Let's recap for a second. You simply DENY the existence of Bruce's work, [...]
I don't deny the existence of Bruce's work, so you're lying.
[...] and Birkeland's work [...]
... or the existence of Birkeland's work, so you're lying again.
[...] and/or the legitimacy thereof.
... or the legitimacy thereof, so you're lying once more. That's the third lie in this post and you haven't even gotten past the first sentence. When Birkeland was asked to support a claim did he lie instead of support it? When Alfvén was asked to support a claim did he lie?
Without so much as *READING* Alfven's material you reject his CIRCUIT approach to solar physics events. My position is congruent with Alfven's position and I've read his materials myself. Somehow based on clairvoyance and a "faith" in your superior math skills, you've not only set yourself up as the authority figure, you deny any and all other opinions on the topic, including the Nobel Prize winning physicist that WROTE MHD theory. Notice any flaw in your notion of self proclaimed 'expertise' when you haven't even read Alfven's materials for yourself?
I notice that you've lied several more times, first in stating that I haven't so much as read Alfvén's material, when all I said about that was I don't recall reading much for many years. My position isn't based on clairvoyance, so there's another lie. My position isn't based on any sense of superiority in my math skills, so you're into your, what, fifth lie of this post? Was Birkeland a liar? Was Bruce? Was Alfvén?
Oh, and I don't care if Alfvén wrote the theory of general relativity or even the Christian Bible. If he was wrong about plasma cosmology, he was wrong.
It turns out you haven't even read Alfven's work, and therefore you have no idea what a "current carrying" plasma might be, or how to model it mathematically, even when I've handed you all the math, [...]
You haven't handed me any math, so you're lying again. Shall we keep counting?
[...] including that paper from China that talks (correctly) about a "discharge filament". The plasma is a "current carrying" plasma GM.
The plasma in the solar atmosphere is electrically conductive.
Alfven certainly had the "qualifications" that you and I both lack, and he rejected your concepts of "pseudoscience". Alfven treated you "magnetic line" as a "circuit" that could be interrupted and thereby release the electromagnetic kinetic energy into the flare. You have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't even bothered to read the material in question.
And how has Alfvén done keeping up with solar physics over the past fifteen years or so? Oh, that's right, the poor old bastard died. Too bad for those idiots who worship him that the entire field of plasma physics didn't just grind to a halt in 1995. But science has this way of continuing onward with more and better explanations for the workings of the Universe.
Don't even *THINK* about lecturing me about your clairvoyant MHD "qualification".
Obviously I haven't claimed to have clairvoyant MHD "qualification", so your comment is gibberish.
When you've read the material, let me know. Until then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you haven't studied the material in question, and you have yet to point out any flaw in Alfven's work. Until you *DO* point out a flaw in Alfven's work (and oh ya, READ IT), you won't have any credibility on this topic.
Whether you've read or "studied" anything Alfvén wrote is irrelevant unless you have the qualifications to understand the simple scientific concepts and the specifics of the science under discussion. You've been asked many times to demonstrate that you possess those qualifications and you have failed to do so.
As it relates to coronal loops being "plasma pinches" and "circuits", my position is completely congruent with Alfven's position, whereas your position is not. Denial is such an ugly thing.....
FYI, Birkeland's model was a "discharge" solar model the moment he called it a "cathode".
Birkeland never proposed a solar model. His interest was the Earth, the auroras, and how the Sun affected those. Outside of that he just dabbled in solar science, your constant dishonest misrepresentation of his work notwithstanding.
It's not Bruce's fault you didn't read his material either, or point out any flaws in his work. Keep in mind that your mythical transition region has been destroyed by those 1600 and 1700A SDO images. The coronal loops ARE THE HEAT SOURCE OF THE CORONA, along with the "discharge process" from a cathode sun.
Yet you still haven't been able to demonstrate that your "cathode Sun" is even remotely possible. According to the known laws of physics, it isn't. You need to show quantitatively and objectively how these entirely new and never before described principles of physics work. Just saying so isn't going to make it.
Sure, but their work is preserved for anyone to read for themselves. Then again they can choose the path of ignorance too and never bother to educate themselves to the work of scientists of the past.
Science didn't stop when your heroes died. Tens of thousands of professional physicists that have been intimately involved in plasma and solar physics and related fields haven't found those dead guys' work to be compelling enough to discard decades of legitimate research and abandon contemporary physics in favor of some dusty old unworkable ideas from the past. You know you could get them on board if you'd make your case objectively and quantitatively, so that it explains the violations of the known laws of physics or somehow works within the known laws.
In terms of computer (electrical engineering) technologies and tangible goods, sure. In terms of astronomy however, there's nothing new under the sun.
That is simply one of the stupidest things anyone involved in science could possibly claim.
The mainstream is still peddling what Alfven called pseudoscience. You're running "circuits" into each other claiming that "magnetic reconnection" is the proper term for "circuit reconnection', and ignoring 100 years of scientific efforts, including empirical experiments. You still can't explain solar wind even though Birkeland "predicted it" a hundreds years ago.
It has been demonstrated many, many times in this and other threads that you do not possess the qualifications to properly interpret or understand Birkeland's work, or Alfvén's or Bruce's for that matter. Your comments on what he/they did or didn't predict may be dismissed as unqualified and unsupported opinions.
When are you going to support your claim of "knowledge" that is refuted by Bruce (and others)?
Plasma is a conductor. For a discharge to occur there needs to be an insulator and a breakdown. There is no electrical discharge happening in the plasma of the solar atmosphere. You have yet to provide that entire re-write of the physics of plasma and/or electricity that would show quantitatively and objectively that the situation is otherwise.
It's one thing to claim for instance that 'I lack belief in God'. It's quite another to claim that "God does *NOT* exist". Do you see the distinction between these two positions? Your *CLAIM* is one of "knowledge". You *CLAIM* to be sure that no discharge processes are involved in flares and CME's, whereas Alfven, Bruce and many other *BEGAN* with "current flow" and the flare is a direct result of changes to that current flow. When are you going to retract your ridiculous claim? You're only making yourself look bad. Even *IF* magnetic reconnection isn't just a stupid name, in no way can you be absolutely certain that NO discharge processes (AKA CURRENT FLOW PROCESSES) are involved in flares?
My claim is that you have been wholly, completely, and totally unable to support your claim. You claimed that electrical discharges are, or are responsible for solar flares and CMEs. Flapping around some links to some dead scientists' work doesn't support your claim. Until you can support your claim it can be dismissed as untrue.
Now why is it you keep ignoring the actual subject of this thread in favor of derailing it with all that crackpot nonsense about plasma cosmology and an electric Sun? Could it be you've realized your previous claims are simply unsupportable? Would Birkeland have run away like a little girl if he made claims he couldn't support? Would Alfvén have thrown tantrums and lied in order to avoid supporting any of his claims? Are you ever going to describe that objective quantitative method you claimed to have developed that allows you to "predict" CMEs?
Or will you ever have the decency and honesty to admit that you had no such method?
If you noticed, it moved up into the atmosphere over a few hours of time and then finally blew. That's why a 24 hour prediction window is somewhat questionable. Their change over time (from low to high altitude) is a clear sign of a pending eruption. Unfortunately that tends to take place over hours, not days.
!