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

[Reality Check]

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?

Who said that the magnetic fields were "powerful" (in comparison to what?)?
Who said that the magnetic fields were "bunched"?
Sunspots though are an example of the top of the range of "bunching" of magnetic fields in the photosphere.

We are talking about a shock wave travelling through (in your words) a wispy plasma (10,000,000,000 times less dense than the photosphere).

The Sun's magnetic field does exist come through the photosphere, transition region, corona (this is what is being imaged) , Earth's orbit and even further !
The Sun's magnetic field is very complex and constantly changing.

The facts are that the physics states that the shock wave can only be deflected from changes in plasma density and that changes in plasma density are caused by changes in magnetic field strength:

You are in HARDCORE DENIAL of the physics. The shock wave is imaged in the coronal plasma (a light wispy plasma as you state). The only thing that can deflect the shock wave in this light wispy coronal plasma is a change in density of the plasma.
A change in magnetic field strength causes plasma density to change according to this guy called Hannes Alfvén who got a Nobel Prize for his work on magnetohydrodynamics.

And of course I am agreeing that there is such a deflection becuase that is what it looks like to me as well but I know the limiations of "bunnies in the cloud" interpretations.

Tim Thompsononce again has a good post on this point.
Solar Mountains & Solar Flares & Shockwaves

...
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.
...
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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The facts are that the physics states that the shock wave can only be deflected from changes in plasma density and that changes in plasma density are caused by changes in magnetic field strength:

There is no indication whatsoever that the field strength in that region is any different than the field strength in area 5 that had no effect whatsoever on the trajectory of the shockwave. It blows over TONS of coronal loops in it's path.

And of course I am agreeing that there is such a deflection becuase that is what it looks like to me as well but I know the limiations of "bunnies in the cloud" interpretations.

I'm finally realizing that even BILLION dollar satellite imagery is lost on you and GM. You don't even respect the process of observation and you make no attempt to actually "explain" anything qualitatively or otherwise via the laws of physics. All you care about is a little math on paper and some experiments that immediately violate Alfven's prime directive! Bah. You folks will grope in the dark forever at the rate you're going.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://plasma.drexel.edu/publications/documents/ISPC-16-565-Tornado.pdf

Are you going to respond to this paper RC?

 

[Reality Check]

Oppps...
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.

Oops- there you go obsessing on one man's opinion.

Oops - there you go stating that this man never published a scientific paper on MR theory, i.e. that actually showed that MR theory is always wrong.

Oops - there you go again with an enourmous blunder: This one guy wrote a handful of papers on circuit models as they apply to plasma (Hannes Alfvén bibliography - 7 titles with the word circuit in their title, several of which are the same paper)

Oops - there you go again obsessing on the word pseudoscience.

Oops - there you go ignoring actual plasma physics in favor of an argument from authority based on you personal interpretation of what Alfven stated..

Oops - there you go with simple logic errors. There must be hundreds of plasma physicists who have never published a paper on or even supporting MR theory.
That means that according to your logic they do not support MR.
What it means to people who can think logically is that they did not write papers on MR! The reasons for this would vary but would include that they were not working on MR.

And the big oops from you is that you continue to ignore the hundreds of papers written on MR by hundreds of different authors. These all suppoort MR.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oooops, why am I even talking to you?

http://plasma.drexel.edu/publications/documents/ISPC-16-565-Tornado.pdf

 

[Reality Check]

http://plasma.drexel.edu/publications/documents/ISPC-16-565-Tornado.pdf

Are you going to respond to this paper RC?

I had hoped not to embarrass you further but if you insist ...

Electrical discharges in the Reverse Vortex Flow – Tornado Discharges(PDF) is a paper on the use of electrical discharges to create plasma.
Nothing to do with the Sun.

Citing that paper was inane since it seems to make you ignorant of basic facts about the Sun (it is a ball of plasma and thus no electrical discharges).

Citing that paper makes it look like you are just going to spam us with every paper that mentions plasma and electrical discharge. There are many of these since electrical discharges (as in lightning) are a common way of creating plasma.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

bump for Michael Mozina

IMO you're wasting your breath. He hasn't even thought through his own argument yet since those magnetic fields that he's talking about are CREATED BY a persistent electrical field, even according to mainstream theory.

That "mainstream theory" is news to me. I suspect you're talking about Michael Mozina's personal misinterpretation of mainstream theory.

Just for laughs: Please tell us which of Maxwell's equations led you to conclude that magnetic fields "are CREATED BY a persistent electrical field."

Michael Mozina: Are you going to respond to that?

Or are you going to let it stand as an unusually succinct example of all the nonsense you've been spouting in this thread since your return from suspension on 22 September?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I had hoped not to embarrass you further but if you insist ...

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina: Are you going to respond to that?

Or are you going to let it stand as an unusually succinct example of all the nonsense you've been spouting in this thread since your return from suspension on 22 September?

Would you have been happier if I said "persistent current flow"?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Michael Mozina: Are you going to respond to that?

Or are you going to let it stand as an unusually succinct example of all the nonsense you've been spouting in this thread since your return from suspension on 22 September?

Would you have been happier if I said "persistent current flow"?

No. That wouldn't have been laughable.

I read your posts for their reliably inadvertent humor. Thank you for making me happy.

 

[Reality Check]

So it seems that you do not mind being embarassed again and again by unable to find any scientific evidence for any of your assertions !

Once more time: It is idiotic to cite a paper about the generation of plasma by creating electrical discharges through a gas like argon in support of a fantasy that electrical discharges can happen in an existing plasma on the Sun.
This displays that you are remain iunable to understand the basic facts of

• running an electric current through a gas is a common way of creating plasma.
• the plasma on the Sun is created through the high temperatures generated by fusion in its interior.
• it is impossible for an electrical discharge to happen in existing plasma because the plasma is already conductive (no dielectric medium to break down).

 

[Reality Check]

IMO you're wasting your breath. He hasn't even thought through his own argument yet since those magnetic fields that he's talking about are CREATED BY a persistent electrical field, even according to mainstream theory.

Actually you are wrong again .
It is not my argument. It is standard plasma physics. It is the argument of thousands of plasma physicists backed up by scientific evidence.

In magnetic reconnection experiments the magnetic fields can be created be creating (usually a pair of) electric currents in the plasma. This is because scientists have not been able to put the Sun in a lab!

There are also magnetic reconnection experiments where there are no electric currents added to the plasma at all, e.g. the ones you seem not understand that use lasers (you went off on a derail about the currents powering the lasers if I remember right).

 

[tusenfem]

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.

Ofcourse it has everything to do with it.
If a strong current is present, its own toroidal magnetic field will squeeze it together (see Bennett pinch) to such a lever that the magnetic pressure and the plasma pressure are equal again. It pulls together the magnetic field lines, thus also pulling the plasma that it attached to the field lines along. There will be a region of strong field with high density, there will around it be a region with lower field and less density.
Now, if this happens in a vacuum chamber in the lab, there will not be a plasma source, and thus you can almost evacuate the plasma from the low field region.
In space, however, there are many plasma sources. If you would look at a curtain of aurora you will find stronger and weaker emissions in the aurora (and then I do not mean the so called "black aurora" between the curtains, because that is the location of downward current/upward electrons). This brightening is due to filamentation, but you notice that it cannot be evacuated completely, because then we would not have a full curtain.
You always like to drive things to the extremes, because then you can make these simple boulevard newspapers claims, however, most of the times nature does not go to these extremes and plasma physics has many regulatory processes.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

Well, no appealing to authority there .....

 

[tusenfem]

http://plasma.drexel.edu/publications/documents/ISPC-16-565-Tornado.pdf

ofcourse, the discharge is used to create the plasma, after that there is a constant current, if you want to call that discharge, be my guest.

 

[Michael Mozina]

ofcourse, the discharge is used to create the plasma, after that there is a constant current, if you want to call that discharge, be my guest.

It is the act of RELEASING STORED ENERGY that makes it an 'electrical discharge', not the ionization process, or further ionization processes that might be in play. Most plasmas are "dusty" to begin with, and they typically contain non ionized materials as well as ionized material. That couldn't be more true in coronal loops which are considerable hotter and far more ionized than photospheric plasma. Whatever process is heating those plasmas to millions of degrees, it must also ionize the plasma in that thread to far higher ionization states than appear in the photosphere or chromosphere.

The ionization process, or lack thereof has nothing to do with the release of stored EM energy, AKA an "electrical discharge" in plasma. I'm calling it an electrical discharge because that is what it is. Once the stored energy is released (gradually or otherwise), the "electrical discharge" process is complete. Why is it *SO* difficult for your side of the aisle to accept that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, no appealing to authority there .....

Give me a break. RC claimed that I lied and misrepresented Alfven's position on the topic of "magnetic reconnection". I was simply demonstrating that RC is in pure unadulterated denial of historical fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ofcourse it has everything to do with it.
If a strong current is present, its own toroidal magnetic field will squeeze it together (see Bennett pinch) to such a lever that the magnetic pressure and the plasma pressure are equal again. It pulls together the magnetic field lines, thus also pulling the plasma that it attached to the field lines along. There will be a region of strong field with high density, there will around it be a region with lower field and less density.

True. The Birkeland current will contain dense current carrying plasma, and a less dense region around the field aligned current that acts as a path of greater resistance in comparison to the dense plasma thread.

Now, if this happens in a vacuum chamber in the lab, there will not be a plasma source, and thus you can almost evacuate the plasma from the low field region.

It really doesn't matter what you begin with because the plasma is going to form tornado like filaments that "go with the flow" and the magnetic field around that current is going to either deflect any incoming particles or merge them directly into the filament, but it will definitely create *AND SUSTAIN* a "less dense" region around the Birkeland current. As long as the current flows, the magnetic field flows with it. The field will act to create an 'insulating" and less dense region around the filament.

In space, however, there are many plasma sources. If you would look at a curtain of aurora you will find stronger and weaker emissions in the aurora (and then I do not mean the so called "black aurora" between the curtains, because that is the location of downward current/upward electrons). This brightening is due to filamentation, but you notice that it cannot be evacuated completely, because then we would not have a full curtain.
You always like to drive things to the extremes, because then you can make these simple boulevard newspapers claims, however, most of the times nature does not go to these extremes and plasma physics has many regulatory processes.

I think your misconception lies in your belief that the magnetic field must evacuate ALL particles from the immediate surrounding areas in order to effectively insulate the filament/Birkeland current. That's incorrect. All the magnetic field has to do is create a "relatively greater resistance" between the filament and the outside plasma. In other words it only needs to make the area around the filament LESS DENSE, it doesn't have to completely evacuate the region. The current will simply seek the path of least resistance. So long as the more dense filament is the path of least resistance (compared to the less dense region), the currents will flow along the filament, even if there are incoming particles into the buffer region that are either deflected or sucked into the filament.

It's really a "path of least resistance" issue, not a "need for a pure vacuum" issue.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. That wouldn't have been laughable.

I read your posts for their reliably inadvertent humor. Thank you for making me happy.

My pleasure.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oops- there you go obsessing on one man's opinion.

You called me a liar and said that I misrepresented Alfven's opinion on the topic of MR theory. Care to recant and apologize, or are you unable to admit your mistakes?