|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 04/09/2007 : 14:08:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
For one thing, a little more precise definition of what a "Stratification subsurface" really is.
It's also known as a "crust" that is composed of many elements, predominantly Iron and Nickel. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 15:43:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
[Snip]
When? When is it going to be "solved"?
[Snip]
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".
To jump in late here, I thought I'd correct a few misunderstandings. First off, the problem of the rotation of galaxies deals with dark matter, not dark energy.
And I don't think you're being very fair to the topic, Michael. Rather, it was a logical leap of thinking-- if galaxies are moving in a way that doesn't fit our theory, perhaps we simply don't have al the data yet. In particular, perhaps we can't see all the matter that's out there.
You call it a fudge factor and "metaphysics at it's finest" but that's only because you don't understand it.
Indeed, some people have made the case that we have detected dark matter. (Note also the recent article by Clowe, et al., "A Direct Empiracle Proof of the Existance of Dark Matter," The Astrophysical Journal Letters (available here, and a fun media verson of the argument.)) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 16:23:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
To jump in late here, I thought I'd correct a few misunderstandings. First off, the problem of the rotation of galaxies deals with dark matter, not dark energy.
You are right, my bad. We can't go confusing the metaphysical entities. We sprinkle in dark *matter" when we need "clumping". We only sprinkle in dark "energy" when we need a force of acceleration and we want things to separate and not to clump. Again, my bad. It was an inadvertent slip of the tongue. Dark matter=flour, dark energy =water. Got it.
quote:
And I don't think you're being very fair to the topic, Michael. Rather, it was a logical leap of thinking-- if galaxies are moving in a way that doesn't fit our theory, perhaps we simply don't have al the data yet. In particular, perhaps we can't see all the matter that's out there.
How do you know that current flow, as in electrons that flow through the system aren't responsible for some of that movement and some of those patterns of movement? Why the leap of faith to "dark matter"?
quote:
You call it a fudge factor and "metaphysics at it's finest" but that's only because you don't understand it.
It's not just "me" that doesn't understand DE and DM. If you disagree with me, tell me *exactly* how either one of them ties back into particle physics?
Let's face it. GR didn't do very well to explain *all* the movements of universe. Because astronomers are in denial of electricity, they invented dark matter and dark energy to add clumping and acceleration to the mix.
Just like the term "magnetic reconnection", none of the standard theory "fudge factors" are ever fully defined or explained in terms of real physics, it's all metaphysics.
quote:
Indeed, some people have made the case that we have detected dark matter. (Note also the recent article by Clowe, et al., "A Direct Empiracle Proof of the Existance of Dark Matter," The Astrophysical Journal Letters (available here, and a fun media verson of the argument.))
If this is anything like the "map" they presumably made of "dark matter", I'm not going to be real impressed. What they did in that instance was to look at every where in the universe where GR failed to explain the issue in question and then they liberally sprinkled in DM until it fit. That was how the decided how much dark energy was needed right in that spot. They did that repeatedly and liberally and thereby created a map. All that map really demonstrated was every place we could see where GR *alone* failed to match predictions. That is because GR *alone* is not responsible for all the movements we observe.
Here's a short list of some of the more colorful and amusing metaphysical entities of standard theory:
1. Magnetic monopoles (Problem Guth popularized with his BB inflation theory)
2. Inflaton fields. What the hell are those and what lab test confirm they exist in controlled experiments?
3. Dark energy. That the biggest single fudge factor in astronomy by the way. What is it? Nobody actually agrees or knows. Nobody can explain where it comes from or how it relates to particle physics, but supposedly it makes up *most* of the universe.
4. Dark matter. I hear the non-baryion variety is especially tasty in the spring.
5. Magnetic reconnection. That one represents Astronomers feeble attempt to ignore the role of electron flow *through* plasma. That particular mythology is going to crumble pretty soon because of the Hinode high definition images of the corona. None of the "predictions" of magnetic reconnection are panning out.
Coincidently, Alfven's view of electrified plasma columns works very nicely to explain these images. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/09/2007 16:50:11 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 16:29:57 [Permalink]
|
FYI, I perused the link and noticed that it too was based on some distant observation that looked at how badly GR failed to predict the motions and then they sprinkled in enough dark matter to make it "clump" correctly. In other words, it's all one giant "assumption" about why GR failed to accurately predict a distant interaction.
Here's the deal Cune. Every time you hear the term "dark", think "invisible unicorn". There is "invisible unicorn matter" for clumping purposes, and "invisible unicorn energy" for acceleration. Magic invisible unicorn matter add "clumping" and they hang out around "normal" matter. Invisible unicorn energy is magic because it causes distant things to accelerate.
Now tell me exactly how "dark energy" and "dark matter" are any more "scientific" than "invisible unicorns"? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 16:44:53 [Permalink]
|
Here Dr. Mabuse are some other "predictions" related to coronal loops.
In my theory, since each of these loops has lots of current running through them, they all reach millions of degrees. They don't need to "connect" to another magnetic field to reach millions of degrees. Million degree plasma in the loops is the rule in my theory, not the exception. In magnetic reconnection theory on the other hand, the bulk of the energy release is supposed to take place *between* two reconnecting magnetic loops. Whereas all current carrying loops in my theory will reach high temperatures, in a magnetic reconnection scenario, we would not necessarily expect to see every loop at high temperatures, or would we? I can't really tell because the "predictions" related to "magnetic reconnection" are often contradictory and there is no physical mechanism to explain magnetic reconnection in the first place.
I predict that Hinode images are going to blow the lid off that mythology at it relates to trying to use that lame excuse as a corona heating mechanism, or a coronal loop heating mechanism. That old pig won't fly at Hinode's resolution. I think what I'll try to do is round up a bunch of material about "magnetic reconnection" and it's predictions right now and we'll see how fast things start to change once the Hinode images get released to the public. That sounds like great fun. We'll get to see if any of the "predictions" of magnetic reconnection pan out. My guess is that metaphysical theory just went from the frying pan, into the fire.
Cune, the most repugnant part for astronomers about recognizing the role of electricity in space is that once you do this, a sun no longer has to be the power source. Once you remove that safety net, the current solar theories start to fall apart. Just wait and see what happens right before and shortly after the public release of Hinode images at the end of this month. It will be very interesting to see who comes out of the closet first about the role of electricity in these images, but make no mistake about it, electricity does play a *huge* role in these images because it plays a huge role in astronomy in general. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 16:59:26 [Permalink]
|
Holy crap. You totally didn't bother to read the journal publication or to watch the video. Talk about hand-waving!
Re the rest of your list-- you've been debunked so much that it's almost not worth pursuing more. That is, not until you bother to read the actual literature and do things like math. But we know how well you do those! |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 17:25:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Holy crap. You totally didn't bother to read the journal publication or to watch the video. Talk about hand-waving!
The operative term is "yet". I'll read through the paper and I'll watch the video, but the article doesn't make it sound very promising. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 20:27:36 [Permalink]
|
Alright Cune, let's do this one step at a time and start with the title of this paper:
quote:
"A DIRECT EMPIRICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF DARK MATTER*"
Excuse me? I learned a long time ago in physics that there is no such thing as "proof". There is only evidence to support any theory at best case. The only "empirical" evidence of dark matter would be to create some in a lab. If this is how this paper is going to begin, I can tell you already, it's on the wrong track starting with the very first sentence.
quote:
By using both wide-field ground based images and HST/ACS images of the cluster cores, we create gravitational lensing maps which show that the gravitational potential does not trace the plasma distribution, the dominant baryonic mass component, but rather approximately traces the distribution of galaxies.
Well, I see one "questionable" assumption already. The author is insisting that the plasma distribution "dust" contains most bayronic mass. How does he know that? In an iron sun scenario, that certainly isn't likely. In fact it would be just the opposite. You'd get more plasma interaction, than you expect to get direct hits of suns in any galaxy collision. The suns would not all necessarily collide and the bulk of the mass would stay within the suns. I fail to see why or how we can make an assumption like this even using standard theory.
I'll chip away at his some more later, but right now I'm reading more of Alfven's material. It frankly looks a lot more interesting to me.
Here's the problem as I see it in a nutshell. If you were talking about controlled laboratory conditions where we created "dark matter", I might have some sympathy for the tone of this paper, but already I see that it is based on very questionable assumptions, and I've not gotten through the first paragraph. That's bad news.
I think when I come back to it I'll watch the movie. I can already see that picking it apart line by line isn't going to be necessary. The assumption here is that anything we can't explain based upon our questionable assumption we will claim to be the result of "mythological object x". I say that because nobody has ever demonstrate that anything like "dark matter" or "dark energy" actually exist. It is therefore ridiculous to claim these things exist at a distance and do stuff to physical reality. If you could demonstrate they exist here, maybe we might get somewhere. As it is, this whole thing is questionable right from the start. I certainly wouldn't call it 'empirical proof'. I've provided a whole lot more evidence for electrical currents in coronal loops, and I'm not calling it "empirical proof" and we all know that electrons exist! The only debate is whether or not they are traversing the plasma. I don't even have a clue if there really is anything called "dark matter", let alone that it can have any influence on nature. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/09/2007 20:32:10 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 21:12:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I've provided a whole lot more evidence for electrical currents in coronal loops, and I'm not calling it "empirical proof" and we all know that electrons exist! The only debate is whether or not they are traversing the plasma.
No, Michael, nobody is debating whether or not electrons traverse any plasma. It is only you and "ManInTheMirror" who claim that anyone is ignoring electron motion, and you both do so only to create a controversy where none exists. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 21:42:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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..
Let me summarise what I think your position is here. I acknowledge that I may be wrong and invite you to make the necessary corrections, Michael:
1. The primary energy source for the heating of the sun's atmosphere is external to the sun.
2. This energy is source is a current, that is a flow of electrons.
3. You can't be more specific about the origin/nature of this current other than "background currents flowing through the universe".
Given that these statements are a correct representation of your position:
4. Have you done any calculations as to the magnitude of this current? Given that you claim to have numbers for the temperatures and make-up of the suns atmospehre, this ought to be fairly straightforward. Very rough, few orders of magnitude type calculations would serve as a reality check.
5. Has anyone directly observed these (speculatively) massive currents through the sun with other instrumentation?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
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.
So now Kristian Birkeland has demonstrated that a model (your model, by your own words) works, and managed to do so decades before the development of this alleged model. This ought to be pretty easy to confirm. Would you care to provide links to the scientific solar models developed by yourself and Kristian Birkeland, so that we can do a comparison?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
you can purchase a $20.00 plasma ball from Walmart and get a good idea of how it works. With it turned on, you can literally watch the threading action take place in "light plasma" when you try to run a lot of current through the plasma. Those "threads" that form inside the plasma ball are the same kinds of structures that form coronal loops only there is a lot more current involved.
Apart from the presence of a sphere, and some plasma, how far do you really want to take this analogy? Do you feel it's a stronger or weaker comparison than your lightning comparison?
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, I see one "questionable" assumption already. The author is insisting that the plasma distribution "dust" contains most bayronic mass. How does he know that? In an iron sun scenario, that certainly isn't likely.
Pot, meet kettle. If you're going to play the "not likely" card, how about a little more evidence that the "iron sun scenario" is anything but incredibly unlikely. I believe you yourself expressed some doubt about it's merit in recent times.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 21:48:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, nobody is debating whether or not electrons traverse any plasma.
Yes Dave, that's exactly what we're talking about here. Alfven describes the structures that form when electrons traverse the plasma, he explains why these filaments form, and he describes the mathematical physics behind them in quite some detail in that book I suggested. Then again, you wouldn't know about any of that. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2007 : 21:58:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Apart from the presence of a sphere, and some plasma, how far do you really want to take this analogy?
All the way John, all the way. It's not really just an "analogy", it's more of a "simulation" of exactly what's really going on. Those compressed filaments you see forming inside the plasma ball are exactly the same kinds of structures that form in *all* light plasma when you run a lot of current though it. The coronal loops are simply the larger cousins or "ropes" that form in heavy current carrying plasma. Alfven describes the structures mathematically.
I'll get to your other questions a bit later. That one however warranted mention all by itself. The threads you see form inside the plasma are a standard feature of plasma. It tends to form current carrying "threads" that can scale by orders of magnitude. That "pinched" thread in the plasma ball is simply a smaller cousin to a coronal loop, and the primary difference is the current and the types of elements that are involved. Alfven even explained what happens in mixed plasmas, namely they form concentric such "tubes" one inside the other that are arranged by ionization potential.
It's not just an analogy. It's a working small scale prototype. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 06:03:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, I see one "questionable" assumption already. The author is insisting that the plasma distribution "dust" contains most bayronic mass. How does he know that? In an iron sun scenario, that certainly isn't likely. In fact it would be just the opposite. You'd get more plasma interaction, than you expect to get direct hits of suns in any galaxy collision. The suns would not all necessarily collide and the bulk of the mass would stay within the suns. I fail to see why or how we can make an assumption like this even using standard theory.
[snip]
I think when I come back to it I'll watch the movie. I can already see that picking it apart line by line isn't going to be necessary. The assumption here is that anything we can't explain based upon our questionable assumption we will claim to be the result of "mythological object x". I say that because nobody has ever demonstrate that anything like "dark matter" or "dark energy" actually exist. It is therefore ridiculous to claim these things exist at a distance and do stuff to physical reality. If you could demonstrate they exist here, maybe we might get somewhere. As it is, this whole thing is questionable right from the start. I certainly wouldn't call it 'empirical proof'. I've provided a whole lot more evidence for electrical currents in coronal loops, and I'm not calling it "empirical proof" and we all know that electrons exist! The only debate is whether or not they are traversing the plasma. I don't even have a clue if there really is anything called "dark matter", let alone that it can have any influence on nature.
I wish there were a 'stunned silence' emoticon, because that's about all I've got after reading this. I mean, on the one hand you're right that mainstream scientists are mistaken in not considering largely unpublished arguments for radically different notions of solar composition. Why they don't consider Mozina's iron sun theory is beyond me.
In any case, don't bother even watching the video. You clearly got nothing out of the article.
I think your use of the "iron sun" argument as an initial rejection of the dark matter evidence is rather telling. What a conventient argument to hide behind-- this guy is wrong because he doesn't assume my unpublished, untested, and admitedly very rough theory about a radically different understanding of the solar system!
How rough is it? I'll skip how you still can't answer questions about density and gravity in relation to your iron suns. But why bring it up now? I mean, we've talked about dark matter before, and in your earlier posts to HH you never threw in iron suns. But this problem dates back to 1937! But you're just now realizing that the iron sun solution solves the gravity rotation problem!
Anyhow, I'm completely unimpressed with your handwave regarding this problem. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 07:59:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Michael, nobody is debating whether or not electrons traverse any plasma.
Yes Dave, that's exactly what we're talking about here. Alfven describes the structures that form when electrons traverse the plasma, he explains why these filaments form, and he describes the mathematical physics behind them in quite some detail in that book I suggested. Then again, you wouldn't know about any of that.
Your assertion that there is a "debate" over whether electrons move in plasma is indefensible simply because nobody argues otherwise. Alfven certainly didn't do so, nobody here has done so, no solar scientists have done so. |
- 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 - 04/10/2007 : 08:31:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Your assertion that there is a "debate" over whether electrons move in plasma is indefensible simply because nobody argues otherwise. Alfven certainly didn't do so, nobody here has done so, no solar scientists have done so.
You really have a gift for twisting my statements and fixating on trivia. The "debate" between us Dave is the *volume* of electrons that run through the plasma. Is that better?
Sheesh.
You know I never realized how much debating an electric universe would be like debating Darwin's theories to creationists. In both cases the opposition simply *refuses* to educate them themselves. They handwave away the science. Creationists handwave away nuclear chemical evidence, just like the hydrogen sun crowd. Both seem to insist that the need not even read Darwin's/Alfven's theories to handwave them away. Neither creationist nor standard theorists will provide a *shred* of evidence to support an alternative view. Both believe in metaphysics rather than physics.
I really had no idea when I began discussing electric universe theory what a deja-vu this would turn into.
Let's hear your alternative Dave. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Surface of the Sun, part 13
