|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2007 : 17:17:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Of course the old theories haven't failed.
Yes, they did. They never worked in the first place.
quote:
As with any scientific discipline as complex as solar physics, there will be new information available from time to time.
Yes, and that new evidence is proving to be "impossible" to explain with the old theories. They are easy to explain with EU theories. It's time for old failed ideas to give way to new ideas that work.
quote:
That new information will require the current theories get tweaked and updated.
Ya, they will be updated to include the flow of current through the solar system.
quote:
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.
Unfortunately you're probably right about that. They "new" theory will include some mention of the current flowing through the corona and the rest of the solar atmosphere, but they'll ignore that iron surface for some time to come I'm afraid. Still, some progress is better than none at all, and I'm young enough to see the process through to completion.
quote:
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.
But of course Birkeland simulated this idea 100 years ago. I guess I'm in good crackpot company. You know if you didn't do the ad hominem number, you'd be a zero trick pony. So are you ever going to show any courage at all and defend an alternative model for us, or is the one trick all you ever intend to do?
quote:
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.
I have no idea. I've never stopped and asked anyone who's read me website to vote and tell me what they do for a living. I don't even care how many agree with me at this point.
Is an idea invalid only because it's a minority view?
You are one to throw stones at me about what I will and will not do. You will absolutely not try to defend the current views because I will eat you for lunch when we get to the science. You'll hide out in the shadows instead like a coward and pretend you're so smart. Who do you think you're fooling with that pitiful act of cowardice? Do you think other don't notice that you all hot air? |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 17:39:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
Again, it was perhaps unexpected. That doesn't mean impossible.
Sure, these events were in fact possible since they happened. It was evidently not possible to explain the behaviors in these images with "magnetic reconnection" theory. In fact magnetic reconnection theory is a misconceived interpretation by astronomers of electrical reconnection because astronomers are not taught electrical engineering principles in college. There is little if any exposure to electrical engineering principles that is taught to astronomers of today. That has hampered progress a great deal IMO.
quote:
It was perhaps an exclamation in reaction to something that went counter to their understanding of what they thought they should see.
Sure. It went counter to everything they had proposed might happen in "magnetic reconnection" events. IMO, there is no such thing as a magnetic reconnection event. What is it? How is it distinctly different from electrical reconnection?
If astronomers understood electrical engineering theory they would know that magnetic fields are always represented in the math formulas as a continuum, whereas electrical current is what makes and breaks connection. What astronomers refer to as "magnetic reconnection" is not distinctly and uniquely different from electrical interactions in plasma, or standard plasma physics. In fact, what is the distinction between electrical reconnection and magnetic reconnection?
The mainstream's whole basis for explaining the energy release of the solar atmosphere was based on a poor understanding of plasma physics and electrical theory.
quote:
And yet one of the references I found denies the existence of the neutrino. Even following the discoveries based on 1987A.
Well, I'm not my brother's keeper I'm afraid. I've never denied that neutrinos exist or that they flow though us by the billions.
quote:
Um, no it's not obvious. Your model requires the dismissal of all things currently understood.
My "whole" solar model would require that, but accepting the role of electrical current in solar atmospheric activity would not require that. Let's try this one step at a time. Give me some other valid way of explaining these high energy emissions if you do not accept Bruce's suggestion.
quote:
Again, I ask you to explain spectral lines in the confines of your model.
I explain them by noting that the outer layers are hotter than the inner layers, and the layers are all arranged by atomic weight, and setup in double layers, one on top of another. Since the majority of heat is released in the outer layers, hydrogen and helium are most abundantly represented in the spectrum. The iron other heavier metals tend to be emitting light from inside of the coronal loops where temperature can exceed millions of degrees.
quote:
Coronal explosions/loops are generated at the core, working their way to the surface.
How does a magnetic field "work" it's way to surface? Are we talking about the same magnetic fields that are always represented by a continuum in math related to EM fields? Have you read any of Alven's work on Alfven waves through light plasma?
quote:
These differ from sunspots, sunspots are cool areas on the surface of the sun.
Ya, that is another complaint I have with current theory. You have a "cool" area on the surface for hours on end from inside a sphere that is as large as the sun? What kind of fancy explanation for such a massive heat disruption goes with that phenomenon?
quote:
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.
You are treating magnetic fields in plasma as though they can "rise" and "fall", when in fact they exist or they don't. Plasma columns of charged electrical current can rise and fall and cause the magnetic fields to change, but magnetic fields themselves do not rise and fall. This is where a good education in electronic engineering would really help most students of astronomy. Magnetic fields are always represented as a continuum. Only electrical connections can make and break.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2007 17:42:40 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 19:08:04 [Permalink]
|
| Oh well, Michael, I guess I'll have to do my own research. You'd think that a person with some interest would have notes about where the relevant articles are regarding the various debates re solar models and the like. But perhaps that's not important to you. As with inflation and the big bang, your grasp of the literature seems to be non-existent. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 20:14:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Yes, they did. They never worked in the first place.
Prove it. Show how the current best-explanation theory, the standard solar model, is now being rejected by the scientific community. Otherwise your statement that the old theories have failed is not demonstrably true.
quote:
Yes, and that new evidence is proving to be "impossible" to explain with the old theories.
As H. Humbert inferred, you seem to be reading something into the article which simply isn't there, Michael. According to the article, a particular aspect of the Sun's behavior was surprising enough that a single individual described it as impossible according to conventional understanding of that particular aspect. There was no mention in that article, nor any other that I'm aware of, that the standard solar model is in jeopardy of being discarded. There was some mention of explanations already being considered to explain why the magnetic fields are apparently acting in unexpected ways. But notably there was no mention whatsoever of electrical activity being considered as a cause of any of the observed phenomena.
quote:
Unfortunately you're probably right about that. They "new" theory will include some mention of the current flowing through the corona and the rest of the solar atmosphere, but they'll ignore that iron surface for some time to come I'm afraid. Still, some progress is better than none at all, and I'm young enough to see the process through to completion.
They'll ignore the notion of an iron surface because there isn't a shred of evidence to support its existence. It hasn't been demonstrated as being even remotely plausible by any of its proponents.
quote:
But of course Birkeland simulated this idea 100 years ago. I guess I'm in good crackpot company.
No, he didn't. Kristian Birkeland's experiments with the terrella were primarily directed at determining the relationship between magnetic fields and the Aurora Borealis, right here on Earth. He considered the possibility that magnetic fields also contributed to coronal loop activity. That concern was the reason for his dabbling in magnetic field experiments relative to the Sun. But at least you're willing to admit to being a crackpot.
quote:
You know if you didn't do the ad hominem number, you'd be a zero trick pony. So are you ever going to show any courage at all and defend an alternative model for us, or is the one trick all you ever intend to do?
To begin with, there is no "alternative" to your solar model until you actually present one. You don't have a solar model, so your concern about possible alternatives is moot.
And once more: You've made a claim. It's your job to support that claim. It's not anyone else's job here to present any alternatives. Your claim is supported by your ability to provide legitimate scientific evidence (or more accurately in your case, your claim is not supported because you completely lack the ability to provide evidence). Your claim is not supported in any way by anyone else's ability, or lack of ability, to provide alternative explanations. Can you explain why you seem to find this simple concept impossible to comprehend?
quote:
I have no idea. I've never stopped and asked anyone who's read me website to vote and tell me what they do for a living. I don't even care how many agree with me at this point.
Okay, so no professional astrophysicist has found your argument compelling enough to lend a hand. Not one single person actively working as a professional in the field of solar physics is willing to join you in your quest to overthrow the contemporary standard solar model. Got it. Thanks.
But it does make one wonder. Why do you suppose that is, Michael? Is it because you are simply incapable of presenting your conjecture in a way that is understandable to any of them. Or do you suppose it's possible that your ideas are so completely unsupportable that they aren't worthy of any consideration?
quote:
You are one to throw stones at me about what I will and will not do. You will absolutely not try to defend the current views because I will eat you for lunch when we get to the science. You'll hide out in the shadows instead like a coward and pretend you're so smart. Who do you think you're fooling with that pitiful act of cowardice? Do you think other don't notice that you all hot air?
If I ever take a position of defending some particular solar model, then my ability or willingness to support it may become pertinent to the discussion. But I'm not here defending a model, Michael, or even a nutty conjecture like yours. So once again, all your whining and your mouthing off about my not defending a position is moot. 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 20:40:48 [Permalink]
|
Every time I read Michael's posts, I can't help but see the similarities between him and ID proponents.
Both declare current well-supported theories to be "dead." Both make extensive use of quotes taken from legitimate scientists and repeat them out of context. Both make grand pronouncements about breakthroughs which forever seem to be just over the horizon. Both predict massive paradigm shifts and expect future generations to flesh out their "theory," which is currently so vaguely formulated as to be untestable. And last but not least, both claim to be doing science, but when pressed don't seem to have the slightest idea of what that actually entails.
Even without knowing a thing about solar science, it is easy to see that Michael's methods reek of pseudoscience.
And Michael, you don't actually need to respond to this post. I know you'll deny it, so I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
|
"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 20:43:09 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 22:03:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Oh well, Michael, I guess I'll have to do my own research. You'd think that a person with some interest would have notes about where the relevant articles are regarding the various debates re solar models and the like. But perhaps that's not important to you. As with inflation and the big bang, your grasp of the literature seems to be non-existent.
You're probably better off doing your own research on that particular topic, because I personally was never very interested in that topic to begin with. If you're looking for a book that might teach you a bit about plasma cosmology, I suggest Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfv'en. FYI that isn't a cheap book but it's worth it if you're into math. If you'd rather have an engineering overview that isn't as mathematically oriented, I suggest you try "The Electric Sky" by Donald E. Scott. The Electric Sky is reasonably priced, but it's not as formal of a presentation, nor is it mathematically oriented. I think Alven's book is over $100 bucks as I recall, but it was well worth reading. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2007 22:05:20 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 22:26:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Prove it.
I can't prove a negative. In science, you are obligated to show your theory works. You're does not work. According to the experts, it doesn't work to describe what occurs in the solar atmosphere.
quote:
Show how the current best-explanation theory, the standard solar model, is now being rejected by the scientific community.
Didn't you even bother reading what I wrote? I already noted that change is going to occur in "baby steps", starting with the acceptance of the role of electrical current in solar activity. I've noted several times that this alone will not prove my entire case, just one aspect of it. What's your deal anyway? Are you ever going to offer another alternative, or are you going to be a coward your whole life Geemack?
quote:
As H. Humbert inferred, you seem to be reading something into the article which simply isn't there, Michael. According to the article, a particular aspect of the Sun's behavior was surprising enough that a single individual described it as impossible according to conventional understanding of that particular aspect. There was no mention in that article, nor any other that I'm aware of, that the standard solar model is in jeopardy of being discarded.
Didn't I just say the same thing to you in the previous post?
quote:
There was some mention of explanations already being considered to explain why the magnetic fields are apparently acting in unexpected ways. But notably there was no mention whatsoever of electrical activity being considered as a cause of any of the observed phenomena.
I don't care what they might be "considering" Geemack, I know what I see with my own two eyes, and I know Alven's math and his theories are correct. They work just fine to describe these solar events, and Birkeland's models worked fine as well.
quote:
They'll ignore the notion of an iron surface because there isn't a shred of evidence to support its existence.
Oh bull. I've posted 13+ threads worth of "evidence". You're just in denial of that evidence, just like you're in denial of the role of electricity in solar atmospheric activity. You don't care that the Rhessi satellite has observed gamma rays from the sun, and gamma rays from electrical discharges on earth. You don't care that million degree filaments light up the solar atmosphere. You don't care that the only way to achieve such temperatures in plasma is with electrical current. You're in denial of all of it.
quote:
It hasn't been demonstrated as being even remotely plausible by any of its proponents.
Ya it has, but you aren't listening. You're too busy trying to puff up your frail little ego via personal insults and rude behaviors.
quote:
No, he didn't. Kristian Birkeland's experiments with the terrella were primarily directed at determining the relationship between magnetic fields and the Aurora Borealis, right here on Earth. He considered the possibility that magnetic fields also contributed to coronal loop activity. That concern was the reason for his dabbling in magnetic field experiments relative to the Sun.
You just contradicted yourself. He did do experiments he felt were relevant to solar activity, and you just admitted it. Don't say no and then say yes, or you'll end up sounding like more of a crackpot than I do. :)
quote:
To begin with, there is no "alternative" to your solar model until you actually present one.
I wasn't talking about a whole solar model and you know it you big coward. Put up some reasonable suggestion, or accept the role of electricity in these events.
quote:
You don't have a solar model, so your concern about possible alternatives is moot.
I'm not asking you for whole solar model so your stalling routine is moot! Come on Geemack, no guts no glory. If you can't defend a "better" idea scientifically, stop being stubborn and consider the obvious option.
quote:
And once more: You've made a claim. It's your job to support that claim. It's not anyone else's job here to present any alternatives.
The only thing I'm "claiming" here is that Birkeland, Bruce and Alv'en got it right when they theorized that electricity was involved in these coronal loop discharges. They've already provided ample evidence and ample math and ample experimentation to back up their claims.
You're too scared to even offer me a rational alternative Geemack. That is ultimately because you know that I'm right about the electrical nature of coronal loops and you know full well that I will eat you for breakfast in any real scientific debate. You can't handle the science Geemack. (You can't handle the truth) You're out of your league. You aren't fooling anyone either with that "all ad homenim, all day" show of yours. It's obvious to anyone who's followed these conversations, that you are all talk and no action, all ad hominems, and no science. You're a scientific wimp and scared to defend anything. The rest of this denial nonsense of yours isn't worth responding to. Either put up a scientific option of your own like a man, or just shut up.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/29/2007 23:01:24 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 22:38:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Even without knowing a thing about solar science, it is easy to see that Michael's methods reek of pseudoscience.
This is very ironic considering that it is coming from a guy that puts his faith in "magnetic reconnection" (never physically defined), dark energy, dark matter, inflaton fields, and monopoles. Have you heard that line about people who live in glass houses should throw stones? You put your faith in at least 5 different forms of pseudoscience, so you really should refrain from lecturing me about pseudoscience. You don't have a clue how ironic this sounds considering the fact that you're trying to defend a whole boat load of pseudoscience.
quote:
And Michael, you don't actually need to respond to this post. I know you'll deny it, so I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
Yes, we all know you're grandstanding again. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 04:06:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You're probably better off doing your own research on that particular topic, because I personally was never very interested in that topic to begin with.
I'm sorry. I thought you were interested in the topic of solar models. And I figured that you might at least be familiar with the scholarly debate (that, according to you, took place in the early 70's) about the acceptance of one over the other.
It really seems that you are completely isolated from the actual scholarly discussion, and limit yourself to press releases and the like to stay informed. Given this, it's no wonder that you don't know why people accept a certain thing or reject another. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 06:26:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
I can't prove a negative. In science, you are obligated to show your theory works.
I said prove that the old theories have failed, that they never worked in the first place. That was your claim, but it looks like you can't prove it. And by the way, take a remedial reading comprehension course, will ya? It sure does get old having to clarify every little thing with you simply because you're so apparently incapable of understanding the simplest things you read.
And do you mind if I quote you on this?... "In science, you are obligated to show your theory works." That's rich! I might be able to use it now and then. 
quote:
You're too scared to even offer me a rational alternative Geemack. That is ultimately because you know that I'm right about the electrical nature of coronal loops and you know full well that I will eat you for breakfast in any real scientific debate. You can't handle the science Geemack. (You can't handle the truth) You're out of your league.
Of course I don't know you're right. Science is about numbers, Michael. Science is done with math. Scientific data is described in quantifiable terms. You can't do math. You haven't quantified your conjecture. When you do that, when you actually state, and demonstrate the plausibility of, the numbers involved, then you'll be verging on science. But you have yet to define the thickness, density, temperature, elemental make up, etc. of your crazy notion of an iron surface, or actually quantify in numbers the types of current, resistances, conductivity, strengths of magnetic fields, etc. involved in your otherwise vague descriptions of what you think you see in all those precious pictures. You haven't even begun to do science yet, Michael. If you ever do, then you might have a chance convincing someone in a scientific debate. Obviously you don't yet have what it takes to convince any of the actual professionals in the field of solar physics.
And let me explain this to you again: I haven't taken to supporting any particular position on the composition of the Sun, therefore your tantrum won't work. You're wasting your time with your seemingly desperate demand that I defend some "alternative" to your crazy notion. And after all these attempts to explain that, if you still don't get it, I think it's reasonable to assume you have some mental problem preventing you from understanding. You see, I haven't taken to defending an alternative position to the UFO believers, the psi believers, the ghost believers, or the ID believers, either. My lack of alternative explanation to anyone's delusion doesn't make me a coward, nor does it make their delusion more likely real. Goes for you, too, Michael.
And when it comes to debating science, what you offer isn't science. It's artificial science at best. I've shown that you're wrong about many things and that you are unable to scientifically define most things in your hairbrained conjecture since you first jumped in here. I've shown many times where you've lied. I've shown where you've avoided answering simple questions. I've shown where your logic fails and how you don't understand the scientific method. And I'll keep doing it. The debate isn't about your crazy fantasy vs. some alternative. The debate here is this: Are Michael Mozina's nutty notions about the Sun legitimate, plausible, supported with evidence, likely to be true, or not? So far the other participants here seem to agree that they're not. Looks like you've still got a long row to hoe, buddy.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 11:33:21 [Permalink]
|
Michael, it seems that it is impossible to have a discussion with you, because your logic is so weak.
For instance you say:
quote:
Oh bull. I've posted 13+ threads worth of "evidence". You're just in denial of that evidence, just like you're in denial of the role of electricity in solar atmospheric activity. You don't care that the Rhessi satellite has observed gamma rays from the sun, and gamma rays from electrical discharges on earth.
So I can say a telescope observed visible light from the sun, and on earth we have observed visible light from lightning bugs therefore the sun is a lightning bug - a BIG lightning bug.
Anyway what I really wanted to talk about is that you say the current solar theory doesn't work, and you keep harping on the temperature of the solar corona as a major stumbling block. If scientist explain the heating of the solar corona, with out resorting to sparks shooting off of the iron surface of the sun, would you admit that the amended solar model may be right?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 13:36:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You're probably better off doing your own research on that particular topic, because I personally was never very interested in that topic to begin with.
I'm sorry. I thought you were interested in the topic of solar models. And I figured that you might at least be familiar with the scholarly debate (that, according to you, took place in the early 70's) about the acceptance of one over the other.
Yes, the topic was settled over 30 years ago. I've got more current battles to fight. There a pun in there somewhere. :)
quote:
It really seems that you are completely isolated from the actual scholarly discussion,
Huh? Only because that *one* topic didn't interest me personally? Should I blame you personally for not reading *one* Sumerian document?
quote:
and limit yourself to press releases and the like to stay informed.
Excuse me? I've been involved in "published" papers, including two in the Journal of Fusion Energy, and one in Yad Fiz. I think you've missed a bit of the history of last couple of years.
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
Try those five papers and perhaps you'll understand why I find your comments rather offensive. You're a nice person so I'll let you slide this time. :)
quote:
Given this, it's no wonder that you don't know why people accept a certain thing or reject another.
You need to be aware of herd mentality around here. There are a few vocal critics that have kept the debates lively, but that doesn't mean the loudness has any scientific merit. In the case of my critics, notice whether or not they offer you logical options that sound "better", or whether they simply criticize and fail to offer "better" answers. It will become painfully apparent to you after awhile that it's easier to criticize than it is to explain things scientifically.
Despite what you said earlier, you are already capable of explaining million degree plasma in the atmosphere of any body in the universe. It called an electrical discharge. If they can't give you a better way to explain those million degree coronal loops, why should you ignore what you already know?
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:03:12 [Permalink]
|
Re "Yes, the topic was settled over 30 years ago," I'm confused. The topic of the solar model? So there was a debate in the literature? Do you know the main articles? Or where they were published?
quote:
Huh? Only because that *one* topic didn't interest me personally? Should I blame you personally for not reading *one* Sumerian document?
No, but if you asked how scholars arrives at a particular intepretation of a particular term, or some aspect of Mesopotamian culture or relgion, the odds are that I could point you in the direction of a few things. And if I didn't know it off the top of my head, I could find it with just a few hours of searching.
quote:
Excuse me? I've been involved in "published" papers, including two in the Journal of Fusion Energy, and one in Yad Fiz. I think you've missed a bit of the history of last couple of years.
I'm familiar with those and tried to read them last summer. However, I feel a bit lost in some areas, hence my desire to get to the bottom of the debate re solar models.
My point was, on your site and here, when you link to things that "support" your work, it's always from press releases and snippets from news articles. Usually buried in those articles is a note that more will be discussed in some actual peer-reviewed journal. And when I read those, I find no mention of iron suns or electric currents. (Indeed, there's a bit of irony (no pun there) that you're publishing in the Journal of Fusion Energy.)
quote:
You need to be aware of herd mentality around here. There are a few vocal critics that have kept the debates lively, but that doesn't mean the loudness has any scientific merit. In the case of my critics, notice whether or not they offer you logical options that sound "better", or whether they simply criticize and fail to offer "better" answers. It will become painfully apparent to you after awhile that it's easier to criticize than it is to explain things scientifically.
You're right that it's better to find fault with something than to come up with a new explanation. It's how scholarship works. But in some (many?) cases, having no solution is preferrable to having a bad one. And it can take years (or more) to satisfactorily solve some problems, be it astronomy, biology, or Sumerology!
The sense I get is that you feel like I should accept your idea simply because I can't come up with a better one. That's not how it works.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:04:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
So I can say a telescope observed visible light from the sun, and on earth we have observed visible light from lightning bugs therefore the sun is a lightning bug - a BIG lightning bug.
I think this demonstrates the illogical nature of the analogies that are used to ignore perfectly valid scientific evidence.
quote:
Anyway what I really wanted to talk about is that you say the current solar theory doesn't work, and you keep harping on the temperature of the solar corona as a major stumbling block.
It's most most obvious stumbling block to be sure. Those million degree coronal loops stick out like a giant neon sign that is screaming "electrical flow".
quote:
If scientist explain the heating of the solar corona, with out resorting to sparks shooting off of the iron surface of the sun, would you admit that the amended solar model may be right?
The current solar theories will simply be "amended" to include some acceptance of the role of current flow in coronal loop activity. Nobody is going to immediately leap from the standard model to my model overnight. It's far more likely that a "hydrogen/electric" half breed model will emerge for awhile. I'm not naive about the uphill climb involved in this process furshur. It's going to be a long time before my theories are accepted, and that might take decades. Hell, the mainstream is utterly ignorant of most of Alfven's MHD and plasma cosmology theories, and he's been gone for more than a decade. I don't expect to see a leap from the hydrogen sun theory over to the model I've proposed on my website. First we have to get the mainstream to accept the role of "electricity" in solar activity. Then we have to get the mainstream to accept that "mass separation" occurs in plasma. Then we might get the mainstream to accept the solar model we've proposed. I'm shooting for the first step to happen in 2007 or 2008.
The second step may be relatively fast or slow depending on what a horizon shot from Hinode shows when we overlay the CA/H filter against the G-Band images of the photosphere. From the few images I've seen to date, it looks to me like the CA/H filter is picking up a different a plasma "layer" of the solar atmosphere when we look straight down from above. Since the filter is sensitive to both Calcium emissions and Hydrogen emissions, I can't be sure which plasma layer it images first without some shots of the horizon. If the activity seen is mostly due to hydrogen emissions we'll have a great view of the corona. If the filter is mostly sensitive to CA emissions however, there is a possibility that a shot of the horizon in CA-H against the G-band image will show that the loops begin *under* the photosphere. If that happens, all bets are off and anything is possible. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:15:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
No, but if you asked how scholars arrives at a particular intepretation of a particular term, or some aspect of Mesopotamian culture or relgion, the odds are that I could point you in the direction of a few things. And if I didn't know it off the top of my head, I could find it with just a few hours of searching.
Yes, and I listed two books that will give you the "culture" surrounding EU theory. If you're interested in the topic, I can certainly point you in the right direction. If however I expected you to be able to quote one particular author from Sumerian culture, I don't think you'd be amused by me blowing off your expertize over one question about one individual in Sumerian culture.
quote:
My point was, on your site and here, when you link to things that "support" your work, it's always from press releases and snippets from news articles. Usually buried in those articles is a note that more will be discussed in some actual peer-reviewed journal. And when I read those, I find no mention of iron suns or electric currents. (Indeed, there's a bit of irony (no pun there) that you're publishing in the Journal of Fusion Energy.)
I'm not sure why it seems ironic since we wrote a whole paper devoted to CNO fusion occurring in the solar atmosphere.
My use of press releases is because most people reading through my website aren't going to take the time to research my work by reading through 5 different papers, some of which are heavily focused on chemistry. I simply chose a "public" way of "advertising" the idea that was more in line with what I could hope to achieve for the average reader in one read through. I doubt that most people get though every page of my website, let alone every link I've provided.
quote:
You're right that it's better to find fault with something than to come up with a new explanation.
I didn't say "better", I said "easier". (at least I hope so).
quote:
It's how scholarship works.
No. "Scholarship" doesn't work that way. Some brands of pure skepticism may work that way, but science isn't all about "skepticism", as much as I like skepticism.
quote:
But in some (many?) cases, having no solution is preferrable to having a bad one.
How is "electrical discharge" a "bad solution" to the problem of explaining coronal loops?
quote:
And it can take years (or more) to satisfactorily solve some problems, be it astronomy, biology, or Sumerology!
I've already been at it for the better part of two years at this point. Maybe by the end of this year, astronomers will grant me (and Bruce, Birkeland and Alfven) the great honor of accepting the fact that electricity plays a vital role in plasma physics. Maybe then we can make progress on other fronts. First I have to get them to accept there even *was* a Sumerian culture!
quote:
The sense I get is that you feel like I should accept your idea simply because I can't come up with a better one. That's not how it works.
In science, that is the way it works. The solutions that work become "accepted" and the ones that don't get replaced. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/30/2007 14:18:30 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
