|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/02/2007 : 09:38:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Just like the creationists, Michael is busy doing science backwards. He's starting with his conclusion, and then trying to fit the data to it.
You pegged the irony meter on that one Dave. It emits gamma rays Dave. Explain them *without* current flow. (No furshur didn't explain it without electricity, nor did the paper you mentioned earlier)
quote:
Evidence that doesn't fit, like the real nature of Birkeland's simulations,
Excuse me? Electrical current flow was the real "nature" of Birkeland's simulations Dave. Once you switch off the electrical current, the party is over. No more arcs across the surface, not more cathode rays, no more x-rays. Everything stopped the moment the current stopped Dave. That was the "nature" of his experimentations with "Birkeland currents".
quote:
or the magnitude of Kosovichev's density stratifications,
Ya, but then you ignore his "stratification subsurface" that is sitting smack-dab in the middle of presumably *open* convection zone. Glass houses and stones don't go together Dave. Why isn't that area open like it is supposed to be? Where was the "predicted" in standard theory Dave?
quote:
is either ignored or beaten into submission (along with common sense).
You've utterly ignored Alfven's work entirely Dave!
quote:
His own evidence is tautological, based upon poor assumptions, or intensely subjective.
From a guy supporting a lightening bug analogy as a handwave, you sure are one to talk. Sometimes you are really amusing.
quote:
His publications appear in third-rate journals whose editors lack expertise in the subject matter.
Ya, that was true of Alfven too by the way. Then they handed him a Nobel prize. Then they ignored everything he said about MDH theory and how it relates to *light* plasma. Go figure. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 09:44:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
No, that was my question to you. You said that an electrical current was required for either a particle accelerator, EM fields or accelerated particles. The first and third would be utterly ludicrous, so I asked you if you were serious about the second.quote:
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?
What "light plasma" at 6000K are you talking about?
Next post:quote:
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?
And you're conveniently dodging my question, Michael. Why not just offer a proper reference to support your claim?
Next post:quote:
So? If you're going to sling mud Dave, don't expect to stay clean.
If you think ad hominems are bad things which should only be found on the playground, then when you use them it makes you a hypocrite. Again, please note that I have never once tried to argue that your bitterness or craziness is what makes your theory wrong. That'd be an ad hominem. That you find my specualtion on your motives insulting is something altogether different.quote:
They are not "drastically" different. This is another example of "spin" Dave.
I've already been over why they are, indeed, drastically different, and all you've done is deny it, Michael. You've never been able to show any true similarities between your model and Birkeland's other than an iron sphere, some magnetism and some electrons flying about. The photos do not look the same.quote:
I wasn't talking about the magnetic fields of the sun, I was talking about the magnetic fields that permeate space.
Where do you think those magnetic fields come from, Michael?quote:
When were those predicted to exist in standard theory?
Why would standard solar theory predict magnetic fields out in space if they don't come from the magnetic dynamo within stars?quote:
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?
The field lines aren't in open space, but are rather tightly constrained. The inverse-square law doesn't apply. Natural waveguides occur in Earth's atmosphere, too.quote:
Wouldn't that create a current flow of epic proportions?
No net current, no, since electrons travel down the field lines in both directions, bouncing back and forth. There is no transfer of electrical potential.quote:
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.
Ah, okay, I see now. How well do the emissions match in chronology and relative magnitude?quote:
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.
How have you measured the accuracy of that prediction, and what else does the theory "accurately predict?"
Next post:quote:
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.
Yes, Michael, you are projecting. Your use of the word "inadequacies" really drives home how you feel about your position here. The fact is still that a BS in computer science doesn't make you a scientist, as you once claimed. That you find that fact to be indicative of some "inadequacy" says a lot about what you're thinking, deep down. But in reality it doesn't make any programmer "inadequate" anymore than the fact that having a Master's degree doesn't make one a good golfer. That's not an inadequacy, it's simply reality.
Michael's Unanswered Questions List:- I'd really like to hear how you rationalize being a reasonable person while you extended a single comment I made about Bruce to both Birkeland and Alfven, whom I dealt with separately.
- Are you saying that solar scientists would ignore the fact that magnetic fields don't stop for no reason?
- Supply a reference for Alfven's theory predicting million-degree temperatures in the Sun's corona.
- Have you calculated how much time it took for that field loop seen by Hinode to "collapse" once the "current" was "cut off," Michael?
|
- 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 - 04/02/2007 : 09:57:34 [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.
Hey, we're in agreement so far. By the way, what's making the plasma "move"? What speed are we talking about when you say "moving"?
quote:
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.
Yes, but unlike a magnet the magnetic flow lines go in all sorts of awkward directions that do not flow along consistent flow lines. In Alfven waves, the current flow is parallel to the magnetic field.
quote:
This moving plasma can be called a current if you like
It is driven *by* a current, so it's not "if you like", it's "because of".
quote:
- there are charged particles moving along the flux lines.
Why are they moving again along those flux lines? I understand why they might be aligned, but why are they moving again? What made that loop come crashing back down again?
quote:
These rapidly moving particles emit E-M radiation all along the spectrum including gamma rays.
How? Describe the force that does that. How is a gamma ray emitted from this column of moving plasma, and please explain why the plasma is moving, and why it emits gamma rays, and what speed this plasma is traveling.
quote:
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.
I can only assume that you did not look at Birkeland's simulations and you never read any of his work. Not only does he explain the mechanism, he simulates it in his work. Hint: You'll need "current flow".
quote:
Actually an electrical discharge would be impossible due to a static electrical buildup in plasma.
Huh?
quote:
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.
Explain to me now how you figure that Birkeland created the simulations he created, and how you figure he created those loops across the surface of his sphere?
quote:
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.
It works the same way Birkeland's experiments worked. They sustained those surface "loops" as long as the current continued to flow. Plasma is not a "perfect" conductor, and not all of the solar atmosphere (surface to sheath) is fully ionized. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 10:14:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Michael's reply here, in other words, is that he cannot present his ideas in a way that is non-subjective,
A "prediction" of gamma rays coming from the solar atmosphere is not "subjective". It is a perfectly valid scientific prediction of any electrically oriented solar model, solid surface or no solid surface. Any electrically oriented model of the sun would include discharges. Bruce even talked about them *without* talking about a solid surface. Predicting the existence is "loops" much like we see in Birkeland's experiments is another perfectly valid "prediction" of any solar model that predicts the majority of energy comes from the electrical currents flowing through the sun. Low and behold we find "loops" across the surface, just like "predicted". They make and break connections, just like an electrical model would predict. These are all valid scientific predictions. The only way we know if a theory is valid is to make *objective* predictions and to see of they pan out.
quote:
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. 
This is a tactic that a ID'er might use to try to ignore perfectly valid scientific evidence. You make up a stupid analogy, and ignore the evidence entirely. "Who cares if accurately predicted these atmospheric discharges, it "could" be caused by something else." Of course, just like an ID'er, you refuse to explain what that something else might really be. You then all run like hell for cover the moment I ask you for valid alternatives. The "MO" between your tactics and the tactics of an intelligent designer is identical. You smear the scientific evidence, and refuse to offer valid scientific explanations. Same dance, different tune.
You personally are the single biggest coward I have ever met in cyberspace. You are all smear, and no science. You're the Foxnews of science. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/02/2007 10:15:30 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 10:25:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
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?
And you're conveniently dodging my question, Michael. Why not just offer a proper reference to support your claim?
In other words: "None". You've read absolutely none of his work, *ever*! All of your opinions about electric solar theory are based on blind ignorance and willful blind ignorance because you've never taken the time to understand any of the physics behind plasma cosmology. It's all Greek to you, and you insist on it remaining that way, so you won't bother reading the one person's work that might actually sway your opinions. How convenient Dave. I guess ignorance really is bliss.
If you aren't going to bother educating yourself, why should I babysit you Dave? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/02/2007 10:26:37 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 11:08:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Solar flares and prominences involve great volumes of moving plasma following magnetic flux lines.
Hey, we're in agreement so far. By the way, what's making the plasma "move"? What speed are we talking about when you say "moving"?
Changes in the magnetic field but the highest energies are when the magnetic fields reconnect.
The speed of the electrons would be very close to the speed of light.
quote:
quote:
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.
Yes, but unlike a magnet the magnetic flow lines go in all sorts of awkward directions that do not flow along consistent flow lines.
In general this statement is not correct. When there are 'awkward directions' this is during reconnection.
quote:
quote:
This moving plasma can be called a current if you like
It is driven *by* a current, so it's not "if you like", it's "because of".
Gee, you are really confused. Def. - current is the flow of electrical charge. So you are saying the flow of the electrical charge is being driven by the flow of electrical charge???
quote:
quote:
These rapidly moving particles emit E-M radiation all along the spectrum including gamma rays.
How? Describe the force that does that. How is a gamma ray emitted from this column of moving plasma, and please explain why the plasma is moving, and why it emits gamma rays, and what speed this plasma is traveling.
It works the same way that the X-ray machine in the dentist office does.
Already said why the plasma is moving.
Already gave a speed.
quote:
quote:
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.
I can only assume that you did not look at Birkeland's simulations and you never read any of his work. Not only does he explain the mechanism, he simulates it in his work. Hint: You'll need "current flow".
How do Birkland's simulations of the auroras on earth have anything to do with this discussion?
quote:
quote:
Actually an electrical discharge would be impossible due to a static electrical buildup in plasma.
Huh?
You cannot have a build up of static electricity on the sun.
quote:
quote:
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.
Explain to me now how you figure that Birkeland created the simulations he created, and how you figure he created those loops across the surface of his sphere?
Again with the earth model...
quote:
quote:
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.
It works the same way Birkeland's experiments worked. They sustained those surface "loops" as long as the current continued to flow. Plasma is not a "perfect" conductor, and not all of the solar atmosphere (surface to sheath) is fully ionized.
So, were those loops following the magnetic flux lines?
Plasma is not superconducting, well gee thanks for that insight. copper is not a "perfect" conductor either - however I do not recommend sticking a bare copper wire into a socket.
Thanks for the kind words Cune.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 11:40:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Changes in the magnetic field
So 200,000K below the surface of the photosphere, some magnetic field exists, is is also "changing" in some way? What way is that? How does that result in coronal loops at the surface that emit gamma rays and x-rays and iron ion photons galore?
quote:
but the highest energies are when the magnetic fields reconnect.
So what is average temperature of one loop say 1000KM above the photosphere if there is no reconnection happening? Define "magnetic reconnection" for me. How does that manifest itself in a single or double loop scenario?
quote:
The speed of the electrons would be very close to the speed of light.
You're talking about an electrical discharge through plasma, just like me then. The current in Alfven Waves flows in parallel with the magnetic fields.
quote:
In general this statement is not correct. When there are 'awkward directions' this is during reconnection.
I'm not sure how we could reconcile this idea since I don't know how you figure we should see a singular loop at all, and I don't see how you believe there is a "normal" pattern associated with standard theory, or my theory. It seems like there is no logical way to define a "normal" emission pattern in either theory. It would vary after awhile. My theory would expect a longevity to these emissions, and I don't understand what you figure sustains that longevity in "magnetic reconection". In fact, I'm quite doubtful that any thing exists. It sounds like a misunderstood theory related to MHD theory, and Alfven flatly rejected magnetic reconnection in any form.
quote:
Gee, you are really confused.
No, it the "mainstream" that is "confused". They don't understand how that loop can fizzle out and come crashing back to the surface. Birkeland did that much 100 years ago. Alfven explained the math too.
quote:
Def. - current is the flow of electrical charge. So you are saying the flow of the electrical charge is being driven by the flow of electrical charge???
No, I'm saying that the flow of current inside the loop is what creates that high temperatures inside each coronal loop. That flow of electrons creates a strong magnetic field around itself. It's the current (electron) flow that drives the discharge event, just like discharge events in the earth's atmosphere.
I'm going to stop here to want and see how you answer some of these basic issues. This "could" develop into an interesting conversation if we both keep our cool. How about it?
It seems to me that your theory precludes the existence of a singular loop at millions of degrees. In other words, if I understand your definition of "magnetic reconnection", the energy release only takes place when two of them touch? Maybe I misunderstood your definition of magnetic reconnection? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 12:22:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Just like the creationists, Michael is busy doing science backwards. He's starting with his conclusion, and then trying to fit the data to it.
You pegged the irony meter on that one Dave. It emits gamma rays Dave. Explain them *without* current flow. (No furshur didn't explain it without electricity, nor did the paper you mentioned earlier)
As long as you persist in your ludicrous notion that all movement of electrons is "current flow" (even when there is no net flow of electrical potential), you will fail to grasp what that University of Maryland paper was saying about the source of the gamma rays.quote:
quote:
Evidence that doesn't fit, like the real nature of Birkeland's simulations,
Excuse me? Electrical current flow was the real "nature" of Birkeland's simulations Dave. Once you switch off the electrical current, the party is over. No more arcs across the surface, not more cathode rays, no more x-rays. Everything stopped the moment the current stopped Dave. That was the "nature" of his experimentations with "Birkeland currents".
Except, of course, for all the other details of the experiment. Were there any X-rays or gamma rays associated with Birkeland's terrela experiments?quote:
Ya, but then you ignore his "stratification subsurface" that is sitting smack-dab in the middle of presumably *open* convection zone. Glass houses and stones don't go together Dave. Why isn't that area open like it is supposed to be? Where was the "predicted" in standard theory Dave?
I don't ignore any "stratification subsurface" because he never mentioned any. The density of the gasses in the Sun goes up with depth, Michael. That it doesn't do so completely smoothly is what Kosovichev was measuring. The convection cells are open within each cell. But there are density differences between the cells.quote:
quote:
is either ignored or beaten into submission (along with common sense).
You've utterly ignored Alfven's work entirely Dave!
Alfven's work is irrevelant to the data that you ignore, Michael.quote:
quote:
His own evidence is tautological, based upon poor assumptions, or intensely subjective.
From a guy supporting a lightening bug analogy as a handwave, you sure are one to talk. Sometimes you are really amusing.
I have presented no evidence for any theory. We're talking about your evidence for your theory.quote:
quote:
His publications appear in third-rate journals whose editors lack expertise in the subject matter.
Ya, that was true of Alfven too by the way. Then they handed him a Nobel prize. Then they ignored everything he said about MDH theory and how it relates to *light* plasma. Go figure.
Past greatness is not predictive of future genius. You've got the "argument from authority" down pat, Michael.
Next post:quote:
In other words: "None". You've read absolutely none of his work, *ever*!
A flatly unsupported conclusion. Why is it that you refuse to post a proper citation in support of your claim?quote:
If you aren't going to bother educating yourself, why should I babysit you Dave?
You're the one making the claim. It's not my job to go find data to either support or deflate your claims. It's your job to support your claims. If you won't support them, then I have no reason to think you're correct.
Michael's Unanswered Questions List:- I'd really like to hear how you rationalize being a reasonable person while you extended a single comment I made about Bruce to both Birkeland and Alfven, whom I dealt with separately.
- Are you saying that solar scientists would ignore the fact that magnetic fields don't stop for no reason?
- Supply a reference for Alfven's theory predicting million-degree temperatures in the Sun's corona.
- Have you calculated how much time it took for that field loop seen by Hinode to "collapse" once the "current" was "cut off," Michael?
- What it is about the generation of gamma rays that requires the flow of electrical current?
- How well do the emissions detected by Rhessi on Earth and the Sun match in chronology and relative magnitude?
- How have you measured the accuracy of the prediction that gamma- and X-rays should be seen in the Sun's corona?
- What else does the "electric Sun" theory "accurately predict?"
|
- 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 - 04/02/2007 : 16:49:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What "light plasma" at 6000K are you talking about?
Dave, please address the point I was making and stop going off on tangents. The solar atmosphere is composed of light plasma. It is not a solid (even in my theory!). You can't point to a solid and use it as an example of what we would expect to see in magnetic fields in plasma. To know what happens to magnetic fields in plasma we have to understand something about plasma physics. According to the creator of MHD theory, those x-rays coming from the solar atmosphere are probably created by electrical discharges. Now unless you can give me a valid reason to reject the options of the creator of MHD theory in favor of Dave's opinions, you're going to have to provide me with some logical reasons to do that.
quote:
And you're conveniently dodging my question, Michael. Why not just offer a proper reference to support your claim?
I already did that Dave. He talks about it extensively in that book I suggested to you. Educate yourself and read his work. They gave the guy a Nobel prize, don't you figure you aught to understand how he viewed MHD theory as it relates to sustaining magnetic fields in light plasma?
quote:
I've already been over why they are, indeed, drastically different, and all you've done is deny it, Michael. You've never been able to show any true similarities between your model and Birkeland's other than an iron sphere, some magnetism and some electrons flying about. The photos do not look the same.
Oh boloney! You're the one in denial and playing the "spin" game. Let's note what Birkeland's model required and what it produced.
His model required current flow, and "flying ions" galore. It required a magnetic core. It required a metal surface. It required a plasma atmosphere surrounded by a vacuum. It required a boatload of electricity to make it all operate too.
When he turned it on, it created sparks across the surface that congregated in and around the "rough spots". He created high energy discharges in the atmosphere and tornado like structures that he describes in the plasma, all the same things we find in solar satellite images today.
Our model has a magnetic core. It has a metal shell. It has current flow, and it requires a boatload of energy to make it work. The only thing that is different about it is that it generates "some" induction current. That's the only difference. You are purposefully trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. You are ignoring a dozen different similarities and focusing on one trivial difference! Get real.
quote:
Where do you think those magnetic fields come from, Michael?
Current that runs through the plasma threads of space generates those magnetic fields just like Alfven predicted. Then again, you wouldn't know squat about that because you're smarter the guy with the Nobel prize, degree or no degree.
Maybe I'll try to come back to this later, but this is obviously going nowhere. You will never go out on a limb and offer any alternatives. You will not educate yourself to Alfven's work, so we can't even speak the same language. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/02/2007 16:53:41 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 18:53:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Dave, please address the point I was making and stop going off on tangents.
I am addressing the point: you basically claimed (with "Particle accelerators use EM fields to accelerate particles. Ding, Ding, Ding, that one actually has possibilities, but then you need electrical current.") that something about accelerating particles requires an electrical current. That goes deep to your understanding of physics, so you should support your claim.quote:
The solar atmosphere is composed of light plasma. It is not a solid (even in my theory!). You can't point to a solid and use it as an example of what we would expect to see in magnetic fields in plasma. To know what happens to magnetic fields in plasma we have to understand something about plasma physics.
All of this misses the point, that you haven't supported your claim, and you seem to be doing everything you can to avoid supporting your claim.quote:
According to the creator of MHD theory, those x-rays coming from the solar atmosphere are probably created by electrical discharges.
Why do you think he is correct?quote:
Now unless you can give me a valid reason to reject the options of the creator of MHD theory in favor of Dave's opinions, you're going to have to provide me with some logical reasons to do that.
You're shifting the burden of proof again. It's not up to me to disprove Alfven's work. If you want to claim that Alfven's work supports your own theory, you'll have to demonstrate it.quote:
I already did that Dave. He talks about it extensively in that book I suggested to you.
A proper citation isn't "here's the name of a book." What page number in which edition offers a descent description of this alleged prediction?quote:
Educate yourself and read his work.
With all your stonewalling, I suspect that I might read the book and find that he offers no support at all for your contentions. That's why I'd prefer a quote and a page number before I invest all that effort.quote:
They gave the guy a Nobel prize, don't you figure you aught to understand how he viewed MHD theory as it relates to sustaining magnetic fields in light plasma?
I don't give a damn about how he viewed the sustaining of magnetic fields in light plasma, I want you to show me where he predicts million-degree temperatures derived from electrical currents, as you've claimed he has.quote:
Oh boloney! You're the one in denial and playing the "spin" game. Let's note what Birkeland's model required and what it produced.
His model required current flow, and "flying ions" galore. It required a magnetic core. It required a metal surface. It required a plasma atmosphere surrounded by a vacuum. It required a boatload of electricity to make it all operate too.
Wait, wait, wait. How the hell was Birkeland able to create a "plasma atmosphere surrounded by a vacuum?"quote:
When he turned it on, it created sparks across the surface that congregated in and around the "rough spots".
Sparks? What page, please?quote:
He created high energy discharges in the atmosphere...
He did? Page number, please.quote:
...and tornado like structures....
Page number please.quote:
...that he describes in the plasma, all the same things we find in solar satellite images today.
Except for the fact that the solar atmosphere doesn't resemble Birkeland's atmosphere.quote:
Our model has a magnetic core. It has a metal shell. It has current flow, and it requires a boatload of energy to make it work. The only thing that is different about it is that it generates "some" induction current. That's the only difference.
Except in the details. You really want us to gloss over all that, don't you?quote:
You are purposefully trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. You are ignoring a dozen different similarities and focusing on one trivial difference! Get real.
No, I'm focused on dozens of differences.quote:
Current that runs through the plasma threads of space generates those magnetic fields just like Alfven predicted.
Where's the evidence of that?quote:
Then again, you wouldn't know squat about that because you're smarter the guy with the Nobel prize, degree or no degree.
Ad hominem.quote:
Maybe I'll try to come back to this later, but this is obviously going nowhere.
It's going nowhere just like it went nowhere before, because you refuse to put up any actual science and you refuse to answer questions.quote:
You will never go out on a limb and offer any alternatives.
My alternative is "we don't know," and you can't seem to offer a better theory than that.quote:
You will not educate yourself to Alfven's work, so we can't even speak the same language.
I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase for your amusement, Michael. If you can demonstrate that Alfven actually made the predictions you claim he made, and you can demonstrate that his work is relevant to your theory, then I'll meet you halfway. But your refusal to even cough up a page number says to me that you don't understand Alfven's work any better than I do. I think you're scared to death of actually revealing his work, and so would prefer that nobody here "educate" themselves.
Michael's Unanswered Questions List:- I'd really like to hear how you rationalize being a reasonable person while you extended a single comment I made about Bruce to both Birkeland and Alfven, whom I dealt with separately.
- Are you saying that solar scientists would ignore the fact that magnetic fields don't stop for no reason?
- Supply a reference for Alfven's theory predicting million-degree temperatures in the Sun's corona.
- Have you calculated how much time it took for that field loop seen by Hinode to "collapse" once the "current" was "cut off," Michael?
- What it is about the generation of gamma rays that requires the flow of electrical current?
- How well do the emissions detected by Rhessi on Earth and the Sun match in chronology and relative magnitude?
- How have you measured the accuracy of the prediction that gamma- and X-rays should be seen in the Sun's corona?
- What else does the "electric Sun" theory "accurately predict?"
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 19:25:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So 200,000K below the surface of the photosphere, some magnetic field exists, is is also "changing" in some way?
I assume you know this since you disagree with the current solar model but for fun lets give a general overview.
No there is not 'some magnetic field' 200,000 km below the surface. The sun itself has a magnetic field much like the earth which is easily measured and is about 1 gauss or 2X the strength of earth's magnetic field. Superimposed in this field is a much more complicated and convoluted magnetic field which again is easily measured using the Zeeman effect as well as other techniques. The magnetic field in the regions of sun spots is in the 1000s of gauss. Typically sunspots form in pairs with each sunspot at opposite magnetic polarities. Plasma flows along the lines of flux between the spots. These localized magnetic field are probably caused by convective flow of plasma. The resulting magnetic field is in constant motion with can be seen in the changing field strength measurements as well as directly by the changing field lines as outlined by the plasma flow.
quote:
How does that result in coronal loops at the surface that emit gamma rays and x-rays and iron ion photons galore?
I have already answered the first part of the question. But again, electrons with high energies emit high energy photons. A fast moving electron that 'hits' a nucleus will emit a photon. The faster the electron is moving the higher the energy of the emitted photon. With magnetic fields as high as 4000 gauss there is plenty of motive force to attain the necessary electron speeds.
There are not iron ion photons galore, that is one reason that they are used. By using detectors that only record the Fe XII 195 emissions they act like filters, because there are so few photons of that wavelength.
quote:
So what is average temperature of one loop say 1000KM above the photosphere if there is no reconnection happening? Define "magnetic reconnection" for me. How does that manifest itself in a single or double loop scenario?
Is this some sort of test? It is pretty amazing that you tell people that it is not your job to educate them on YOUR model yet you want me to define magnetic reconnection? How is it you disagree with a model you don't understand? You are making it very hard for me to 'keep my cool'.
quote:
Alfven flatly rejected magnetic reconnection in any form.
Well gee, Alfven was wrong, as shown here and here. But take heart Einstein flatly rejected quantum mechanics.
quote:
I'm not sure how we could reconcile this idea since I don't know how you figure we should see a singular loop at all, and I don't see how you believe there is a "normal" pattern associated with standard theory, or my theory. It seems like there is no logical way to define a "normal" emission pattern in either theory. It would vary after awhile.
I should have said typical. This is a typical emission pattern
Looks like magnetic force lines, doesn't it?
quote:
No, it the "mainstream" that is "confused". They don't understand how that loop can fizzle out and come crashing back to the surface.
I was talking about your misunderstanding of what current is. The 'mainstream' does not understand how the magnetic field can suddenly stop and have the loop crash down, but I assure you your boys don't either.
quote:
No, I'm saying that the flow of current inside the loop is what creates that high temperatures inside each coronal loop.
The charged particles not just electrons are are accelrated by the magnetic field and they jostle and slam into each other raising the translational KE- OK.
quote:
That flow of electrons creates a strong magnetic field around itself. It's the current (electron) flow that drives the discharge event, just like discharge events in the earth's atmosphere.
That scenario would not be like anything occuring naturally on earth. The current doesn't drive the discharge the CURRENT IS THE DISCHARGE. The difference in potential is what DRIVES the discharge. When you walk across a carpet in winter in socks you have a build up electrons on your body. There is a large difference in electrical potential between you and a grounded object (this is the driving force). The spark that jumps from you to the grounded object is the discharge - about 10,000 volts to jump a 1/2" gap as I recall.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 19:58:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
But again, electrons with high energies emit high energy photons. A fast moving electron that 'hits' a nucleus will emit a photon. The faster the electron is moving the higher the energy of the emitted photon. With magnetic fields as high as 4000 gauss there is plenty of motive force to attain the necessary electron speeds.
Actually, a free electron which undergoes any acceleration will emit photons at energies proportional to the amount of acceleration. The UofM paper describes characteristic radiation from electrons not only "crashing" into the thicker medium of the chromosphere as they follow the field lines down from way up high, but also characteristic radiation of electrons simply spinning around field lines. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 20:12:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, a free electron which undergoes any acceleration will emit photons at energies proportional to the amount of acceleration.
You are absolutely right Dave, I stand corrected. I was 'locked in' to my earlier analogy of a dentists x-ray machine. Typically in that case an electron beam is directed to hit a target material to produce x-rays.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 05:11:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
This is a tactic that a ID'er might use to try to ignore perfectly valid scientific evidence.
Perfectly valid scientific evidence is quantitative, Michael. Numbers are specified when describing scientific evidence. Surface features have heights, widths, lengths, depths, distances between each other, etc. Those are measured in miles, kilometers, feet, or even cubits. They are not measured in "relatively", "very large", "not very much", "enormous", or other such non-specific terminology.
Materials have densities, temperatures, elemental compositions, etc. Those are scientifically described in numbers. Densities are measured in units of mass relative to volume using tons, pounds, kilograms, etc., per cubic meter, cubic foot, cubic inch, etc. Numbers are used, not terms like "very dense", "less dense than aerogel", "thick", "relatively thin", and similar descriptive terms. Temperatures are measured in numbers of degrees, not "hot", "cooler than", millions of degrees", and so on. They're specified in numerical terms according to Fahrenheit, Kelvin, or Celsius scales. Elemental compositions are expressed in particular compounds making up percentages of a total, using numbers. They aren't scientifically described by showing a picture and claiming one thing has a composition much like we see in the picture. Actual numbers are required to properly, scientifically describe materials.
Electrical activity is measured using numerical terms to describe flow, resistance, current, conductivity, etc. Numerical means using numbers, Michael. There are no such scientifically valid terms as "highly active", "galore", "extremely", "relatively", or other descriptive or comparatives which you're so fond of using but which aren't quantitatively definitive.
Magnetic strength, plasma flow, electrical current, distances, densities, depths, photon emissions, temperatures, virtually everything you want to blabber about requires the use of numbers to describe and define them quantitatively or they simply are not useful as valid scientific evidence. You haven't yet provided any perfectly valid scientific evidence to accept or ignore, Michael. And whenever anyone asks you for any, instead of simply answering the question with the relevant numbers, you go off on a crying tantrum. Every single time you've had any opportunity to legitimately and scientifically support your claim, you have simply refused to show us any perfectly valid scientific evidence.
quote:
You make up a stupid analogy, and ignore the evidence entirely. "Who cares if accurately predicted these atmospheric discharges, it "could" be caused by something else."
And once more, you haven't once accurately predicted a thing. You'd need to be using numbers, quantitative data to describe, define, or predict anything with accuracy.
quote:
Of course, just like an ID'er, you refuse to explain what that something else might really be. You then all run like hell for cover the moment I ask you for valid alternatives. The "MO" between your tactics and the tactics of an intelligent designer is identical. You smear the scientific evidence, and refuse to offer valid scientific explanations. Same dance, different tune.
Here's the situation, once more especially for you, Michael. The two basic alternatives under consideration are these: Either (1) you are correct in your notions about the Sun, or (2) you are not. You continue to present your notion without a shred of scientific evidence to substantiate your claim. Yet even without it, you claim you are correct. I have, since the very beginning of these conversations so many months ago, offered a better alternative, the only alternative to the issue of you being correct or not. And apparently my position is in agreement with the position of every single professional astrophysicist on Earth. I have offered the alternative that you are not correct. That alternative explanation will always be better as long as you continue to avoid providing any perfectly valid scientific evidence.
quote:
You personally are the single biggest coward I have ever met in cyberspace. You are all smear, and no science. You're the Foxnews of science.
It's amazing that you've been able to keep up all that whimpering and whining for so long, Michael, and still continue to avoid fleshing out your nutty conjecture with any actual numbers. Not a single quantitative piece of evidence in any of your 1500 posts. Not one bit of... how did you put it?... perfectly valid scientific evidence.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 06:33:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You're the Foxnews of science.
That's out of line, Michael... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
