• Surface of the Sun, Part 1
• Surface of the Sun, Part 2
• Surface of the Sun, Part 3
• Surface of the Sun, Part 4
• Surface of the Sun, Part 5
• Surface of the Sun, Part 6
• Surface of the Sun, Part 7
• Surface of the Sun, Part 8
• Surface of the Sun, Part 9
• Surface of the Sun, Part 10
• Surface of the Sun, Part 11
• Surface of the Sun, Part 12
• Matter and the Big Bang, Part 1
• Matter and the Big Bang, Part 2

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Mozina

quote:

---

Michael really really really wants all this talk of "current" to mean big sparks like lightning. It's the only way for his resistive heating idea to get anywhere close to the observed temperatures in the corona.

---

Yes, and it's the only way to explain those temperatures inside of coronal loops in the atmosphere of the sun, *PERIOD*. That's why I accept the role of electron flow Dave, even though you keep trying to sweep it under the carpet. I'm sorry Dave, but those coronal loops stick out like giant sore thumb, and your denial of the role of electron flow isn't making them go away.

---

• I'd really like to hear how you rationalize being a reasonable person while you extended a single comment I made about Bruce to both Birkeland and Alfven, whom I dealt with separately.
• Are you saying that solar scientists would ignore the fact that magnetic fields don't stop for no reason?
• Supply a reference for Alfven's theory predicting million-degree temperatures in the Sun's corona.
• Have you calculated how much time it took for that field loop seen by Hinode to "collapse" once the "current" was "cut off," Michael?
• What it is about the generation of gamma rays that requires the flow of electrical current?
• How well do the emissions detected by Rhessi on Earth and the Sun match in chronology and relative magnitude?
• How have you measured the accuracy of the prediction that gamma- and X-rays should be seen in the Sun's corona?
• What else does the "electric Sun" theory "accurately predict?"
• Why do you think Alfven was correct?
• How the hell was Birkeland able to create a "plasma atmosphere surrounded by a vacuum?"
• On what page numbers does Birkeland record "sparks," "tornado like structures," and "high energy discharges?"
• Where is the evidence for "Current that runs through the plasma threads of space generates those magnetic fields just like Alfven predicted."
• What sort of evidence should I provide to demonstrate "we don't know?"
• Why do lightning bolts generate gamma rays?
• Why are gamma rays detected in the Sun's corona?
• Weren't you banned on BAUT forums?
• Does Alfven explain why he thinks x-rays in a Skylab photo are "likely caused by "electrical discharges?"
• Why is it that magnetic field lines "cannot make and break connections?"
• Why don't you define "electrical current" for us?
• Hey, Michael, are you 'ManInTheMirror' over at the BAUT forum?
• Why don't you explain why Kosovichev is wrong, or why you're both correct if you switch underlying assumptions?
• Kosovichev measured dozens of tiny density differences in the experiment from which you hijacked a couple of numbers for your allegedly solid layer's depth, but all you can do in the diagrams you posted is suggest the existence of a single one?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.
There is no distinction.

---

quote:

---

If you have moving charged particles, you've got what is technically an electrical current.

---

quote:

---

Electrical currents generate magnetic fields. And moving magnetic fields can make charged particles move (inducing a current).

---

quote:

---

Michael, however, is focused on the word "discharge." In lightning, a huge build-up of charge occurs within a cloud until the point that the charge breaks down air's insulating properties, and a giant "spark" occurs.

---

quote:

---

That huge current is a "discharge" of the charge in the cloud. Michael wants us to think that all of the activity we see in the Sun's corona is due to discharges of built-up electrical potential. Really huge sparks.

---

quote:

---

But the modern theory is that about 200,000 km beneath the Sun's photosphere, there's an area where the radiant transport of heat from the core switches over to convective transport.

---

quote:

---

This switch-over causes large differences in how the plasma above and below behave, and those differences plus the rotation of the Sun itself give rise to large amounts of "shear" between the two "sets" of plasmas. In effect, you've got two groups of charged particles moving in opposite directions relative to each other, which leads to a "dynamo" effect generating - in the Sun's case - a massive magnetic field.

---

quote:

---

And if the Sun's plasmas were all perfectly homogeneous, the magnetic field we would see would be "flat" and stable. But the plasmas aren't perfectly homogeneous - some parts are denser than others, or contain a charge imbalance - and those imperfections, over time, give rise to even more mammoth magnetic-field loops which rise up from the dynamo, spanning upwards of 300,000 km. These magnetic field loops move through the plasma, causing all sorts of electrical currents (without discharges), and those currents in turn cause magnetic fields, which induce other currents, and so on.

---

quote:

---

Michael appears to be fixated upon "discharges" only because Birkeland (sort of) and Bruce described things that way. (Whether Alfven did or not will have to wait.) He's just taken decades-old descriptions of weak hypotheses about the Sun and run with them, ignoring what actual solar scientists are doing today and why.

---