Scott's EU Birkeland Current Blunders

[SelfSim]

The magnetic field associated with the filament isn't interfered with by any *external* magnetic fields, and the "force free" aspect relates mostly to the the "magnetic resistance" being as close to zero as possible (not interfering with particle movement)

I'm still buried with programming projects. Bear with me a bit. I will catch up, but "slowly".

Don't ... what ever ya do ... give up ya day job, Michael!

Seems you could do with some brushing up on the actual definitions of a 'Force Free Magnetic Field' ... (as opposed to your believing your 'roll-your-own' ones) ...

A force-free magnetic field is a type of field which arises as a special case from the magnetostatic equation in plasmas. This special case arises when the plasma pressure is so small, relative to the magnetic pressure, that the plasma pressure may be ignored, and so only the magnetic pressure is considered. The name "force-free" comes from being able to neglect the force from the plasma.

... I'd also suggest your reading my responses to your previous posts, as you clearly haven't.

 

[SelfSim]

iii) The solution copied by Scott from mainstream theoretical math, is not considered to exist in nature due to the complexity of the magnetic field.

That a silly statement since it's already been observed in SDO images of thread eruptions:

"The solution" I'm referring to above is Lundquist's solution for a static force-free magnetic field considered in cylindrical co-ordinates, (first published in 1950/51 by S. Lundquist[sup]#1[/sup])

Scott plagiarised it in his 'study' without disclosing its original source.

What SDO imaged, was constrained (and 'simplified') by coronal alignment fields.

#1:
S. Lundquist, 'Magneto-hydrostatic fields', Ark.Fys. 35, 361 (1950);
S. Lundquist, 'On the Stability of Magneto-Hydrostatic Fields', Phys.Rev. 83, 107 (1951).

 

[Michael]

Don't ... what ever ya do ... give up ya day job, Michael!

Sure, you *have* to include that personal insult.

Seems you could do with some brushing up on the actual definitions of a 'Force Free Magnetic Field' ... (as opposed to your believing your 'roll-your-own' ones) ...

... I'd also suggest your reading my responses to your previous posts, as you clearly haven't.

You clearly ignored your own link as did Bridgman:

A force-free magnetic field is a type of field which arises as a special case from the magnetostatic equation in plasmas. This special case arises when the plasma pressure is so small, relative to the magnetic pressure, that the plasma pressure may be ignored, and so only the magnetic pressure is considered. The name "force-free" comes from being able to neglect the force from the plasma.

So *by definition* this *condition* occurs in plasmas, regardless of whether you or Bridgman think they are possible/stable.

Furthermore:

This equation implies that:

. e.g. the current density is either zero or parallel to the magnetic field, and where

is a spatial-varying function to be determined. Combining this equation with Maxwell's equations:

The only requirement to achieve this force free field condition in plasma is for no current to be flowing through the plasma thread at that moment, *or* for that current flow to be running parallel to the magnetic field, *i.e. all Birkeland current conditions in plasma*.

In Birkeland currents, where the magnetic fields run parallel to the current, we can treat it as a "force free" field condition, even when there is a significant amount of *current flow present*, and flowing through the thread*!

You also ignored this little tidbit from your own link:

Physical Examples

In the corona of the sun, the ratio of the gas pressure to the magnetic pressure is ~0.004, and so there the magnetic field is force-free.

And you completed your denial process by *ignoring* that fact that they've actually been *observed* in solar satellite imagery.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/filaments/filamenteruption.mpg

Scott absolutely points out in his video that previous authors had arrived at the same results. His paper simply explains *why* and *how* that two directional flow process takes place in *current carrying plasmas* called "Birkeland currents" where the magnetic field runs parallel to the current.

IMO you simply missed the *entire* point of the paper, namely that Birkeland currents can be modeled in a force free manner, and when you do that, you end up with concentric plasma 'twister' like filaments flowing *both* directions, which is what explains that SDO image of coronal activity.

 

[SelfSim]

The magnetic field associated with the filament isn't interfered with by any *external* magnetic fields, and the "force free" aspect relates mostly to the the "magnetic resistance" being as close to zero as possible (not interfering with particle movement)

So, as usual, Michael not only misrepresents the accepted understanding of a 'force free field' in plasmas, he also misconstrues the concepts presented by Scott himself:

Scott's paper follows two steps (or posits).

Scott Step 1:
The formation of a 'Birkeland current' is posited by Scott to be in a 'force free' magnetic field, which he defines as necessarily having the current direction and magnetic field running parallel to each other.
This is Scott's definition of an aligned (Birkeland) current which is incorrect.

The mainstream definition a 'Birkeland current' has it being aligned by an external magnetic field and it does not necessarily have to be parallel with the direction of that field.

Scott Step 2:
External matter (plasma, gas) is aligned in the force free magnetic field of the Birkeland current.

Scott's Step 2 is the outcome of his Step 1.

Michael claims the "plasma flow" defines the force free magnetic field by it taking the line of least resistance.

Scott's paper (and his presentation) posits that a necessary condition is that the force free magnetic field already exists before the plasma begins its "flow".

So we have the ridiculous situation of a nonsense paper, being given a nonsense interpretation by Michael.

Frankly, my intention for this thread was to distinguish Scott's Blunders in this paper. It was not to sort out Michael's deliberately held misinterpretations of mainstream Physics, as well as his misinterpretations of Scott's study.
As such, I have no desire to spend countless hours arguing with someone who simply refuses to acknowledge the objective facts laid out in black and white (for all to see). Whilst I'm sure Michael and Justatruthseeker will continue to 'dump' on this thread, I have no intentions of playing the ridiculous game they continue to provoke.

 

[Michael]

So, as usual, Michael not only misrepresents the accepted understanding of a 'force free field' in plasmas, he also misconstrues the concepts presented by Scott himself:

Scott's paper follows two steps (or posits).

Scott Step 1:
The formation of a 'Birkeland current' is posited by Scott to be in a 'force free' magnetic field, which he defines as necessarily having the current direction and magnetic field running parallel to each other.
This is Scott's definition of an aligned (Birkeland) current which is incorrect.

The mainstream definition a 'Birkeland current' has it being aligned by an external magnetic field and it does not necessarily have to be parallel with the direction of that field.

Scott Step 2:
External matter (plasma, gas) is aligned in the force free magnetic field of the Birkeland current.

Scott's Step 2 is the outcome of his Step 1.

Michael claims the "plasma flow" defines the force free magnetic field by it taking the line of least resistance.

Scott's paper (and his presentation) posits that a necessary condition is that the force free magnetic field already exists before the plasma begins its "flow".

So we have the ridiculous situation of a nonsense paper, being given a nonsense interpretation by Michael.

Frankly, my intention for this thread was to distinguish Scott's Blunders in this paper. It was not to sort out Michael's deliberately held misinterpretations of mainstream Physics, as well as his misinterpretations of Scott's study.
As such, I have no desire to spend countless hours arguing with someone who simply refuses to acknowledge the objective facts laid out in black and white (for all to see). Whilst I'm sure Michael and Justatruthseeker will continue to 'dump' on this thread, I have no intentions of playing the ridiculous game they continue to provoke.

You apparently didn't even read or correctly comprehend your *own* WIKI link. Let me quote it for you *again*:

Force-free magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.
This equation implies that:

. e.g. the current density is either zero or parallel to the magnetic field, and where

is a spatial-varying function to be determined. Combining this equation with Maxwell's equations:

The *definition* of the term you're using *insists* that A) it happens, and B) it happens when the current density is *parallel* to the the magnetic field.

These are the *definitions* of the term you're using, yet you deny the very meaning of the term and claim it to be an impossible arrangement in plasma. Contrary to Bridgman's assertion that such configurations do *not* occur due to instability factors, the *definition* of the term you're using *insists* that is *does* occur in nature!

Furthermore I've even shown you actual SDO images of such "force free" fields where the plasma is *moving* through the thread in *both* directions!

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/filaments/filamenteruption.mpg

The 'arrangement' of the various interwoven threads, as well as their magnetic field topology creates a pathway that is 'least resistive' to the flow of current through the thread, and helps *insulate* the threads. You don't want to hear any of this because all you're interested in doing in misrepresenting Scott's work, and insulting me personally. You're not even the *least* bit interested in a real discussion on this topic. It's a pity too.

The irony of course is that *by definition* your hero Bridgman is full of hot air, and so are you. By definition these arrangements *do* occur in plasma. By definition of the term, it's an arrangement of plasma where the current density is running parallel to the magnetic field, i.e. *all Birkeland current scenarios*.

You ignored your own Wiki reference too as it relates to their known existence *in the corona*, and you did that even *after* I showed you an actual image of one being observed in the solar atmosphere by the best satellite equipment that we have in space.

Even when I show them to you, you and Bridgman deny they exist *despite* your own WIKI references that *says exactly the opposite*!

Do whatever you like. I'm really tired of your personal insults and the fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding a simple WIKI page, let alone the fact you haven't a clue what Scott's paper is really about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You apparently didn't even read or correctly comprehend your *own* WIKI link. Let me quote it for you *again*:

Force-free magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The *definition* of the term you're using *insists* that A) it happens, and B) it happens when the current density is *parallel* to the the magnetic field.

They don't want to hear the solutions, they prefer to ignore them and misrepresent all of science in their petty crusade.

Solar Force-free Magnetic Fields

Starting as far back as the 1950's.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Their own theories now rely on it.

[1208.4693] Solar Force-free Magnetic Fields

Only him and TB seem to think they are impossible.

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/forcefree.pdf

Stated quite bluntly.

http://www-solar.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~alan/sun_course/Chapter3/node5.html

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Besides, we already know how well their solar theory is doing. All internal heating models have been falsified.


But they will continue on with their falsified solar models, all the while trying to misdirect from their falsified theories with claims contradicted by their very own science.

Mainstream wouldn't know a Birkeland Current if they saw one, which is why they call them "stringy things" and "magnetic ropes".

Most of you seem to have a modicum of intelligence, so how can you continue to ignore the data???? Mainstream theories are falling one-by-one as probes are able to take measurements. But all we ever hear is the same old tired arguments from theories already falsified.

Mainstream no longer has a viable working theory of the sun, nor the heliosphere, nor the galaxy. All because they continue to ignore the obvious electrical nature of the universe. A plasma universe that responds strongly to those EM forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qcVlEGc6n4&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UeYFyfm2LilZldjJd48t6IY

 

[Subduction Zone]

And justa still does not know what "falsified" means. It takes more than certain aspects of a theory to be shown to be not quite correct to falsify a theory.

 

[Michael]

And justa still does not know what "falsified" means. It takes more than certain aspects of a theory to be shown to be not quite correct to falsify a theory.

There is no logical falsification mechanism for Lambda-magic theory when you simply add more supernatural constructs on a whim, most notably "dark energy". Any potential falsification of your "cause" of redshift claims are ignored in favor of your creation mythos, even if it requires new ad hoc constructs to prop it up.

Your "supernatural" forms of matter went down in flames in terms of making useful "predictions" at LHC, at LUX, in those electron roundness experiments and at AMS-02. None of those "negative results" or "falsification of your predictions" make one iota of difference to any of you. It's all one big confirmation bias game without a rational falsification mechanism.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And justa still does not know what "falsified" means. It takes more than certain aspects of a theory to be shown to be not quite correct to falsify a theory.

It means predictions do not match reality. The case in every single experiment since the first probe was launched into space. And still you refuse to accept reality and deal with the falsification of your theories.

4 negative results falsified ether theories, yet after 50 years of your predictions failing, every result coming up negative, you still want dark matter to be "constrained", while you jumped on the wagon to claim ether theories were falsified after just 4 negative results.

Why the double standard??????

 

[RealityCheck01]

Besides, we already know how well their solar theory is doing. All internal heating models have been falsified.

That is a very ignorant statement nothing to do with Scott's blunders.
A first year astronomy student knows that it is physically impossible for stable stars not to be internally heated. A textbook exercise is taking the equations of state for gravity compressing a ball of plasma and thermal pressure truing to expand that ball of plasma. Balancing the equations shows that temperature and pressure have to increase with depth, i.e. there has to be an internal heat source. Even a bit of common sense will tell you that should happen as depth increases the weight above that depth increases. To support that increasing weight there must be increasing pressure. That implies increasing temperature.

Those students then learn about the physical evidence for an internal heat source, e.g. the solar neutrino flux matching the energy output.

Anomalously Weak Solar Convection does not show that the Sun is not internally heated. It shows that the internal heating of the Sun creates convection currents ! The issue was that computer models of convection predict much stronger convection currents.

It is a lie that First direct measurements of transverse waves in solar polar plumes using SDO/AIA falsifies any internal heating models. The paper is about solar plumes outside of the Sun , internal heating models are internal! There is the well known coronal heating problem. This is the question of which physically credible mechanism(s) heat up the corona to high temperatures. This paper was support for one of those mechanism (Alfvenic waves) existing but not enough. That means that either there are more Alfvenic waves to find or that the rest of the energy is supplied by the other physically credible mechanism(s).[/QUOTE]

 

[Michael]

That is a very ignorant statement nothing to do with Scott's blunders.
A first year astronomy student knows that it is physically impossible for stable stars not to be internally heated.

Scott does not claim that stars are not internally heated. You made that up like you made up the "no neutrino" nonsense, and the excess gamma ray claim. You put false words in his mouth just like you do to me.

A textbook exercise is taking the equations of state for gravity compressing a ball of plasma and thermal pressure truing to expand that ball of plasma.

Nobody is obligated to assume that the standard solar model is correct however.

Balancing the equations shows that temperature and pressure have to increase with depth, i.e. there has to be an internal heat source. Even a bit of common sense will tell you that should happen as depth increases the weight above that depth increases. To support that increasing weight there must be increasing pressure. That implies increasing temperature.

And again, he doesn't preclude that possibility.

Anomalously Weak Solar Convection does not show that the Sun is not internally heated.

No, but it does falsify the standard solar model and you folks haven't fixed it yet either.

It shows that the internal heating of the Sun creates convection currents !

Actually no, it just shows that there is a *small* amount of mass movement that could also be related to current flow. What it shows for sure is that your convection prediction were off by two whole orders of magnitude and your model has never been fixed.

The issue was that computer models of convection predict much stronger convection currents.

Epic fail. When are you guys going to fix that broken piece of junk model? It's already been more than five years and nobody want's to even talk about it, let alone fix it.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Scott does not claim that stars are not internally heated. ...

Read my That is a very ignorant statement nothing to do with Scott's blunders. post.
I was addressing an ignorant assertion from Justatruthseeker that "All internal heating models have been falsified" - including whatever you imagine Scotts internal heating model to be.

The textbook astrophysics is that the Sun has to be internally heated from its core. As you know that means fusion at the core.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "Anomalously Weak Solar Convection does falsify the standard solar model" lie.
The measurement of any convection currents at all confirms the standard solar model. Any convection currents at all means that the Sun has a convective zone just as predicted by the standard solar model ! This is once again textbook astrophysics. Schwarzschild criterion

Discovered by Karl Schwarzschild,[1] the Schwarzschild criterion is a criterion in astrophysics where a stellar medium is stable against convection
...
If a gas is unstable against convection then if an element is displaced upwards its buoyancy will cause it to keep rising or, if it is displaced downwards, it is denser than its surroundings and will continue to sink. Therefore, the Schwarzschild criterion dictates whether an element of a star will rise or sink if displaced by random fluctuations within the star or if the forces the element experiences will return it to its original position.

The Wikipedia article is short on details but there is Google!
It is delusional to deny that there is a convection zone as predicted as there is other evidence that it exists, e.g. the top of convection cells (granules) in the photosphere.

Once again - that paper is a possibility of computer models being incorrect or maybe the paper is incorrect.

 

[Michael]

9 March 2018 Michael: A "Anomalously Weak Solar Convection does falsify the standard solar model" lie.

No it's not. Your model has been shown to be wrong and you've never fixed it. It's falsified. You'll need to fix it and make new "postdictions" that fit observation now if you want to have a *non falsified* model again.

The measurement of any convection currents at all confirms the standard solar model.

No. That's just mass movement that is two full orders of magnitude too slow to be consistent with you model. That speed problem has major implications as it relates to heavy and light elements staying mixed together too. You've got *major* problems on your hands that aren't easily fixed and that's exactly why that problem hasn't been fixed yet.

Any convection currents at all means that the Sun has a convective zone just as predicted by the standard solar model !

No, it means it has a 'mass movement" feature that is almost nothing (only 1 percent) like your so called "convection". Your magnetic field strengths in the upper atmosphere are also presumed to be "caused" by that mass movement process, but it's two orders of magnitude too small to explain such powerful fields.

This is once again textbook astrophysics. Schwarzschild criterion

First you tell me that the mass pushing to the core of the sun is "stable" against jet speed convection, and now you wish me to believe it's also stable against *any* amount of convection no matter what number you pick. Please! You're just making this concept of stability up as you go because you claim it fits *any* number at all!

The Wikipedia article is short on details but there is Google!
It is delusional to deny that there is a convection zone as predicted as there is other evidence that it exists,

No, it's delusional to deny that you have a serious problem since your math was off by two whole orders of magnitude and you've offered no "fix" for it!

e.g. the top of convection cells (granules) in the photosphere.

That convection speed at the surface can't even be linked back to the convection speeds measured at depth.

Once again - that paper is a possibility of computer models being incorrect or maybe the paper is incorrect.

Show me where the paper is incorrect. You constantly handwave at any and all papers that do not jive with your own personal beliefs and you've never found a real error that I've seen to date. You just "allege" problems where none even exist. You're also constantly putting yourself into the role of deciding what is "truth" and what is a "lie". I'm not buying your "I'm the demi-god of science" routine.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No it's not. ....

A post denying the basic fact that the textbook solar model predicts convection and we measure convection currents !
9 March 2018 Michael: A "Anomalously Weak Solar Convection does falsify the standard solar model" lie.
The measured convection currents were compared against computer simulations. So either the simulations are wrong or the observations are wrong.

I have never written that "the mass pushing to the core of the sun is "stable" against jet speed convection" so we have:
15 March 2018: A "the mass pushing to the core of the sun is "stable" against jet speed convection" lie?
This sounds like confusion about some basic astrophysics that I have tried to educate you about. If so acknowledge it and this will become an honest mistake.

Astronomy 101:
What makes a star stable, e.g. why is the Sun not a dwarf star?
The answer is having a balance between gravity expanding the star and thermal pressure expanding the star. It is these tested laws of physics that leads to the requirement that there be a heat source at the core of stars with temperatures of millions of degrees at the core to thousands of degrees at the photosphere.

A different question is what happens to the plasma within a star when it is displaced?
The answer is the Schwarzschild criterion

If a gas is unstable against convection then if an element is displaced upwards its buoyancy will cause it to keep rising or, if it is displaced downwards, it is denser than its surroundings and will continue to sink. Therefore, the Schwarzschild criterion dictates whether an element of a star will rise or sink if displaced by random fluctuations within the star or if the forces the element experiences will return it to its original position.

Thus the interior of stars can have a radiative zone where heat is transferred predominately by radiation and/or a convective zone where heat is transferred predominately by convection. Low mass stars such as red dwarfs are convective throughout their body, high mass stars such as red giants are radiative throughout their body and stars like the Sun have both zones.

 

[Michael]

A post denying the basic fact that the textbook solar model predicts convection and we measure convection currents !

No, you are just in denial of the fact that your convection "predictions' were way off, by more than two whole orders of magnitude. Your model is broken and you've never fixed it.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "Anomalously Weak Solar Convection does falsify the standard solar model" lie.

It absolutely falsifies your model and your model remains falsified to this day because you've never updated the convection predictions and you have no logical way to explain how or why light elements like hydrogen stay mixed together with iron in such a slow convection environment.

The measured convection currents were compared against computer simulations. So either the simulations are wrong or the observations are wrong.

Whole fantasy worlds are run in "computer simulation". Do you have any evidence that the observations are wrong? I'll take one real world test over a billion fantasy computer simulations.

I have never written that "the mass pushing to the core of the sun is "stable" against jet speed convection" so we have:
15 March 2018: A "the mass pushing to the core of the sun is "stable" against jet speed convection" lie?

No, we have you backpeddling and trying desperately to rewrite history.

This sounds like confusion about some basic astrophysics that I have tried to educate you about.

You don't understand basic astrophysics in the first place because you claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma!

If so acknowledge it and this will become an honest mistake.

Your mistakes are not honest mistakes or you would have admitted your mistakes a long time ago, instead of compounding one false statement upon another.

Astronomy 101:
What makes a star stable, e.g. why is the Sun not a dwarf star?
The answer is having a balance between gravity expanding the star and thermal pressure expanding the star. It is these tested laws of physics that leads to the requirement that there be a heat source at the core of stars with temperatures of millions of degrees at the core to thousands of degrees at the photosphere.

That doesn't fix your broken convection prediction however.

Thus the interior of stars can have a radiative zone where heat is transferred predominately by radiation and/or a convective zone where heat is transferred predominately by convection.

Your mathematical computer models are horribly wrong in terms of how much heat is produced in the core, or how fast it convects to the surface. What's wrong with your model? Why is it off by two full orders of magnitude RC?

Low mass stars such as red dwarfs are convective throughout their body, high mass stars such as red giants are radiative throughout their body and stars like the Sun have both zones.

Perhaps, but they don't work the way you claimed hence your two order of magnitude problem with convection speeds.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, you are just in denial of the fact that your convection "predictions' were way off,....

20 March 2018: A lie that I deny that convection currents and predictions were off.
I have stated that they differ several times.
9 March 2018 Michael: A "Anomalously Weak Solar Convection does falsify the standard solar model" lie.

No addressing of a question so it becomes a lie

This sounds like confusion about some basic astrophysics that I have tried to educate you about. If so acknowledge it and this will become an honest mistake.

15 March 2018: A "the mass pushing to the core of the sun is "stable" against jet speed convection" lie
The lie is that hydrostatic balance (which shows that star have to be centrally heated) is convection currents (a mechanism for transporting heat).

20 March 2018: A lie about electrical discharges in plasma pops up again.
I wrote many years ago that: Electrical discharges such as lightning are impossible in plasma because electrical discharges such as lightning occur through the breakdown of a dielectric medium. Plasmas conduct !

20 March 2018: Continued denial of physics of solar convection currents that have been detected but do not match computer models.

 

[Michael]

20 March 2018: A lie that I deny that convection currents and predictions were off.

It's not even true that you have a working model at the moment because you've never explained the *actual* speed of convection, let alone explained how the doesn't affect your claims about hydrogen staying mixed together with heavy elements like Iron and Nickel.

I have stated that they differ several times.

You' have explained why they differ and you never fixed it!

The lie is that hydrostatic balance (which shows that star have to be centrally heated) is convection currents (a mechanism for transporting heat).

No, the lie is claiming that you have a working model that explains how hydrogen stays mixed together with Iron without fast convection. You're 'model' is broken and it's never been fixed. I doubt it's even fixable which is why it hasn't been fixed in over five years and counting.

20 March 2018: A lie about electrical discharges in plasma pops up again.
I wrote many years ago that: Electrical discharges such as lightning are impossible in plasma because electrical discharges such as lightning occur through the breakdown of a dielectric medium. Plasmas conduct !

You blatantly lied when you claimed that breakdown of a dielectric is necessary for an electrical discharge in the solar plasma as described by Dungey. Show us a peer reviewed paper that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma because all 'discharges' require a breakdown of a dielectric. You made that up and you refuse to provide a supporting published paper that claims that Dungey's definition of an electrical discharge in solar flares is 'impossible".

20 March 2018: Continued denial of physics of solar convection currents that have been detected but do not match computer models.

You have *three* major problems with your model now. You have convection that is *way* off. You have no way to explain powerful magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere as a result of 'fast' convection as you previously claimed. You have no way to explain how or why hydrogen stays mixed together with Iron and Nickel at such *slow* convection speeds. Your model is now broken in three different ways.

When are you going to fix it and fix those three big problems?

Never!

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's not even true...

Nothing relevant to my post. Recycling of an old lie.
2 December 2012: A recycled (thus the date) "electrical discharge in the solar plasma as described by Dungey" lie.
There are some papers from the 1950's by Dungey and others about magnetic reconnection that label large current densities as "electrical discharges".
This is not electrical discharges such as lightning.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "Anomalously Weak Solar Convection does falsify the standard solar model" lie.

20 March 2018: A lie that I deny that convection currents and predictions were off.

20 March 2018: A lie about electrical discharges in plasma pops up again

20 March 2018: Continued denial of physics of solar convection currents that have been detected but do not match computer models.

23 March 2018: A lie that I claimed "powerful magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere as a result of 'fast' convection".

23 March 2018: A "no way to explain how or why hydrogen stays mixed together with Iron and Nickel at such *slow* convection speeds" lie.
The lie is emphasized. I linked to convective zone which explains how any convection currents at any speeds will mix the Sun's H, He and trace elements plasma up.

23 March 2018: An irrational demand that I fix what the he imagines are issues when he knows I am not a working astrophysicist.
Like him, I am an IT guy. I have a post graduate degree in theoretical solid state physics but went into IT (my first employer wanted FORTRAN expertise).
The irrationality comes because he knows this.

There is not much evidence of concern about the anomalous convection current speeds from actual working astrophysicists. The paper was published in 2012 and has 49 referred citations. So astrophysicists are taking the paper seriously.

 

[Michael]

Nothing relevant to my post.

Every word was relevant to your gish-gallop posts.

Recycling of an old lie.

Ya, that's what you do alright, a whole list of them in fact.

2 December 2012: A recycled (thus the date) "electrical discharge in the solar plasma as described by Dungey" lie.

Still no published reference to support any of your nonsense, and Dungey's published paper demonstrates that electrical discharges are *possible* in plasma and occur in solar flares.

I just love how you've evidently published *zero* papers in astronomy, yet you constantly link to *yourself* as your sole source of 'truth'. Give it a rest. Where's a published reference that claimed that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma, or that Dungey's definition of an electrical discharge is wrong? Where's a published reference that claims that a breakdown of a dielectric is *required* in discharges, and therefore electrical discharges in plasma are impossible?

There are some papers from the 1950's by Dungey and others about magnetic reconnection that label large current densities as "electrical discharges".

That's because they would be "electrical discharges" in Peratt's definition too.

This is not electrical discharges such as lightning.

It doesn't have to include a breakdown of a dielectric in the first place. You made that up!

9 March 2018 Michael: A "Anomalously Weak Solar Convection does falsify the standard solar model" lie.

The standard solar model convection predictions were the gigantic lie, a two order of magnitude lie in fact.

20 March 2018: A lie that I deny that convection currents and predictions were off.

Yet your precious standard model remains *broken* and you've done nothing to fix it, nor has anyone else. You still treat a broken model as 'gospel' too.

20 March 2018: A lie about electrical discharges in plasma pops up again

Dungey told the truth when he said that they were possible in plasma whereas you didn't tell the truth when you said they were "impossible"

20 March 2018: Continued denial of physics of solar convection currents that have been detected but do not match computer models.

It's not fast enough to fix any of the three broken parts of your model. You don't even have a valid explanation as to why hydrogen would stay mixed together with iron anymore, and no explanation for powerful magnetic fields either.

23 March 2018: A lie that I claimed "powerful magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere as a result of 'fast' convection".

It's false that you have a valid explanation for those powerful fields in the solar atmosphere with only weak solar convection.

23 March 2018: A "no way to explain how or why hydrogen stays mixed together with Iron and Nickel at such *slow* convection speeds" lie.

You lost 99% of your missing process, and you're acting like nothing happened. Like I said, you're in denial of your massive problems.

The lie is emphasized. I linked to convective zone which explains how any convection currents at any speeds will mix the Sun's H, He and trace elements plasma up.

What a load of nonsense. You're irrationally claiming density and speed have no effect whatsoever on the mixing process, so by your logic I should be able to drop a lead weight in a pot of boiling water and it should float! Give it a rest. What a lame and bogus argument. With 1 percent of your predicted convection speed, you have no logical way to justify your mixing claims.

23 March 2018: An irrational demand that I fix what the he imagines are issues when he knows I am not a working astrophysicist.
Like him, I am an IT guy. I have a post graduate degree in theoretical solid state physics but went into IT (my first employer wanted FORTRAN expertise).
The irrationality comes because he knows this.

I could only "know" such a thing if I trusted anything you had to say, but alas I've rarely if ever heard you tell the truth! Assuming that's true, you have no knowledge of anything related to astronomy and you have never even published a single paper on the topic, yet you continue to hold yourself up as your sole source of authority, on every topic under the sun, including the sun.

There is not much evidence of concern about the anomalous convection current speeds from actual working astrophysicists. The paper was published in 2012 and has 49 referred citations. So astrophysicists are taking the paper seriously.

They simply don't have a fix either, and it's major problem. No fast convection, so the model is broken, and there's not mathematical explanation now for that part of the model. It's DOA, and there's no explanation as to why it's DOA.