|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:21:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
Sure it does! In some field of study, there is a problem X. A scholar or group of scholars works to find a solution. They publish said solution. Then other scholars read through it and find flaws in the solution. In light of the flaws, the solution is either abandond, or revised. More work is done. Repeat. It's how it works. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:21:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
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.
One other thing I'd like to point out here is that it's not just *you* that can't provide a "better" scientific answer. Dave can't do it. HH can't do it. Furshur can't do it. Nasa can't do it. LMSAL can't do it. Geemack certainly can't do it.
If you *and* NASA can't explain these images, then maybe it's time to revisit the ideas of Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:24:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Sure it does!
Now wait. I did not say that skepticism isn't used in science or useful to science, I said science wasn't *only* about skepticism.
quote:
In some field of study, there is a problem X. A scholar or group of scholars works to find a solution. They publish said solution. Then other scholars read through it and find flaws in the solution. In light of the flaws, the solution is either abandond, or revised. More work is done. Repeat. It's how it works.
That might be fine, but nobody has found the flaws in Birkeland's work. Nobody has found any flaws in Alfven's work. Nobody has found a flaws in Bruce's work. They just ignored their work altogether! |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/30/2007 14:25:24 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:41:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
One other thing I'd like to point out here is that it's not just *you* that can't provide a "better" scientific answer. Dave can't do it. HH can't do it. Furshur can't do it. Nasa can't do it. LMSAL can't do it. Geemack certainly can't do it.
And none of that matters, Michael, if you can't do it either. That's the only part that matters--that your explanation actually holds up the way you claim it does. Any time you mention anyone else's model but your own, you are obfuscating. No one cares about other models, just yours. Stop trying to shift attention away from the very thing you claim to be here to promote.
quote:
If you *and* NASA can't explain these images, then maybe it's time to revisit the ideas of Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven.
Everyone's been trying to do that except you. We've been trying to examine your ideas, but you refuse to have them examined in any detail. The only person preventing those ideas from being fully explored is you, Michael, who always seems to want talk about NASA's shortcomings or some other irrelevancy.
|
"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 03/30/2007 14:51:43 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:42:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That might be fine, but nobody has found the flaws in Birkeland's work. Nobody has found any flaws in Alfven's work. Nobody has found a flaws in Bruce's work. They just ignored their work altogether!
And no one has found that their work is applicable to the sun, which is your claim that you need to support with evidence.
Jesus, how can you still not even understand the basics of what's required of you?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:48:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In science, that is the way it works. The solutions that work become "accepted" and the ones that don't get replaced.
And the electrical Sun solution has been considered - decades ago - and rejected as one that doesn't work. Why should we turn the clock back and consider it again? What new data supports it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:49:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
One other thing I'd like to point out here is that it's not just *you* that can't provide a "better" scientific answer. Dave can't do it. HH can't do it. Furshur can't do it. Nasa can't do it. LMSAL can't do it. Geemack certainly can't do it.
If you *and* NASA can't explain these images, then maybe it's time to revisit the ideas of Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven.
What new data supports them? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:55:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That might be fine, but nobody has found the flaws in Birkeland's work.
Nobody has to. All we have to do is show that you are wrong in your interpretation of Birkeland's work. You were wrong months ago, because you had the electron flow completely reversed. I don't recall that you ever patched that flaw in your understanding of Birkeland's work.quote:
Nobody has found any flaws in Alfven's work. Nobody has found a flaws in Bruce's work. They just ignored their work altogether!
You've never shown that Alfven's post-Nobel work actually makes any testable predictions. In other words, you've never shown us Alfven's work, so there was never any reason to show any flaws in it.
Also from what I remember, Bruce's work amounts to "it looks like electricity, so maybe it is electricity." That hypothesis, in and of itself, isn't flawed. Rejecting all the work that's come after that, which demonstrates the hypothesis to be incorrect, is what is flawed. |
- 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 - 03/30/2007 : 14:56:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In science, that is the way it works. The solutions that work become "accepted" and the ones that don't get replaced.
And the electrical Sun solution has been considered - decades ago - and rejected as one that doesn't work. Why should we turn the clock back and consider it again? What new data supports it?
Those new Hinode images support it. The reason Leon is having a tough time explaining a falling loop is because magnetic connection is predicated on the idea that the connections that "exchange energy", but the power comes from the magnetic field. The reasons the loops just "fall" back to the surface is because the electrical current inside the loops sustains it. When the current goes away, the loop has nowhere to go but down.
Those early Hinode images look exactly like I expected them to look, and I'm certainly not running around claiming anything I see is "impossible". Birkeland even simulated all these things 100 years ago in a lab. Alfven provided all the mathematical support anyone could ever ask form, and Bruce already documented the connection between the speed of propagation of these events to discharge theory.
Magnetic reconnection is a myth. It's another of those metaphysical things that came about because astronomers are virtually ignorant of the role of electricity in astronomy. Describe to me *exactly* how magnetic reconnection releases energy? How is it any different from electrical reconnection? In what way is it uniquely different? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:01:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That might be fine, but nobody has found the flaws in Birkeland's work.
Nobody has to. All we have to do is show that you are wrong in your interpretation of Birkeland's work. You were wrong months ago, because you had the electron flow completely reversed.
What?
quote:
I don't recall that you ever patched that flaw in your understanding of Birkeland's work.
I don't recall even discussing any such "flaw". Care to elaborate for me?
quote:
You've never shown that Alfven's post-Nobel work actually makes any testable predictions.
It predicts million degree plasma to exist in the solar atmosphere for one thing. It predicts magnetic fields in space. This year we see clear satellite images of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, and we've found magnetic fields permeate the threads of space.
quote:
In other words, you've never shown us Alfven's work, so there was never any reason to show any flaws in it.
First of all, I'm not obligated to educate you to Alven's work in the first place. Secondly that statement is simply not true. We've talked about Alfven's work since the start.
quote:
Also from what I remember, Bruce's work amounts to "it looks like electricity, so maybe it is electricity." That hypothesis, in and of itself, isn't flawed. Rejecting all the work that's come after that, which demonstrates the hypothesis to be incorrect, is what is flawed.
Ya Dave, that's all Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven ever did. Sheesh. And you guys call yourselves reasonable?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:08:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
And no one has found that their work is applicable to the sun, which is your claim that you need to support with evidence.
Gah! Human ignorance and particularly *willful* ignorance is simply amazing. All three gentleman claimed their work was "applicable" to the sun. When you say "no one has found their work to be applicable", what you mean is that nobody believed them even with lab experiments, solar measurements and mathematical relationships all spelled out for them. They willfully refuse to believe it. So what? What obligates me to do more for you than they have already done?
If mainstream theories of today lead to "impossible" observations, then it's time to reconsider some valid scientific options, and Alfven's theories are complete with the math. It would be pointless for me to even redo his work since it's still his work!
You guys won't believe what I say regardless of the merit of my statements because you ego is so heavily invested in being right. It has nothing to do with the "science" behind the debate because you guys haven't even offered an alternative to work with!
quote:
Jesus, how can you still not even understand the basics of what's required of you?
How can you still not required that some reading is required of you. My ideas work just fine. It your ideas that don't hold up to the Hinode observations. Evidently its "impossible" to explain Hinode images using the current theories. I'd say that means it's time to revisit the math of Alfven and the lab work of Birkeland and the observations of Bruce. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/30/2007 15:10:00 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:15:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It has nothing to do with the "science" behind the debate because you guys haven't even offered an alternative to work with!
Why are you still asserting that we need alternatives? How many times can this be explained to you? You're mentally ill, Michael. That's the only explanation for why you can't help but repeat something shown to you to be wrong. You're nothing but a broken record. Maybe you had a stroke or something, I don't know. But your behavior is the opposite of rational.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:16:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Those new Hinode images support it. The reason Leon is having a tough time explaining a falling loop is because magnetic connection is predicated on the idea that the connections that "exchange energy", but the power comes from the magnetic field. The reasons the loops just "fall" back to the surface is because the electrical current inside the loops sustains it. When the current goes away, the loop has nowhere to go but down.
Where are the measurements and the math that shows the electrical currents are strong enough to do what you say? That's what I meant by "support." Until you've got such actual evidence, all you're doing is speculating, and speculation doesn't "support" any theory.quote:
Those early Hinode images look exactly like I expected them to look...
Really? Did you happen to write down any of your expectations before the images were published? How does your theory explain the "spikes?"quote:
...and I'm certainly not running around claiming anything I see is "impossible".
Completely irrelevant.quote:
Birkeland even simulated all these things 100 years ago in a lab.
Not true at all, unless you can show me a 100-year-old video of a loop "collapsing." Got a link to "TheeTube?"quote:
Alfven provided all the mathematical support anyone could ever ask form...
Yes, and people using his MHD are now claiming that what they see is "impossible" under current coronal theories.quote:
...and Bruce already documented the connection between the speed of propagation of these events to discharge theory.
And furshur already documented the connection between the visible light of the Sun and a lightning bug's butt, giving us a theory that you rather rudely rejected. Why should we treat Bruce's idea any different from how you treated furshur's idea?quote:
Magnetic reconnection is a myth. It's another of those metaphysical things that came about because astronomers are virtually ignorant of the role of electricity in astronomy.
You're again assuming your conclusion.quote:
Describe to me *exactly* how magnetic reconnection releases energy?
That's utterly irrelevant to the question of whether there is new data that supports the electrical Sun theory.quote:
How is it any different from electrical reconnection?
You brought it up. You tell me.quote:
In what way is it uniquely different?
Again, you tell me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:25:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
I don't recall that you ever patched that flaw in your understanding of Birkeland's work.
I don't recall even discussing any such "flaw". Care to elaborate for me?
Your model has electrical discharges emanating from the "surface" of the Sun. Birkeland only ever had electrons raining down on his terrela from outside the box. We've discussed this a few times already, and you never properly addressed it. I'm not surprised that you don't remember, as I'm sure it's an uncomfortable position to be in.quote:
quote:
You've never shown that Alfven's post-Nobel work actually makes any testable predictions.
It predicts million degree plasma to exist in the solar atmosphere for one thing.
Really? Where? Please quote.quote:
It predicts magnetic fields in space.
I don't know a theory that doesn't.quote:
This year we see clear satellite images of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere...
You are assuming your conclusion again.quote:
...and we've found magnetic fields permeate the threads of space.
When was that ever a question?quote:
quote:
In other words, you've never shown us Alfven's work, so there was never any reason to show any flaws in it.
First of all, I'm not obligated to educate you to Alven's work in the first place.
If you wish to claim Alfven's work supports your "theory," then yes, you are so obligated. Otherwise, I will claim that Alfven's work supports standard solar theory, and be on equal ground with you.quote:
Secondly that statement is simply not true. We've talked about Alfven's work since the start.
You have repeatedly claimed that Alfven's work supports your ideas, but you've never discussed how it does so.quote:
quote:
Also from what I remember, Bruce's work amounts to "it looks like electricity, so maybe it is electricity." That hypothesis, in and of itself, isn't flawed. Rejecting all the work that's come after that, which demonstrates the hypothesis to be incorrect, is what is flawed.
Ya Dave, that's all Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven ever did. Sheesh. And you guys call yourselves reasonable?
What's unreasonable is your idea that what I said about Bruce also applied to Alfven and Birkeland. How quickly you have resorted to a personal, groundless and sarcastic attack, instead of showing me that Bruce's work was more than what I summarized. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:38:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Gah! Human ignorance and particularly *willful* ignorance is simply amazing. All three gentleman claimed their work was "applicable" to the sun.
Please quote Birkeland doing so. What I recall from his book was him basically saying (in different words), "hey, maybe this might explain coronal discharges." Not even he expressed the surety that you do about his work, Michael.quote:
If mainstream theories of today lead to "impossible" observations, then it's time to reconsider some valid scientific options, and Alfven's theories are complete with the math.
The current theories, which lead to your "impossible" stuff, are based in part upon Alfven's work. Or do you not recognize the validity of MHD in coronal science?quote:
You guys won't believe what I say regardless of the merit of my statements because you ego is so heavily invested in being right.
Irony meters explode everywhere.quote:
It has nothing to do with the "science" behind the debate because you guys haven't even offered an alternative to work with!
You simply refuse to recognize the simplest alternative: "we don't know." It's your "theory" versus the null hypothesis, Michael. There is no need to consider any other theory. But we've been over this again and again and again, and you've steadfastly refused to give up your deathgrip on the fallacy that some replacement is required for a criticism to be valid. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
