|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2007 : 09:51:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
All of this misses the point, that you haven't supported your claim, and you seem to be doing everything you can to avoid supporting your claim.
I have a somewhat philosophical question related to the usefulness of pure skepticism as it relates to "science".
Do you believe that it is possible for pure "skepticism" to become more of a hindrance than a help when it comes to science and determining the "truth" (TM)?
I ask this because I have shown you plenty of examples of where electrical solar model predictions match observation. When you say things like I've provided "no" evidence, I can't help but be amazed. It's very much like talking to a creationist. I have shown you evidence Dave. You keep handwaving it away. Just like Geemack, you've offer nothing in the way of a "better" theory. From a purely "skeptical" point of view, that might be fine behavior, but from a scientific perspective, I think it's getting your way, and it's not serving you any longer.
Science is not based on pure skepticism alone Dave. How can I provide you with more "evidence" if you won't even educate yourself to the basics of plasma cosmology? If you and Geemack want "quantitative" presentations, get off your lazy butt and order the book I suggested. It was all done for you 25 years ago! Holy cow!
I can't really have a mature scientifically oriented discussion with you about electric solar theory if you refuse to educate yourself. I guess you and Geemack seem to think it's my personal responsibility to mother you, and educate you, and do all the math for you. Let me give you hint here Dave. I'm not obligated to do that. Truth is truth, and electricity is electricity. Whether you accept it, or not is really no skin off my nose.
At this point I feel totally stuck as it relates you discussing this topic with you "scientifically" Dave. I've suggested Alfven's work as a method for us to explore together, but unless and until you're willing to educate yourself on the basics of plasma physics and plasma cosmology, you will evidently forever feel like I personally owe you math and more evidence. Alfven already did all the math. The evidence I can present to you is primarily "visual" and observational in nature because I study satellite imagery. I can connect the dots for you, but you have to already be familiar with the nature of the dots and what they mean. If you don't educate yourself, and learn where the dots are located, and how they work together, I can't connect the dots for you. It's really that simple.
As the saying goes: "You can lead a horse to water...."
At this point Dave, we can go round and round over this forever and get nowhere. IMO your "skepticism" has blinded you to the "truth" (TM) . The evidence of the electrical currents of the universe are staring you in the face in those x-ray images of the sun Dave. Alfven talked about 25 years ago. If however you insist on playing the role of pure skeptic, and you refuse to educate yourself, then from my perspective, its just like talking to a creationist. I've seen creationist handwave away mountains of evidence. What I've never seen one do is present scientific evidence to support another option. It's the same dance, different tune. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/03/2007 10:05:12 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 10:00:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
With all your stonewalling, I suspect that I might read the book and find that he offers no support at all for your contentions. That's why I'd prefer a quote and a page number before I invest all that effort.
Talk about irrational behaviors. Alfv'en was the creator of MHD theory Dave. They gave him a Nobel Prize for his work in MHD theory. He literally wrote the book (mathematically) on plasma physics and plasma cosmology. There is no "better" reference I can think of Dave.
Even if your worst fears turned out to be true, I assure you that his work is still very much worth reading. I really don't see how you have anything to lose, and I know that you have everything to gain. If its not worth your time to educate yourself to principles behind plasma cosmology, how do you expect us to really communicate?
quote:
I don't give a damn about how he viewed the sustaining of magnetic fields in light plasma,
That says volumes Dave. You just don't care about the science, you only care about this ego battle between us.
Pure skepticism never defined truth Dave. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 10:03:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Perfectly valid scientific evidence is quantitative, Michael. Numbers are specified when describing scientific evidence.
Ya, and Alfven already did all that as it relates to electrical discharge theory, but you are evidently too damn lazy to educate yourself. I'm not your momma.
You guys won't even acknowledge the role of electricity in space, so there's exactly zero hope of getting to second base. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 10:10:24 [Permalink]
|
| I haven't forgotten you furshur. Your post warrants a focused response, and I'm a bit busy right this moment. When things slow down at work, I'll work on a response. I think this may be the "best" conversation we've had and I appreciate that. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 10:38:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
No there is not 'some magnetic field' 200,000 km below the surface. The sun itself has a magnetic field much like the earth which is easily measured and is about 1 gauss or 2X the strength of earth's magnetic field.
Let's start with some basics. What generates that magnetic field?
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 11:58:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Let's start with some basics. What generates that magnetic field?
Oh, good grief! Let's not...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 12:05:55 [Permalink]
|
| You mean you can't answer the very first question? |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 12:47:13 [Permalink]
|
That was the first question???
You are just not worth the effort. It is like having a discussion with a 3 year old, they are great at asking why, but they can't understand any of the answers.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 12:50:58 [Permalink]
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_dynamo
If you intend to present a theory that nobody has every heard of before, you'll have to be prepared to answers some questions about it. Dave gave me a completely different explanation for the sun's magnetic fields than you did, but at least his explanation was consistent with Wiki. I have no idea what you're proposing is responsible for the magnetic fields near the surface. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/03/2007 12:52:05 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 13:30:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you intend to present a theory that nobody has every heard of before, you'll have to be prepared to answers some questions about it. Dave gave me a completely different explanation for the sun's magnetic fields than you did, but at least his explanation was consistent with Wiki. I have no idea what you're proposing is responsible for the magnetic fields near the surface.
I am so very glad that I took the time to talk with you Michael.
It was at the same time revealing and uninteresting. A fascinating exercise that warrants no further comment.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 13:44:26 [Permalink]
|
hy·poc·ri·sy n. 1. The act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues, or feelings that one does not truly possess.
examples:In science, you are obligated to show your theory works. — Michael Mozina
If you intend to present a theory that nobody has every heard of before, you'll have to be prepared to answers some questions about it. — Michael Mozina |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 14:05:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
hy·poc·ri·sy n. 1. The act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues, or feelings that one does not truly possess.
examples:In science, you are obligated to show your theory works. — Michael Mozina
If you intend to present a theory that nobody has every heard of before, you'll have to be prepared to answers some questions about it. — Michael Mozina
That might apply to me, except for the small fact that I have already answered 15 threads worth of questions. You'll contrast that now against furshur who bailed out at the very first question. Dave and furshur gave different answers Geemack. Just for the record, which one of them do you believe was right, or are you too afraid to stick your neck out even a tiny little bit? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/03/2007 14:08:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 14:54:59 [Permalink]
|
Good grief, Michael, I offered to meet you halfway and all you've done is plant your feet firmly in the ground and refuse to move. You can try to call that part of "a mature scientifically oriented discussion," but you'd be making a fool of yourself.quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
All of this misses the point, that you haven't supported your claim, and you seem to be doing everything you can to avoid supporting your claim.
I have a somewhat philosophical question related to the usefulness of pure skepticism as it relates to "science".
And you use this question to, once again, avoid supporting the claim you made earlier.quote:
Do you believe that it is possible for pure "skepticism" to become more of a hindrance than a help when it comes to science and determining the "truth" (TM)?
Skepticism is a necessary component of science. Without it, there'd be no need for experimentation, you could just assume that your hypothesis is correct and run with that.quote:
I ask this because I have shown you plenty of examples of where electrical solar model predictions match observation.
I can name one that you claim matches "accurately," but you refuse to answer the question of how you determined so.quote:
When you say things like I've provided "no" evidence, I can't help but be amazed. It's very much like talking to a creationist.
You're projecting again.quote:
I have shown you evidence Dave. You keep handwaving it away.
Nope, I've told you in painful detail why the things you've presented as evidence fail to meet even a minimal evidenciary standard. "Painful" because nobody with an understanding of science should have had those things explained to him like you did.quote:
Just like Geemack, you've offer nothing in the way of a "better" theory.
I submit that "we don't know what's going on in the corona" is a better theory than yours.quote:
From a purely "skeptical" point of view, that might be fine behavior, but from a scientific perspective, I think it's getting your way, and it's not serving you any longer.
You perceive things that way because you're uninterested in actually doing science, Michael. If, on the other hand, you would answer the questions I've asked you, and answer them well, then you'd be able to convince me that you're correct, just like all the other scientists in the world have to do. And if you convince me, I'd help convince others.quote:
Science is not based on pure skepticism alone Dave.
Nope, but skepticism is its most-important tool. Without it, one needn't bother with doing any testing.quote:
How can I provide you with more "evidence" if you won't even educate yourself to the basics of plasma cosmology?
I already said that if you'd give me an indication that what you say about plasma cosmology is correct, then I'd be more motivated to educate myself further. But you won't, so I find myself engaged in things higher on my list of priorities.quote:
If you and Geemack want "quantitative" presentations, get off your lazy butt and order the book I suggested. It was all done for you 25 years ago! Holy cow!
All ad hominem and not at all convincing that you're correct.quote:
I can't really have a mature scientifically oriented discussion with you about electric solar theory if you refuse to educate yourself.
You could if you would present some of the material. "Get off your lazy butt and order the book I suggested" is most certainly not a part of "a mature scientifically oriented discussion," don't you think?quote:
I guess you and Geemack seem to think it's my personal responsibility to mother you, and educate you, and do all the math for you.
Nope, that's just another one of your personal attacks.quote:
Let me give you hint here Dave. I'm not obligated to do that.
You are obligated to support your arguments if you wish to convince me that what you say is true.quote:
Truth is truth, and electricity is electricity.
Do you like pizza?quote:
Whether you accept it, or not is really no skin off my nose.
Then why are you here?quote:
At this point I feel totally stuck as it relates you discussing this topic with you "scientifically" Dave.
And that's because you refuse to even provide a hint of Alfven's work.quote:
I've suggested Alfven's work as a method for us to explore together, but unless and until you're willing to educate yourself on the basics of plasma physics and plasma cosmology, you will evidently forever feel like I personally owe you math and more evidence.
No, you're wrong about that, too. All you are obligated to do is show me that what you claim is correct. Quote Alfven (with edition and page number) saying that his theories "predict" million-degree temperatures in the solar corona, just for starters.quote:
Alfven already did all the math.
Then why do you refuse to quote him?quote:
The evidence I can present to you is primarily "visual" and observational in nature because I study satellite imagery.
You do no such thing, you just look at satellite imagery.quote:
I can connect the dots for you, but you have to already be familiar with the nature of the dots and what they mean. If you don't educate yourself, and learn where the dots are located, and how they work together, I can't connect the dots for you. It's really that simple.
Actually, it's as simply as this: I don't see any evidence that Alfven ever made the claim that you say he made. Until you provide evidence that he did make such a claim, there aren't any dots to connect.quote:
As the saying goes: "You can lead a horse to water...."
You haven't lead anyone anywhere. All you've done is pointed and screamed "the water is over there, you'll have to go get it yourself."quote:
At this point Dave, we can go round and round over this forever and get nowhere.
And that's because you refuse to "lead."quote:
IMO your "skepticism" has blinded you to the "truth" (TM) .
The idea that you know the "truth" is ludicrous, Michael, when you refuse to answer questions about it.quote:
The evidence of the electrical currents of the universe are staring you in the face in those x-ray images of the sun Dave.
That's not evidence. I begged you to teach me how to interpret those images as you do, and you replied that you couldn't. As such, it seems that your "truth" is a revelation and wholly subjective.quote:
Alfven talked about 25 years ago.
25 years ago, people were seriously considering the possibility of "global cooling."quote:
If however you insist on playing the role of pure skeptic, and you refuse to educate yourself, then from my perspective, its just like talking to a creationist.
And from my perspective, you're behaving just like a creationist in many ways, which I listed earlier. The fact that you are using argumentum ad librum is a real cake-topper in that respect.quote:
I've seen creationist handwave away mountains of evidence. What I've never seen one do is present scientific evidence to support another option. It's the same dance, different tune.
Absolutely correct, Michael: by refusing to answer these simple questions, you are acting like a creationist.
Michael's Unanswered Questions List:- 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."
Next post:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
With all your stonewalling, I suspect that I might read the book and find that he offers no support at all for your contentions. That's why I'd prefer a quote and a page number before I invest all that effort.
Talk about irrational behaviors. Alfv'en was the creator of MHD theory Dave. They gave him a Nobel Prize for his work in MHD theory. He literally wrote the book (mathematically) on plasma physics and plasma cosmology. There is no "better" reference I can think of Dave.
Even if your worst fears turned out to be true, I assure you that his work is still very much worth reading. I really don't see how you have anything to lose, and I know that you have everything to gain. If its not worth your time to educate yourself to principles behind plasma cosmology, how do you expect us to really communicate?
I never said he wasn't an excellent reference on the subject of MHD, Michael. I've got a limited amount of time on this Earth, and so am required to prioritize. You refuse to even offer a hint that Alfven says what you say he says, which tells me that his work actually doesn't support your theory. You've said enough things in general which are patently untrue that I've got little reason to just trust your judgement, and so I expect you to at least make a good-faith gesture.quote:
quote:
I don't give a damn about how he viewed the sustaining of magnetic fields in light plasma,
That says volumes Dave. You just don't care about the science, you only care about this ego battle between us.
No, you've just misrepresented what I was saying by cutting it off at the comma, Michael. You weren't talking about Alfven's views on the sustaining of magnetic fields in light plasma, you said that his theory predicts million-degree temperatures in the corona. You tried to change the subject, I called you on it, and in response you're now trying to change the subject again to be about my alleged ego problems. This gives me even more evidence that you don't have a clue as to what Alfven actually predicted, and are just making crap up as you go.quote:
Pure skepticism never defined truth Dave.
Pure baloney never defined truth either, Michael.
Another post:quote:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf
FYI, for anyone that is interested, here is the math behind plasma cosmology and Birkeland currents.
Apply that math to the Sun, Michael. If you cannot, how do you know that it is relevant?
Another post:quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_dynamo
If you intend to present a theory that nobody has every heard of before, you'll have to be prepared to answers some questions about it. Dave gave me a completely different explanation for the sun's magnetic fields than you did, but at least his explanation was consistent with Wiki. I have no idea what you're proposing is responsible for the magnetic fields near the surface.
I didn't give you a different explanation from furshur's at all, Michael. That wiki article is mostly just a stub, although it does mention MHD.
Another post:quote:
That might apply to me, except for the small fact that I have already answered 15 threads worth of questions.
No, you've spent 15 threads mostly dodging questions. One of your favorite excuses for not answering questions is that you don't have the technical expertise to answer them. And promising that answers will come (with STEREO, for example) was another pasttime you engaged in often.
Speaking of unanswered questions: why is it that Dr. Manuel felt justified in extrapolating that 4.56 exponent so wildly outside of the range in which he determined it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 14:56:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
That might apply to me, except for the small fact that I have already answered 15 threads worth of questions.
Well, except any questions which might have required a quantitative answer, and answer in actual solid numbers. For example you've never been willing to lock in on how thick your alleged iron surface is, its density, or its temperature. You've never been willing to say how wide or deep the valleys are or how high the hills are in your crazy misinterpretation of running difference images. You've never been able to explain how much current or resistance is required to create the thermal characteristics of the Sun. Oh, the list goes on and on.
So no, Michael, you haven't answered the kind of questions necessary to scientifically support your fruitcake fantasy. For some reason you've intentionally avoided those. Either you don't know the answers and don't have the balls to just admit it, or you've got some reason to withhold the answers. Either way it's not good science, or more definitively, not science at all.
quote:
Just for the record, which one of them do you believe was right, or are you too afraid to stick your neck out even a tiny little bit?
Really haven't given that particular issue any thought. But then again, I haven't once proposed any particular conjectures, guesses, delusions, or fantasies here. That would be you, Michael. So I'm not the one shirking responsibility for providing sound, scientific explanations for anything. Again, that would be you, Michael. 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
