Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. The current and specifically the magnetic field around the current holds the filament together (B>pressure) and keeps the current insulated from the surrounding plasma.

Yes and that holds in a laboratory plasma chamber, where there is no source for new plasma, then you can "evacuate" the surrounding regions. However, in space there are lots of sources for new gas/plasma and evacuated regions will "attract" new plasma because of pressure gradients.
 
Yes and that holds in a laboratory plasma chamber, where there is no source for new plasma, then you can "evacuate" the surrounding regions. However, in space there are lots of sources for new gas/plasma and evacuated regions will "attract" new plasma because of pressure gradients.

That has nothing to do with it. It's the constant presence of current, or more correctly, it's the constant presence of the magnetic field around the current that evacuates the region around the current, and pinches the current together. So long as the current flows, the insulation and pinching process continues.
 
Why should anyone bother? After all ...

After all these years not a single one of you has provided a single example of an experiment that didn't actually begin with 'current', that's why. NEVER have you even ATTEMPTED to eliminate ordinary collisions in current carrying plasmas as the cause of these events. You simply ASSUMED that "magnetic reconnection" did it. If you REALLY could get magnetic lines to 'reconnect' and generate million degree plasmas, ect, you wouldn't need "CURRENT CARRYING PLASMA" in your experiment, or at least you would not need to ADD current to the experiment that wasn't directly CAUSED BY the magnetic field alignments. Your experiments provide NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER to determine if "collisions did it", or "magnetic reconnection did it" because every single one of your experiments takes place in a CURRENT CARRYING PLASMA, the one environment where Alfven himself INSISTED that MR theory was BOGUS.

NOT ONE SINGLE EXPERIMENT you have cited even ATTEMPTS to eliminate ordinary collisions in current carrying plasma as the culprit, in fact they all "assume" that the process is "collisionless" to begin with! What crappy science.
 
Last edited:
The event interpreted by Mozina as a splitting shock wave is not that at all, but rather a fore shock leading the bright jet, which arcs over and above the darker "surface" regions below, thus insinuating itself between the motionless background and the observer as a translucent/transparent cloud.

Arcing foreshockwaves? Really? There's a clear problem with your "interpretation" Tim. The shock wave could not have "arced" over that region because the mass flow DEFLECTS both to the right of ridge point 1, cleaning out the valley as it blows through, and also to the left of the ridge to form the shockwave that can be seen in at 4. The actual position and direction of the shock wave at 4 makes it clear that it DEFLECTED from something. The mass flow starts toward the 10:00 position, but the shock wave isn't moving in that direction at location 4. The foreshock as you call it has already been deflected and it's moving as a wave in a southern orientation by the time it gets to location 4.

Compared to the movements of the coronal loops in the path of the shockwave as it moves south, the region behind 3 is nearly completely insulated from the shock wave. Nothing insulates the coronal loops as the shockwave moves south, but something sure protects the regions behind that ridge line marked 3. The shock wave has a major effect up the valley marked 2, and a major effect on all the coronal loops in it's path as it moves south. The only coronal loops that are unaffected by the foreshock as you call it are the loops behind the ridge line.

I'll go look at the specific images you cited and comment further when I've reviewed them further, but I already see a serious weakness in your argment Tim. Look at the SHAPE AND DIRECTION of the shock wave marked 4 in the image I cited. How in the world did you intend to get such an orientation from a relatively straight line shockwave from the 10:00 position where it takes off from, to the location 4, without deflecting off of a relatively straight surface, and without doing a 90 degree turn somewhere from the point of the flare as it moves toward 10:00 and the location of the shockwave where it's marked in my original image?

I know that your basic argument doesn't fly because we can see the shockwave blow over EVERYTHING in it's path EXCEPT FOR the areas behind the ridge marked 3. There's materials flowing down the valley marked 2, and materials moving in the areas marked 4, but nothing much happens beyond the ridge line in terms of the overall effect of the shockwave on the loops. If you look at area 5 it nearly gets "blown out" almost like a candle blowing in the wind. That cluster of loops is every bit as bright as anything beyond the ridge line, but nothing remotely like what happens to the loops at position 5 happens to to the loops beyond 3. There not only a DEFLECTION process that is visible in the original images, there is clear evidence that something blocked the shockwave, or significantly reduced the shockwave at 3, because the effect on the loops beyond 3 is negligible compare do everything in the path of the shockwave at position 4 as it travels south.

You'd literally need a magic hopping, magic turning shockwave to accomplish what we observe. Then again, a simple mountain range would in fact do the trick. :)
 
Last edited:
But let us carry the exercise a bit farther and consider this: Suppose we accept Mozina's explanation, and hold that the shock wave is indeed split by an intervening object. Is there an alternative to "solid" ("firm"? "rigid"?) mountains? The answer is yes. What we see in the image, labeled "ridge" by Mozina, certainly look like magnetic field structures, and any kind of magnetic field would certainly do a fine job of splitting or blocking a shock wave.

Er, no. I already posted an overlay movie of the magnetic field alignments in that region during the flare. There's absolutely, positively noting special about them. The same types of field arrangement exist all along the shockwaves travel path as it travels south, and nothing even remotely like a 'deflection" takes place. It ONLY occurs at location 3, and it occurs in a relatively straight line as demonstrated by the shape of the shockwave at 4. It's nearly in a straight line at that location!
 
Last edited:
After all these years not a single one of you has provided a single example of an experiment that didn't actually begin with 'current', that's why. NEVER have you even ATTEMPTED to eliminate ordinary collisions in current carrying plasmas as the cause of these events. You simply ASSUMED that "magnetic reconnection" did it. If you REALLY could get magnetic lines to 'reconnect' and generate million degree plasmas, ect, you wouldn't need "CURRENT CARRYING PLASMA" in your experiment, or at least you would not need to ADD current to the experiment that wasn't directly CAUSED BY the magnetic field alignments. Your experiments provide NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER to determine if "collisions did it", or "magnetic reconnection did it" because every single one of your experiments takes place in a CURRENT CARRYING PLASMA, the one environment where Alfven himself INSISTED that MR theory was BOGUS.

NOT ONE SINGLE EXPERIMENT you have cited even ATTEMPTS to eliminate ordinary collisions in current carrying plasma as the culprit, in fact they all "assume" that the process is "collisionless" to begin with! What crappy science.


The burden is on the electric Sun proponents to support their own conjecture. Misunderstanding of the contemporary state of plasma physics and/or the contemporary standard solar model does not constitute evidence in favor of any alternative explanation. To suggest that a lack of understanding the standard model or contemporary physics somehow supports the electric Sun conjecture is an argument from ignorance.
 
Dear GM,

It seems that you have the video skills to be able to pick apart the original image into the various colors and I've seen you create RD images from original SDO press release movies. How about putting that skill of your to some good use here for us? How about taking the various iron ion wavelengths and creating 3 RD images from the three iron lines? Wanna bet there's a clear ridge line in the RD movies?
 
The burden is on the electric Sun proponents to support their own conjecture.

I assume this statement means that you never read Alfven's double layer paper eh? He didn't need no stinking MR theory to explain the behaviors of a double layer in plasma. In fact, Alfven specifically REJECTED MR theory, particularly and explicitly in ANY current carrying environment. It's already been done, even if you never bothered to read it.
 
Naturally there will be currents in the plasmoid/magnetic cloud that is being send out, because there is a magnetic field. However, the current is NOT the "ball of moving charged particles" because the total charge of the plasmoid is ZERO, but then we are again at the basic plasma physics level that you still have not understood, and that is that a current carrying plasma can actually be neutral (i.e. the total sum of charges is zero).

So what if the sum is zero, it's still a "current" if it's moving. Let's slam that plasma ball thingy into a relatively stationary magnetic field, say the Earth's magnetic field. Is your ball going to stay all nicely together, or will if form "currents" that separate as they go and then flow into the Earth's atmosphere?
 
Last edited:
Magnetic reconnection is a complete wimp.......

Electrical discharges can ionize solids, liquids, gases AND plasmas all the way up to million degree temperatures without anything particularly special about the plasma or the state of matter to begin with.

IF MR theory really was a useful energy source you should be able to do the same thing! You wouldn't even need to start with a plasma in the first place, you could simply ionize whatever you wanted to ionize WITHOUT starting with a CURRENT CARRYING plasma. You can't do anything useful with MR theory without first PLUGGING IT IN, and then TURNING ON THE CURRENT. It's the electric horse that does the work, not the magnetic cart! Your industry is obviously clueless and Alfven was right, MR theory is "pseudoscience". It's dumbed down math on paper, and bait and switch in the lab.
 
Last edited:
Magnetic reconnection is a complete wimp.......

Electrical discharges can ionize solids, liquids, gases AND plasmas all the way up to million degree temperatures without anything particularly special about the plasma or the state of matter to begin with.
...snipped usual rant...
Your ignorance continues: There are no electrical discharges within plasma. The special state of matter that electrical discharges on the Sun requires is solid, liquid or gas. Read Pratt's description of the electrical discharges that are used to create plasma - he only mentions discharges in solids, liquids and gases.
No one cares what electrical discharges do to solids, liquids and gases in solar physics because these states of matter do not exists on the Sun.

Magnetic reconnection is observed in labs here on Earth to plasmas all the way up to million degree temperatures.
According to your twisted version of logic this means that magnetic reconnection must be causing the high temperatures of the corona (electrical discharges within plasma are physically impossible by definition). However scientists entertain alternative theories (e.g. Alfvenic waves) because these also have empirical evidence for them (just not AFAIK in labs).
 
I assume this statement means that you never read Alfven's double layer paper eh? He didn't need no stinking MR theory to explain the behaviors of a double layer in plasma. In fact, Alfven specifically REJECTED MR theory, particularly and explicitly in ANY current carrying environment. It's already been done, even if you never bothered to read it.
You continue to lie about what Alfven stated. He never rejected MR theory. He rejected the inappropriate use of the frozen in approximation and was correct to do so. We have learned more about plasma physics in the last 30 years and know better when to apply MR theory (and which one to apply).

The ignorance displayed in your post is obvious. Double layers have never and will never be described by MR theory. Double layers are not magnetic reconnection :jaw-dropp!
 
Er, just how ignorant of solar physics are you: the solar dynamo.

Then in order for there to be "powerful" and/or "bunched" magnetic fields in the corona, they have to come through the surface of the photosphere, right?

Where do you see even the slightest difference between one area of the magnetic field and the next in terms of the magnetic field strength or in terms of the "bunching" of the fields the regions of deflection in that movie RC? I'll save you some time....there aren't any areas that are "special" (black or white) in that image in that region.
 
You continue to lie about what Alfven stated. He never rejected MR theory.

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science
Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) 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. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.
I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science 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; the "merging" pseudo-science 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 some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.


113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES

What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface. In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface.

All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention . This does not mean that all papers in which `magnetic merging' is used are of no interest, because there exist some good papers (e .g., Hill, 1975) in which the term is merely a synonym for "current sheet acceleration ."

Oooops, there goes all your so called "experiments" that begin and end with "current carrying plasmas". Sure, other than calling it "pseudoscience" a half dozen times in front of a room full of plasma physicists, and after blowing it off completely in current carrying plasmas, you go right ahead and live in denial all you like. The fact of the matter is that Alfven wrote HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma and not ONE that involved or in any way supported "magnetic reconnection" theory.
 
Last edited:
Oops missed this:
We're talking about the path of the "discharge" process according to Birkeland himself. The discharge process is the same discharge process that generates all those high energy wavelengths.
Birkeland's discharge process through a gas from a metallic globe has nothing to do with solar physics for the simple reasons that
  1. There is no gas on the Sun (no electrical discharges).
  2. The Sun is not a metallic globe.
But you are mistaken in any case. We are talking about the image you have posted.
It is very ignorant to compare a visible light image to an X-ray image and expect them to look alike.
It is especially ignorant in this case because the X-rays from the Sun come from the transition region and above. This is not from the surface of any delusional metal surface on the Sun.

There's no point in going through your whole list
...snipped stange stuff....
The point is simple: You claim that these pictures look the same.
Any one with eyes can see that they are different. The list is the ways that they are different.
  • The X-ray image is missing the filaments from the North pole.
  • The visible light image is missing the second ring in the X-ray image (below the equator).
  • The visible image has a ring of bright spots that is not in the other images.
  • The X-ray image has bulges above the equatorial rings that are not in the visible image.
  • The X-ray image has a difuse background that is not in the visible image.
And the most important point (to emphasis what I said above):
The visible light image is of the electrical discharges from a metallic ball.
The X-ray images is of light emitted from highly heated plasma above the surface of a ball of plasma.
The physical mechanisms creating the light that formed these images is different. Thus the slight resemblance is coincidental.
In fact it amazes me that you selected an X-ray image that is so different. Surely in the millions of images of the Sun there is one that looks more like Birkeland's image?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom