|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2007 : 15:11:50 [Permalink]
|
| Hi, Michael. I've been doing some reading, including something by Alfven and other work on stars. I see lots and lots of compelling evidence that stars are made up largely of hydrogen and helium, and nothing put forward to refute that. (Even in Alfven's stuff.) So does your notion of electric currents and the like to explain certain images work even accepting the generally accepted composition of the sun, or do we have to posit things like an iron surface, etc? |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 15:23:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hi, Michael. I've been doing some reading, including something by Alfven and other work on stars. I see lots and lots of compelling evidence that stars are made up largely of hydrogen and helium, and nothing put forward to refute that. (Even in Alfven's stuff.) So does your notion of electric currents and the like to explain certain images work even accepting the generally accepted composition of the sun, or do we have to posit things like an iron surface, etc?
I specifically have tried to keep this thread focused on the "electrical" aspects of my theory, and the electrical activity in the solar atmosphere without regard to a solid surface. As I pointed out earlier, Bruce also describes electric discharge theory without regard to a solid surface. The Hinode images will not demonstrate the existence of a solid surface, but it will (has) demonstrate(d) the existence of electrical discharges that occur in the solar atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 15:38:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
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.
False. In fact I used Kosovichev's data to isolate depths of various layers including the crust. I gave you the temperature as well. More "fair and balanced" reporting by the Foxnews of science there Geemack?
quote:
You've never been willing to say how wide or deep the valleys are or how high the hills are
I can't tell that from the running difference images! You want blood from rock on that one. There isn't enough resolution capacity in the SOHO or TRACE satellites to get any actual handle on the height of anything on the surface. It's simply not possible at this time. All I could possibly do is simply pull a figure out of my backside. I don't do stuff your way.
quote:
So no, Michael, you haven't answered the kind of questions necessary to scientifically support your fruitcake fantasy.
Ah, and here we have more of the obligatory sophomoric ad hominems from the sleaziest guy I've ever met in cyberspace. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 15:49:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
You're evidently projecting again there Dave. :)
I have met you half way, and then some. I've provided you with relevant books on the topic, and you simply and utterly refuse to read them. What can I say?
quote:
And you use this question to, once again, avoid supporting the claim you made earlier.
No, I used it to show you that your behaviors thus far are mirror images of what a creationist does. They handwave away the evidence (like those gamma rays) and they refuse to provide evidence to support their own views.
quote:
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.
Sure, but without something more than skepticism, science isn't possible. You can handwave away those gamma rays from electrical discharges all you like, but that won't make them go way, and that doesn't explain why they are there.
quote:
]Nope, I've told you in painful detail why the things you've presented as evidence fail to meet even a minimal evidenciary standard.
Every creationist says the same stuff Dave. It's easy to handwave away those gamma rays, it's another thing entirely to try to explain them scientifically.
quote:
"Painful" because nobody with an understanding of science should have had those things explained to him like you did.
Likewise I should have to explain to mainstream community that there is no such thing as magnetic reconnection. Alfven did that 25 years ago.
quote:
I submit that "we don't know what's going on in the corona" is a better theory than yours.
That is pure, naked, unadulterated stubbornness on your part. The new slogan for gas model theory is "Anything but electricity".
I'll get back to the rest of this mess a bit later.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 15:50:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hi, Michael. I've been doing some reading, including something by Alfven and other work on stars. I see lots and lots of compelling evidence that stars are made up largely of hydrogen and helium, and nothing put forward to refute that. (Even in Alfven's stuff.) So does your notion of electric currents and the like to explain certain images work even accepting the generally accepted composition of the sun, or do we have to posit things like an iron surface, etc?
I specifically have tried to keep this thread focused on the "electrical" aspects of my theory, and the electrical activity in the solar atmosphere without regard to a solid surface. As I pointed out earlier, Bruce also describes electric discharge theory without regard to a solid surface. The Hinode images will not demonstrate the existence of a solid surface, but it will (has) demonstrate(d) the existence of electrical discharges that occur in the solar atmosphere.
Well, the images I've seen don't strike me as being "electical" in nature, and if the standard model doesn't allow for something electrical anyway, then it seems to me that it's best to think of the images as something else. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 15:52:25 [Permalink]
|
| By the way Dave, could you explain to furshur what solar dynamo is? He seems to have his own ideas about the sun's magnetic fields. Maybe you could clue him in about the fact that there must be a *source* of magnetic fields, and only source of magnetic fields in plasma is electrical current. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 15:55:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
False. In fact I used Kosovichev's data to isolate depths of various layers including the crust.
No, you didn't. You claimed, in error, that the movement of plasma stopped at or near your allegedly solid surface. You named several broad ranges of possibilities for what that depth might be. And you refused to explain why that plasma was moving at thousands of kilometers per hour through your allegedly solid surface. So either you're lying again, or you just plain forgot.
quote:
I gave you the temperature as well. More "fair and balanced" reporting by the Foxnews of science there Geemack?
Refresh us. What are the specific temperature characteristics of your allegedly solid surface?
quote:
I can't tell that from the running difference images! You want blood from rock on that one. There isn't enough resolution capacity in the SOHO or TRACE satellites to get any actual handle on the height of anything on the surface. It's simply not possible at this time.
You were given at least one good method to determine those numbers. You refused to apply it.
quote:
All I could possibly do is simply pull a figure out of my backside.
You might as well. You've used that method to come up with other answers.
quote:
I don't do stuff your way.
Clearly not. 
quote:
Ah, and here we have more of the obligatory sophomoric ad hominems from the sleaziest guy I've ever met in cyberspace.
Nothing about it was ad hominem. Firstly, you still misunderstand what that term means. And secondly, my comment was simply a statement of truth. You haven't answered the kind of questions necessary to scientifically support your fruitcake fantasy. You haven't provided any quantitative support. And again instead of actually providing any, you choose to throw a tantrum like a little kid.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 15:57:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well, the images I've seen don't strike me as being "electical" in nature,
Why are those plasma loops over a million degrees?
quote:
and if the standard model doesn't allow for something electrical anyway,
Well, that's not entirely true. It doesn't "accept" anything electrical, but the standard model could be "altered" to include a more active electrical interaction with the universe. Standard theory does "allow" for electrical currents to play a role in solar activity, it just doesn't "predict it". That solar dynamo that Dave talked about (I have no idea about furshur's ideas) is electrical in nature. Why wouldn't the surface activity, where we also see magnetic fields in plasma also be electrical in nature?
quote:
then it seems to me that it's best to think of the images as something else.
When you come up with something else that you think is "better", let me know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 17:06:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
False. In fact I used Kosovichev's data to isolate depths of various layers including the crust.
No, you didn't. You claimed, in error, that the movement of plasma stopped at or near your allegedly solid surface. You named several broad ranges of possibilities for what that depth might be. And you refused to explain why that plasma was moving at thousands of kilometers per hour through your allegedly solid surface. So either you're lying again, or you just plain forgot.
There you go again playing anchor for Foxnews with that "fair and balanced" view of how our discussions went. Evidently you just "forgot" that whole discussion about the flow of electrical current. Then again, maybe you're just lying. Who knows?
You guys never want to acknowledge the role of electron flow in any solar activity. That doesn't mean I don't have to acknowledge the role of electrical current flow. That doesn't mean I am obligated to be as ignorant of the importance of electrons as you are. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 17:31:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
When you come up with something else that you think is "better", let me know.
Michael, why repeat this demand when it has been demonstrated to be a fallacy? Seriously? How can you justify your irrational request? I'd really like to know.
You seem to understand the nature of this fallacy when it is applied to other topics. For instance, on the thread about UFOs, you seemed to understand perfectly well that a scientist's inability to explain a particular sighting is not evidence. No sane person would say that in the absence of competing explanations, one must accept the alien spaceship theory.
So why do you continue to use this fallacy in regards to your own work? It is absolutely unreasonable of you to do so, and the fact that you cannot stop yourself reveals an error in your thought process. You keep saying everyone else is acting unreasonable, but this is a glaring example of an instance where you are wrong and unable to think clearly. If you can't see that, you must be insane.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/03/2007 17:33:27 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 17:35:23 [Permalink]
|
No data again, Michael? No numbers? Nothing quantitative? Babbling about electrons and flow, but no actual scientific information? You do know you'd be more productive trying to support your wacky delusion instead of throwing another tantrum. But then really, why change your style?
You want to talk electricity? How about you tell us what sort of current and resistance properties are required to produce the thermal characteristics we already measure from the Sun? How about you tell us what your crazy conjecture predicts there, in real numbers? Note: "galore" and "all over the place" aren't real numbers.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 17:46:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
When you come up with something else that you think is "better", let me know.
Jesus H. Christ. If I hear you tell me one more time that I should some-fraking-how come up with some grand-fraking-idea to explain such-and-such fraking images, I'll scream. Clue in, Michael: I HAVE NO IDEA. Nor will I. You take great glee in this game-- the tacit assertion that if a bunch of dupes at SFN can't answer difficult scientific question, then you must be right. It's tired and lame.
No, Michael, I don't know why plasma loops are over a million degrees. (Let me clue you in on a secret: I don't even know what your argument is; when you post those tired "explain this image" posts, I don't know what it is you want explained!) I don't even know how we know that plasma loops are a million degrees.
That said, everything I have read suggests that the sun is largely hydrogen and helium, and comparisons of actions on the sun with those of the earth are false ones.
(ETA: Thanks BSG) |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 04/03/2007 19:44:18 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 18:09:34 [Permalink]
|
I don't know why I am responding to such a clueless jerk...
quote:
By the way Dave, could you explain to furshur what solar dynamo is? He seems to have his own ideas about the sun's magnetic fields. Maybe you could clue him in about the fact that there must be a *source* of magnetic fields, and only source of magnetic fields in plasma is electrical current.
I never tried to explain what causes the suns overall magnetic field. I did make a conjecture on what might cause the localized high magnetic field in a sunspot. Leave it to you to start ranting and raving that I don't know anything.
You really are a jerk.
This is cute too:
quote:
You'll contrast that now against furshur who bailed out at the very first question.
Hmmm first question, and here I thought that was the last in a long line of questions:
1. By the way, what's making the plasma "move"?
2. What speed are we talking about when you say "moving"?
3. Why are they moving again along those flux lines?
4. I understand why they might be aligned, but why are they moving again?
5. What made that loop come crashing back down again?
6. How?
7. Describe the force that does that.
8. How is a gamma ray emitted from this column of moving plasma, and please explain why the plasma is moving, and why it emits gamma rays, and what speed this plasma is traveling.
9. Explain to me now how you figure that Birkeland created the simulations he created, and how you figure he created those loops across the surface of his sphere?
10. So 200,000K below the surface of the photosphere, some magnetic field exists, is is also "changing" in some way?
11. What way is that?
12. How does that result in coronal loops at the surface that emit gamma rays and x-rays and iron ion photons galore?
13. So what is average temperature of one loop say 1000KM above the photosphere if there is no reconnection happening?
14. Define "magnetic reconnection" for me.
15. How does that manifest itself in a single or double loop scenario?
16. Let's start with some basics. What generates that magnetic field?
Question 16 (or so) is where I finally got fed up with your bullshit. I know that you don't like using numbers or math but I thought you could at least count!
Did I mention that you're a jerk?
Just out of curiosity (morbid curiosity) you don't mention Dr. Manuel anymore, you two aren't having a tiff are you?
edited to change: "stupid mother fucking know nothing, iron sun believing bag of shit" to "jerk" - so I didn't offend anyone. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 04/03/2007 19:46:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 19:20:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You're evidently projecting again there Dave. :)
Not at all. You have set the standard for what sort of discussion you'd like to have, yet you are unable or unwilling to meet that standard. You want "a mature scientifically oriented discussion?" Then cough up a proper reference for your claim.quote:
I have met you half way, and then some. I've provided you with relevant books on the topic, and you simply and utterly refuse to read them.
You haven't demonstrated that the books are relevant. Taking your word for it would be an act of faith, not science, and you said you wanted "a mature scientifically oriented discussion."quote:
What can I say?
You can say, "Alfven said, '[quoted passage]' on page XXX of the book."quote:
quote:
And you use this question to, once again, avoid supporting the claim you made earlier.
No, I used it to show you that your behaviors thus far are mirror images of what a creationist does.
Once again, you are avoiding supporting the claim you made earlier.quote:
They handwave away the evidence (like those gamma rays)...
I've never handwaved away the gamma rays. I'm waiting for you to demonstrate that they come from giant electrical sparks instead of through the mechanisms discussed in the UofM paper (which was properly referenced, I might add).quote:
...and they refuse to provide evidence to support their own views.
I've provided evidence of my views in every post lately: my view is that Michael Mozina is refusing to participate in "a mature scientifically oriented discussion" about his theory by refusing to answer relevant questions, and I provide a list which includes such questions in every post. The creationist tactic here is to claim that there's a burden of evidence on me, when you're the one with the theory, Michael. I've got "we don't know," and that's it. What sort of evidence should I provide to demonstrate "we don't know," Michael.quote:
Sure, but without something more than skepticism, science isn't possible.
That's beside the point you were trying to make.quote:
You can handwave away those gamma rays from electrical discharges all you like...
You can claim that they're from "electrical discharges" all you like, but that won't make it come true.quote:
...but that won't make them go way, and that doesn't explain why they are there.
Why don't you explain why they are there, then? "They're there because there are big sparks" doesn't cut it. Why do lightning bolts generate gamma rays, Michael?quote:
Every creationist says the same stuff Dave. It's easy to handwave away those gamma rays, it's another thing entirely to try to explain them scientifically.
I never handwaved them away.quote:
Likewise I should have to explain to mainstream community that there is no such thing as magnetic reconnection.
Because I can only find one place that quotes Alfven saying any such thing, and it's just another website which doesn't proper reference the quote.quote:
Alfven did that 25 years ago.
So you say, but when did he do so and in what publication? I'm serious: I can find no other source but you and PlasmaCosmology.net who claim he said anything like that, and neither you nor they reveal the source. Creationists do that all the time when they misrepresent the quoted person.quote:
quote:
I submit that "we don't know what's going on in the corona" is a better theory than yours.
That is pure, naked, unadulterated stubbornness on your part.
Not at all: it's you against the null hypothesis, and so long as you refuse to show your work, the null hypothesis is going to be the clear winner.quote:
The new slogan for gas model theory is "Anything but electricity".
Pure, naked unadulterated nonsense on your part, since "we don't know" has nothing to do with the gas model.quote:
I'll get back to the rest of this mess a bit later.
Yeah, right.
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:
By the way Dave, could you explain to furshur what solar dynamo is? He seems to have his own ideas about the sun's magnetic fields. Maybe you could clue him in about the fact that there must be a *source* of magnetic fields, and only source of magnetic fields in plasma is electrical current.
And that's where you are wrong, because we all know that by "electrical current" you mean "a big spark, like lightning." You've made it perfectly clear that you're not referring simply to the motion of charged particles when you say "electrical current." Plus, the solar dynamo has nothing to do with your theory, so why should I bother discussing it at all? I'm here to have "a mature scientifically oriented discussion" about your theory, Michael, so quit asking me about the irrelevant gas model. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 09:39:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I never tried to explain what causes the suns overall magnetic field.
But it's a key point in our disagreement. You can't start a theory about powerful magnetic fields without telling me what causes them.
quote:
I did make a conjecture on what might cause the localized high magnetic field in a sunspot. Leave it to you to start ranting and raving that I don't know anything.
You really are a jerk.
First of all, you are right about all the previous questions you answered, and I obviously let my frustration at Geemack spill over into our conversation. I was indeed a "jerk" in that respect, and I apologize.
That said, if you intend to offer an alternative explanation, you will have to explain what generates and sustains these magnetic fields. I have stated that they are driven by electrical currents flowing into the sun, much like Birkeland's loops were powered by electrons flowing into the terrella. The surface of the sphere and the location of the atmosphere dictate the discharge location in my model. If you have an alternative idea, you have to identify the source of these magnetic fields, and why they manifest themselves in the shapes they manifest themselves at the locations they manifest themselves.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/04/2007 09:41:36 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
