|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 12:47:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
Wow. The only reference for this quote given by Google is 'ManInTheMirror' over on BAUT forums.
Well let's ask Michael about that, shall we?
Hey, Michael, are you 'ManInTheMirror' over at the BAUT forum?
And how do you explain Kosovichev's findings that there is movement of mass, at thousands of kilometers per hour, directly through a part of the Sun which you claim is solid? And why have you so far refused to apply the method given to you to determine some specific measurements of the topography of your allegedly solid surface? And what are the specific temperature characteristics of that allegedly solid surface? And why won't you tell us what sort of electrical current and resistance properties are required to produce the thermal characteristics we measure from the Sun? And what exactly was the material composition, in percentages please, of that supposedly solid surface again?
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 04/04/2007 : 12:56:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
And how do you explain Kosovichev's findings that there is movement of mass, at thousands of kilometers per hour, directly through a part of the Sun which you claim is solid?
Don't you remember? The flow of mass is magically transformed into a flow of electrons through the solid conductor. But Michael never could explain how such tremendous currents within a solid look exactly the same to the acoustics of helioseismology as mass flows within a much less-dense plasma. |
- 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 : 13:23:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not describing any explanation. Besides, haven't Nobel Prize winners been wrong?
Hasn't Dave ever been wrong? Hoy Vey. The guy personally wrote and developed MHD theory Dave. If you've got evidence he's wrong, I'm all ears. If you are simply smearing the science again like any good creationist, don't expect me to take you seriously.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/04/2007 13:25:07 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 13:27:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Don't you remember? The flow of mass is magically transformed into a flow of electrons through the solid conductor.
No Dave, the mass flow started as a direct result of those moving electrons. Once the get out of the surface they drive ion flow too.
quote:
But Michael never could explain how such tremendous currents within a solid look exactly the same to the acoustics of helioseismology as mass flows within a much less-dense plasma.
It doesn't look the same Dave and it doesn't look the same either. If it did, you wouldn't have that stratification subsurface turning the plasma flows at nearly right angles at .995R. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 13:33:18 [Permalink]
|
If it showed up the same Dave, you wouldn't see the mass flows from underneath flow outward from the column as it rises into the "stratification subsurface", and you wouldn't see the plasma take a 90 degree turn when it runs into the top of the stratifaction subsurface.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 13:39:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
OK, this is a start. So the image on the left is a black and white image of a Birkeland experiment. Of what, though?
Either way, you put it next to the image of the sun to show similarity, Right? But in fact beyond the obvious superficial similarity (e.g. they are both spheres), I don't see it.
quote:
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....
You're getting ahead of yourself. (It's a good thing you didn't go into academia; you'd lose your students by the end of your first lecture!) So you're saying that satellites launched in the 70's "verified this" but I'm not sure what they verified. The electrical nature of the aurora? Moreover, I'm confused as to bringing up x-rays. Why would people think or not think that the sun emits x-rays?
quote:
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.
And the x-rays are surprising or not? You make it sounds like it was, but why spend millions to make a satellite to look at x-rays if you don't expect them to be there?
And why the jump to coronal loops? What are they? Are they the things we see bursting out of the sun in the image above?
quote:
Birkeland and Alfven described high energy events like this as "discharges".
The loops as "discharges"? How to other people describe such events? It's still not clear what the thesis is? That the coronal loops-- the images bursting out of the sun in the image above-- are electrical (like lightening?) and not.... something else? |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 13:43:12 [Permalink]
|
How about it, Michael, are you and BAUT's 'ManInTheMirror' the same person?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
Don't you remember? The flow of mass is magically transformed into a flow of electrons through the solid conductor. But Michael never could explain how such tremendous currents within a solid look exactly the same to the acoustics of helioseismology as mass flows within a much less-dense plasma.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
It doesn't look the same Dave and it doesn't look the same either. If it did, you wouldn't have that stratification subsurface turning the plasma flows at nearly right angles at .995R.
So are you suggesting that where we see generally vertically oriented movement in the helioseismology graphs we're seeing mass moving, and where we see more or less horizontal movement, that would be electrons? And if so, how do you differentiate between the mass flow within plasma and the electron flow in a solid material? Please put your reply in scientific, quantitative form, Michael, so we can apply it in a repeatable way when analyzing other helioseismology data.
And why have you so far refused to apply the method given to you to determine some specific measurements of the topography of your allegedly solid surface? And what are the specific temperature characteristics of that allegedly solid surface? And why won't you tell us what sort of electrical current and resistance properties are required to produce the thermal characteristics we measure from the Sun? And what exactly was the material composition, in percentages please, of that supposedly solid surface again?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 14:06:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not describing any explanation. Besides, haven't Nobel Prize winners been wrong?
Hasn't Dave ever been wrong?
If you'd like to explain to me how I'm wrong about not describing any explanation, that'd be interesting.quote:
Hoy Vey. The guy personally wrote and developed MHD theory Dave.
Argument from authority. Not compelling. Linus Pauling was another Nobel Prize winner who moved on into stupidity. Of course, it's important to note that with your history, Michael, it's quite likely that the stuff Alfven wrote is correct, and it's simply that you, Michael, have failed to understand it. Like your complete misunderstanding of Kosovichev's work.quote:
If you've got evidence he's wrong, I'm all ears.
I asked you why you think he's correct. If all you've got is "he wrote the book," then it seems like the observations of magnetic reconnection after his death have proved you wrong.quote:
If you are simply smearing the science again like any good creationist, don't expect me to take you seriously.
You can't even explain the science for me to smear it, I've gotta go find this book and read it for myself, you said.
Next post:quote:
No Dave, the mass flow started as a direct result of those moving electrons. Once the get out of the surface they drive ion flow too.
No, Michael, the mass is clearly flowing down in the middle of a sunspot through what you call the "atmosphere" and keeps flowing down into the area you deem to be solid, and keeps flowing down for a ways after that, in at least one diagram.quote:
It doesn't look the same Dave and it doesn't look the same either. If it did, you wouldn't have that stratification subsurface turning the plasma flows at nearly right angles at .995R.
Kosovichev's only explanation is that it's plasmas flowing in there. You claim it's electrons within a solid conductor. So either Kosovichev is completely wrong, or you need to explain how to helioseismological analysis, a large current flow in a solid can look like a plasma flow to the experts (meaning they're just mistaken about what they see). After all, Kosovichev has stated, flat-out, that there is nothing solid within the Sun. He thinks your interpretation of his data set is utterly wrong, Michael. Why don't you explain why he's wrong, or why you're both correct if you switch underlying assumptions?
Next post:quote:
If it showed up the same Dave, you wouldn't see the mass flows from underneath flow outward from the column as it rises into the "stratification subsurface", and you wouldn't see the plasma take a 90 degree turn when it runs into the top of the stratifaction subsurface.
Yeah, thanks for reposting the diagrams that show what Kosovichev thinks is entirely plasmas flowing about, and which show something flowing down from the photosphere, into your allegedly solid layer, and continuing to flow down below it. Along with other stuff flowing upwards underneath your allegedly solid layer and right into it without much (if any) change in velocity. Besides, Kosovichev measured dozens of tiny density differences in the experiment from which you hijacked a couple of numbers for your allegedly solid layer's depth, but all you can do in the diagrams you posted is suggest the existence of a single one?
But, of course, this is all tangental to your point, but you do like zipping right off on any tangets that present themselves, rather than answering previously asked questions.
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?
- Weren't you banned on BAUT forums?
- Does Alfven explain why he thinks x-rays in a Skylab photo are "likely caused by "electrical discharges?"
- Why is it that magnetic field lines "cannot make and break connections?"
- Why don't you define "electrical current" for us?
- Hey, Michael, are you 'ManInTheMirror' over at the BAUT forum?
|
- 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 : 14:54:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
OK, this is a start. So the image on the left is a black and white image of a Birkeland experiment. Of what, though?
It's an image of a positively charged "teralla" (metal sphere in a vacuum) while his experiment is running. The other link I provided you includes a PDF file that explains that image and several others as well. Inside the sphere is a strong magnetic field. The sphere is being bombarded with electrons at that moment, and those loops you see are atmospheric discharges that tend to congregate at the "bumps" on the sphere, and tend to congregate near the equator when the magnetic field inside the sphere is turned up.
quote:
Either way, you put it next to the image of the sun to show similarity, Right? But in fact beyond the obvious superficial similarity (e.g. they are both spheres), I don't see it.
You don't see high energy loops coming off the outside surface in both images?
quote:
You're getting ahead of yourself. (It's a good thing you didn't go into academia; you'd lose your students by the end of your first lecture!)
If you were my student, you'd have been assigned some homework by now so that I would not have to explain it to your personally. :)
quote:
So you're saying that satellites launched in the 70's "verified this" but I'm not sure what they verified.
Sorry, I'm responding between tech calls and occasionally I miss a few things. :) The verified the current flow patterns that Birkeland created were as he described, and that these current flows generated the aurora in the atmosphere. There are images in that PDF file of the sphere when he charged it negatively rather than positively. In that scenario, the sphere created aurora at the poles. The earth side of this experiments were verified to work as he outlined.
quote:
The electrical nature of the aurora? Moreover, I'm confused as to bringing up x-rays. Why would people think or not think that the sun emits x-rays?
x-rays require a lot of energy. In fact the x-ray filters of Yohkoh required temperature in excess of 2 million degrees to emit those kinds of x-rays. The surface of the photosphere is only 5800K.
quote:
And the x-rays are surprising or not? You make it sounds like it was, but why spend millions to make a satellite to look at x-rays if you don't expect them to be there?
Some people did expect them to be there. If Bruce was right, the people that build that equipment *did* expect to see electrical activity and because of that activity they expected to see x-rays. As you said, someone must have expected to see them.
In fairness, even the standard model creates them, it just do so at the core. We wouldn't however expect to see those x-rays as they would be absorbed long before reaching the surface.
quote:
And why the jump to coronal loops? What are they? Are they the things we see bursting out of the sun in the image above?
Yes. They are the most brightly lit objects of both images.
quote:
The loops as "discharges"? How to other people describe such events?
Beats me. That has remained one of the great enigmas of standard theory. LMSAL and NASA have considered the idea of "magnetic reconnection", but the father of MHD theory claimed that wasn't possible.
quote:
It's still not clear what the thesis is? That the coronal loops-- the images bursting out of the sun in the image above-- are electrical (like lightening?) and not.... something else?
There is no "thesis" involved at this point. The part of this debate I've been fixated on is the activity in the solar atmosphere. That behavior is related to electrical discharges in plasma. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/04/2007 14:57:07 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 16:12:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
It's an image of a positively charged "teralla" (metal sphere in a vacuum) while his experiment is running. The other link I provided you includes a PDF file that explains that image and several others as well. Inside the sphere is a strong magnetic field. The sphere is being bombarded with electrons at that moment, and those loops you see are atmospheric discharges that tend to congregate at the "bumps" on the sphere, and tend to congregate near the equator when the magnetic field inside the sphere is turned up.
Actually, Cuneiformist, a little research into Kristian Birkeland's scientific career shows that Michael has some pretty extreme misunderstandings of Birkeland's terrella experiments. Even aside from those misunderstandings, obviously the photos in the pair he shows above have only the most superficial similarities. The photo of Birkeland's terrella (Latin for "little Earth", by the way) is visible light, of course. The Yohkoh image of solar activity shows x-ray emissions. The atmosphere of the terrella in the Birkeland experiment certainly wasn't plasma at millions of degrees. Unlike the Sun, any gravity generated by the terrella would surely be insignificant compared to the Earth's gravity affecting the experiment. Even the most rudimentary visual comparison shows glaring dissimilarities in the configuration of the "loops" in the photos.
Apparently Michael has cherry picked those images because he is desperate to support his unsupportable conjecture. But, if the simple comparison of those two quite different images above actually means what he thinks it does, then we would have to conclude that nearly everything we know about Saturn is wrong, too. After all...
Kristian Birkeland obviously thought Saturn was a large brass sphere with an electromagnet inside, and its rings were formed by it being bombarded with electrons. Here's a photo of that experiment...
Boy that Kristian Birkeland sure was a man ahead of his time, wasn't he? Hell, even to this very day we haven't discovered the true nature of Saturn's rings. Contemporary astronomers (not Michael Mozina of course) are foolish enough to believe the rings are made up of ice, dust, and rocks. Imagine that!
And if the minor similarities in the images in Michael's example really do scientifically support the notion that they're showing essentially the same thing, maybe he'd like to come over for supper. We're having mushroom soup. I made it with the mushrooms from the photos below. One of them is a picture of a species I happen to know for sure is edible and delicious. Oh, what? You wouldn't make scientific assumptions based on a few similarities between some photos? 
Come on, Michael, tell us. Aren't you the same person as 'ManInTheMirror' on the BAUT forums?
And how about these, Michael? Why do you refuse to apply the method offered to determine some fairly specific measurements of the topography of your allegedly solid surface? What are the specific temperature characteristics of that allegedly solid surface? Why won't you tell us what sort of electrical current and resistance properties are required to produce the thermal characteristics we measure from the Sun? What exactly is the material composition, in percentages please, of that supposedly solid surface?
Also, regarding your misunderstanding of Kosovichev's research: Are you suggesting that where we see generally vertically oriented movement in the helioseismology graphs we're seeing mass moving, and where we see more or less horizontal movement, that would be electrons? And if so, how do you differentiate between the mass flow within plasma and the electron flow in a solid material? Please put your reply in scientific, quantitative form, Michael, so we can apply it in a repeatable way when analyzing other helioseismology data.
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 04/04/2007 16:16:42 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 16:34:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Beats me. That has remained one of the great enigmas of standard theory. LMSAL and NASA have considered the idea of "magnetic reconnection", but the father of MHD theory claimed that wasn't possible.
Fathers aren't always right, I guess. I'm just trying to slog my way though an article by A. Retino, et al., "In situ Evidence of Magnetic Reconnection in Turbulent Plasma," in a recent volume of Nature Physics. The first sentence reads "magnetic reconnection is a universal process leading to energy conversion in plasmas." (There's even a book on it!) Maybe they're talking about something else, but it sounds like current science in this field may have advanced beyond the understanding of its father? |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 04/04/2007 16:35:10 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 16:48:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Fathers aren't always right, I guess.
Well, sure, but then sometimes they are. Keep in mind that Alfven worked with plasma in controlled laboratory conditions. He tested his math against the observations he made in the lab. It's not like he simply "guessed" at any of his theories.
quote:
I'm just trying to slog my way though an article by A. Retino, et al., "In situ Evidence of Magnetic Reconnection in Turbulent Plasma," in a recent volume of Nature Physics. The first sentence reads "magnetic reconnection is a universal process leading to energy conversion in plasmas." (There's even a book on it!) Maybe they're talking about something else, but it sounds like current science in this field may have advanced beyond the understanding of its father?
Show me even one single experiment where clear evidence of magnetic reconnection actually released energy and no electricity was involved. That "universal process" includes and *requires* (that the important part) electrical current.
If the field had moved beyond it's master, then they would be claiming those solar observations are "impossible". It is in fact impossible to explain them without electrical current, but then Alfven explained all that to them a long time ago.
Let me remind you again that while solid magnets generate magnetic fields because everything stays aligned in the magnet, plasma can't do that. Thin plasma like we find in the atmosphere of the sun *definitely* cannot do that. The only way to hold and preserve a magnetic field in that light plasma is to run current through it. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 17:01:00 [Permalink]
|
| So I guess you read the article and the book? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 17:01:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
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.
That goes for me too.
quote:
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.
Well, look at this way. I have explained what's driving those magnetic fields in plasma. From my perspective, you have not. A loop in my model can hold a strong magnetic field because of the electrons running through it, and because of the movement of the charges ions within the plasma columns. There is a kinetic and electrical component to every coronal loop, and every coronal loop can be millions of degrees and release energy *without* "reconnecting" with any other loops.
I'm still not sure how you are visualizing all this, and I don't know how to proceed without understanding you you view these events. Since even Cambridge seems to be stumped, I'm not sure how you personally view it all. I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I don't know that you agree with Dave about all these issues, therefore I have to ask you questions. I'm not really trying to be difficult, I just can't imagine what it is that you think sustains those strong magnetic fields in light plasma if not current?
quote:
Your goal is to never admit anything that would jeopardize your preconceived belief in the solid surface electric sun. So what is the point?
Believe it or not, it is actually conceivable to me that I could be mistaken about the solid nature of that layer at .995. In other words, I can even accept that it could be a very heavy plasma layer, but it's behaviors (like those sunquakes) make that seem unlikely to me at this point. It is not conceivable to me that I am mistaken about the nature of those coronal loops. The electric solar model is correct, even if there is no solid surface. Of that I am quite certain at this point.
My point is there there is no one to one relationship between a sunspot and a coronal loop. Loops can exist in the absence of a sunspot. While your sunspot activity provides some kinetic energy, it's minimal, and not every loops is near a sunspot. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 17:16:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
So I guess you read the article and the book?
No, but I'll at least read the article when I get time. I looked at the first page of the book and I must say I'm dismayed. The author talks about the fact the there is no doubt that reconnection happens only "how" it happens. That is essentially correct, but the examples he uses are great examples of where *electrical current* is used to create z-pinches in plasma and they electrically interact. These are certainly *not* magnetic reconnection events at all. They are electrical z-pinches or Bennett pinches. They *require* current flow.
Show me an example of "reconnection" in plasma using fixed magnets and no electricity. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/04/2007 17:17:07 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
