|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/01/2007 : 19:23:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
No, it is not. We also detect gamma rays from fusion, fission, particle accelerators, decay of Co60 and hundreds of other sources why should we pick electricity as the source.
Because your photosphere surface is only 6000K so fusion is pretty much out of the question without current flow. Fission isn't likely since there is nothing on the surface to do that. Particle accelerators use EM fields to accelerate particles. Ding, Ding, Ding, that one actually has possibilities, but then you need electrical current.
quote:
Gee, it looks like electricity to me, is not an acceptable answer - sorry.
It's not only an acceptable answer, it's the *only* acceptable answer in the light atmosphere of the corona. You shot your own arguments in the foot. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/01/2007 19:24:30 |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 19:25:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The only thing I can't really figure is motive.
How about because I believes I'm right, or can't you even conceive of that idea?
Conceive of that idea? I settled on that idea:
quote:
The only thing I can figure is good old fashion crazy.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/01/2007 19:25:41 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 19:35:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
You really should work for GW Bush. The "spin" you put on my statements and my theories is really "amazing". While it's true that Birkeland's model had *no* internal energy supply other than the strong electromagnetic in the core, that does not mean that my model has no internal power source. In our model (Manuel, Ratcliffe, Mozina) the neutron core spins and that causes induction. In the fission model on my website, the core also provides some energy in the form of fission. My model is not "completely" powered by external currents, but it's still "mostly" powered by them. It may be that I'm wrong and it's almost exclusively an external energy source, but that does not mean I've misunderstood Birkeland's theories. I'm well aware of how his experiments worked.
quote:
Really? Where?
Have you read *any* of his work Dave?
quote:
I don't know a theory that doesn't.
What sustains these magnetic fields in standard theory Dave?
quote:
You are assuming your conclusion again.
No, I pointed you to the Rhessi evidence which you promptly handwaved away.
quote:
When was that ever a question?
When was it ever a "prediction" in standard theory?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 19:37:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The only thing I can figure is good old fashion crazy.
This place is about as mature and grown up as the 9th grade. Pitiful, simply pitiful. If you guys didn't have ad hominems, you'd have nothing. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/01/2007 19:53:27 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 20:00:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Thank's for your analysis Sigmond Fraud. Aren't you a programmer by trade too Dave? Projecting perhaps?
I'm a programmer who understands completely that I'm not a scientist, no matter how well I grasp the concepts of computer science. Scientists aren't scientists because of what they know, they're scientists because of what they do. They practice science. I do not, and you do not. But you have claimed to be a scientist on the basis of your degree field alone, whereas I don't even have a degree (I'm starting to work on fixing that, though). So no, there's no projecting whatsoever.quote:
Pure ad hominem.
Not at all. I never once claimed that your arguments were wrong because of the bitterness that's so evident in some of your posts.quote:
Proud of yourself Dave?
Should I be? I didn't think discussing possibly motives would be something to be proud of, unless they're deeply hidden motives and one undertakes to demonstrate that they exist. I don't particularly care that much about yours, so no, I'm not "proud of" that post. It was just chit-chat.quote:
The fact you have the nerve to lecture me about science when you so heavily rely on the use of ad hominem speaks volumes Dave.
I never once relied on any personal attack upon you to make a point about you being wrong in your science, Michael. The fact is you've presented very little science, but instead a lot of speculation and authority worship. There's nothing left to do but to wonder about your motives in continuing to beat your dead horses.quote:
You're definitely projecting.
Not at all. I'm not the one claiming that scientists are afraid to lose their paychecks by changing their mind, Michael. Now that is an ad hominem attack (of your own making) which utterly fails to address the science.quote:
FYI, I liked the science classes I took in college...
So you say.quote:
...and who the hell would bother holding onto a grudge for 20 years?
Lots of people. Ask the Hatfields and the McCoys.quote:
quote:
As I said, I don't think we'll ever know the real reason.
You personally probably never will, that's for sure.
And that seems like a promise to hold a grudge against me until I'm dead, Michael. I'm pretty sure I'll make it another 20 years, too.quote:
The rest of your input here Dave hardly warrants a reply.
Another classic.quote:
You repeatedly resort to childish personal attacks, and you constantly misrepresent every statement I make.
Now it is you who are projecting, Michael. 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.quote:
You make up your own strawman arguments and you burn them in effigy and claim victory.
More projecting.quote:
I really hope one day you come around, but I definitely won't hold my breath. You're damn near hopeless.
The feeling is mutual, Michael. When you're ready to answer all those unanswered questions from the previous threads, let me know. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 20:03:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Particle accelerators use EM fields to accelerate particles. Ding, Ding, Ding, that one actually has possibilities, but then you need electrical current.
Are you seriously claiming that to have an EM field, one needs an electrical current? I've got several bar magnets that say that's flat-out wrong. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 20:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You really should work for GW Bush. The "spin" you put on my statements and my theories is really "amazing".
Ad hominem.quote:
While it's true that Birkeland's model had *no* internal energy supply other than the strong electromagnetic in the core, that does not mean that my model has no internal power source. In our model (Manuel, Ratcliffe, Mozina) the neutron core spins and that causes induction. In the fission model on my website, the core also provides some energy in the form of fission. My model is not "completely" powered by external currents, but it's still "mostly" powered by them. It may be that I'm wrong and it's almost exclusively an external energy source, but that does not mean I've misunderstood Birkeland's theories. I'm well aware of how his experiments worked.
Then why would you ever say that Birkeland's simulation supports your ideas? The models are drastically different.quote:
quote:
Really? Where?
Have you read *any* of his work Dave?
I've read every word that you've linked to. I challenge you to quote him saying that his simulation was "applicable to" the Sun. Edited to say whoops, wrong context. But it matters little. Michael made a claim about Alfven's work, and when asked to provide support for his position instead made an ad hominem attack on me. Poor Michael. Must be hard to be so hypocritical.quote:
quote:
I don't know a theory that doesn't.
What sustains these magnetic fields in standard theory Dave?
The dynamo action 200,000 km under the surface, Michael. You should know that if you're going to make a case against the standard model.quote:
quote:
You are assuming your conclusion again.
No, I pointed you to the Rhessi evidence which you promptly handwaved away.
Rhessi only provides evidence for your idea if you first assume that the events seen on the Sun are due to electrical currents. That's called assuming your conclusion.quote:
quote:
When was that ever a question?
When was it ever a "prediction" in standard theory?
It's a prediction of basic electromagnetic theory, Michael. Are you saying that solar scientists would ignore the fact that magnetic fields don't stop for no reason? |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 20:22:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Yet those Rhessi images from Earth *and* the sun show gamma rays coming from the atmosphere. We know what causes them here on earth. If you've got evidence that can be created another way in light plasma, I'm all ears.
That University of Maryland paper you showed to all of us described a mechanism quite well, while never once mentioning electricity or any net current flow. Perhaps you should read it again. But we've been over this before, and you showed a rather strong reluctance to admit that electron density doesn't equal electron flow, and an even stronger reluctance to admit that the electron density was far too low to create much of a current or heat even if there was a net current flow.
By the way, have you calculated how much time it took for that field loop seen by Hinode to "collapse" once the "current" was "cut off," Michael? Seems the speed of the current would be a good data point for use in your theory. |
- 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 - 04/01/2007 : 22:31:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Are you seriously claiming that to have an EM field, one needs an electrical current?
No, that was another of those strawmen you like to burn in effigy, it's not something I actually said.
quote:
I've got several bar magnets that say that's flat-out wrong.
Unfortunately there aren't any bar magnets at 6000K, so that's not real helpful when describing solar magnetic fields in light plasma, now is it?
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 22:43:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I've read every word that you've linked to.
You conveniently dodged my question. Have you read *any* of Alfven's work? If so, what?
The reason I ask, is that if you had read even his work "Cosmic Plasma" written way back in the 80's, you'd have known that he described all sorts of solar events in the context of electrical engineering. He even made references to the x-rays seen from Skylab and said that they were probably due to electrical activity. He talks about coronal loops and describes CME's in terms of exploding double layers. If you had *any* clue about any of his work, you would have already known that.
Which of his works have you actually read? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/01/2007 22:45:24 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 22:57:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ad hominem.
So? If you're going to sling mud Dave, don't expect to stay clean.
quote:
Then why would you ever say that Birkeland's simulation supports your ideas? The models are drastically different.
They are not "drastically" different. This is another example of "spin" Dave.
quote:
The dynamo action 200,000 km under the surface, Michael. You should know that if you're going to make a case against the standard model.
I wasn't talking about the magnetic fields of the sun, I was talking about the magnetic fields that permeate space. When were those predicted to exist in standard theory?
That 200,000 distance from the presumed point of origin of these magnetic fields and the high energy release point in the sun's upper atmosphere is but another example of a giant can of worms. How strong would the field have to be at that depth to create the strong magnetic fields we find at the surface? Wouldn't that create a current flow of epic proportions?
quote:
Rhessi only provides evidence for your idea if you first assume that the events seen on the Sun are due to electrical currents. That's called assuming your conclusion.
No! Any electric solar model "predicts" that solar discharges in the solar atmosphere are electrical in nature. If that is true, then we should see evidence to support that in high energy satellite images. Rhessi shows that the solar atmospheric events release the same types of high energy emissions as electrical discharges on earth. That is real evidence Dave. You keep handwaving it away, but that's a purely subjective choice on your part. You can't ignore a direct prediction of electric solar theory and claim it doesn't matter that we see the same kinds of emissions we expect to see. It does matter. It shows the model can *accurately predict* solar atmospheric events! You're totally full of it on this one. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/01/2007 23:00:18 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 23:05:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm a programmer who understands completely that I'm not a scientist, no matter how well I grasp the concepts of computer science. Scientists aren't scientists because of what they know, they're scientists because of what they do. They practice science. I do not, and you do not. But you have claimed to be a scientist on the basis of your degree field alone, whereas I don't even have a degree (I'm starting to work on fixing that, though).
So essentially you like to run around and project your own personal scientific (and perhaps academic) inadequacies upon all other programmers like yourself. It definitely is a form of projection then.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/01/2007 23:09:19 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 04:13:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS...
Is there an actual model to jump to? Sure, you have some ideas about some very specific sub sets of the operation of the sun, but I've not seen anything approaching an actual scientific model of the sun.
Even if nobody offered another model to consider, the mainstream would still be left with trying to explain a million degree coronal loop against a 6000K background. That's never been explained properly because the mainstream refuses to acknowledge the role of electricity as it relates to solar atmospheric phenomenon.
Michael's answer, in other words, is no, there is not an actual model to jump to.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS...
Can you demonstrate the quantitative predictive ability of your model. That would at least be a start.
One of the most obvious is expectations of my theory is that we would expect to see emission patterns around the sun that are consistent with emissions patterns seen in electrical discharges:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/rhessi_tgf.html
Indeed we see gamma rays and x-rays coming from *some* areas of the solar atmosphere. The gamma rays in particular tend to be concentrated in and around coronal loop activity. Coronal loop activity emits high energy x-rays just like we would expect from a sustained high energy electrical discharge. We would expect to see coronal loops "fall to the surface" once the electrical current is cut.
Michael's answer, in other words, is no, he cannot demonstrate any quantitative predictive ability of his alleged model. But discarding any quantitative concerns, he can still point out some pictures that look something like what he would expect to see if those pictures were actually showing what he thinks they do and if his crazy notion were correct.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS...
You have to present your ideas in a way that is non-subjective, understandable and applicable by scientists.
Every theory is "subjective". I can "objectively" note that electrical discharges emit x-rays and gamma-rays and so I should expect them to be found in solar atmospheric discharges if my theory is correct. I can't prevent you however from "subjectively" chalking it all up to gamma emitting firefly.
Michael's reply here, in other words, is that he cannot present his ideas in a way that is non-subjective, understandable, and applicable by scientists. He emphasizes his point by stating that if he is correct, then he is correct. And he adds the comment that a gamma emitting firefly is equally as objectively supported as his own wacky conjecture. 
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 06:29:41 [Permalink]
|
Michael, do you even know anything about the solar model you say is wrong?
Solar flares and prominences involve great volumes of moving plasma following magnetic flux lines. If you look at the pictures of solar prominences you will see the similarity between a prominence and the lines of flux of a common magnet. This moving plasma can be called a current if you like - there are charged particles moving along the flux lines. These rapidly moving particles emit E-M radiation all along the spectrum including gamma rays. The prominences do not look at all like electrical discharges. What is the mechanism that would cause an electrical discharge to make a huge loop instead of discharging directly across the shortest path between the difference in potential. Actually an electrical discharge would be impossible due to a static electrical buildup in plasma.
When you use lightening as an example of what is seen on the sun that is a terribly flawed analogy. Lightning occurs as a result of a large difference in electrical potential that occurs because air is a great insulator. The difference between the cloud and the ground causes the air molecules to ionize and become a plasma. After the discharge the electrons are rapidly recaptured by the ionized nuclei.
On the sun the plasma is already present. How do you propose that these large differences in potential developed if the area is bathed in charged particles - there is no insulator to separate the positive from the negative areas. If a difference in potential starts to develope the charged particles will rush in to equalize it.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 07:37:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael, do you even know anything about the solar model you say is wrong?
Solar flares and prominences involve great volumes of moving plasma following magnetic flux lines. If you look at the pictures of solar prominences you will see the similarity between a prominence and the lines of flux of a common magnet. This moving plasma can be called a current if you like - there are charged particles moving along the flux lines. These rapidly moving particles emit E-M radiation all along the spectrum including gamma rays. The prominences do not look at all like electrical discharges. What is the mechanism that would cause an electrical discharge to make a huge loop instead of discharging directly across the shortest path between the difference in potential. Actually an electrical discharge would be impossible due to a static electrical buildup in plasma.
When you use lightening as an example of what is seen on the sun that is a terribly flawed analogy. Lightning occurs as a result of a large difference in electrical potential that occurs because air is a great insulator. The difference between the cloud and the ground causes the air molecules to ionize and become a plasma. After the discharge the electrons are rapidly recaptured by the ionized nuclei.
On the sun the plasma is already present. How do you propose that these large differences in potential developed if the area is bathed in charged particles - there is no insulator to separate the positive from the negative areas. If a difference in potential starts to develope the charged particles will rush in to equalize it.
Thanks for this furshur. A lot of what you said jibes completely with what I've already understood and you've vocalized quite well some of the things sitting in the back of my mind but was unable to put into words. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
