Debunking Dave

[Cargo]

Regarding the novae shocks and currents: there need not be any contradiction here, since hydromagnetic shocks should be associated with currents, and these currents (represented as sheets in a "first" approximation - e.g. current sheet of an Earth's magnetosphere bow shock) may and do separate into filaments (in the "second" approximation) - depending on the current strength and other parameters.
Here I reference Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma", II.4.

I'm sensing a large amount of hand-waving here. Can you treat the 'sheet' as a psychical reality, or the 'line' of a 'magnetic' field?
And how about the original question, a physical model for the flat plane explosion of a spherical gravity implosion/explosion?

[Higgsy]

It's interesting to see that when Alfven suggests something that you don't like, he stops being the Blessed Alfven whose word is all that is needed to mischaracterise the professional physicists working on magnetic reconnection as "pseudoscientists".

Eh? The guy *literally wrote the first mathematical textbook" on MHD theory and earned a Nobel Prize for it. He spent his *entire professional career* and lifetime calling the whole 'magnetic reconnection' concept "pseudoscience". He wrote a "double layer" paper that he hoped and assumed would drive the "final nail in the coffin" of that concept. He described and wrote papers on *all* high energy, high temperature, long duration events in plasma based entirely on *circuit theory*. These are *lifetime* long beliefs he held, on the most important topic *in MHD theory* and cosmology theory...You're trying to *misuse* his MHD theory to promote something which Alfven himself called 'pseudoscience' till the day he died...You however are stuck between a rock and a hardspot as it relates to the concept of "magnetic reconnection". You wish to use a basic mathematical approach that Hannes Alfven himself developed and was awarded a *Nobel Prize* for his efforts, and you wish to promote a mathematical concept that Alfven called pseudoscience.

This is a good example of the fallacy from authority ("x" is true because "y" says it's true), or, in this context, the "Blessed Alfven" fallacy. Alfven did great work on initiating the field of MHD, and rightly won a Nobel prize for it. But initiating a field and winning a Nobel prize is no guarantee of omniscience. Thousands of physicists since Alfven have worked on, developed and extended MHD, and Alfven's personal views on any subject carry no weight in themselves, but oonly matter insofar as the arguments can be shown to be cogent, and to be self-consistent and consistent with observations. Your argument is like that of a theologian whose main line of evidential support is the views of other theologians, Fathers of the Church, and saints. But since we're doing science, and we can show that magnetic reconnection is a self-consistent hypothesis, and a process that can be observed and studied (which is indeed the consensus of current plasma physicists). So, it's time to drop this argument about what Alfven thought and believed - no-one cares and it's a fallacious argument anyway.

By the way, you do know that MHD is not a "circuit theory" approach to plasma dynamics, since, amongst other things, in pure MHD the resistivity is taken to be zero?

[Higgsy]

You know Higgsy....

I probably just misunderstood what Alfven was trying to suggest in that single sentence. He may simply have been trying to point out that *for purposes of a small scale simulation* the 'duration" of higher energy events on the sun would tend to occur at quite a bit shorter timelines in general, on a scale that would be essentially a discharge event in his scale model.

It's certainly not that big of a deal, or much difference of opinion between us, and all of my other points are correct in terms of the actual solar duration of coronal loops compared to solar flares.

At last you have got hold of the idea. Plasmas are scalable, but there are rules about how to scale various variables. In the case of a Sun model, you are scaling the model down by a factor of a billion in linear dimensions, and it all goes from there. The time scaling is that big of a deal, because the characteristic timescale for dynamic features of interest in the photosphere to corona regions go from about a minute to several days in the Sun, which scales to 60ns to 500μs in the model. Since the models are not being interogated at these timescales, which range from extremely short to very short, there is no way of assessing what the models are predicting regarding the dynamics of the transient events in the plasma.

The same considerations apply for all the other variables I mentioned. If you use the correct scaling factor for each variable, then you find the model is a long way (where long = 10^3 to 10^23) from where it should be for it to be an accurate model of the Sun, as laid out in some detail by Alfven in the quote I gave above.

There is a tiny positive cosmic ray current within the solar system which is two to nine times bigger outside the termination shock. So what?

So? So we have a much bigger amount of "positively charged current" bombarding our solar system, 24/7 at nearly the speed of light, and you refuse to treat "space" as anything other than "neutral". That's a *huge* scientific oversight on your part.

A much bigger amount? A much bigger amount than what? The cosmic ray current into the Sun is tiny, no more than a few kA. What I am asking is how is that supposed to influence what we see in the Sun?

I think it's acting as a anode with respect to the surface of a cathode solar surface. So did Birkeland. Birkeland never lived to see the results of the satellite data, including the data related to cosmic rays, and their effect on the heliosphere.

The cosmic rays are acting as an anode? They could be arising at an anode, but a current isn't itself an electrode. That doesn't make any sense. I am asking you to tell me what quantitative effect you think the cosmic ray current has on the Sun, or to put it another way, what difference it would make to the Sun if it were to be switched off. Quantitatively.

[Higgsy]

Regarding the novae shocks and currents: there need not be any contradiction here, since hydromagnetic shocks should be associated with currents, and these currents (represented as sheets in a "first" approximation - e.g. current sheet of an Earth's magnetosphere bow shock) may and do separate into filaments (in the "second" approximation) - depending on the current strength and other parameters.
Here I reference Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma", II.4.

I agree in principle, but it has been demonstrated that the filaments (here I use filaments in the sense of Hester and the others to mean the thin shock front sheets seen edge-on) are tangential to the shock front. You would expect currents to be flowing perpendicular to the local plane of the shock so any electrical filaments should also be perpendicular to the shock. That's not the case for the photographs being presented here. Do you know of any study which predicts tangential currents at the shock front?

[Michael Mozina]

It's interesting to see that when Alfven suggests something that you don't like, he stops being the Blessed Alfven whose word is all that is needed to mischaracterise the professional physicists working on magnetic reconnection as "pseudoscientists".

Eh? The guy *literally wrote the first mathematical textbook" on MHD theory and earned a Nobel Prize for it. He spent his *entire professional career* and lifetime calling the whole 'magnetic reconnection' concept "pseudoscience". He wrote a "double layer" paper that he hoped and assumed would drive the "final nail in the coffin" of that concept. He described and wrote papers on *all* high energy, high temperature, long duration events in plasma based entirely on *circuit theory*. These are *lifetime* long beliefs he held, on the most important topic *in MHD theory* and cosmology theory...You're trying to *misuse* his MHD theory to promote something which Alfven himself called 'pseudoscience' till the day he died...You however are stuck between a rock and a hardspot as it relates to the concept of "magnetic reconnection". You wish to use a basic mathematical approach that Hannes Alfven himself developed and was awarded a *Nobel Prize* for his efforts, and you wish to promote a mathematical concept that Alfven called pseudoscience.

This is a good example of the fallacy from authority ("x" is true because "y" says it's true), or, in this context, the "Blessed Alfven" fallacy. Alfven did great work on initiating the field of MHD, and rightly won a Nobel prize for it.

First of all, it's downright *cheesy* that you constantly try to compare *empirical physical models which work in the lab* to "religion", while you continue to promote a *metaphysical* and "pseudoscience" model of the universe which you promote as unquestionable dogma, in *spite* of it's complete impotence in the lab! Sheesh. Talk about pure projection. You can't even produce a *sustained* aurora in a lab based on "magnetic reconnection" for crying out loud!

Secondly, it's not an argument from authority to note Alfven's own position on this topic because you're already a full century behind circuit theory in the lab with respect to modeling anything useful related to solar physics, and you're incapable of producing *sustained* high temperature plasma with "magnetic reconnection".

Most importantly however, it's not an argument from authority because you're not even capable of showing us any *published* laboratory evidence that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique energy release which is unique and different from ordinary "induction" in plasma. You've never even demonstrated that much!

By the way, you do know that MHD is not a "circuit theory" approach to plasma dynamics, since, amongst other things, in pure MHD the resistivity is taken to be zero?

All the more reason why your magnetic reconnection models are pitiful. They're based on a *completely false* scientific premise to start with!

Why do you supposed Alfven preferred to explain high energy events in plasma based on circuit theory Higgsy?

More importantly, why should anyone take your claims about MRx seriously when you cannot even generate a *sustained* high temperature plasma based on MRx in the lab?

[Michael Mozina]

You know Higgsy....

I probably just misunderstood what Alfven was trying to suggest in that single sentence. He may simply have been trying to point out that *for purposes of a small scale simulation* the 'duration" of higher energy events on the sun would tend to occur at quite a bit shorter timelines in general, on a scale that would be essentially a discharge event in his scale model.

It's certainly not that big of a deal, or much difference of opinion between us, and all of my other points are correct in terms of the actual solar duration of coronal loops compared to solar flares.

At last you have got hold of the idea. Plasmas are scalable, but there are rules about how to scale various variables.

The rules depend on the conditions of the plasma, but you refuse to take them into consideration.

In the case of a Sun model, you are scaling the model down by a factor of a billion in linear dimensions, and it all goes from there. The time scaling is that big of a deal, because the characteristic timescale for dynamic features of interest in the photosphere to corona regions go from about a minute to several days in the Sun, which scales to 60ns to 500μs in the model. Since the models are not being interogated at these timescales, which range from extremely short to very short, there is no way of assessing what the models are predicting regarding the dynamics of the transient events in the plasma.

Why can't they be interogated at those timescales using high speed cameras and such? I certainly see "discharges" all along the sphere in Birkeland's simulations. He even produced images of "coronal loops" in two distinct 'bands' when he introduced an electromagnetic field inside the solar sphere.

The same considerations apply for all the other variables I mentioned. If you use the correct scaling factor for each variable, then you find the model is a long way (where long = 10^3 to 10^23) from where it should be for it to be an accurate model of the Sun, as laid out in some detail by Alfven in the quote I gave above.

You demonstrated *nothing of the sort*, you just resorted to a bunch of handwaves.

A much bigger amount? A much bigger amount than what? The cosmic ray current into the Sun is tiny, no more than a few kA. What I am asking is how is that supposed to influence what we see in the Sun?

You end up with a negatively charged outer "surface" of an *internally* powered sun interacting with an *electric field* that is "space".

I think it's acting as a anode with respect to the surface of a cathode solar surface. So did Birkeland. Birkeland never lived to see the results of the satellite data, including the data related to cosmic rays, and their effect on the heliosphere.

The cosmic rays are acting as an anode? They could be arising at an anode, but a current isn't itself an electrode. That doesn't make any sense. I am asking you to tell me what quantitative effect you think the cosmic ray current has on the Sun, or to put it another way, what difference it would make to the Sun if it were to be switched off. Quantitatively.
[/quote]

Have you read *any* of Birkelands 'quantitative' models? If not, why not? If so, why are you asking *me* for them?

[Michael Mozina]

You know Higgsy......

You're essentially guilty of exactly what every other so called "skeptic' of EU theory is guilty of, namely *utter laziness* when it comes to *studying* the actual materials presented, combined with a bad habit of *pure avoidance* by not addressing the tough questions raised. You have admittedly *not* read Birkeland's work on his "electric sun" model and you seem to know almost *nothing* about it. Based on the fact you keep avoiding answering my question, You apparently haven't read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven either. Have you read Peratt's book "Physics of the plasma universe"? Those are three of the best references on this topic that I can think of.

You also won't address the fact that "magnetic reconnection" models are more than a *full century* behind in the lab and counting with respect to producing anything remotely related to *sustained* high temperature plasma of any kind.

Instead you've fixated on some handwavy complaint about "scaling" when in fact Birkeland's original work shows that it "scales" very nicely, and produces *many* of the key solar features that we observe in satellite images today, including coronal loops, polar jets, sustained corona temperatures, sustained solar wind, etc.

I've come to realize that astronomers today are simply *scientifically inept", scientifically lazy, and professionally incompetent! They have no interest in a real and honest look at these issues or they'd *at least* read the recommended materials and have some *basic* understanding about the various EU models. They don't. They don't have even a *clue* how any of them work because they refuse to do any real reading. What's even more disheartening is that *instead* of reading the recommended materials, people like you attempt to debate these models based on "arguments from ignorance" and expect our community to spoon feed them each and every idea. It's absurdly irrational behavior.

When are you going to read Birkeland's work for yourself (all of it)? When are you going to explain why you're a *full century* behind in the lab? When are you going to deal with the fact that you cannot even demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" is capable of producing *sustained* high temperatures in real laboratory experiments?

[Higgsy]

Secondly, it's not an argument from authority to note Alfven's own position on this topic because ,

No it's not an argument from authority to note Alfven's opinion, but it is an argument from authority, which you have been guilty of multiple times, and which you repeat over and over again, to rely solely on Alfven's opinion to make your argument. Because it's obvious to any knowledgeable onlooker that quoting Alfven like a theologian is all you have. You have never once, for example, shown how magnetic reconnection fails to emerge as a direct consequence of resistive MHD (you can't because it arises naturally from the generalised Ohm's law where the the electric field plus the velocity x magnetic field equates to the sum of current density times resistance plus a Hall effect, an electron pressure and a electron inertia term. What you would need to do is not to quote the Blessed Alfven but to show where the flaw is in the derivation of the various magnetic reconnection regimes, and particularly in the theory of 3-D reconnection (where the scalar product of electric and magnetic fields is non-zero) developed in the last 15 years or so.

Most importantly however, it's not an argument from authority because you're not even capable of showing us any *published* laboratory evidence that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique energy release which is unique and different from ordinary "induction" in plasma.

Well that shows you fail to understand the process altogether - induction in electromagnetism refers exclusively to the creation of an EMF as a consequence of a time varying magnetic field. The theory of magnetic reconnection extends induction to consider the fluid dynamics of the plasma as well as the Faraday-Maxwell equation, so it is not purely an electromagnetic theory. As for laboratory observation of magnetic reconnection, I think there must be hundreds of papers, so you're just making yourself look silly; but here are a couple:
Yamada, M., Chen, LJ., Yoo, J. et al. The two-fluid dynamics and energetics of the asymmetric magnetic reconnection in laboratory and space plasmas. Nat Commun 9, 5223 (2018)
Yamada et al, Study of driven magnetic reconnection in a laboratory plasma
Physics of Plasmas 4, 1936 (1997)
Raymond et al, Relativistic Magnetic reconnection in the Laboratory, Phys. Rev. E 98, 043207 (2018)
Kuramitsu, Y., Moritaka, T., Sakawa, Y. et al. Magnetic reconnection driven by electron dynamics. Nat Commun 9, 5109 (2018)
There must be literally hundreds more if you search.

Oh, and by the way, this is a good resource: Phil Trans R Soc A vol 370, Issue 1970 (2012) - A theme issue entirely devoted to astrophysical processes on the Sun.

By the way, you do know that MHD is not a "circuit theory" approach to plasma dynamics, since, amongst other things, in pure MHD the resistivity is taken to be zero?

All the more reason why your magnetic reconnection models are pitiful. They're based on a *completely false* scientific premise to start with!

What? That's a complete non-sequitur.

At last you have got hold of the idea. Plasmas are scalable, but there are rules about how to scale various variables.

The rules depend on the conditions of the plasma, but you refuse to take them into consideration.

Such as?

Since the models are not being interogated at these timescales, which range from extremely short to very short, there is no way of assessing what the models are predicting regarding the dynamics of the transient events in the plasma.

Why can't they be interogated at those timescales using high speed cameras and such?

They can be. They haven't been. And that doesn't solve the fact that there are several other variables which are incorrectly scaled by vast factors.

A much bigger amount? A much bigger amount than what? The cosmic ray current into the Sun is tiny, no more than a few kA. What I am asking is how is that supposed to influence what we see in the Sun?

You end up with a negatively charged outer "surface" of an *internally* powered sun interacting with an *electric field* that is "space"

What makes the Sun's surface negatively charged, what is the voltage, what process leads to that voltage, and what processes in or on the Sun are influenced or determined by this charge?

I am asking you to tell me what quantitative effect you think the cosmic ray current has on the Sun, or to put it another way, what difference it would make to the Sun if it were to be switched off. Quantitatively.

Have you read *any* of Birkelands 'quantitative' models?

That's not an answer, that's an obfuscation. We are talking specifically about cosmic rays which you keep saying have an influence on the Sun. Birkeland has little to say on the matter. Regarding the source of the Sun's supposed negative charge he says this: "It is of course possible to imagine that a surplus of positive ions is always being carried away from the sun or that negative ions are always being carried towards the sun, and that the negative tension is produced in this manner; and that the balance is maintained to some extent by distinct disruptive discharges, as we have presupposed." That's just the opposite of your claim that positive cosmic rays create, somehow, a negative charge on the Sun. Since Birkeland sheds no light on the matter, perhaps you'd like to explain it yourself.

[Cargo]

And how about the original question, a physical [example] for the flat plane explosion of a spherical gravity implosion/explosion?

Anything Dear Higgs? I replaced model with example. Just free up the brain space.

[Higgsy]

And how about the original question, a physical [example] for the flat plane explosion of a spherical gravity implosion/explosion?

Anything Dear Higgs? I replaced model with example. Just free up the brain space.

Dude, you do realise that Star Wars is fiction not a documentary, don't you? Why are you asking me about the "physics" of Hollywood special effects?

[Michael Mozina]

Secondly, it's not an argument from authority to note Alfven's own position on this topic because ,

No it's not an argument from authority to note Alfven's opinion, but it is an argument from authority, which you have been guilty of multiple times, and which you repeat over and over again, to rely solely on Alfven's opinion to make your argument.

It's become *painfully* clear that the only way that you can continue to cling to your pseudoscientific and metaphysical nonsense is to *avoid* all the hard questions, and rely upon *pure denial* when all else fails you.

Ultimately I'm not relying upon Alfven's "opinions" at all. In fact I'm basing my beliefs on the fact that you're already *more than* a full *century* behind in the lab with respect to producing anything useful related to solar system physics with 'magnetic reconnection". You can't produce a sustained aurora in a lab with "magnetic reconnection". You can't produce a sustained corona in lab with "magnetic reconnection". You can't produce a *sustained* process at all with 'magnetic reconnection" in a real lab experiment. Worse yet your claim is a complete *disaster* in the sense that you're incapable of producing a published scientific study that shows any actual physical laboratory difference between ordinary induction in plasma and what you're calling "magnetic reconnection". There's not a *shred* of laboratory justification for the claim that 'magnetic reconnection" is even a *unique* physical process that is distinct and different from ordinary induction in a plasma!

You simply *ignore* all those serious laboratory problems, just like you ignore 80 years of laboratory failures related to "dark matter". Why? Because you cannot handle the *empirical laboratory facts*.

Because it's obvious to any knowledgeable onlooker that quoting Alfven like a theologian is all you have.

Pffft. No, actually it's obvious to any knowledgeable onlooker that I have full century's worth of *working models* of an aurora and a corona based on circuit theory, something you will *never* achieve with "magnetic reconnection". When can I expect to see you generate a *sustained* aurora in a lab based on MRx? Answer the question rather than avoiding it this time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

You have never once, for example, shown how magnetic reconnection fails to emerge as a direct consequence of resistive MHD (you can't because it arises naturally from the generalised Ohm's law where the the electric field plus the velocity x magnetic field equates to the sum of current density times resistance plus a Hall effect, an electron pressure and a electron inertia term.

You're the one making the rather extraordinary claim that "magnetic reconnection" isn't simply ordinary induction in a plasma. When and where did you demonstrate that claim in any actual laboratory experiment? Never! Yet somehow you expect *me* to disprove *your* claim, in spite of the fact that you can't do a damn thing with it in the lab that results in a *sustained* process? Not my job.

What you would need to do is not to quote the Blessed Alfven but to show where the flaw is in the derivation of the various magnetic reconnection regimes, and particularly in the theory of 3-D reconnection (where the scalar product of electric and magnetic fields is non-zero) developed in the last 15 years or so.

Yet 15 years later (50 plus years total since the "magnetic reconnection" idea was first proposed) you still cannot show a single actual laborary experiment resulting in a *sustained* physical process that would explain a *sustained* million degree coronal loop. Your problem isn't mathematical in nature, it's *physical* in nature. You can't physically demonstrate any of your key claims!

Most importantly however, it's not an argument from authority because you're not even capable of showing us any *published* laboratory evidence that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique energy release which is unique and different from ordinary "induction" in plasma.

Well that shows you fail to understand the process altogether - induction in electromagnetism refers exclusively to the creation of an EMF as a consequence of a time varying magnetic field. The theory of magnetic reconnection extends induction to consider the fluid dynamics of the plasma as well as the Faraday-Maxwell equation, so it is not purely an electromagnetic theory.

I don't need to "extend" induction to explain a short duration "burst" of charged particle movement as a result of changing magnetic fields in a conductor. You're claiming however that such a process is capable of sustaining million degree plasma for hours, days and weeks on end, so where's your laboratory proof of that concept? You can't sustain a damn thing with "magnetic reconnection". At *best* it's a short duration process (induction) that is a direct result of a magnetic field change inside of a conductor. It's not capable of *sustaining* anything long term!

As for laboratory observation of magnetic reconnection, I think there must be hundreds of papers, so you're just making yourself look silly; but here are a couple:
Yamada, M., Chen, LJ., Yoo, J. et al. The two-fluid dynamics and energetics of the asymmetric magnetic reconnection in laboratory and space plasmas. Nat Commun 9, 5223 (2018)
Yamada et al, Study of driven magnetic reconnection in a laboratory plasma
Physics of Plasmas 4, 1936 (1997)
Raymond et al, Relativistic Magnetic reconnection in the Laboratory, Phys. Rev. E 98, 043207 (2018)
Kuramitsu, Y., Moritaka, T., Sakawa, Y. et al. Magnetic reconnection driven by electron dynamics. Nat Commun 9, 5109 (2018)
There must be literally hundreds more if you search.

Total dodge. I didn't ask you for a laboratory demonstration of "magnetic reconnection". I asked you which published exhaustive physical study of the process shows that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique physical process that is demonstrably physically unique and shown to be different from induction? I asked you *specifically which one* of those published papers produces and describes a *sustained* (long duration) high temperature plasma in a real lab experiment? You cannot produce either of those papers and we both know it. Go ahead and deny or it just avoid it, because it sinks your ship! Run from the empirical laboratory facts, because that's all you can do. You can't produce any examples of a *sustained* (long term) example of magnetic reconnection, or any long term process at all that isn't ultimately run by, and sustained by electrical current to start with! You can't produce a study that demonstrates a unique physical difference between induction and magnetic reconnection in plasma.

Such as?

Such as whether it's carrying electrical current or not. You can't always correctly model current carrying plasma with MHD theory.

They can be. They haven't been. And that doesn't solve the fact that there are several other variables which are incorrectly scaled by vast factors.

False. That is a pure handwave on your part. The process *scales* beautifully which is why Birkeland was able to make so many successful predictions about solar system physics based on what he learned from his laboratory experiments.

What makes the Sun's surface negatively charged, what is the voltage, what process leads to that voltage, and what processes in or on the Sun are influenced or determined by this charge?

Well, according to mainstream solar models, even the process of solar convection results in a negatively charged external solar surface. If you'd read any of Birkeland's work for yourself, you'd already know the voltages that he predicts and why, and you'd know which processes he believes are influenced by that charge separation between "space" and the solar surface. If you had actual read Alfven's work, you'd know they were both in the same ballpark as it relates to predicted voltages too. Why won't you read their work for yourself?

It's not really my job to personally educate you on their models. If you had any shred of professionalism at all you'd have already read the original materials for yourself!

Have you read *any* of Birkelands 'quantitative' models?

That's not an answer, that's an obfuscation.

No, actually it's a *condemnation* of your professional laziness and your complete professional incompetence. You won't be bothered to even sit down and read their work for yourself, but you expect me to personally explain it all to you on a public forum, one concept at a time, while you build *ridiculous* strawman arguments out of my statements. I'm not the *least* bit interested in being your physics mommy.

We are talking specifically about cosmic rays which you keep saying have an influence on the Sun. Birkeland has little to say on the matter.

Actually that's not entirely true. He specifically predicted that "space" has a net positive charge compared to the surface of the sun. He didn't know about cosmic rays back then, but we certainly do now. They are yet another "successful prediction" of his work, along with those electron beams we see streaming away from the sun, both types of charged particles in solar wind, polar jets, coronal loops, etc.

Regarding the source of the Sun's supposed negative charge he says this: "It is of course possible to imagine that a surplus of positive ions is always being carried away from the sun....

And indeed we see positively charged ions constantly streaming away from the sun just as Birkeland's model predicts.

or that negative ions are always being carried towards the sun,

I'm sure that there are "some" external negative ions/electrons interacting with the heliosphere too.

and that the negative tension is produced in this manner; and that the balance is maintained to some extent by distinct disruptive discharges, as we have presupposed."

We certainly see that too. We call them "solar flares".

That's just the opposite of your claim that positive cosmic rays create, somehow, a negative charge on the Sun.

What? I never said that in the first place! Sheesh. You *constantly* build strawman arguments out of my statements and twist them like a pretzel! That's not even ethical behavior on your part. Stop it!

Since Birkeland sheds no light on the matter, perhaps you'd like to explain it yourself.

I'll be *happy* to discuss Birkeland's model with you *after* you bother to read it for yourself *from the horses mouth*. Since you won't be bothered to lift a finger to educate yourself, I won't hold my breath.

[Cargo]

And how about the original question, a physical [example] for the flat plane explosion of a spherical gravity implosion/explosion?

Anything Dear Higgs? I replaced model with example. Just free up the brain space.

Dude, you do realise that Star Wars is fiction not a documentary, don't you? Why are you asking me about the "physics" of Hollywood special effects?

You claim we are seeing the shock wave of supernova "on edge" creating filamentary structures. This is your excuse to ignore the plain evidence of gigantic birklend currents in space. I'm giving you an artists example of that type of concept from the Movies. To see if you know of a psychical working example of this. I can give you another example of when the "flat" Black Hole was "created by an artist" that soon become accepted dogma. But I'm really asking about the "on edge" exploding rings of a super nova you claim created these structures.

[Higgsy]

And how about the original question, a physical [example] for the flat plane explosion of a spherical gravity implosion/explosion?

Anything Dear Higgs? I replaced model with example. Just free up the brain space.

Dude, you do realise that Star Wars is fiction not a documentary, don't you? Why are you asking me about the "physics" of Hollywood special effects?

You claim we are seeing the shock wave of supernova "on edge" creating filamentary structures. This is your excuse to ignore the plain evidence of gigantic birklend currents in space. I'm giving you an artists example of that type of concept from the Movies. To see if you know of a psychical working example of this. I can give you another example of when the "flat" Black Hole was "created by an artist" that soon become accepted dogma. But I'm really asking about the "on edge" exploding rings of a super nova you claim created these structures.

1. I never ignored the plain evidence of gigantic "birklend" currents in space. I have said all along that I accept that current filaments exist in the ISM, the IGM, between clusters and elsewhere, and I expect that sometimes they carry gigantic currents (although I think the evidence for the larger scale ones is that even if the current is large the current density is rather low). What I did say was that most of the examples that Choosy chose to spam me with repeatedly were not actual examples of Birkeland currents but of other phenomena. Did you rad and understand the evidence in Hester for why we think the Veil Nebula filaments are not created by currents?
2. I don't know why you think that I think the Cygnus Loop SNR is a circularly bounded plane - it is obviously spherical and I stated quite clearly that the filaments lie on the shock boundary where the boundary is tangential to the line of sight because along the tangents we are looking through greater depths of material encountering the front. So you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It is nothing to do with Hollywood's explosions in a plane.

[Cargo]

I have said all along that I accept that current filaments exist in the ISM, the IGM, between clusters and elsewhere, and I expect that sometimes they carry gigantic currents (although I think the evidence for the larger scale ones is that even if the current is large the current density is rather low)

OyVe, what a limited hang of the toe. You almost got wet. Come on Higgsy, you're almost in the water.

What you kind of said there was maybe, sort of, guess so whatever some times, like low like, whatever. And none of that matter because SHOCK WAVES SUPER NOVA GRAVITY EXPLOSIONS! You didn't even try. Much like Dave.

[Higgsy]

At last you have got hold of the idea. Plasmas are scalable, but there are rules about how to scale various variables.

The rules depend on the conditions of the plasma, but you refuse to take them into consideration.

Such as?

Such as whether it's carrying electrical current or not.

Assume there is current. Alfven does when he sets out the scale factors for various variables. Either you accept those factors, which are also pretty much agreed by everyone, or you don't. If you don't, you need to explain exactly how to scale a plasma down by a factor of a billion and give a rationale for your opinion.

Since the models are not being interogated at these timescales, which range from extremely short to very short, there is no way of assessing what the models are predicting regarding the dynamics of the transient events in the plasma.

Why can't they be interogated at those timescales using high speed cameras and such

They can be. They haven't been. And that doesn't solve the fact that there are several other variables which are incorrectly scaled by vast factors.

False. That is a pure handwave on your part.

So give me a link to where in any of Birkeland's lab model, SAFIRE or any other supposed full solar model, high speed cameras have been employed to investigate transient events in the models. Not a hand wave, mate, it's a fact, just a fact you happen not to like.

The process *scales* beautifully which is why Birkeland was able to make so many successful predictions about solar system physics based on what he learned from his laboratory experiments.

You're simply begging the question. I say that because of the scaling issues amongst other things Birkeland's model tells us little or nothing about how the Sun works. Alfven agrees: "It was soon realized, however, that no real scaling of cosmic phenomena down to laboratory size is possible, partly because of the large number of parameters involved which obey different scaling laws. Hence, laboratory experiments should aim at clarifying a number of basic phenomena of importance in cosmic physics rather than trying to reproduce a scaled-down version of the cosmic example." in Structure and Evolutionary Hostory of the Solar System.

A much bigger amount? A much bigger amount than what? The cosmic ray current into the Sun is tiny, no more than a few kA. What I am asking is how is that supposed to influence what we see in the Sun?

You end up with a negatively charged outer "surface" of an *internally* powered sun interacting with an *electric field* that is "space

What makes the Sun's surface negatively charged, what is the voltage, what process leads to that voltage, and what processes in or on the Sun are influenced or determined by this charge?

Well, according to mainstream solar models, even the process of solar convection results in a negatively charged external solar surface.

Yes but this is in relation to a discussion on cosmic rays which you seem to be trying to reset. I am asking you specifically about your view on the role of cosmic rays with regard to the Sun. Don't forget you say over and over: "our whole solar system is being constantly bombarded by positively charged cosmic rays, traveling at near the speed of light." You seem to think that is important with regard to the Sun, but when I get you to explain why you think so quantitatively, you hide behind Birkeland who wasn't even aware of the existence of cosmic rays, having died before their discovery. So try not to obfuscate, and explain quantitaively what you think the cosmic ray flux does to the Sun.