|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 04/05/2007 : 12:55:37
|
[This thread continues what was being discussed over here]
(I figured I'd change the name back, too.)
For those who haven't followed this saga, here are the older threads:- Surface of the Sun, Part 1
- Surface of the Sun, Part 2
- Surface of the Sun, Part 3
- Surface of the Sun, Part 4
- Surface of the Sun, Part 5
- Surface of the Sun, Part 6
- Surface of the Sun, Part 7
- Surface of the Sun, Part 8
- Surface of the Sun, Part 9
- Surface of the Sun, Part 10
- Surface of the Sun, Part 11
- Surface of the Sun, Part 12
- Matter and the Big Bang, Part 1
- Matter and the Big Bang, Part 2
- New 'Impossible' findings on the Sun
|
- 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 - 04/05/2007 : 13:45:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
There is no distinction.
Yes there is a "distinction" Dave. Give me a break. Both moving ions and electrons will create magnetic fields, but there is a distinct difference in they way electrical discharges behave in plasma and how it behaves just convecting around by heat alone.
You're not making any sense, Michael. There is no distinction between electron flow in a non-moving or convecting plasma. Electron flow in both moving and non-moving plasmas are currents, they both generate magnetic fields, etc..quote:
Those million degree loops cannot be "electron free".
Who said that coronal loops are "electron free?"quote:
In fact they have to be suspended by the electron flow.
How would that happen? What mechanism of current "suspends" coronal loops? And what are they "suspended" within?quote:
What Dave isn't mentioning is that fact that the surface of the photosphere is "boiling" like you might watch hot milk boil.
The behaviour of the visible photosphere is largely irrelevant to the behaviour of the coronal loops, Michael.quote:
By itself, it is completely incapable of creating enough *aligned* currents in that boiling motion to do anything like what we observe in the corona.
Who is claiming that the photosphere is capable of creating anything in the corona?quote:
That requires electron flow.
Nobody disagrees with that.quote:
quote:
If you have moving charged particles, you've got what is technically an electrical current.
"Technically" in the sense that you might expect to see magnetic fields, sure. "Technically" as in raising the temperature to millions of degrees by convection alone, forget it.
What does convection have to do with electromagnetic fields up in the corona, Michael?quote:
If that were the case, why isn't the whole temp of the photosphere a million degrees?
Ah, I see: you're just swatting at a strawman again, aren't you?quote:
Cune, he's hiding the energy source with smoke and mirrors.
According to modern solar theory, the energy source is ultimately hydrogen fusion. Nobody is trying to hide that.quote:
quote:
Electrical currents generate magnetic fields. And moving magnetic fields can make charged particles move (inducing a current).
Either way you look at it Dave, you're going to need a *huge* current flow to explain those loops.
Nobody is disputing that, either.quote:
You have kinetic energy, magnetism and electron flow to work with, and you can't have any one of them without the other two in light plasma like we find in the corona.
Nobody disputes that.quote:
quote:
Michael, however, is focused on the word "discharge." In lightning, a huge build-up of charge occurs within a cloud until the point that the charge breaks down air's insulating properties, and a giant "spark" occurs.
Note here that we have many examples of this right here on earth. No "magic magnetic fields" are required to explain million degree plasma. When does that Occum's razor argument apply Dave?
When you can demonstrate that there exists an insulator within the Sun's corona, just like air is an insulator allowing a charge build-up within a cloud.quote:
quote:
That huge current is a "discharge" of the charge in the cloud. Michael wants us to think that all of the activity we see in the Sun's corona is due to discharges of built-up electrical potential. Really huge sparks.
Yep.
Thanks for admitting to that notion. Now, where's that insulator?quote:
quote:
But the modern theory is that about 200,000 km beneath the Sun's photosphere, there's an area where the radiant transport of heat from the core switches over to convective transport.
Note that this magnetic field is created by moving "current" as Dave described the idea of moving ions. Note also that the source of the magnetic field is presumed to be 200,000 KM away. Why does it affect plasma that far away and how does it do that?
What would stop the magnetic field from doing so?quote:
Ya, but Dave, it's over 200,000 KM away!
An argument from incredulity holds no weight.quote:
Why does it create coronal loops 200,000 away, and how in the hell does it do that without electron flow?
What do you mean "without electron flow?" You just pointed out (and I agree completely) that the dynamo is created by electron flow, so why should I prove something that we both know is wrong, Michael?quote:
Electric currents without discharges?
An electric current is nothing more than charged particles in motion. To have a "discharge," it requires an insulator so that an electric potential is built up to the point that the potential breaks down the insulator, leaving an ion channel through which the electric potential quickly drains, creating a spark. The Sun's corona isn't an insulator, though, is it?quote:
How *exactly* (be specific) does that magnetic fields 200,000 away "rise up" from the dynamo?
Why wouldn't it?quote:
What creates the million degree "loops" in the atmosphere...
The dynamo does.quote:
...and why there rather than 100,000KM below the surface of the photosphere?
How do you know there aren't any magnetic field loops deep under the photosphere?quote:
I am fixated on discharges (electron flow)...
Not all electron flow is "discharges," Michael.quote:
...because that is the only way you will every heat plasma to 1 million degrees. Period.
You've never shown that's possible, Michael.quote:
Dave keeps trying to make everything he doesn't understand a "magnetic" issue.
Not at all, you just refuse to acknowledge things that contradict your theory.quote:
It's not. You can't claim that the Earth's magnetic fields interact with the moving air at the surface to create "million degree lines in the sky". That's not how it works!
Right, lightning is completely different from solar coronal loops.quote:
The sun's magnetic field is like the earth's magnetic field.
Except for the fact that the Earth's magnetic field is trapped inside a highly resistive shell and so doesn't produce "loops" that are thousands of kilometers long. It takes a highly-conductive shell for that, and the Sun's plasmas are highly conductive.quote:
It is completely incapable of doing squat at is relates to heating plasma to millions of degrees in the absence of current flow.
And there's the strawman again: nobody is claiming that there's an absence of current flow. Why can't you agree to that simple premise? The dispute is over whether the current flow occurs in "discharges" or not, and whether an appropriate insulator exists within the Sun's corona for discharges to occur in the first place. Do you agree?
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?"
- Why do you think Alfven was correct?
- How the hell was Birkeland able to create a "plasma atmosphere surrounded by a vacuum?"
- On what page numbers does Birkeland record "sparks," "tornado like structures," and "high energy discharges?"
- Where is the evidence for "Current that runs through the plasma threads of space generates those magnetic fields just like Alfven predicted."
- What sort of evidence should I provide to demonstrate "we don't know?"
- Why do lightning bolts generate gamma rays?
- Why are gamma rays detected in the Sun's corona?
- Weren't you banned on BAUT forums?
- Does Alfven explain why he thinks x-rays in a Skylab photo are "likely caused by "electrical discharges?"
- Why is it that magnetic field lines "cannot make and break connections?"
- Why don't you define "electrical current" for us?
- Hey, Michael, are you 'ManInTheMirror' over at the BAUT forum?
- Why don't you explain why Kosovichev is wrong, or why you're both correct if you switch underlying assumptions?
- Kosovichev measured dozens of tiny density differences in the experiment from which you hijacked a couple of numbers for your allegedly solid layer's depth, but all you can do in the diagrams you posted is suggest the existence of a single one?
|
- 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 - 04/05/2007 : 14:25:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're not making any sense, Michael. There is no distinction between electron flow in a non-moving or convecting plasma. Electron flow in both moving and non-moving plasmas are currents, they both generate magnetic fields, etc..
But there is a distinction between a "flow" of plasma ions, and a "flow" of electrons *through* and inside the plasma.
quote:
Who said that coronal loops are "electron free?"
You keep trying to sterilize the whole electron flow aspect Dave. You can't do that and heat plasma to a million degrees sitting on top of a 6000 degree photosphere! Come on!
quote:
How would that happen? What mechanism of current "suspends" coronal loops?
It's called a "z-pinch" or a Bennett pinch.
quote:
And what are they "suspended" within?
The plasma atmosphere.
quote:
The behaviour of the visible photosphere is largely irrelevant to the behaviour of the coronal loops, Michael.
What "behavior" is responsible Dave for them, and be specific.
Before I go any further, I want to hear you answer some of these very basic questions Dave. You keep handwaving those magic magnetic fields of your right and left and you've provided no logical way to heat plasma to a million degrees. Let's hear it Dave. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/05/2007 14:26:20 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 14:31:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[This thread continues what was being discussed over here]
(I figured I'd change the name back, too.)
For those who haven't followed this saga, here are the older threads:- Surface of the Sun, Part 1
- Surface of the Sun, Part 2
- Surface of the Sun, Part 3
- Surface of the Sun, Part 4
- Surface of the Sun, Part 5
- Surface of the Sun, Part 6
- Surface of the Sun, Part 7
- Surface of the Sun, Part 8
- Surface of the Sun, Part 9
- Surface of the Sun, Part 10
- Surface of the Sun, Part 11
- Surface of the Sun, Part 12
- Matter and the Big Bang, Part 1
- Matter and the Big Bang, Part 2
- New 'Impossible' findings on the Sun
Wow, 15 complete threads. Yet according to the 'fair and balanced' reporting of Geemack, I've never answered any questions at all. I guess there is just no pleasing some people. :) |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 14:47:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Wow, 15 complete threads. Yet according to the 'fair and balanced' reporting of Geemack, I've never answered any questions at all. I guess there is just no pleasing some people. :)
You never respond in any meaningful way to the criticisms of your theory, Michael.
Notice in your latest response to Dave that you never addressed the fact that electrical charges require an insulator in order to build up. It's just omitted. Like you can forget the issue was ever brought. Who do you think you're fooling, anyway? It ain't us, Michael, so I can only assume it's an exercise in self-deception.
Then you try to hide your lack of a response behind yet another demand for Dave to come up with a better explanation, which by now everyone is well aware isn't required of him. His explanation or lack of one doesn't affect the quality of your explanation in any way whatsoever.
So, yes, 15 pages of that. 15 pages of you failing to address valid concerns about your ideas, stall tactics, whining, insults, and a complete lack of a scientifically testable model.
Those threads are a towering testament to your abject failure, Michael.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 16:18:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
You never respond in any meaningful way to the criticisms of your theory, Michael.
Hey, you should work for Foxnews too! YOu didn't find any meaningful responses from me in any of those threads?
quote:
Notice in your latest response to Dave that you never addressed the fact that electrical charges require an insulator in order to build up.
That would be true if the sun wasn't being continuously bombarded with electrons, and plasma didn't form z-pinch filaments. In the real world however your objections have no merit. The sun is continuously conducting current. There is no "buildup" necessary, just as there was no "buildup" necessary in Birkeland's experiments..
quote:
It ain't us, Michael, so I can only assume it's an exercise in self-deception.
Well, from my vantage point you sound like a creationist in denial of evolution. You're just in denial of electricity. Your own self-deception prevents you from exploring the one model that's actually been lab tested.
quote:
Then you try to hide your lack of a response behind yet another demand for Dave to come up with a better explanation, which by now everyone is well aware isn't required of him. His explanation or lack of one doesn't affect the quality of your explanation in any way whatsoever.
Creationist always handwave away the evidence. What they absolutely will never try to do is to actually present any scientific evidence of their own to support an alternative theory. They can't do it, and neither can you because reality is reality.
quote:
So, yes, 15 pages of that. 15 pages of you failing to address valid concerns about your ideas, stall tactics, whining, insults, and a complete lack of a scientifically testable model.
You are evidently also in denial of the fact that Birkeland has tested every major component of my model and he has already demonstrated that it does work.
quote:
Those threads are a towering testament to your abject failure, Michael.
And your last few statements are a towering testament to your abject failure to be objective, fair, balanced or scientific. Welcome to Foxnews. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/05/2007 16:53:55 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 18:06:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
Wow, 15 complete threads. Yet according to the 'fair and balanced' reporting of Geemack, I've never answered any questions at all.
Of course I didn't say you've never answered any questions at all. Either you know that and you're lying, or you don't know it and you're either an incompetent reader or you're mentally ill.
You and 'ManInTheMirror' over at BAUT have both provided a pretty substantial base of evidence to show you and he are one and the same person. But here's a chance, Michael, for you to give a straight up, honest, yes or no answer for a change: Are you 'ManInTheMirror' on the BAUT forum?
Also, you've neglected these issues...- Are you suggesting that where we see generally vertically oriented movement in the helioseismology graphs we're seeing mass moving, and where we see more or less horizontal movement, that would be electrons? If so, how do you differentiate between the mass flow within plasma and the electron flow in a solid material? Please put your reply in scientific, quantitative form so we can apply it in a repeatable way when analyzing other helioseismology data.
- Why have you so far refused to apply the method given to you to determine some specific measurements of the topography of your allegedly solid surface?
- What sort of electrical current and resistance properties are required to produce the thermal characteristics we measure from the Sun? Please provide a quantitative, scientific answer so we can compare it to known values and check it for plausibility.
- What exactly is the material composition, in percentages, actual numbers please, of that supposedly solid surface on the Sun?
- What are the specific temperature characteristics of that allegedly solid surface? Again provide a quantitative reply please, in real numbers, so we can check it for plausibility.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 20:04:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But there is a distinction between a "flow" of plasma ions, and a "flow" of electrons *through* and inside the plasma.
And I was speaking of the latter, as I know you are. Why would you bring plasma flow into this if not to muddy the waters and accuse people of ignoring electricity?quote:
quote:
Who said that coronal loops are "electron free?"
You keep trying to sterilize the whole electron flow aspect Dave.
I'll ask again: who said - as you claimed - that coronal loops are "electron free?" You can keep trying to suggest that I'm ignoring electrons, Michael, but you'll only keep making a fool of yourself.quote:
You can't do that and heat plasma to a million degrees sitting on top of a 6000 degree photosphere! Come on!
I didn't do that, Michael. Never have. Never will. Without electricity, there would be no MHD.quote:
quote:
How would that happen? What mechanism of current "suspends" coronal loops?
It's called a "z-pinch" or a Bennett pinch.
That's a non-answer. I've crushed cans before, and I fail to see how a z-pinch would "suspend" a coronal loop.quote:
quote:
And what are they "suspended" within?
The plasma atmosphere.
An obvious and unhelpful answer.quote:
quote:
The behaviour of the visible photosphere is largely irrelevant to the behaviour of the coronal loops, Michael.
What "behavior" is responsible Dave for them, and be specific.
What does it matter? Both your theory and the gas model say that the behaviour of the photosphere is irrelevant to the behaviour of coronal loops. You made a contradictory claim, so why don't you show us exactly how the standard solar model links coronal loops and the "boiling" of the photosphere? Come on, you can do it, because you think it's true, so you must have learned it somewhere. All I did was point out that you're wrong about the standard model.quote:
Before I go any further, I want to hear you answer some of these very basic questions Dave. You keep handwaving those magic magnetic fields of your right and left and you've provided no logical way to heat plasma to a million degrees. Let's hear it Dave.
You might want to buy Solar Magnetic Fields by Schussler and Schmidt. It was put together in 1994, so it's much more timely than Alfven's tome.
Seriously, it's your theory we're discussing, Michael. I've already demonstrated, with the right physics, that your idea is incapable of generating the coronal heat. You handwaved my math away. If you've got better physics that demonstrates your claim that only resistive heating from electrical discharges could be responsible for the measured temperatures, then let's see it. Why won't you defend your theory like a mature, reasonable scientist would?
Another post:quote:
That would be true if the sun wasn't being continuously bombarded with electrons, and plasma didn't form z-pinch filaments. In the real world however your objections have no merit. The sun is continuously conducting current. There is no "buildup" necessary, just as there was no "buildup" necessary in Birkeland's experiments..
There was no lightning in Birkeland's experiments, either. No insulator, no build-up, no discharge, no lightning. Just current flow, just like in a cathode-ray tube. That's all he had was a CRT in which he'd placed a metallic sphere with a magnet inside.
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?"
- Why do you think Alfven was correct?
- How the hell was Birkeland able to create a "plasma atmosphere surrounded by a vacuum?"
- On what page numbers does Birkeland record "sparks," "tornado like structures," and "high energy discharges?"
- Where is the evidence for "Current that runs through the plasma threads of space generates those magnetic fields just like Alfven predicted."
- What sort of evidence should I provide to demonstrate "we don't know?"
- Why do lightning bolts generate gamma rays?
- Why are gamma rays detected in the Sun's corona?
- Weren't you banned on BAUT forums?
- Does Alfven explain why he thinks x-rays in a Skylab photo are "likely caused by "electrical discharges?"
- Why is it that magnetic field lines "cannot make and break connections?"
- Why don't you define "electrical current" for us?
- Hey, Michael, are you 'ManInTheMirror' over at the BAUT forum?
- Why don't you explain why Kosovichev is wrong, or why you're both correct if you switch underlying assumptions?
- Kosovichev measured dozens of tiny density differences in the experiment from which you hijacked a couple of numbers for your allegedly solid layer's depth, but all you can do in the diagrams you posted is suggest the existence of a single one?
- Who said that coronal loops are "electron free?"
- How would that happen? What mechanism of current "suspends" coronal loops? And what are they "suspended" within?
- Who is claiming that the photosphere is capable of creating anything in the corona?
- What does convection have to do with electromagnetic fields up in the corona?
- Where's that insulator?
- What would stop a magnetic field from going over 200,000 km?
- What do you mean "without electron flow?" You just pointed out (and I agree completely) that the dynamo is created by electron flow, so why should I prove something that we both know is wrong, Michael?
- The Sun's corona isn't an insulator, though, is it?
- How do you know there aren't any magnetic field loops deep under the photosphere?
(Anyone who'd like something added to this list, just let me know.) |
- 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 - 04/05/2007 : 20:20:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Notice in your latest response to Dave that you never addressed the fact that electrical charges require an insulator in order to build up.
That would be true if the sun wasn't being continuously bombarded with electrons, and plasma didn't form z-pinch filaments.
2 points. A Z-pinch is the result of an external magnetic field. So this is in line with magnetic field being responsible for the filaments - they are not discharges.
What do you mean the sun is being bombarded with electrons? If you mean cosmic electrons bombarding the sun, if so they would have relatively no effect on any aspect of the sun.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 20:36:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
2 points. A Z-pinch is the result of an external magnetic field.
No, it is the result of a "flowing" electromagnetic wave, where the current flows parallel to the magnetic field. The current flow *drives* the event. The two filaments will attract one another and plasma will separate by ionization potential.
quote:
So this is in line with magnetic field being responsible for the filaments - they are not discharges.
That is absolutely false. Demonstrate a zpinch in plasma for me and do not use electrical currents for energy. You are welcome to use all the earth magnets you like however.
quote:
What do you mean the sun is being bombarded with electrons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Birkeland
In Birkeland's terella experiments the sphere was bombarded by electrons using cathode rays. The discharge pattern in the terella was directly related to the charge on the surface of the sphere. When the sphere was negatively charged, he created aurora patterns over the poles. When the sphere was positively charged (like the hydrogen plasma layer of the sun), it tended to create discharges across the surface in the shape of coronal loops. When the internal magnetic field was cranked up, the discharges would tend to congregate near the equator.
(Late edit: I originally said the discharges congregated near the poles with the magnetic field cranked up. That was incorrect. I meant they congregated near the equator. I only changed the one word.)
quote:
If you mean cosmic electrons bombarding the sun, if so they would have relatively no effect on any aspect of the sun.
That is not so. Why is the solar wind accelerated as it leaves the solar atmosphere?
There is a direct correlation here between the results Birkeland observed when he changed the polarity of the sphere. That is the same thing that plays out in a solar system as well. The electrons coming into the solar system from the universe itself create those discharges on the surface of the sun. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/05/2007 23:08:30 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 20:52:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And I was speaking of the latter, as I know you are. Why would you bring plasma flow into this if not to muddy the waters and accuse people of ignoring electricity?
I did not bring it into the discussion to muddy the waters. If you want to get a full picture of what's going on, you need to understand that both movements create magnetic changes in the plasma. Both aspects are relevant and important, particularly in the fusion reactions in the solar atmosphere.
quote:
I'll ask again: who said - as you claimed - that coronal loops are "electron free?" You can keep trying to suggest that I'm ignoring electrons, Michael, but you'll only keep making a fool of yourself.
Likewise Dave, when you try to ignore the fact that the electron flow is what is generating those million degree plasma streams, I start to wonder how you're going to think of these conversations in a few years. You're simply ignoring the single most obvious explanation for gamma ray emissions, in favor of something you can't even explain.
quote:
I didn't do that, Michael. Never have. Never will. Without electricity, there would be no MHD.
Well now we may be getting somewhere Dave. According to the father of MHD theory, the x-rays seen by Skylab were most likely generated by electrical discharges. What makes little ol' Dave a "better" expert on MHD theory than the Nobel prize winning developer of that scientific field of study? His credentials seem pretty impeccable to me Dave.
quote:
That's a non-answer.
Gah! It's the *right* answer Dave!
quote:
I've crushed cans before, and I fail to see how a z-pinch would "suspend" a coronal loop.
A Birkeland current "thread" will often form in current carrying plasma. If that current is powerful enough it will form a z-pinch. Z-pinches are actually known to release free neutrons, and oh by the way, Rhessi has also recorded neutron capture signatures in these "loop/threads".
You'd get a *much* better set of answers from Alfven himself in the book I suggested.
quote:
quote:
The plasma atmosphere.
An obvious and unhelpful answer.
Gah. Dave, since you refuse to educate yourself from the father of MHD theory, you and I simply don't speak the same language.
quote:
quote:
What "behavior" is responsible Dave for them, and be specific.
What does it matter?
Typical creationist tactics. Evasion, evasion, evasion. Smear the science. Blame the Nobel Prize winning scientist of being a putz and never, ever ever try to show any real scientific evidence to the contrary because you know damn well you don't have any real evidence.
This is almost classical denial Dave. I've seen creationists be less evasive during a debate. You and I both know you haven't a clue how to explain it without electrical discharges. You aren't fooling me for a second. The reason you won't address this issue is because you cannot address this issue scientifically. Science is on my side, not yours.
Those gamma rays aren't going to stop coming from the atmosphere, and those neutron capture signatures will continue as well. You can bury your head in the sand till they plant your corpse, but you and I both know you haven't got a "better" scientific answer.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/05/2007 20:57:16 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 21:14:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
What do you mean the sun is being bombarded with electrons?
As far as I can tell, in his experiements, Birkland shot electricity at a metal sphere and got some pretty nifty effects. So that's Michael's "model" as well. The sun is a metal sphere and *something* is shooting electricity at it. (In his latest post, Michael calls "the Universe itself" the source of this energy.)
So the sun isn't really generating the current. It's merely a receiver. That's why he hasn't done any computations on what processes could generate the current his model requires. He doesn't need to. Since it's a mysterious, undefined external source, it can provide *whatever* amount of current that's required. It's the black box in his model. Whatever energies you need, they come out of that box, no questions asked.
Several times he's used the phrase "electric Universe," which as far as I can tell, means that Michael envisions huge amounts of electricity streaming from galaxy to galaxy. The sun's just a lightbulb being lit up by this current.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 21:21:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Of course I didn't say you've never answered any questions at all. Either you know that and you're lying, or you don't know it and you're either an incompetent reader or you're mentally ill.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6873&whichpage=4
Ya, ya, everyone you meet in cyberspace that disagrees with you is mentally ill. It's always their fault and never the fault of Geemack. I'm noticing a pattern in the way you communicate with other human beings. You're not a nice person, in fact you are a very obnoxious person. You are all ad hominems and no science.
When you stop being such a useless spineless coward and show a little courage and stick out your neck and give me a detailed explanation for coronal loops, I'll be happy to start responding to you and start answering your questions again. If you intend to be a sniveling spineless coward for the rest of your life, get lost.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/05/2007 21:28:16 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 21:27:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
What do you mean the sun is being bombarded with electrons?
As far as I can tell, in his experiements, Birkland shot electricity at a metal sphere and got some pretty nifty effects. So that's Michael's "model" as well. The sun is a metal sphere and *something* is shooting electricity at it. (In his latest post, Michael calls "the Universe itself" the source of this energy.)
I'm pretty sure that's true of every electrical solar model that has ever been presented. Is that not so?
quote:
So the sun isn't really generating the current.
No, it's a bit more complex than saying it generates no current. That's not true. In both the model I presented on my website and the model I presented with Hilton and Oliver, there is a current generating component as well as external energy component.
quote:
It's merely a receiver. That's why he hasn't done any computations on what processes could generate the current his model requires. He doesn't need to. Since it's a mysterious, undefined external source, it can provide *whatever* amount of current that's required. It's the black box in his model. Whatever energies you need, they come out of that box, no questions asked.
Actually it's more of a matter of "reverse engineering" the energy numbers to come up with something that matches the observations. I've been watching standard theorists do it for decades.
Galaxies don't rotate fast enough? Throw in some dark energy and viola, the problem is solved. Galaxies accelerate away from one another? Throw in some dark energy. Hell, standard theory does that kind of stuff every single day. You aren't going to get holier-than-thou about it are you?
quote:
Several times he's used the phrase "electric Universe," which as far as I can tell, means that Michael envisions huge amounts of electricity streaming from galaxy to galaxy. The sun's just a lightbulb being lit up by this current.
That's pretty much how Birkeland and Alfven saw it too. Welcome to plasma cosmology 101. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2007 : 23:15:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually it's more of a matter of "reverse engineering" the energy numbers to come up with something that matches the observations. I've been watching standard theorists do it for decades.
Galaxies don't rotate fast enough? Throw in some dark energy and viola, the problem is solved. Galaxies accelerate away from one another? Throw in some dark energy. Hell, standard theory does that kind of stuff every single day. You aren't going to get holier-than-thou about it are you?
Ah, and now there's that contempt for science you deny possessing. No, Michael, I'm afraid you're misrepresenting reality once again.
No scientist has ever used dark energy as a "problem solver" to fudge their equations. They are all quite clear in stating that dark energy is a problem to be solved.
You see, they could only state that "galaxies don't rotate fast enough" if they already had a model which made firm predictions about how fast they should be rotating.
What they don't do is say "however fast galaxies rotate is what my model predicts." They don't leave the numbers open-ended to account for any value, but that's what you're doing, Michael. Why? Because you don't actually have a solar model!
|
"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 04/05/2007 23:18:33 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 00:01:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
No scientist has ever used dark energy as a "problem solver" to fudge their equations.
Pure denial IMO. Every single one of them has done exactly that. The mainstream astronomers can't explain what they observe with GR, so they fudged. They fudged by orders of magnitude as well since the amount of "normal" matter represents only about 4% of the movements of the universe, and the other 96% is due to "unseen forces" that nobody has ever demonstrated actually exist in nature. That's not a only a fudge factor, it's a fudge factor of hyper-imaginative proportions. It's metaphysics at it's finest since none of it is explained and none of it is defined. It's pure fudge factor HH.
quote:
They are all quite clear in stating that dark energy is a problem to be solved.
When? When is it going to be "solved"?
quote:
You see, they could only state that "galaxies don't rotate fast enough" if they already had a model which made firm predictions about how fast they should be rotating.
They couldn't explain the movements of galaxies based on the material they could see, so they literally invented dark matter as a fudge factor. The needed such a large amount of it, that now normal matter is already a minority component of the galaxy, and that pales by comparison to the fudging they did with "dark energy".
quote:
What they don't do is say "however fast galaxies rotate is what my model predicts." They don't leave the numbers open-ended to account for any value, but that's what you're doing, Michael. Why? Because you don't actually have a solar model!
Ya, that is not pure denial eh? Birkeland didn't have one either eh? Alfven didn't either eh?
Because they didn't have open ended numbers, they were forced to fudge. That's what they did. Now "predictions" match observations in typical a postdicted fashion. Don't get all self righteous about me assuming an electron flow that is consistent with the solar energy release. It would be the only logical way to go about figuring out how much current is flowing through the sun. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/06/2007 00:07:22 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Surface of the Sun, part 13
