Debunking Dave

[BeAChooser]

So, Higgsy, were you ever able to see the helically wound filaments in this image?

I gave you your answer here. You are not going to get a different one, so go away.

Higgsy, I responded to your response here (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... t=45#p1442), because you're answer didn't address the image I linked in that thread or here. And never heard another word from you. Your response was just handwaving in order to not address the issue I raised so I'm not going to go away and not going to move on to discussing anything else with you. Because if you can't even be honest about the presence of helically wound filaments out there, can't explain how they might come to be without resorting to gnomes, and won't admit that filaments are ubiquitous, there's no point in discussing anything else with you. In fact, I'm surprised anyone else does. They need only ask you my question every time you post about something else and then ignore you when you skirt it. Because obviously they are not going to change your mind about anything if you can't change your mind about this observational fact.

[JP Michael]

observational fact.

It's neither observational nor a fact. Bad optics. Bad filters. Bad interpretations. It's anything and everything except double-helix Birkeland currents meandering through fields of glow-mode intergalatic plasma.
/s

[Higgsy]

observational fact [the "filaments" in the Cygnus Loop (Veil Nebula)].

It's neither observational nor a fact. Bad optics. Bad filters. Bad interpretations. It's anything and everything except double-helix Birkeland currents meandering through fields of glow-mode intergalatic plasma.

So your interpretation, "double-helix Birkeland currents meandering through fields of glow-mode intergalatic plasma", will be one that you are able to defend with careful interpretation of the full range of observations of the Cygnus Loop, including the intensity, timing, environment and location of all the Hα, O III and X-ray emission that has been carefully measured over decades? Or did you just eye-ball the pretty picture and say "yeah, that's double-helix Birkeland currents meandering through fields of glow-mode intergalatic plasma."? You know what: I strongly suspect the latter, because if there is a choice between the mainstream explanation for a phenomenon and an idea that some ill-informed bloke on the internet has dreamed up, you always, always plump for the latter.

Here's the thing. In this case, we're lucky that a physicist, who knew what he was doing, did consider the full rich set of quantitative data, and put forward an explanation in 1986 for those "filaments" in the Cygnus Loop that was fully tested against the data and is now accepted as the explanation. That bloke was Jeff Hester and this is his paper: J Jeff Hester, A sheet description of the emission from middle-aged supernova remnants, ApJ 314, 187-202. How do we know the filaments represent the shock front of a supernova remnant? Well, there are many reasons, including the fact that the filaments are moving laterally at a speed commensurate with shock front propagation, overall shape of the structure is compatible with an SNR, and the difference in the positions of the filaments in various wavelengths, is commensurate with the heating and subsequent cooling of the gas at the shock front. The reason that the shock fronts are bumpy and not uniformly spherical is because the shock has traversed reasons of greater and lesser density (the medium is inhomogeneous), resulting in local advancement and retardation of the wavefront. That has also been tested quantitavely. Is what we know about the degree of inhomogeneity in the atomic and molecular clouds quauntitatively compatible with the measured degree of bumpiness? Yes.

The "filaments" are therefore the tangential projections of thin sheets of radiative emission immediately behind the shock fronts (thin sheets seen edge on). Further, and much more detailed analysis of the shock fronts of the Cygnus Loop has subsequently been published. See for example:
Raymond et al, Spatial and Spectral Interpretation of a Bright Filament in the Cygnus Loop, ApJ 324, 869 – 892 1988;
Blair et al, Distance to the Cygnus Loop from the Hubble Space Telescope imaging of the primary shock front ApJ 118, 942 – 947, 1999
Levenson et al, Panoramic views of the Cygnus Loop, ApJ Supp Series 118, 541 – 561, 1998
and many more.

One last point. Astronomers are strange folk. Many still measure energy in ergs, distances in cm, and wavelenths in Angstroms, and they refer to all elements heavier than helium as metals. They have continued to refer to the features in the Cygnus Loop as filaments, even though they know they are thin sheets of shock wave seen end-on. So don't go getting excited if you see a current paper referring to filaments in the blast front of SNRs. Filament in this case does not mean what you mean by it.

If you ask me nicely. I'll also give a description and explanation of the galactic star-forming filaments which Choosy also made a big brouhaha about.

[Cargo]

The Higgs proof is in itself, naturally. Computer Simulations and Infinite Math are all that is needed. Even made-for-tv specials, and Hollywood Movies showing everyone what an exploding planet looks like in space. I remember all to well the silent arguments for 'really, why' they changed the original-classic Star Wars Death Star explosion from a spherical star burst, to a flat plane ring explosion. (this happened way back during the 1st 'enhanced version' of Star Wars on DVD a long time before the prequels). And then Star Trek and others began changing their space explosions to flat rings instead of spherical bursts. Soon everything would just think, yeah, that's what it really looks like. It all makes sense now.

Do you have any physical model which can prove a flat explosion from a spherical mass gravity implosion/explosion?
Do you have a physical experiment for dark matter, singularities, supernovae, neutron stars, icy comets, cometary astroids, aurora, 'anything' like the Sun or any Star, or black holes?

The entire gravity star aggregation model is a one-legged stool. And yet, Big Bang! Which we are not to believe is 1-demensional everything from nothing. And let's invent an equally bad-farce of gravity with 'Dark Matter' because you know, Matter?Mass seems to be played out and it's not wowzy enough now.

The Electricity is hitting you in the face, and you'll come up with any quack reason to ignore it. Not because E is Wrong, but because you think Mass/Gravity is ONLY Right. When in fact, M can't exist without E (E comes first), and G is so stupidly weak and small in Space, that's it's like an airplane with the ground effect, they only care about when we're landing or taking off.

[BeAChooser]

Come on, Higgsy. The paper by Hester that you refer us to doesn’t deal with the helically wound feature that I’ve noted in the image I linked. The authors probably weren't even aware (back in 1987) that the feature existed. But you can’t plead ignorance about them. You are just ignoring them.

Even the latest paper (1999) you cited by Blair doesn’t mention the helical winding the image I posted clearly shows. In fact, with reference to the filament it describes, it says “we see no hard kinks or twists in the shock front”. Apparently everything out this is just an optical illusion.

[Higgsy]

Come on, Higgsy. The paper by Hester that you refer us to doesn’t deal with the helically wound feature that I’ve noted in the image I linked. The authors probably weren't even aware (back in 1987) that the feature existed. But you can’t plead ignorance about them. You are just ignoring them.

I am not entering into a discussion about this. I have already given you more information about the structures at the blast front of the Veil Nebula than you deserve. I will make one comment about how this exchange is illustrative of the deficiencies of the EU.

On the one hand we have careful, detailed and quantified consideration of what the structures in a wide range of emission wavelengths tell us about the temperature and mechanical dynamics of the pressure wave and its progenitor, where the whole explanation is self-consistent and consistent with all the observations from radio wavelengths to X-rays. Because the diffuse and filament emission has the same spectral signature (the signature of a shock front encountering neutral material with radiative and non-radiative processes and with particularly strong emission in Hα and O III), then we know that the filaments are thin sheets seen end-on and the diffuse emission arises from similar sheets at various angles from perpendicular to more acute. On the other hand we have a false colour photo of part of the same structure (with unknown assignment of colour to emission species) and you eyeball it and claim to see something that, according to you, are helically wound filaments. In other words you are seeing camels, weasels and whales in clouds. This is the difference between science and the EU in a nutshell.

[Higgsy]

Even made-for-tv specials, and Hollywood Movies showing everyone what an exploding planet looks like in space. I remember all to well the silent arguments for 'really, why' they changed the original-classic Star Wars Death Star explosion from a spherical star burst, to a flat plane ring explosion. (this happened way back during the 1st 'enhanced version' of Star Wars on DVD a long time before the prequels). And then Star Trek and others began changing their space explosions to flat rings instead of spherical bursts. Soon everything would just think, yeah, that's what it really looks like. It all makes sense now.

Do you have any physical model which can prove a flat explosion from a spherical mass gravity implosion/explosion?

You want me to tell you why a Hollywood director decided to show the explosion of the Death Star as a circularly expanding shock wave rather than a spherical one? You have to be kidding. How the hell should I know?

[Michael Mozina]

The similarity transformations in section 3:12 of Alfven's Cosmical Electrodynamics are crystal clear. He sets out how to properly model a large naturally occurring plasma in a small laboratory experiment; or conversely to how interpret the results of a small laboratory experiment in terms of a large naturally occurring plasma. As Michael is reluctant to accept these similarity relationships, even though they are endorsed by Alfven, and he doesn't believe a word I say, I will let Alfven make my case for me:

Alfven wrote: "When changing the linear scale by a factor of η the most characteristic features of the phenomena remain unchanged if at the same time we change other quantities according to Table 3.1

Table 3.1
length, time, inductance, capacitance η^1
particle energy, velocity, potential, current, resistance η^0=1
electric and magnetic fields, conductivity, neutral gas density, ionization fraction η^−1
current density, electron and ion densities η^−2

Propotionality between length and time is required by Maxwell's equations. The most characteristic features of a discharge depend upon the interactions between atoms, electrons and quanta. As these interactions depend in a very complicated way upon the energies involved, we must leave all energies and hence the electrostatic potential (which determines the kinetic energy of a charged particle) unchanged. If we change the linear dimensions l by a factor η, the electric field E must be changed by η^-1 in order to leave the potential V ~lE unchanged.

Because of Maxwell's equations, we must change D, H and B in the same way as E. The current density i which is equivalent to the displacement current ∂D/∂t must be changed by the factor η^-2, which means that the total current I=il^2 remains unchanged...Further, as the mean free path, which is of fundamental importance in gaseous discharges, varies as the linear dimnesion, the density ρ of the gas, which is inversely proportional to the mean free path must be changed as η^−1...

If we want to apply the results obtained in a laboratory apparatus with the linear extension of 10cm to cosmic phenomena, we have to increase the scale by a factor of 10^8 - 10^9 with regard to the conditions around the Earth, a factor of 10^10 for the Sun, 10^12 - 10^13 for the planetary system and 10^21 - 10^22 for the galaxy. Perhaps it is of more interest to go the other way, i.e. to transform the cosmic phenomena down to laboratory scale...It shows what quantities are the most important ones, and indicates to what extent it is possible to make scale-model experiments illustrating cosmic phenomena...

[Alfven then introduces a table which shows how some critical characteristics of cosmic phenomena scale to the lab. He goes on to discuss how the lab experiment should be scaled.]

When considering electrical phenomena the interstellar space of our galaxy should not be compared with a 'vacuum' but with a highly ionized gas at a pressure of 100 atmospheres. Still more striking than the high densities are the very high magnetic fields in the cosmos. In fact they are so strong that at present our laboratory resources do not suffice to produce fields strong enough for model experiments... [Table 3.2 calls for magnetic fields in the model from 10^9G to 10^11G]

Finally, the time-scale transformation in Table 3.2 is of interest. Solar flares, coronal arcs, and also the intial phase of a magnetic storm should be regarded as very short-lived phenomena. In fact their equivalent duration (a few μsecs) is of the order of the ignition time of an electric discharge."

Um, I hate to break it to you Higgsy, but based on my study of solar satellite imagery for the last 30 years, I would have to actually *disagree* with Alfven's "assumption" when he initially lumps "coronal arcs" and solar flares into the same duration category. The two types of events can often differ by a factor of *days* if not weeks in fact. Massive temperature "coronal loop/arcade" regions appear in various regions of the solar atmosphere, particularly during it's active phases. These arcs can last for days, or weeks and even a full *rotation cycle* of the sun, whereas a typical "solar flare" is usually related to one or a few specific very high speed "bursts" of "discharges" from one or a few specific events from one specific time frame. It therefore doesn't even make any sense to me to 'assume' that coronal "arcs", or "ropes", or whatever you call them are necessarily going to have the same scaling duration characteristics as solar flares to begin with. That seems like a non starter of an "assumption" to me.

It's also a non starter of an 'assumption' to assume that electrical discharges can simply be 'scaled' the same way as other types of events with respect to duration.

When Alfven considered lab experiments he assumed a typical size of experiment to be 10cm which makes η=10^-10 for the Sun in Table 3.2, which would be about right for several of Birkeland's models. In the calculations I did in my previous post (they are not difficult, merely simple arithmetic), I assumed the lab experiment to be about 1m which makes η~=10^-9, thereby easing the discrepancies between model and actual Sun by a factor of 10 compared with Alfven's calculations. So all of the calculations of the previous post stand, and critical plasma characteristics from pressure to current density to magnetic field are incorrect in the lab models by factors between 1,000 and 1,000,000,000 for a non-electrically powered Sun...

You've also made a *huge number* of cheesy and handwavy assertions which are based on nothing but your own personal opinions and based on *sketchy* mainstream density/current assumptions.

What you refuse to even *deal with* is the fact that you are already a full century behind circuit theory and counting with respect to simulating planetary aurora, solar corona, solar wind, solar flares, solar "strahl", etc.

What blows me away however is that you refuse to even account for the fact that our whole solar system is being constantly bombarded by positively charged cosmic rays, traveling at near the speed of light. Most of them are 'blocked'/neutralized by outbound electrons *long* before they reach the inner planets.

Even the mainstream convection model predicts some amount of charge separation to occur near the surface of the sun, meaning that it will have a net negative charge with respect to those inbound cosmic rays.

You're never going to convince me that "magnetic reconnection" is capable of reproducing *sustained* high energy plasma events Higgsy. You've never even shown in the lab that "magnetic reconnection" is even a distinct and unique and *different* type of energy release than ordinary induction in plasma. You've never shown us in the lab that "magnetic reconnection" is capable of *sustaining* any type of higher energy plasma over a longer duration of time. You've never demonstrated in the lab that "magnetic reconnection" can simulate a *sustained* planetary aurora, or a sustained corona. You have never demonstrated that it can explain 'solar strahl', or polar jets, or explain *sustain* coronal loops.

Higgsy, the fact of the matter is that your entire *industry as a whole* is already a full century behind circuit theory and counting with respect to 'explaining', let alone simulating in the lab, anything that is important in space with respect to solar system and planetary physics, and don't even get me started about cosmology.

Essentially the entire mathematical field of astronomy today is built upon make-believe metaphysics and "pseudoscience". It's a metaphysical mathematical house of cards, and absolutely *none* of it works in the lab. It's already a full century behind circuit theory and counting with respect to it's usefulness in the lab.

[Higgsy]

Um, I hate to break it to you Higgsy, but based on my study of solar satellite imagery for the last 30 years, I would have to actually *disagree* with Alfven's "assumption" when he initially lumps "coronal arcs" and solar flares into the same duration category. The two types of events can often differ by a factor of *days* if not weeks in fact. Massive temperature "coronal loop/arcade" regions appear in various regions of the solar atmosphere, particularly during it's active phases. These arcs can last for days, or weeks and even a full *rotation cycle* of the sun, whereas a typical "solar flare" is usually related to one or a few specific very high speed "bursts" of "discharges" from one or a few specific events from one specific time frame. It therefore doesn't even make any sense to me to 'assume' that coronal "arcs", or "ropes", or whatever you call them are necessarily going to have the same scaling duration characteristics as solar flares to begin with. That seems like a non starter of an "assumption" to me.

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". Your attitude here is, of course, much closer to how a scientist would approach an issue, ie by considering the content of the statement rather than judging it by who said it. Closer than when you attempt to brow-beat people who disagree with you by simply quoting what Alfven believed, as though he is some sort of divine figure whose word alone is sufficient evidence. The latter approach is religion not science. So at least you're attempting to grapple with the content here - and indeed you are right about the timescale, coronal loops can persist from anything from seconds to days, say from 60s to a few days (say 5x10^5s). When scaled to the lab scale this results in timescales of 0.06μs to 500μs, with the most common events somewhere around a few μs as Alfven says. This is far away from transient events observed in lab scale plasmas.

It's also a non starter of an 'assumption' to assume that electrical discharges can simply be 'scaled' the same way as other types of events with respect to duration.

Why do you say that? Scaling time with distance in plasmas is completely non controversial and obvious as it's reasonable to say that if a distance is reduced by a factor of a billion, and the size of phenomena are reduced by a factor of a billion, then the time associated with that event is also reduced by a factor of a billion even if we just naively consider magnetohydrodynamic speed in the plasma. Anyway, the reason for saying time scales as length is obvious; you'll have to come up with a better rebuttal than personal incredulity.

When Alfven considered lab experiments he assumed a typical size of experiment to be 10cm which makes η=10^-10 for the Sun in Table 3.2, which would be about right for several of Birkeland's models. In the calculations I did in my previous post (they are not difficult, merely simple arithmetic), I assumed the lab experiment to be about 1m which makes η~=10^-9, thereby easing the discrepancies between model and actual Sun by a factor of 10 compared with Alfven's calculations. So all of the calculations of the previous post stand, and critical plasma characteristics from pressure to current density to magnetic field are incorrect in the lab models by factors between 1,000 and 1,000,000,000 for a non-electrically powered Sun...

You've also made a *huge number* of cheesy and handwavy assertions which are based on nothing but your own personal opinions and based on *sketchy* mainstream density/current assumptions.

I stand by every single one of my calculations, all of which are based on measured values. Choose any one and we can talk about it in more detail. I'm sure you're not making the claim that I have got the cosmic values so wrong that the lab values scale correctly or even scale within one or two orders of magnitude.

What blows me away however is that you refuse to even account for the fact that our whole solar system is being constantly bombarded by positively charged cosmic rays, traveling at near the speed of light. Most of them are 'blocked'/neutralized by outbound electrons *long* before they reach the inner planets.

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? What has that got to do with the solar models? You seem to think it's important and I don't see why, so perhaps you should give us a detailed quantified explanation of what you think this cosmic ray flux is doing to the Sun.

[Cargo]

Do you have any physical model which can prove a flat explosion from a spherical mass gravity implosion/explosion?

You want me to tell you why a Hollywood director decided to show the explosion of the Death Star as a circularly expanding shock wave rather than a spherical one? You have to be kidding. How the hell should I know?

Higgly, you completely missed what the question actually was by putting a question where there wasn't.

[paladin17]

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.

[Michael Mozina]

Um, I hate to break it to you Higgsy, but based on my study of solar satellite imagery for the last 30 years, I would have to actually *disagree* with Alfven's "assumption" when he initially lumps "coronal arcs" and solar flares into the same duration category. The two types of events can often differ by a factor of *days* if not weeks in fact. Massive temperature "coronal loop/arcade" regions appear in various regions of the solar atmosphere, particularly during it's active phases. These arcs can last for days, or weeks and even a full *rotation cycle* of the sun, whereas a typical "solar flare" is usually related to one or a few specific very high speed "bursts" of "discharges" from one or a few specific events from one specific time frame. It therefore doesn't even make any sense to me to 'assume' that coronal "arcs", or "ropes", or whatever you call them are necessarily going to have the same scaling duration characteristics as solar flares to begin with. That seems like a non starter of an "assumption" to me.

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.

On the other hand, you took *one* sentence that he wrote, and you built a whole strawman argument out of his statement related to the expected duration calculations, none of which he would necessarily agree with in the first place! I simply pointed out that there is *ample* satellite evidence to support the fact that coronal loop arcades can last for full rotation cycles of the sun (28.33 days), and produce only one or two 'solar flares' over that entire rotation cycle. A "solar flare" is a relatively short duration event, whereas *million degree coronal loop arcades* are quite ordinary and last quite a bit longer than a solar flare.

Get over that argument *instantly*. You have nowhere to hide. You're trying to *misuse* his MHD theory to promote something which Alfven himself called 'pseudoscience' till the day he died.

Your attitude here is, of course, much closer to how a scientist would approach an issue, ie by considering the content of the statement rather than judging it by who said it. Closer than when you attempt to brow-beat people who disagree with you by simply quoting what Alfven believed, as though he is some sort of divine figure whose word alone is sufficient evidence.

Oy Vey. Pure mental gymnastics on a stick. I never held him up as a divine figure, in fact I prefer Birkeland's "cathode" solar model over the one that Alfven preferred, and I prefer a "static universe"/"tired light" approach to explaining cosmological redshift.

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. Worse yet, you're an *entire century* behind in the lab in producing *long* duration high energy, high temperature plasma. You can't even cite a single paper that systematically demonstrates, *in the lab with actual data*, a specific physical difference between ordinary induction in plasma and "magnetic reconnection".

You can't produce a sustained planetary aurora. You can't produce a sustained full sphere corona. You can't produce sustained anything based on "magnetic reconnection"!

When can I expect to see you produce a *sustained* aurora in a lab based on "magnetic reconnection" Higgsy? Never in my lifetime?

I stand by every single one of my calculations, all of which are based on measured values.

Boloney! Your so called "measured values" are more akin to personal handwaves as it relates to "measured current" from and into the sun.

Choose any one and we can talk about it in more detail. I'm sure you're not making the claim that I have got the cosmic values so wrong that the lab values scale correctly or even scale within one or two orders of magnitude.

You aren't fooling anyone Higgsy. Plasma physics scales *very* nicely given the *correct* approach to scaling. You're simply making stuff up however on a *personal whim* as it relates to time duration issues.

What blows me away however is that you refuse to even account for the fact that our whole solar system is being constantly bombarded by positively charged cosmic rays, traveling at near the speed of light. Most of them are 'blocked'/neutralized by outbound electrons *long* before they reach the inner planets.

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.

What has that got to do with the solar models?

Had you taken the time to actually read Birkeland's solar model work for yourself, you'd understand that his original 'core' prediction was that the sun's surface acted as a 'cathode' with respect to positively charged "space" around it. It has *absolutely everything* to do with Birkeland's cathode "electric sun" model.

You seem to think it's important and I don't see why,

That's because you refuse to act like a real scientist, do the reading and do the necessary research for yourself. Instead you expect me to personally spoon feed Birkeland's scientific life's work to you, one concept at a time. When can I expect to see you read Birkeland's solar model research from the link I provided you earlier? What are you doing here Higgsy if not trying learn?

so perhaps you should give us a detailed quantified explanation of what you think this cosmic ray flux is doing to 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. You have a full century of modern satellite data to work with, *all* of which supports Birkeland's basic model.

[Michael Mozina]

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.

That's the part that I find to be quite fascinating. The moment you start moving large numbers of charged particles, you potentially have "current". Astronomers simply *exclude* that possibility on a whim.

[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.

[BeAChooser]

I am not entering into a discussion about this.

Told you he'd run folks.