|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/04/2007 : 09:54:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
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.
You are missing the point. It's not that I win by default, nor am I suggesting anything of the sort. All I am asking you to do is use your logic, and your intelligence and look at the problem scientifically.
Magnetic fields are caused by only one thing in plasma, namely current flow. Unlike a solid, the light plasmas of the corona and upper solar atmosphere are highly active. The molecules move around freely. It is therefore impossible to have a "fixed" magnet in that kind of light plasma.
The only thing that could create those powerful magnetic fields in light plasma are *powerful* electrical currents. That is the only way you will ever heat light plasma sitting above a 6000K photosphere to millions of degrees.
Skepticism can be a good thing, but I've seen creationist abuse it too. It's easy to simply dismiss ideas, it's another thing entirely to come up with alternatives that are "better". Before you dismiss these ideas, you should at least note the fact that they:
A) Birkeland simulated them 100 years ago
B) They work.
C) There aren't a lot of alternatives to choose from.
I'm not suggesting that I am right by default, I'm simply suggesting that I'm right, and these ideas have been tested. If you have other ideas, I am willing to hear them. It is possible that there is another alternative. Right now however, NASA doesn't have one. Cambridge doesn't have one, JPL doesn't have one, and LMSAL doesn't have one. If you do, great. If you don't, don't feel bad. All I'm saying is that these ideas work and they've been lab tested. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 10:06:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You want "a mature scientifically oriented discussion?" Then cough up a proper reference for your claim.[quote]
Let's stop going off on tangents then and let me quote the single most relevant quote from the book I suggested:
[quote]Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of 'magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).
Page 33, Chapter 2
According the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory, the "explanation" that you guys are describing is impossible. In fact in every field equation related to magnetic fields, the fields are always presented as a "continuum". These field lines cannot make and break connections. Alfven spends the first two chapters of his book explaining this in great detail, and does more it throughout the book.
FYI, he also has an x-ray image from Skylab on page 17 and he explains these x-rays are likely caused by electrical discharges. In the book he explains the math behind a host of plasma phenomenon for you Dave. You can use those formulas to simulate things to your hearts content. Some of his students have already done that, and they have created computer simulations that look very similar to what we find in space.
You won't know any of it however if you sit there and go off on a million tangents and look for any old excuse to not educate yourself.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/04/2007 10:09:28 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 10:07:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You are missing the point. It's not that I win by default, nor am I suggesting anything of the sort. All I am asking you to do is use your logic, and your intelligence and look at the problem scientifically.
Magnetic fields are caused by only one thing in plasma, namely current flow. Unlike a solid, the light plasmas of the corona and upper solar atmosphere are highly active. The molecules move around freely. It is therefore impossible to have a "fixed" magnet in that kind of light plasma.
No, Michael, you're missing MY point. Just now, you've said "magnetic fields are caused by only one thing in plasma, namely current flow." Is this the case? I have no idea. So right here, at the first part of this argument, I'm lost. I'll do som looking into it, though it's hard since I don't really know where to look.
quote:
The only thing that could create those powerful magnetic fields in light plasma are *powerful* electrical currents. That is the only way you will ever heat light plasma sitting above a 6000K photosphere to millions of degrees.
Light plasma? As opposed to heavy plasma? Again, I'm already again searching for definitions and information.
And on it goes, including your assertions that no one has "explained" whatever it is you want explained. 'More later,' as they say... |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 10:18:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
No, Michael, you're missing MY point. Just now, you've said "magnetic fields are caused by only one thing in plasma, namely current flow." Is this the case? I have no idea. So right here, at the first part of this argument, I'm lost. I'll do som looking into it, though it's hard since I don't really know where to look.
Alfven's work is the best place to start IMO. He literally wrote the (math) book on plasma physics.
quote:
Light plasma? As opposed to heavy plasma? Again, I'm already again searching for definitions and information.
You'll find that Alfven wrote early equations related to magnetic waves in *heavy* plasma. Heavy (dense and non-moving) plasma has different characteristics than light plasma particularly as it relates to magnetic waves and electrical current flow. As it relates to heating *any* plasma to millions of degrees, there are really only a few rational choices. Fusion, fission and electricity are the obvious three. In theory at least, fusion could occur in *dense* plasma like we might find at the core of the sun without the need for current flow. That is because great pressure creates a lot of heat.
If we were talking about heavy elements, then fission might also play a role, even without electrical current.
In the solar atmosphere however, those types of conditions do not exist. There is primarily only light hydrogen and helium to work with in the upper solar atmosphere, and there isn't enough pressure to create million degree plasma in the solar atmosphere.
The only thing that could possibly do that in those conditions is electrical current. Period. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/04/2007 10:19:06 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 10:32:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You'll find that Alfven wrote early equations related to magnetic waves in *heavy* plasma. Heavy (dense and non-moving) plasma has different characteristics than light plasma particularly as it relates to magnetic waves and electrical current flow. As it relates to heating *any* plasma to millions of degrees, there are really only a few rational choices. Fusion, fission and electricity are the obvious three. In theory at least, fusion could occur in *dense* plasma like we might find at the core of the sun without the need for current flow. That is because great pressure creates a lot of heat.
If we were talking about heavy elements, then fission might also play a role, even without electrical current.
In the solar atmosphere however, those types of conditions do not exist. There is primarily only light hydrogen and helium to work with in the upper solar atmosphere, and there isn't enough pressure to create million degree plasma in the solar atmosphere.
The only thing that could possibly do that in those conditions is electrical current. Period.
Ok, so what exactly is the argument you're trying to make. I can't seem to put my finger on it and I'd like to start at the beginning. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 10:49:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Ok, so what exactly is the argument you're trying to make. I can't seem to put my finger on it and I'd like to start at the beginning.
You might find it advantageous to start with my last post.
There are not a lot of forces of nature that we are aware of that can generate million degree temperatures in plasma. Fusion and fission are pretty much out of the question in the environments we've got to work with here.
We need look no further than an electrical discharge in earth's atmosphere to see the third option in action. That one would work in the solar atmosphere too.
Fusion could actually be triggered by electrical discharges, but hydrogen fusion cannot be the "cause" by itself since we first need about 10 million degrees before that can begin to occur and/or we need pressures that rival what we create when we create fusion on earth.
Fission is ultimately not an option in anyone's model in the solar atmosphere.
We don't have a lot of choices frankly. Alfven accurately predicted that NASA's theories were going to fail. He even explained why they would fail.
At this point in the process, I see no logical alternatives. We can all sit around and debate the finer points of skepticism, but at this stage of the game, science is pointing us in a very clear direction IMO. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/04/2007 10:51:50 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 10:54:22 [Permalink]
|
So, Michael, what's the cause of the electrical current in your model? It sounds like you're suggesting current just flows into the sun from some undefined external source.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 10:55:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Ok, so what exactly is the argument you're trying to make. I can't seem to put my finger on it and I'd like to start at the beginning.
You might find it advantageous to start with my last post.
There are not a lot of forces of nature that we are aware of that can generate million degree temperatures in plasma. Fusion and fission are pretty much out of the question in the environments we've got to work with here.
We need look no further than an electrical discharge in earth's atmosphere to see the third option in action. That one would work in the solar atmosphere too.
Fusion could actually be triggered by electrical discharges, but hydrogen fusion cannot be the "cause" by itself since we first need about 10 million degrees before that can begin to occur and/or we need pressures that rival what we create when we create fusion on earth.
Fission is ultimately not an option in anyone's model in the solar atmosphere.
We don't have a lot of choices frankly. Alfven accurately predicted that NASA's theories were going to fail. He even explained why they would fail.
At this point in the process, I see no logical alternatives. We can all sit around and debate the finer points of skepticism, but at this stage of the game, science is pointing us in a very clear direction IMO.
Ugh. No, the beginning. Why are we even talking about millions of degrees and plasma. I told you before, when you show your little pictures and challenge anyone to "explain" some image, I don't even know what it is you want explained. What do you want explained? Why are we talking about millions of degrees and plasma? The beginning. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 11:01:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
So, Michael, what's the cause of the electrical current in your model? It sounds like you're suggesting current just flows into the sun from some undefined external source.
That is exactly correct. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 11:07:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
So, Michael, what's the cause of the electrical current in your model? It sounds like you're suggesting current just flows into the sun from some undefined external source.
That is exactly correct.
So you have no explanation either, accept to suggest that the very huge, high-energy current which drives your entire model originates elsewhere.
I think I've got it now.
|
"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 04/04/2007 11:07:33 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 11:28:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Let's stop going off on tangents then and let me quote the single most relevant quote from the book I suggested:
Finally!quote:
Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of 'magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).
Page 33, Chapter 2
I'll look that up. In the meantime, I've just learned that magnetic reconnection has been observed in Earth's magnetosheath. But I'm pretty sure that you knew that already, because 'ManInTheMirror' over on BAUT Forums sounds exactly like you, Michael. Even quoted the exact same passage from the same book just days ago. But weren't you banned over there?quote:
According the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory, the "explanation" that you guys are describing is impossible.
I'm not describing any explanation. Besides, haven't Nobel Prize winners been wrong?quote:
In fact in every field equation related to magnetic fields, the fields are always presented as a "continuum". These field lines cannot make and break connections.
Why not? Electrical fields are continua, also, yet they "make and break connections."quote:
Alfven spends the first two chapters of his book explaining this in great detail, and does more it throughout the book.
'ManInTheMirror' harps on the first two chapters of Alfven's book, too.quote:
FYI, he also has an x-ray image from Skylab on page 17 and he explains these x-rays are likely caused by electrical discharges.
Does he explain why?quote:
In the book he explains the math behind a host of plasma phenomenon for you Dave. You can use those formulas to simulate things to your hearts content. Some of his students have already done that, and they have created computer simulations that look very similar to what we find in space.
We're not talking about space, we're talking about the Sun's corona.quote:
You won't know any of it however if you sit there and go off on a million tangents and look for any old excuse to not educate yourself.
More silly ad hominems.
Another post:quote:
The only thing that could possibly do that in those conditions is electrical current. Period.
Why don't you defined "electrical current" for us, Michael?
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."
- 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?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 12:00:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the meantime, I've just learned that magnetic reconnection has been observed in Earth's magnetosheath.
I pointed this out, as well as experimetnal evidence to Michael a while back, Dave. For some reason he chose not to comment on it.
quote:
quote:
Alfven flatly rejected magnetic reconnection in any form.
Well gee, Alfven was wrong, as shown here and here. But take heart Einstein flatly rejected quantum mechanics.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 12:09:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
Apology accepted.
I also regret and apologize for my tirade. I have confessed the transgression and atoned for my sin.
However, I just don't have the energy level you have for this. I will say the magnetic field is most likely from plasma flowing and you will say why is it flowing and I will say because the sun is rotating and you will say why does that cause the plasma to flow and round and round and round.
Your goal is to never admit anything that would jeopardize your preconceived belief in the solid surface electric sun. So what is the point?
None that I can detect. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 04/04/2007 12:13:58 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 12:13:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Ugh. No, the beginning. Why are we even talking about millions of degrees and plasma. I told you before, when you show your little pictures and challenge anyone to "explain" some image, I don't even know what it is you want explained. What do you want explained? Why are we talking about millions of degrees and plasma? The beginning.
IMO, the real "beginning" of electrical solar theory, and plasma cosmology began with Kristian Birkeland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Birkeland
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/
Birkeland was fascinated by the northern Aurora. He after traveling around the northern polar regions with the best scientific equipment of the time, he became convinced of the electrical nature of Aurora.
He sat down and created a whole laboratory devoted to studying the effect. He took images of his experiments like the black and white image next to the Yohkoh view of the sun.
In the 70's some folks built and launched satellites that verified this. They also built x-ray satellites to look at the sun. According to Bruce the whole reason for doing this was a suspicion that there might be electrically related discharges, but I honest haven't checked to see if that was the real reason. It makes sense that might have been the reason they built it especially since a 6000 degree surface made of mostly hydrogen and helium shouldn't generate a lot x-rays. Anyway....
What they discovered were x-rays. The folks at NASA and LMSAL then built better equipment to study the sun and created all sorts of filters that are designed to see plasmas at different temperatures. Using these filters the determined that the coronal loops reach temperatures of millions of degrees.
Birkeland and Alfven described high energy events like this as "discharges".
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 12:24:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of 'magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).
Page 33, Chapter 2
Wow. The only reference for this quote given by Google is 'ManInTheMirror' over on BAUT forums. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
