Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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

Notices

 Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 Tags Alfven waves , Birkeland currents , hannes alfven , Kristian Birkeland

 26th January 2011, 03:15 PM #2481 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Yes. Alfven compares the magnetic ropes to Bennett pinches in fact. They are 'current carrying" filaments. So if the Fe20+ ions are in the plasma and electrons are also in the plasma...
 26th January 2011, 03:30 PM #2482 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by Tubbythin So if the Fe20+ ions are in the plasma and electrons are also in the plasma... Yep, right up until the circuit erupts and extremely hot plasma (millions of degrees) in the loop get's released into a relatively cool surrounding plasma, along with all that stored magnetic field energy in one giant "discharge" of very highly energetic plasma.
 26th January 2011, 03:33 PM #2483 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by GeeMack It is the antithesis of legitimate science. Actually, the antithesis of legitimate science is complete ignorance of Alfven's work and an unwillingness to find fault in any of the published papers I have provided you with. That's the antithesis of legitimate science.
 26th January 2011, 03:41 PM #2484 nvidiot Botanical Jedi     Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,818 Do you have any actual evidence of these statements Michael? You know, the "I think my idea should show up as this when we look at that and when I looked at that it showed me exactly this." etc etc
 26th January 2011, 03:58 PM #2485 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by nvidiot Do you have any actual evidence of these statements Michael? You know, the "I think my idea should show up as this when we look at that and when I looked at that it showed me exactly this." etc etc Absolutely: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=200
 26th January 2011, 04:11 PM #2486 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,983 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Absolutely not: That is a prediction that an active region ("hot spot") will produce a flare within the next 48 hours. That is a trivial prediction since flares are expected to occur in active regions. See the thread from which this one was split ( CME's, active regions and high energy flares ). ETA Absolutely not an answer to the question: Quote: Originally Posted by nvidiot Do you have any actual evidence of these statements Michael? You know, the "I think my idea should show up as this when we look at that and when I looked at that it showed me exactly this." etc etc I would interpret the question as: Michael Mozina, Has your Electric Sun model given any testable, falsifiable predictions that distinguishes it from the standard model and have been tested and found to be not false? Please show your working. Please cite the literature for the observations. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 26th January 2011 at 04:17 PM.
 26th January 2011, 04:11 PM #2487 nvidiot Botanical Jedi     Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,818 Riiiiiight. The whole quantification bit is what you're missing though. Pointing at pictures and suggesting youre going to see a particular activity is not really science. Showing how you make those predictions quantitatively is what you need to show for it to be considered "evidence". And no, that doesnt mean tallying up how many times you get it right or wrong.
 26th January 2011, 04:49 PM #2488 tensordyne Muse     Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693 recap someone? plus link Man, I have no idea exactly what is being debated about in the last 100 or so posts. What do you guys think of the following link. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...rotonstorm.htm __________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933
 26th January 2011, 05:00 PM #2489 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,983 Originally Posted by tensordyne Man, I have no idea exactly what is being debated about in the last 100 or so posts. What do you guys think of the following link. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...rotonstorm.htm Not much since it is from a crank web site that has a track record of lying to its readers. The author is using the logical fallacy of false dichotomy and throwing out unsupported claims. Note the absence of any numbers supporting the claims. Electric fields accelerate particles - big news ! __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 26th January 2011, 05:38 PM #2490 tensordyne Muse     Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693 unsupported claims... I am curious what is meant in the last post by RC by unsupported claims. Is it the claim that most solar flares take 24 hours to reach earth and the one they referrence took 30 minutes or something else entirely? I would think that the claim that most solar flares take 24 hours and so on could be substantiated one way or another is all. I grant though that anything beyond that would be a debateable matter of interpretation but I would disagree if any such conclusions are thought of as claims. __________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933
 26th January 2011, 05:43 PM #2491 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,983 Originally Posted by tensordyne I am curious what is meant in the last post by RC by unsupported claims. Is it the claim that most solar flares take 24 hours to reach earth and the one they referrence took 30 minutes or something else entirely? I would think that the claim that most solar flares take 24 hours and so on could be substantiated one way or another is all. I grant though that anything beyond that would be a debateable matter of interpretation but I would disagree if any such conclusions are thought of as claims. The unsupported claim is that an electric sun theory can explain the speed of the particles. The observation that there are solar events that produce high speed protons is not in dispute. Read the 2005 article: NASA - A New Kind of Solar Storm. ETA tensordyne: A big problem about depending on the information in this crank web site is that the authors do not bother to update it. They ignore all of the science that has been done since 20 January 2005. For example: Solar Energetic Particle Event of 2005 January 20: Release Times and Possible Sources (6 December 2006) Gui-Ming Le1, Yu-Hua Tang and Yan-Ben Han Quote: Based on cosmic ray data obtained by neutron monitors at the Earth's surface, and data on near-relativistic electrons measured by the WIND satellite, as well as on solar X-ray and radio burst data, the solar energetic particle (SEP) event of 2005 January 20 is studied. The results show that this event is a mixed event where the flare is dominant in the acceleration of the SEPs, the interplanetary shock accelerates mainly solar protons with energies below 130 MeV, while the relativistic protons are only accelerated by the solar flare. The interplanetary shock had an obvious acceleration effect on relativistic electrons with energies greater than 2 MeV. It was found that the solar release time for the relativistic protons was about 06:41 UT, while that for the near-relativistic electrons was about 06:39 UT. The latter turned out to be about 2 min later than the onset time of the interplanetary type III burst. ETA2 Proton spectrum of the 2005 January 20 solar flare (PDF) (Feb., 2008) WANG Rui-Guang has in the discussion section Quote: There have been proposed various mechanisms in explaining the particle acceleration in the extreme solar events, mainly including the direct acceleration by DC electric fields in neutral current sheets, the diffusive shock acceleration at the bow shock of a CME, and the resonant wave-particle interaction (stochastic acceleration) nitiated by MHD turbulence. In fact, these acceleration processes always co-exist in one event, and it is dicult to distinguish a diffusive shock acceleration from a stochastic acceleration. However, the dominated mechanism seems to be diffusive shock acceleration in this event owing to the power-law like energy spectra as can be seen in Fig. 4. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 26th January 2011 at 06:01 PM.
 26th January 2011, 06:08 PM #2492 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: San Gabriel Valley, east of Los Angeles Posts: 966 January 20 2005 CME Originally Posted by tensordyne What do you guys think of the following link. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...rotonstorm.htm Not much. The idea that the January 20 2005 CME somehow challenges the standard theories of how things work on the Sun is absurd. This particular CME is no more than an outlier in the statistical distribution of CME power & speed; a rare, but not unprecedented event. A more careful analysis of this CME reveals some interesting details. See, for instance, Acceleration of Relativistic Protons During the 20 January 2005 Flare and CME by Sophie Masson, et al., Solar Physics 257(2): 305-322 (July 2009). They show that the CME is powered not by a single particle acceleration event but by multiple particle acceleration events. They argue that both shocks and coronal magnetic reconnection will explain the complex structure in time of the acceleration events. ETA: I did not see RC's post just before mine. His papers come to similar conclusions. I second his note that these idiot websites like thunderbolts are not worth the time & space the universe wastes on them. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell Last edited by Tim Thompson; 26th January 2011 at 06:11 PM. Reason: added comments
 26th January 2011, 07:36 PM #2493 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by nvidiot Riiiiiight. The whole quantification bit is what you're missing though. http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/n...;filetype=.pdf I'm not missing and sort of quantification, YOUR side keeps ignoring all the pretty maths. I can't get anyone to really comment much about the fact that Wheatland's work also shows that powerful currents come up and through and back into the photosphere as they *MUST* in a "circuit" oriented approach. What exactly can I do when you side ignores the quantification, the lab qualifications, the pretty pictures, the personal explanations, and actual REAL TIME PREDICTIONS? Holy Moly. What's it going to take to get your attention anyway? Quote: Pointing at pictures and suggesting youre going to see a particular activity is not really science. So how about Carlqvist's work? Is that "really science"? Quote: Showing how you make those predictions quantitatively is what you need to show for it to be considered "evidence". When I see one of you "predict" (in real time) the next "big" (M or better) class flare down to a 48 hour window from a particular active region, then you can tell me it's not "evidence" that these ideas have PRACTICAL value in solar physics. Right now I see a lot of blowing of smoke, and nobody willing to come close to make a similar successful prediction about a major flare. Quote: And no, that doesnt mean tallying up how many times you get it right or wrong. Hell, I'd settle for seeing your side even do it *ONCE*.
 26th January 2011, 07:50 PM #2494 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,241 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I'm not missing and sort of quantification, YOUR side keeps ignoring all the pretty maths. I can't get anyone to really comment much about the fact that Wheatland's work also shows that powerful currents come up and through and back into the photosphere as they *MUST* in a "circuit" oriented approach. What exactly can I do when you side ignores the quantification, the lab qualifications, the pretty pictures, the personal explanations, and actual REAL TIME PREDICTIONS? Holy Moly. What's it going to take to get your attention anyway? Maybe quantitatively and objectively explain how solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. It has already been mentioned many times that linking to other people's work without demonstrating even a rudimentary understanding of that work is not an explanation. It's a dishonest attempt to pass the buck, to avoid explaining the claims. The unqualified guessing, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, deflecting the burden of proof, and lying we've seen so far are not explanations, no matter how desperately the electric Sun adherents might like them to be.
 26th January 2011, 09:22 PM #2495 W.D.Clinger Master Poster     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,466 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I'm not missing and sort of quantification, YOUR side keeps ignoring all the pretty maths. Hilarious. Be specific, Michael Mozina. Which specific equations do you think we're ignoring, and why do you think those specific equations are important? It seems to me you're the one who's been running away from math. For example: Originally Posted by tusenfem Magnetic diffusion is the diffusion of a magnetic field through a conductor. E.g. if you have a magnetic field and put in a metal ball in it, it will take time for the magnetic field to penetrate through the ball. This is described by the (magnetic) diffusion equation (this describes the behaviour of the magnetic field itself): $ (\sigma \mu)^{-1} \nabla^2 {\bf B} = - \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}$ Note that this is related to the break down of the frozen in condition in a non-ideal plasma. Induction is the response of a conductor to a time varying magnetic field, which follows from Maxwell's equations: $ \nabla \times E = - \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}$ You never responded to those equations in any way. Your response to my radically dumbed-down version of tusenfem's explanation was to post nonsense proving you don't understand the purpose of the old-fashioned ignition coil you chose as your example. Here's a simple test to see who's been ignoring the math here: What does the ∇2 mean in tusenfem's first equation? If that's too hard for you, we can turn it into a multiple choice question: A. It stands for the Lagrangian operator. B. It stands for the Laplacian operator. C. It stands for the curl of a curl. D. It stands for the gradient of a gradient. E. It stands for the divergence of a gradient. We'll be looking forward to your guess.
 26th January 2011, 09:45 PM #2496 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,738 Careful! As a layman, I was able to look it up without really understanding its meaning. LINK Laplacian of a scalar field is defined as the divergence of the gradient __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 26th January 2011, 09:50 PM #2497 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by GeeMack Maybe quantitatively and objectively explain how solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1198 Been there done that with Dungey's work. Denial is so darn ugly.
 26th January 2011, 09:51 PM #2498 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Hilarious. Be specific, Michael Mozina. Which specific equations do you think we're ignoring, and why do you think those specific equations are important? It seems to me you're the one who's been running away from math. For example: You never responded to those equations in any way. Your response to my radically dumbed-down version of tusenfem's explanation was to post nonsense proving you don't understand the purpose of the old-fashioned ignition coil you chose as your example. Here's a simple test to see who's been ignoring the math here: What does the ∇2 mean in tusenfem's first equation? If that's too hard for you, we can turn it into a multiple choice question: A. It stands for the Lagrangian operator. B. It stands for the Laplacian operator. C. It stands for the curl of a curl. D. It stands for the gradient of a gradient. E. It stands for the divergence of a gradient. We'll be looking forward to your guess. I'm still looking for a PDF of the paper t recommended. Anyone got a link? I'd really like to see how they justify these figures before I comment on this stuff.
 26th January 2011, 10:14 PM #2499 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by The Man Without components, values and the related physics your "circuit oriented approach" has no real advantage over simple and baseless speculation. http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813 You might take a look at this paper. One of the significant advantage a circuit approach has over "reconnection" is that it allows for a *SINGLE* loop to explode, even *WITHOUT* a reconnection event.
 26th January 2011, 10:23 PM #2500 W.D.Clinger Master Poster     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,466 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Careful! As a layman, I was able to look it up without really understanding its meaning. LINK Laplacian of a scalar field is defined as the divergence of the gradient No hints, please. I will say this, however: My question wasn't quite as trivial as it looks. Either tusenfem's equation contains a typo, or he was using a notational convention with which I am not familiar. With either possibility, there are two ways to change the equation so it will be correct and use standard notation.
 26th January 2011, 10:49 PM #2501 W.D.Clinger Master Poster     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,466 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I'm still looking for a PDF of the paper t recommended. Anyone got a link? I'd really like to see how they justify these figures before I comment on this stuff. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/198...05p05579.shtml You'll have to pay for it. That paper won't help you to answer my multiple choice question. To answer my question, you'd have to be able to read Maxwell's equations. In fact, because there's something odd about the way tusenfem wrote the equation for magnetic diffusion, it's hard to answer my question without rederiving the correct equation for magnetic diffusion from Maxwell's equations and Ohm's Law. I guess that's a hint. Oops.
 26th January 2011, 11:28 PM #2502 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,738 Quote: I guess that's a hint. Oops. Not for Mozina. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 27th January 2011, 12:11 AM #2503 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 1,111 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Undoubtedly they go with the flow (of the current). Once the current stops, the heat source is gone and it won't remain in that +20 state for long. And what exactly makes you think it won't remain long in that state? How fast is the recombination rate of these ions embedded in a hot plasma? How quickly does the plasma cool down when the current stops and to what temperature? __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom) Last edited by tusenfem; 27th January 2011 at 12:14 AM.
 27th January 2011, 12:12 AM #2504 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 1,111 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Do you happen to have a link to a PDF file of that paper? yes it was in my post. __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom)
 27th January 2011, 12:15 AM #2505 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 1,111 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Yep, right up until the circuit erupts and extremely hot plasma (millions of degrees) in the loop get's released into a relatively cool surrounding plasma, along with all that stored magnetic field energy in one giant "discharge" of very highly energetic plasma. Yeah, because coronal loops are known to be embedded in this very cool coronal plasma ..... __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom)
 27th January 2011, 12:21 AM #2506 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,983 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Hell, I'd settle for seeing your side even do it *ONCE*. That is really ignorant MM: Originally Posted by Reality Check http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/daypre.txt :Product: 3-day Space Weather Predictions daypre.txt :Issued: 2010 Dec 11 2200 UTC # :Whole_Disk_Flare_Prob: Class_M 1 1 1 Class_X 1 1 1 Proton 1 1 1 # # Region Flare Probabilities for 2010 Dec 12 # Region Class C M X P :Reg_Prob: 2010 Dec 11 1131 10 1 1 0 1133 5 1 0 0 You should remember all the posts about the predictions from NOAA with actual numbers in that thread. There are quantitative predictions about solar activities every day. You are probably under the delusion that the other posters in this thread have to come up with our own predictions. That is quite insane given that the work has already been done by experts in the field. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 27th January 2011, 12:22 AM #2507 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,983 Duplicate __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 27th January 2011 at 12:24 AM.
 27th January 2011, 12:37 AM #2508 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 1,111 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813 You might take a look at this paper. One of the significant advantage a circuit approach has over "reconnection" is that it allows for a *SINGLE* loop to explode, even *WITHOUT* a reconnection event. I really should make an excell sheet to keep track of all the papers that I have already discussed here on JREF. This one is amongst them, and I cannot find it. It would be nice tho if MM would show his insight into this paper. Naturally in a circuit description you don't have to worry about the real physical processes, it is just V, R, L, C, I in serial or parallel and then it can go kaboom. __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom)
 27th January 2011, 12:37 AM #2509 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,983 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813 You might take a look at this paper. One of the significant advantage a circuit approach has over "reconnection" is that it allows for a *SINGLE* loop to explode, even *WITHOUT* a reconnection event. The paper allows for the possibility of magnetic reconnection as I pointed out on 14 January 2010 (a whole year ago ) Originally Posted by Reality Check FYI:Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits This is an model about large scale electric fields in the flares produced by coronal loops. See Fig 2 for the loop (FYI: all the B's are magnetic fields!) and flare. This is the only paper of the four that cites Alfven. The model is that photospheric plasma motion could lead to the generation of an electric current. That current can follow the magnetic field lines. And then as on page 5: "If there is a magnetic connection between two oppositely charged areas through the corona, possibly as a result of magnetic reconnection, an electric current can close the electric circuit (Alfven and Carlqvist 1967, Heyvaerts 1974) through the corona (Fig 2). Then an electric field occurs along the coronal magnetic fields and acts on the electrons within the coronal loop, and accelerates them along the magnetic field up to high energies beyond 100 keV." (emphasis added) ETA: Note that there has to be some form of "magnetic connection between two oppositely charged areas through the corona" before the author's mechanism can work. The significant advantage a circuit approach has over MHD (not just magnetic reconnection) is that it is easy to calculate the gross properties of the system, e.g. the total energy release. The significant disadvantage a circuit approach has over MHD (not just magnetic reconnection) is that it cannot model the details. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 27th January 2011 at 12:44 AM.
 27th January 2011, 02:46 AM #2510 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 1,111 Here is what looks like a very nice review paper by Yamada, Kulsrud and Ji (2010, REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS) __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom)
 27th January 2011, 07:00 AM #2512 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by GeeMack Cherry picking to redefine terms isn't quantitatively and objectively explaining. It's lying. Then lying is all you ever do. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2193 http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/n...;filetype=.pdf Are you ever going to comment on Carlqvist's work? Last edited by Michael Mozina; 27th January 2011 at 07:02 AM.
 27th January 2011, 08:19 AM #2513 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/198...05p05579.shtml You'll have to pay for it. Pfft. In that case how about demonstrating how and where this issues applies to *CARLQVISTS* paper since it's *FREE*!
 27th January 2011, 08:50 AM #2514 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger No hints, please. I will say this, however: My question wasn't quite as trivial as it looks. Either tusenfem's equation contains a typo, So *WITHOUT* looking at the paper (which I evidently have to purchase now), and *AFTER* specifically asking for help understanding the difference between the words being used, I"m supposed to figure out if his answer includes a typo? Sorry, I don't do that clairvoyant physicist routine, that's evidently something only haters seem to engage in. I'll need to at least see a paper before I'll comment on anything. In fact however, I think it is your onus of responsibility to demonstrate that your argument even *APPLIES* to Carlqvist's uses of circuits. Since the paper is free, and there's been very little discussion of the paper to this point in time, go for it. Show me where Carlqvist made his mistake. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 27th January 2011 at 08:56 AM.
 27th January 2011, 09:09 AM #2515 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Well, I certainly see no math error in t response that I can spot, but I admit I'm clueless about the first part of the equation for diffusion or how it applies to this issue. I need to see it used it a paper if you expect me to comment on it. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 27th January 2011 at 09:12 AM.
 27th January 2011, 09:18 AM #2516 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by tusenfem Naturally in a circuit description you don't have to worry about the real physical processes, it is just V, R, L, C, I in serial or parallel and then it can go kaboom. And that is probably the single most important advantage circuit theory has over standard theory IMO.
 27th January 2011, 10:59 AM #2517 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,983 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Well, I certainly see no math error in t response that I can spot, but I admit I'm clueless about the first part of the equation for diffusion or how it applies to this issue. I need to see it used it a paper if you expect me to comment on it. If you are refering to the magnetic diffusion equation then it is a standard derivation from Maxwell's equations. How it applies to "this issue" has been pointed out to you many times.The equation contains a time scale for the diffusion. Put in the numbers for coronal loops and that time scale is a million years for a length scale of of 100,000 km. This magnetic diffusion cannot supply the energy for solar flares which occur with a time scale of 100 seconds. You have been given an example of it being used in a textbook. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 27th January 2011, 11:11 AM #2518 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: San Gabriel Valley, east of Los Angeles Posts: 966 Ignoring Physics Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by tusenfem Naturally in a circuit description you don't have to worry about the real physical processes, it is just V, R, L, C, I in serial or parallel and then it can go kaboom. And that is probably the single most important advantage circuit theory has over standard theory IMO. So, in the World According to Mozina (WAM), our theories of physical phenomena are improved by increasing the amount of physics we can ignore? OK, I am suitably impressed. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
 27th January 2011, 11:17 AM #2519 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,362 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson So, in the World According to Mozina (WAM), our theories of physical phenomena are improved by increasing the amount of physics we can ignore? OK, I am suitably impressed. Ok, I probably deserved that comment based on my flippant response. The point is that the circuit acts as a single unit in virtually all cases. There's no need to look at the microscopic (particle) level until we talk about "short circuits" when two of them "connect". When a coronal loop erupts, it can and typically does erupt as a single unit, and no "reconnection" event to any other loop is necessary for that energy release to occur. It can in fact be well modeled by a circuit oriented approach.
 27th January 2011, 11:19 AM #2520 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 1,111 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Pfft. In that case how about demonstrating how and where this issues applies to *CARLQVISTS* paper since it's *FREE*! I already have discussed Carlqvist's paper, search back in this thread, you really need to pay attention to what is discussed in this thread, Mikey. Yeah, sometimes you have to pay for stuff. Naturally I have access to that paper, as i pay for a subscription, but anywhoooooooo. __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom)

JREF Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit