Reality Check wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:You'll have to start by defining "physical differences". In own your reference, those "differences" amount to temperature variations.
My reference states that the physical difference between the filament
and its background
The bright filaments are necessarily composed of plasmas in excess of million degrees.
Oddly enough, we seem to be in agreement on those two points.
The dark filaments are necessarily composed of plasmas in excess of million degrees.
That was either a typo on your part, or you don't understand the concept of a 'dark' filament in an iron ion wavelength. The transition region around the limb is BRIGHT because it has BRIGHT filaments flowing from the sun toward the heliosphere, and bright filaments flowing up and down along the horizon line. The twister like tornado sized filaments ABSORB that background light and appear DARKER than the million degree BACKGROUND FILAMENTS. The dark filaments are NOT millions of degrees, and could NOT be radiating at millions of degrees, or they would appear BRIGHTER than the background BRIGHT filaments that ARE radiating at millions of degrees.
The physical difference that you need to find citations for are things like compostion and density.
The density aspect is something I'll have to look for in terms of support, but the composition doesn't 'necessarily' have to be all that "different' from bright filaments, even from my perspective. I don't think you quite grasp the fact that I believe that all filaments probably have some iron and carbon in them. Some filaments simply carry more current and their ions are more highly ionized, and "hotter" due to the resistance of the plasma.
Michael Mozina wrote:You did way worse than that - you asserted without evidence that dark filaments absorb light.
No, you simply went back into a typical denial oriented approach to physics, starting with SDO images of solar tornadoes. Pick ANY image of ANY tornado on the horizon (limb) in an iron ion wavelength RC. It's going to be DARKER than the limb along the horizon. It's clearly ABSORBING that background light that is otherwise visible around the limb in areas NOT near the DARK FILAMENT! Wow. In terms of ignoring basic laws of physics, I've never seen anyone in your league.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpL43CXQcts
Checkout the last half of that SDO video and this time LOOK CLOSELY. The background limb is BRIGHT. The tornado "dark filament" is not.
I have looked an many dark filaments and I see exactly the same situation as with sunspots - they are dark against a lighter background. Filaments emnit light (just look at them against space!). Sunspots emit light.
Nobody doubts that the filament emits light RC. It's not however emitting light at the same RATE as BRIGHT FILAMENTS, and in fact it ABSORBS more light than it emits in the iron ion wavelengths. It's not "millions" of degrees as you suggested, it's COOLER than typical bright filaments. Some of the iron ion filters are sensitive down to 160,000K. Light from bright filaments can also be reflected from darker filaments or energy can be temporarily absorbed from the surrounding light and emitted as well. That doesn't mean that the dark filament itself is millions of degrees, in fact it PRECLUDES that possibility.
Michael Mozina wrote:No. If they were emitting light too, those twister like dark filaments (tornadoes) would be BRIGHTER than the rest of the horizon
No. The filaments are hot plasma like the rest of the Sun. They are emitting light too. The horizon is emitting light too. It is the difference in birghtgness that makes the filamenst appear dark.
They are NOT emitting light at the same intensity RC. You're simply ignoring the laws of physics. The silhouette of filament is DARK compared to a BRIGHT LIMB. We can't even observe the limb through the dark filament, and it's clearly DARKER than the LIMB. Whatever it is, it's NOT the same temperature as the bright filaments on the limb RC.
Michael Mozina wrote:Have you even accepted the fact that electrical discharges occur in flares RC?
Have you even accepted the fact that electrical discharges are physically impossible in flares, MM?
No because you're wrong. Dungey demonstrated that you're wrong. Dr. Charles Bruce demonstrated that you're wrong. Birkeland even demonstrated that you're wrong over 100 years ago, in a lab! http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958IAUS....6..135Dhttp://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
For the benefit of lurkers:
MM stated the fantasy that "electrical discharges" cause flares in the JREF forum in November 2010.
Actually what I stated is the same thing Dungey stated and Bruce stated and Birkeland stated over 100 years ago. Electrical discharges *OCCUR* in solar flares RC. Cause is arguable. The existence of electrical discharges IN the flare process is NOT!
Since then he has ignored the physics that actual electrical discharges like lightning require the breakdown of a dielectric medium.
No, you keep ignoring Peratt's ACTUAL definition of an electrical discharge IN a plasma, and you keep ignoring Bruce, and ignoring Dungey. The breakdown of the dialectric medium is NOT end of the ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE RC, it's simply the FIRST STEP in SOME TYPES of 'discharges'.
You're even ignoring the role of a lightening rod! They also experience the flow of current of the 'electrical discharge' from the cloud to the Earth, THROUGH THE ROD, and the rod experiences the same PINCH from the CURRENT!
Plasma is not a dielectric medium,
Depends on how "dusty" it is I suppose.
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.
The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.
The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere.
Notice it's *IN* plasma RC!
There is an obselete usage of the term in the 1960's by at least one author in the context of magnetic reconnection causing flares in a couple of papers. J.W. Dungey defines a large current density caused by magnetic reconnection as an "electrical discharge". MM liked to cite Dungey but did not realize that Dungey debunked MM's assertion.
You're simply in denial of historical and scientific fact. Dungey's use of the term is completely consistent with Peratt's definition. You're the odd one out RC.
Here MM just asserts that electrical discharges happen in flares. This is impossible.
Dungey demonstrated that it's not impossible. It's simply impossible for you to accept scientific and historical fact. Birkeland even demonstrated it EMPIRICALLY in a lab!
But Dungey's "electrical discharges" do happen in the magnetic reconnection that Dungey states (and is the modern scientific theory) causes flares.
This isn't about CAUSE, it's about PHYSICS RC. Electrical current flows through the ENTIRE solar atmosphere, from the surface to the heliosphere. It's inside all filaments, inside the plasma itself. Discharges can and do occur in solar flares according to Dungey, according to Bruce and according to Birkeland. You're the odd one out, not me.