magnetic flux tubes. High school physics then tells you that there can be currents around this flux.

I have updated Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked! to put the fact that Michael's idea has a Sun with no power source (all the H on the surface) st the top: Michael's idea predicts that the Sun has no central energy source (and is thus hollow)!

 

[Michael]

So you've obviously never really read or understood his work or you'd realize there are no coronal loops in that paper !

When are you going to read a book on this topic RC? You really have no idea what you're talking about. Here's another paper that uses the terms "magnetic rope" and "corona" for you:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/On The Fimamentary Structure Of The Solar Corona.pdf

You simply do not know how to tell the truth, nor do you know how to deal with reality. When can I expect you to provide me with external authors that claim that electrical discharges are impossible, when hell freezes over?

 

[Michael]

Still no addressing of the science in ....

There is no science in any of your posts because you refuse to educate yourself, and you refuse to provide any external references to support your false claims. Like any hardcore bigot, you keep judging a *Birkeland* solar model based on a *FALSIFIED* standard solar model that bit the dust last year.

 

[Michael]

He had this idea in 1966. That idea was wrong. Solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection as the papers that you have cited state.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf

Wrong. Aflven's double layer paper falsified 'reconnection" theory outright. In fact Alfven called the whole "reconnection" idea "pseudoscience". It doesn't even matter as it relates to your false claim either. You haven't read any of Alfven's work or you would know that he uses *currents* to explain coronal activity. You can't even provide us with any work from Alfven that *does not* include currents in the corona! As usual, you just don't know what your talking about. You're just an ignorant IT guy without a clue.

 

[Michael]

1. When can I expect you to provide external references to support your false and irrational claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma?

2. When can I expect you to read an actual textbook on plasma physics?

3. When can we expect you to provide even one paper by Alfven on the corona or the solar atmosphere that does *NOT* include currents?

 

[RealityCheck01]

1. When can I expect you to provide external references to support your false and irrational claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma?

2. When can I expect you to read an actual textbook on plasma physics?

3. When can we expect you to provide even one paper by Alfven on the corona or the solar atmosphere that does *NOT* include currents?

1. Never because it is your your false and irrational claim that electrical discharges are possible in plasma that needs support.

2. After you learn to read:.
For the eleventh time in simple English, the actual rational answer is

As stated before on 4th December 2012 (44 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 !
​

3. After you learn that asking a irrelevent question to show that you cannot answer the original question is really dumb. The question I asked was:
Michael: Citations to support your assertion of a flow of current through the loops
First asked 11 January 2013. 6 days and counting.
Answering it with the insane demand that I read all of one author's outdated work abut the Sun is ridiculous.

And no answer to: Show your calculation that there is a surface at~1200 K inside the solar body
First asked 11 January 2013. 6 days and counting.
Another day and your inability to cite the calculation will make it claer to everyone who reads this thread that that you made the number up. It will became one of the delusions expressed in your fantasies about the Sun, i.e. the delusion that you are free to make up any number you like.

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double%20Layers%20In%20Astrophysics.pdf

Wrong. Aflven's double layer paper falsified 'reconnection" theory outright.
...usual rants and insults...

Wow - you cannot understand simple science !
For a start you have cited a contference speech where Alfven states an opionion, i.e. that there are pseudo-plasmas where MR is applied and that application he calls pseudo-science. You needed to cite his actual paper.

Aflven's double layer idea was falisfied by thousands of other papers after his paper that show that MR is the cause of solar falres

What is this obsession with Alfvén and his decades old papers? It makes you look ignorant of the last 4 decades of solar physics.
But then your ignorance of the structure of the Sun, e.g. placing the photosphere in the atmosphere, suggests that you are ignorant about solar physics .

 

[RealityCheck01]

You haven't read any of Alfven's work or you would know that he uses *currents* to explain coronal activity.

You cannot understand what the question I asked was:

Michael: Citations to support your assertion of a flow of current through the loops
First asked 11 January 2013. 6 days and counting.
​

The question is specifically about coronal loops. You need to give citations to the literature about currents through coronal loops.

And a blatent lie since I read that paper:

So you've obviously never really read or understood his work or you'd realize there are no coronal loops in that paper !
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Al...r Flares.pdf is about an idea that Alfven had for solar flares being caused by currents getting stronger and stronger in the solar atmosphere until there is a 'current disruption' that releases energy.
He had this idea in 1966. That idea was wrong. Solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection as the papers that you have cited state.

From Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

1. James Dungey 1
2. James Dungey 2
   Ronald Giovanelli
3. J. P. Wild (1963)
4. T. S. Kozhanov (1973)
5. E. Ya. Vil'koviskii (1974)

A good review of the evidence for MR in solar activity is Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection (2004).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Here's another paper that uses the terms "magnetic rope" and "corona" for you:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/On The Fimamentary Structure Of The Solar Corona.pdf

You really have no idea what the question I asked was:

Michael: Citations to support your assertion of a flow of current through the loops
First asked 11 January 2013. 6 days and counting.
​

You missed out the simple fact that this paper does not mention coronal loops.

 

[Michael]

You are blatantly unable to comprehend my point.

I know exactly what your "point" is. You're apparently intent on cyberstalking me all around the internet, intentionally lying about my beliefs, my website and physics in general.

When shall you present a paper by Alfven related to coronal loops and/or the corona that does *not* involve current? You have no idea what the truth is, and you misrepresent Birkeland's solar model and *my* beliefs on a daily basis. You did the same thing to Peratt and Alfven.

I do not say that your web site says this. It is the model that you present on the web site that states that the Sun is hollow.

Liar. Quote me where I claimed the sun is "hollow'.

It is simple, Michael:

The only thing that is simple is your hate. The rest is just a weird expression of that hate.

Your idea has no hydrogen at the center of the Sun (all of the H is at the surface).

False.

That means that the Sun has no power source, i.e. the physically verified fusion of H.

False again. Birkeland and I agree that the sun has an internal power source. You blatantly lied again.

That means that your layers are solid.

False again.

That means that your Sun is hollow in order to match the measured mass of the Sun.

False again. I defy you to find any such statement on my website or in any published paper. You just make up nonsense in your own head and lie about who said what.

Of course the major idiocy in your model is that the Sun does not give off the energy that is measured: Michael's idea predicts that the Sun has no central energy source (and is thus hollow)!

There you go again, linking right back to your own lies, and refusing to quote an *external* source, in this case, me.

But you may have a viable replacement for the internal energy source power of the Sun.
Michael,

What is the internal energy source power of the Sun?​

​

Quote me. I've provided you with answers many times over the years.

You aren't interested in learning about anything, nor are you interested in accurately representing anyone on any topic. You are not a trustworthy source of information because you intentionally distort the truth, particularly as it relates to my beliefs, and Birekland's cathode sun theories.

The only thing you're good at is misrepresenting everyone.

What paper did you read by Alfven that didn't involve currents in those magnetic ropes or in the corona? Where is your source? Oh ya, yourself.

 

[RealityCheck01]

For other viewers, the speech that Alfven made in the 1986 workshop Double Layers in Astrophysics included

Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. The most important criticism of the merging mechanism is that by Heikkila [21], who, with increasing strength, has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed, at the same time, an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept.
I was naïve enough to believe that [magnetic recombination] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: ‘merging’ . . . seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group.

H. Alfvén, “Double layers and circuits in astrophysics,” IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. PS-14, no. 6, p. 788, Dec. 1986
This is Alfvén's personal opinion. For some reason Michael is obsessing about that outdated opinion and ignoring the decades of progress about solar physics since then (and the decades of solar science before the speech).

For example: review of the evidence for MR in solar activity is Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection (2004).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Quote me where I claimed the sun is "hollow'.
...similar inability to understand English snipped....
...usual rants and insults snipped...

You still cannot comprehend that I never state that you claim that the Sun is hollow!
Try again, Michael:

You are blatantly unable to comprehend my point. I do not say that your web site says this. It is the model that you present on the web site that states that the Sun is hollow.


It is simple, Michael:

1. Your idea has no hydrogen at the center of the Sun (all of the H is at the surface).
2. That means that the Sun has no power source, i.e. the physically verified fusion of H.
3. That means that your layers are solid.
4. That means that your Sun is hollow in order to match the measured mass of the Sun.

Of course the major idiocy in your model is that the Sun does not give off the energy that is measured: Michael's idea predicts that the Sun has no central energy source (and is thus hollow)!

And you ignored the question Michael, What is the internal energy source power of the Sun?
First asked 17 January 2013. 0 days and counting.

 

[Michael]

Wow - you cannot understand simple science !

You cannot understand science because you've never read any science related to plasma physics. I can understand your hate and your strong irrational and emotional need to express that hate on a daily basis.

For a start you have cited a contference speech where Alfven states an opionion,

Sure, an opinion of the guy that literally wrote Nobel prize winning book on plasma physics rather than the opinions of a willfully ignorant IT guy that refuses to read any book on MHD theory.

. i.e. that there are pseudo-plasmas where MR is applied and that application he calls pseudo-science.

Anywhere and everywhere that currents exist, he called it pseudoscience, and oh ya, the whole universe is a current carrying environment according to Alfven.

You needed to cite his actual paper.

I did, along with the Keynote speech he gave in room full of plasma physicists at the same conference where he presented his double layer paper that makes MR theory irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments.

Aflven's double layer idea was falisfied by thousands of other papers after his paper that show that MR is the cause of solar falres

False. You don't have any empirical lab tested physics to support any of your claims. They all begin and end with current and take place in current carrying environments!

What is this obsession with Alfvén and his decades old papers?

He knew more about physics than you do today, that's why. He also had a Nobel prize in plasma physics, whereas you have jack diddly.

It makes you look ignorant of the last 4 decades of solar physics.

The last two years of SDO research killed standard gas model theory dead. You don't have the convection you "predicted" with those falsified models.

But then your ignorance of the structure of the Sun, e.g. placing the photosphere in the atmosphere, suggests that you are ignorant about solar physics .

If you weren't so personally and willfully and completely ignorant of plasma physics, your insults might sting. As it stands, what you don't know about plasma physics and solar physics could fill a sun.

You don't even have enough integrity to come clean about any of the mistakes you make. Your claims about having read and understood Alfven's work, while denying he used currents to describe the corona and the filaments in the corona is just the most recent example of your willful ignorance. You aren't even interested in plasma physics or solar physics, just personal hate. Haters don't care about facts or science, just as you are not interested in reading any books on Plamsa physics, or accurately representing Alfven's views.