|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/28/2007 : 23:07:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Actually, it ivery much is for you to worry about. Unless of course what you're doing is entirely a hobby, for your own amusement. If you do posit that you're actually doing some science, then dealing with opposition, in a scientific manner, goes with the turf.
Your point is noted John, but this doesn't really seem to be a matter of scientific debate at this point, because the alternative that LMSAL and NASA have entertained over the last few years evidently isn't panning out.
Now if the mainstream theory leads to "impossibilities", I really don't understand what there is really left to discuss from a scientific perspective. It seems to me that if the current theories fail, and Bruce's methods do not fail, then there isn't much of a scientific debate.
At this point, it seems more like a matter of either accepting the obvious role of electrical current in solar atmospheric activity, or not. I can't make people see what is staring them in the face. Those million degree coronal loops stick out like a gigantic electrical sore thumb. The reason the magnetic loops come crashing to the surface is not that mysterious. Once the currents stop flowing, the loop has nowhere to go but down.
Bruce would not have found these Hinode observations to be "impossible", he would have recognized the significant role of electricity, in fact he already did recognize the role of electricity in these events, as did Alfven. I'm sure even Birkeland would have quickly recognized what he saw in Hinode images from his own lab simulations from 100 years ago if he had seen the satellite imagery.
Birkeland easily could have explained these observations and shown you how they tied back to his lab experiments, but unfortunately he was 100 years ahead of his time. He certainly recognized the role of electrical current in solar activity, and he even commented on it in his books that he wrote over 100 years ago. I can't make you believe Birkeland, or Bruce, or Alfven, or me. You'll have to convince yourself of the electrical nature of these loops, just like I had to convince myself a few years ago. That is a step you have to take on your own, and of your own volition.
quote:
Science may have got it wrong. If so, someone has to provide the evidence as to why this is so and persist until scientists get it.
What will make them "get it", if Alfven, even with all his math and his Nobel prize, could not make them "get it"?
quote:
Scientists are human too, and will resist change to some degree, sure, but if you've got evidence, and a little tenacity, you will convince people.
Tenacity isn't much a of problem for me. Convincing people however takes time and effort. Nobody changes mainstream thinking in a day, or week or a month. In most cases it takes years to convince the mainstream of "breakthrough" discoveries. Fortunately this year should be the year that electrical activity is finally recognized as a major force in solar atmospheric activity. It's a baby step, but it's a critical one from my perspective.
quote:
Many scientists would scramble to be at the cutting edge of something as revolutionary as you're proposing.
A few have scrambled to help me get my observations published, and to help me persuade others along the way. Some of them have emailed me with questions and helpful suggestions. This will still be a very long, and uphill process.
If you really want to know what I think the main problem is, I think it comes back to fear and funding. Everyone has "assumed" that we already understand the energy source of our own sun. Everyone has "assumed" that hydrogen fusion is that energy source. That has allowed us to calculate how long we think our sun will last, and it has allowed us to believe we understand how other suns within our universe operate. That gives us a sense of security and comfort.
An electrical solar model however requires no internal energy source at all. If the sun is electrical in nature, and it is "powered" by the currents of the universe, then all our solar concepts are useless, and everything we thought we understood about our universe goes out the window. How long does an iron sun last in an electric universe? Who can answer that question?
A mindset change to electric universe theory/plasma cosmology requires a huge change in personal thinking. It requires accepting the loss of ones comfort level about what we thought we knew about the universe. Most significantly of all as it relates to people's livelihood, it requires a huge change in funding requirements for the future. If you've been a gas model theoriest your whole career, then what? EU theory is just plain "scary" on lots of levels.
On the other hand, I'm an eternal optimist. I do have faith that science and scientific progress will prevail. I'm just waiting around at the moment for others to catch on to the electrical nature of coronal loops so that we can discuss how that current is generated, and how it relates to other parts of my theories. I am quite pleased with the few Hinode images that have been released to date, and I'm very excited about having full access to the Hinode database, but that won't happen for a couple of months yet.
I'm quite optimistic from what I've seen thus far. I believe that this year at least a few "mainstream" astronomers will begin to recognize the role of electrical current in heating the corona, and will begin to recognize the role of electricity in coronal loop activity. They may be Japanese astronomers mind you. That change of thinking will allow for a wealth of other conversations to begin in earnest. I'm looking forward to that day. Right now, I'm playing around with STEREO images and thinking about my next blog entry. It will definitely be on the topic of Hinode images, and the electrical nature of coronal loops.
Of all the people I've met online John, you've been one of the more "reasonable" skeptics. You tell me what it's going to take to convince you of this part of my theories, and I'll see what I can do for you. Keep in mind that current mainstream theory isn't faring well at the moment, but Birkeland's lab images sure look promising. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 23:11:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Aye, there's the rub. Michael has tenacity indeed, more than a little, but no evidence.
And the rub with GeeMack is that he's great at slinging mud, but when it comes to offering scientific alternatives, he runs for cover. Where's you courage Geemack? What alternative would you suggest is superior to Bruce's suggestions?
You're all talk and no action; all mud, and no substance. Put up or shut up Geemack. What's the logical alternative if the current theories fail? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 23:22:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael you are correct in saying that the current theories of the sun do not answer all of the obeservations. However that does not mean any half baked hypothesis is as good.
But these are not "half baked" hypotheses. Birkeland built sumulations and models using these theories. He has already shown that they work in the lab. Bruce documented the correlation between solar atmospheric activity and elecrical discharges over 50 years ago. Alfven did all the math, and you know he good at math because he invented MHD theory, and it's all about math. They even recognized his math skills and handed him a Nobel prize. There no want for math. There is nothing "half baked" about any of this. We can even see these ideas work beautifully to describe solar atmospheric activity.
quote:
I'm sorry but you do need math to support your hypothesis, hand waving is not enough.
Alfven already provided a whole slew of math formulas to look at and consider. No handwaving is necessary.
quote:
Stating that lightning is millions of degrees therefore lightning or sparks or arcs must be responsible for the temperature of the corona ain't going to make it.
Why not? Even if that's all we knew, that would be something. Fortunately if you need math, then you have Alfven. Don't take my word for it, read some of it.
quote:
If you stand back and look at your model it looks like this:
The sun is a big steel alloy shell with a neutron star in the center and it has big sparks shooting off the surface.
Why is your hypothesis not taken seriously - how can you even ask the question??
If you'd studied any of Birkeland's work, you'd know that he had a strong magnetic field inside a metal sphere, and had big sparks shooting off the surface too. You seem to be trying to ignore the fact that there are sparks that are observed shooting off the surface of the sun!
We've already covered the fact that electrical discharges here on earth emit x-rays and gamma rays. We've already discussed the fact that electricity has been used to heat plasma to billions(US) of degrees Kelvin in controlled laboratory tests.
What's it going to take Furshur if Alven's math won't make you change your mind, and Bruce's work won't change your mind, and Birkeland's work won't even make you curious? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/28/2007 23:29:17 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 23:28:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
How could you know, since you are admittedly ignorant about why they weren't lauded the first time around?
I know what I've experienced for the last couple of years.
quote:
Or do you honestly expect reasonable people to accept that comologists simply have it out for electricity for reasons you cannot begin to fathom?
Oh, I can "fathom" what the motive might be, starting with those I listed for John in a previous post.
quote:
And how do you plan to overcome the same criticisms Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven faced when you don't even know what those criticisms are?
It doesn't matter what they were at this point because new technology is changing the nature of the game. Much of Birkeland's work is already accepted by the mainstream. Birkeland currents are already an accepted part of astronomy.
quote:
Or are you honestly suggesting that such previous problems don't matter to your theory?
It doesn't matter why Chapman didn't accept Birkeland's ideas. They've been shown to be true, or many of them at least. I don't have to fight that battle. I only have to fight *my* battles.
quote:
If so, then you should really stop claiming to be continuing Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven's work.
I am continuing their work. In fact it would be down right egotistical (and stupid) of me to try to take credit for these ideas or for me to not acknowledge their previous work on plasma cosmology theory, and electric universe theory.
Frankly I think Birkeland had all these things figured out 100 year ago. We're all playing catch up. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 23:39:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
And this is a page which explains, (listen up, Michael, this'll kill ya) in scientific terms, from a scientific perspective, including relevant mathematical support, descriptions of related physics, and links to additional resources, that plasma cosmology and the electric Sun "theory" are bullshit. 
That was an excellent link for people like me who never saw the start of this unending saga and would like some idea of what this electric sun hyponthesis is about - as well as why it doesn't make sense. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
| Edited by - Ghost_Skeptic on 03/29/2007 06:36:34 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 13:48:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
Believing in something in the absence of evidence is faith. Believing in something in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is stupidity.
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
Well, now that we know that the old theories failed, wouldn't it be just plain stupid to head down that same path in the future?
It seems to me that I can only lead you to the electricity..... |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2007 14:49:28 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 14:30:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Your point is noted John, but this doesn't really seem to be a matter of scientific debate at this point, because the alternative that LMSAL and NASA have entertained over the last few years evidently isn't panning out.
How is the proton-proton chain not panning out. The amount of energy released in a proton losing enough mass (creating a neutrino) to be a neutron is considerable when the total mass of the sun is taken into account that and the loss of an electron (I think that's right). Additionally, the compression of the mass in the sun contributes to the rise in temperature at the core.
quote:
Now if the mainstream theory leads to "impossibilities", I really don't understand what there is really left to discuss from a scientific perspective. It seems to me that if the current theories fail, and Bruce's methods do not fail, then there isn't much of a scientific debate.
If Bruce's methods are falsifiable (check Popper for a definition of that point on scientific hypothesis' please) and still explain the accumulated data, provide predictions as to the sun behavior (for lack of a better term), and withstand critical scrutiny, then obviously there might be some merit to the idea. However, if I understand correctly what I have read on the electric sun hypothesis, then at least one author on the hypothesis is deliberately misleading people with regard to the neutrino. The neutrino is an object so small that it can potentially pass through lead with a thickness of approximately one mile and not interact with the atoms of that lead. A neutrino is neutral and has no charge as a particle. However, I would like to point out that when 1987A occurred a neutrino was captured in Italy. This finding was published in 1987 or 1988 following peer review. It was during this study that it was shown the neutrino does have mass.
quote:
At this point, it seems more like a matter of either accepting the obvious role of electrical current in solar atmospheric activity, or not. I can't make people see what is staring them in the face. Those million degree coronal loops stick out like a gigantic electrical sore thumb. The reason the magnetic loops come crashing to the surface is not that mysterious. Once the currents stop flowing, the loop has nowhere to go but down.
Accepting the obvious? How is this obvious? Can you show where this has been published in a peer reviewed journal. If the science of this hypothesis has any merit, the paper should have been published, despite the predominating paradigm. Magnetism does, if I recall my basic science course on the physics of the sun, have some bearing on the coronal loops. This is caused by the various layers of the sun rotating around the core of the sun at differing rates. It also has to do with temperature differentials as well. (Again this is provided that I remember my basic science course well enough.)
quote:
Bruce would not have found these Hinode observations to be "impossible", he would have recognized the significant role of electricity, in fact he already did recognize the role of electricity in these events, as did Alfven. I'm sure even Birkeland would have quickly recognized what he saw in Hinode images from his own lab simulations from 100 years ago if he had seen the satellite imagery.
|
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 14:59:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
How is the proton-proton chain not panning out.
You are confusing fusion with "magnetic reconnection". Their theories about the heat source of the corona are not panning out.
quote:
The amount of energy released in a proton losing enough mass (creating a neutrino) to be a neutron is considerable when the total mass of the sun is taken into account that and the loss of an electron (I think that's right). Additionally, the compression of the mass in the sun contributes to the rise in temperature at the core.
We're talking about the rise in the temperature of coronal loops and plasma in the solar atmosphere, not the core. We can't see the core but we can observe what goes on in the solar atmosphere.
quote:
If Bruce's methods are falsifiable (check Popper for a definition of that point on scientific hypothesis' please) and still explain the accumulated data, provide predictions as to the sun behavior (for lack of a better term), and withstand critical scrutiny, then obviously there might be some merit to the idea. However, if I understand correctly what I have read on the electric sun hypothesis, then at least one author on the hypothesis is deliberately misleading people with regard to the neutrino. The neutrino is an object so small that it can potentially pass through lead with a thickness of approximately one mile and not interact with the atoms of that lead. A neutrino is neutral and has no charge as a particle. However, I would like to point out that when 1987A occurred a neutrino was captured in Italy. This finding was published in 1987 or 1988 following peer review. It was during this study that it was shown the neutrino does have mass.
Ok. Then again, the Hinode images really don't have a lot to do with neutrinos. Neutrinos may be emitted by some of these reactions, but we do not yet have the resolution to demonstrate that yet. That would however be one "prediction" I would willing make. The electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere should also release x-rays and gamma rays just like the do here on earth. That "prediction" has already been demonstrated by the way.
quote:
Accepting the obvious? How is this obvious?
It's obvious because there aren't many options to explain these events in the solar atmosphere. Got any alternatives?
quote:
Can you show where this has been published in a peer reviewed journal.
Besides of of Alfven's work you mean?
I'll try to get to the rest of you post in a bit, but I'd love to hear your alternative on what you think generates those million degree coronal loops, and why the experts are claiming the Hinode observations to be "impossible"?
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 15:10:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
And this is a page which explains, (listen up, Michael, this'll kill ya) in scientific terms, from a scientific perspective, including relevant mathematical support, descriptions of related physics, and links to additional resources, that plasma cosmology and the electric Sun "theory" are bullshit.
From the article:
quote:
One of the things that any critic of any idea has to understand, is the difference between a problem that is catastrophic to the idea, and one that is not.
Do you think Michael, with his constant harping on the one instance a solar scientist uttered the word "impossible," is able to tell the difference? No, he cannot.
He also still, despite innumerable attempts to disabuse him of the idea, continues to assert that if the current solar theory is inadequate, his impressions (too ill-formulated to be considered a true theory) must win by default.
He thinks that simply calling something "obviously electricity" he's done better than scientists can manage, despite the fact that if scientists worked to his standards, they wouldn't have any trouble simply hand-waving away images as "obviously X." But because scientists seek to fully understand a given phenomenon, they get excited about unknowns. Michael takes that as an admission of failure, then proceeds to claim victory without providing any details as to how his theory might actually work in practice. Press him for details and he'll only whine that his theory hasn't had enough time to maturate.
Michael, for reasons we can only speculate about, cannot think clearly about this issue. His thought process is broken. He cannot see the errors of this thinking. It's a blind spot for him, and it's a waste of time to expect him to act reasonably. He is literally incapable of it.
To sum up, Michael's broken thought process runs thusly:
1) Current solar theories are inadequate to the point of total uselessness. [status: untrue]
2) Some people in the past did experiments with metal balls and electricity. [status: true]
3) Electricity is the best explanation for currently poorly understood phenomena on the sun. [status: currently unknown, although Michael has convinced himself that it is true (obviously so) based on the flimsiest of evidence]
|
"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 03/29/2007 15:17:55 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 15:13:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'll try to get to the rest of you post in a bit, but I'd love to hear your alternative on what you think generates those million degree coronal loops, and why the experts are claiming the Hinode observations to be "impossible"?
Again, it was perhaps unexpected. That doesn't mean impossible. It was perhaps an exclamation in reaction to something that went counter to their understanding of what they thought they should see. I can't tell you exactly why, but if something were radically different from what I expected I might utter such an exclamation, and carry it through until I can find data that supports the actual findings. It still doesn't call for a wholesale slaughter of the existing paradigm, it does however, call for closer scrutiny and an eventual shift in the model, when the phenomenon is understood.
quote:
Then again, the Hinode images really don't have a lot to do with neutrinos. Neutrinos may be emitted by some of these reactions, but we do not yet have the resolution to demonstrate that yet.
And yet one of the references I found denies the existence of the neutrino. Even following the discoveries based on 1987A.
quote:
It's obvious because there aren't many options to explain these events in the solar atmosphere. Got any alternatives?
Um, no it's not obvious. Your model requires the dismissal of all things currently understood. Again, I ask you to explain spectral lines in the confines of your model.
quote:
We're talking about the rise in the temperature of coronal loops and plasma in the solar atmosphere, not the core. We can't see the core but we can observe what goes on in the solar atmosphere.
Coronal explosions/loops are generated at the core, working their way to the surface. These differ from sunspots, sunspots are cool areas on the surface of the sun. The Coronal explosions are generated by the magnetic currents and rise to the surface of the sun at a different rate and therefore maintain a higher temperature. (Again, this is provided I remember correctly.)
The pictures I was thinking of were models based on our understanding of the wave-particle duality. So I will have to withdraw my statement regarding that particular concept. Mea culpa.
|
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 15:36:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, the observations aren't impossible if they were made. They may have been unexpected, the current model of the sun may be incomplete. It does not necessarily follow that the current model of the sun needs to be completely tossed out, just fine tuned again.
Well, IMO the whole concept is pitifully flawed, but your point is in fact valid in this instance. This is really a debate about what causes the emissions we see in the upper solar atmosphere. We can and probably should try to limit our conversation to that aspect of this debate. Like I said earlier, it's not even a requirement that there be an "iron sun" for electrical current to play a role in solar activities.
quote:
We now have more information, this surely has to be an exciting time to be a solar physicist. Wish I had the smarts to get along with the mathematics for this kind of work.
I agree, these are exciting times, particularly now with Hinode and STEREO images starting to come online.
quote:
Um, 100 years ago we did not have near the understanding of science that we do now.
Well sort of. I think Birkeland understood a whole lot more about astronomy than most astronomers of today. The technology has improved perhaps, but I'm not sure our scientific "understandings" related to astronomy have any merit at all. Birkeland created a working solar model. We've never even done that for standard theory.
quote:
In that time our instruments have become more advanced, capable of finer readings than those that existed at the beginning of last century. How, though I would ask, would an electric sun hypothesis explain the spectral analysis of distant stars and even our own sun, that so helped us determine the exact elements of which our sun is comprised.
I would obviously explain it differently than standard theory.
quote:
An iron sun would not, I would think, be able to reproduce these spectral lines.
Sure it would as long as the plasma atmosphere is mass separated into various plasma layers with the lightest outer layers being composed of hydrogen and helium.
quote:
Was Alfven writing in his own field of expertise, or was he bleeding over into an area of science of which he might have held some ignorance?
You tell me. It seems to me his theories hold up just fine, while contemporary theorists are having a tough time with the newest observations from Hinode.
quote:
Anytime you deal with forces of magnetism, atoms, etc, you have to consider some electrical activity, however, that does not indicate that everything is based on electricity.
Ya, but we have many examples every day of electrical discharges on earth. Why wouldn't |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2007 15:37:22 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 15:48:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Well, now that we know that the old theories failed, wouldn't it be just plain stupid to head down that same path in the future?
Of course the old theories haven't failed. As with any scientific discipline as complex as solar physics, there will be new information available from time to time. That new information will require the current theories get tweaked and updated. That's simply how science works. The current scientific consensus regarding solar theory is very well supported and is certainly in no danger of being cast aside for any alternative.
What would be stupid, of course, would be to chuck essentially the entirety of the current, generally well evidenced body of solar science, and start pursuing some hairbrained notion which is supported almost exclusively by some crackpot's radical misunderstanding of what he's seeing in some satellite images.
So, Michael, how about you finally let us in on how many professional astrophysicists are actually in agreement with your wild fantasy about the composition and behavior of the Sun. Let us know who they are, too, if you would, so we can study some of their material. You see, even if there's a shred of truth to your conjecture, apparently you are wholly incapable of explaining it in a compelling, understandable way.
(Of course I predict that Michael will not respond in any helpful way to the above request. He'll whine and complain, dodge and weave a little. He'll throw a jab or two at me for even making the request. But he absolutely will not address the issue by letting us in on how many professional astrophysicists are with him in his quest and who they might be. Any bets? )
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 17:07:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Do you think Michael, with his constant harping on the one instance a solar scientist uttered the word "impossible," is able to tell the difference? No, he cannot.
Sure I can. They never had any "real" explanation for coronal activity in the first place and the Hinode images definitely doesn't jive with their model. It will never jive with their model until their model includes the electrical currents that make it all work.
quote:
He also still, despite innumerable attempts to disabuse him of the idea, continues to assert that if the current solar theory is inadequate, his impressions (too ill-formulated to be considered a true theory) must win by default.
But in this case, I've specifically focused on *one* (singular) aspect of both theories and I've shown how one is superior to another. That's really all anyone can ever do. This specific debate comes back to the role of electrical current in astronomy. As long as the mainstream refuses to acknowledge the role of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, they will never understand how our sun works. Period, end of story. Electricity is known to exist. It is known to cause the emission of x-rays and gamma rays, and has created temperatures in plasma up to billions(US) degrees Kelvin. Nobody in their right mind can *exclude* electrical discharges as the cause, and the only reason you refuse to accept it as a possibility is the fact you heard it from me.
quote:
He thinks that simply calling something "obviously electricity" he's done better than scientists can manage, despite the fact that if scientists worked to his standards, they wouldn't have any trouble simply hand-waving away images as "obviously X."
But that is not what I did. I showed you real scientific tests done 100 years ago that confirm the model works as expected. I showed you Alfven's work where he layed out all the math. I showed you Bruce's work where the made the real life connections between solar activity and electrical discharge theory. I've handed you the satellite images that show where Birkeland's work jives with satellite images. No single individual could begin to do all of that, and yet that is all done now. You can claim it's all "handwaving" if you like, but it won't make Alven's math go away, or Bruce's papers go away. It certainly won't make Birkeland's work go away. This issue has nothing to do with any single individual.
quote:
But because scientists seek to fully understand a given phenomenon, they get excited about unknowns. Michael takes that as an admission of failure, then proceeds to claim victory without providing any details as to how his theory might actually work in practice. Press him for details and he'll only whine that his theory hasn't had enough time to maturate.
I've shown you Bruce's work. I've shown you Alfven's work. I've shown you Birkeland's work. I've shown you satellite images galore. What do want me to do?
quote:
Michael, for reasons we can only speculate about, cannot think clearly about this issue. His thought process is broken. He cannot see the errors of this thinking. It's a blind spot for him, and it's a waste of time to expect him to act reasonably. He is literally incapable of it.
That feeling is mutual. You seem incapable of even accepting the concept that I might be right about the atmospheric discharges. You are not acting reasonably. You are acting irrationally and emotionally IMO.
The rest of your rant is ridiculous, particularly since there are more than a dozen threads here of evidence that was presented here over the last year. They'll be some more threads too when the Hinode data comes out.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2007 17:19:26 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
